Local Development Framework Consultation

2. Background

Q1 Do need definition of major development. Para 116 of the NPPF seems to ignore exceptions that go to meet local need. Thus the definition needs to be more nuanced than just size and number so to allow moderate sized development (e.g. for housing) that demonstrably and solely is there to meet a local need (where local is truly local - probably one parish only, certainly AONB only).

Q2 We need to establish a rolling needs - housing and employment sites needed in the next five years, then a less certain subsequent five years , then the next five. This to be reassessed as appropriate. Land supply should match this - a five year preferred allocation then a hierarchy of sites not to come on line until the need has been shown in subsequent periods. This hierarchy should be based on availability as well as landscape impact as there may well be sites that are not yet ready for development but could come up in the future.

Q3 We need to look at the wider Lancaster & S.Lakeland plans to look at impacts they may have on the function and setting of the AONB. For landscape there will be things like wind turbines and solar farms. For infrastructure there will be the tourist developments along the A6 corridor and how access from these can be guided to be more sustainable and less environmentally damaging e.g. pro-actively creating bridle paths into the AONB and support for public transport systems. These may need development conditions on sites outside that help fund these links into the AONB.

Q4 Vision - OK Q5 - Objectives - OK

Q6 Very important issue to goes to the heart of community character and sustainability. We do need a high proportion of affordable housing and also a good stock of local needs rentable property. Affordable can mean higher density on AONB sites as the surrounding environment and village amenities compensate for smaller plot sizes. However that would also mean that village amenity - shops, pubs, play areas and fields, allotments etc need encouragement and should not be crowded or priced out by housing demand. I would go for a very high affordable element (even totally) - not necessarily subsidised directly but allowed at a higher density with no possibility of "market value" housing being allowed so that the present inflated land values are lowered (basically treat all sites as "Exception" sites)

Q7 Therefore yes: local need with lasting restrictions. The ageing population and number of homes already occupied by those who have retired here mean that there is already a good stock of available properties that come on the market regularly. Is there evidence of frequency of sale for the various house types in the AONB? If more rentable new property were built then the many properties now kept by those inheriting them for the high rents that can be charged would drop, freeing more properties for sale.

Q8 Definitely. A lot of local need is for downsizing so this would help deliver the higher densities and lower cost housing mentioned above.

Q9 Very rarely. The AONB is tiny. Nowhere is far from an established settlement. Very, very few people would actually need to live "on site". Rural estates provide the bulk of these sorts of jobs but also the bulk of land that will be suitable for development. Their requirements should thus always be factored into any development proposals for their land.

Q10 Prioritise certainly. But need to be clear what "brown field" actually is. Needs to be only already developed land, not undeveloped land within the same curtilage. For instance a quarry might be brown field but the unquarried and unbuilt land should not be considered so.

Q11 Yes - see 6 above

Q12 if possible - see 6 above

Q13 A high proportion of people work from home. Need for locations close by where, e.g. vans and equipment can be stored so they don't need to be parked on public highways. Also need for small workshops where craft workers can operate so they don't disturb neighbours. There should be a blanket ban on changing shops and amenity facilities to housing unless a suitable alternative is provided.

Q14. Very small scale for local use. Ought to be a relaxation on things like solar panels on buildings within conservation areas provided they do not irretrievably alter appearances. There is a need for woodland management in much of the AONB and hence opportunities for wood fuel so there is a need for things like storage and drying facilities. These could be located alongside other agricultural buildings.

Q15 See answer to Q3. New open countryside tourist accommodation areas inside the AONB need to be prohibited and the existing sites encouraged to be less car dependent. We need to establish a proper network of quiet lanes and a better bridleway system. As the AONB is only about 6 miles long at the most, traffic has no need to speed. 20mph limits need to extend to all pedestrian routes between communities to protect walkers, horse riders and cyclists. A blanket 40 limit should be the maximum anywhere.

Q16 There is a problem with parking but managing speeds and encouraging alternatives would be better than encouraging more cars. However there could be more use made of Carnforth as hub into the AONB with bus and rail links. Both Silverdale and Arnside stations need to be improved. and a connection from the former into the RSPB should be facilitated. In addition the road network around Leighton Moss should be quietened and connections between the Morecambe Bay, Barrow Scout and Silverdale Moss sites strengthened so that those who do arrive by car can leave their vehicles at the visitor centre and make a full day of it without further use.

Q17 Touring caravans are a real problem on our narrow lanes and in the villages. No more touring pitches should be allowed. Permanent caravans and chalets could be added inside existing sites if their design, colour and impact on the landscape is strictly controlled. Can we make sure that the existing stock is better used and not taken up by, effectively, second homes that are used sparingly?


Q18 Criteria given look comprehensive

Q19 & 20 No map for Warton given. Comments here are thus about whether sites put forward for development should actually be important open space:
W84 Part of this land is already public amenity land - the NE corner is the Small Weir, a historic parish watering place owned by the Parish Council. The rest of the site does make an important contribution to the open aspect of that part of the village. It is also impractical for development as it is regularly flooded, the water being, this month, right up to the roadside.
W87, 88, 89 and 95 are all on the lower slopes of Warton Crag. The Crag is the first piece of high ground coming up the coast since Cheshire. It marks the beginning of the Lake District massif, being the southernmost point of the limestone ring that encircles this. Its importance is not only to the landscape of the AONB but also as the geological entry to the National Park. It is thus vital open space.
W90 is the field next to the school field. Its open aspect towards the East looking over the Forest of Bowland and into the Yorkshire Dales links the village into the wider countryside as well as giving the school a rural, as opposed to suburban setting. Events like the village sports are held on the School field and get their rural feeling from this setting. It also gives particularly good views of the historic Old Rectory from the footpath that runs along its eastern side, the only open views of the scheduled monument.

Q21 Site assessment pro-forma looks to be comprehensive.

Q22 Of course. That's the whole purpose of a DPD for the AONB

Q23 Because of the AONB terrain the historic villages are built on hillsides above the mosses. If development is allowed on the mosses it will flood unless the site is raised but if the site is raised the rest of the moss will flood more readily. The hillsides do experience a lot of run-off in times of heavy rain. Hard development risks directing this into the existing settlement. Any such developments must therefore allow for effective soak away or be capable of directing run-off around existing buildings and onto the flood plains. The heavy rains this week led to flooding of houses in Gardner Rd, Warton, the lowest-lying developed area and also to houses on Sand Lane and at Town End from run-off exacerbated by development uphill.

Q24 & 25 There needs to be an effective design guide for the AONB which also recognises the considerable range of styles in each community. Abiding by this guide should be a requisite for any development that might interfere with the setting of elements of the historic environment. In addition the DPD should make it possible to assess development not only on its visual appearance but also on impact it might have on hidden features. Very little archaeological work has ever been done in the historic areas of the AONB so this needs to be born in mind, either by requiring surveys or prohibiting work that could damage unsurveyed areas.

Q27 Most sites were covered in response to Q 19 & 20 as they are on areas important to keep as open space.
W86, 92 & 93 have less implications as open space but their development would lead to a major change in the character of that end of the village and eat into the separation between Warton Village and Millhead. Being far from the village centre it would be likely not to contribute much to maintaining the facilities in Warton as Carnforth would be just as accessible.

Q28 Two possible areas that might be appropriate in Warton are:
the Roods play area which has a run of old persons' bungalows on one side. This could be developed into a site for sheltered and old persons' housing. It is owned by the City Council but access would really need removal of the first existing bungalow.
At the end of Well Lane and Borwick Close there could be room for perhaps 10 to 15 houses spreading along no further than those on the other side of Borwick Lane

Q29 In many cases yes. The coherent settlements must be stopped from ribbon development so boundaries should be set for e.g. Warton, Yealand Conyers, Redmayne and Storrs, Beetham, Slackhead, Arnside. Probably not appropriate for disseminated settlements like Silverdale.

Q30 see response to Q2

No