Local Development Framework Consultation

Interim Consultation Statement

4

2.2

Support in part

The AONB Partnership is not listed in the table of bodies engaged in the summer and autumn of 2010 informal consultation exercises given on page 4. As representative of a national designation within South Lakeland that has provided comments, why is the AONB Partnership missed out?

Interim Consultation Statement

Section 4 starting Page 8

Support in part

Section 4, starting on page 8 gives a ‘Summary of the Main Issues expressed through consultation and how they have been taken into account’. The AONB is listed as one of the specific interest groups which made a response to the Land Allocations Scoping Report. There is no evidence given, however, that any comments made by the AONB have been taken into account or the AONB designation considered in any way. There is no further reference to the AONB in the rest of the document.

In the ‘Summary of Main Issues raised by members of the public’, paragraph 4.11 identifies ‘Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character’ as one of the main issues raised. It states that: ‘A significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public relate to concerns about loss of existing levels of general/local amenity. Such concerns relate to the potential for development to harm the environmental quality/appearance of an area, including loss of local and wider views from surrounding areas particularly where there may be public access (from public rights of way for example). Some responses related to more general concerns about the loss of environmental quality i.e. development would alter the character of an area or damage locally valued viewpoints. Some respondents raised concerns about the impact of development on the identity of different settlements and possible further coalescence of individual settlements. In almost all cases the recurring common theme was the need to ensure development was sympathetic to existing landscape character.’

Also of concern to the general public is the ‘Impact on heritage assets i.e. Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, archaeological value and locally valued heritage assets/features. Paragraph 4.18 states ‘Some respondents raised concerns about the potential adverse impact of development on existing heritage assets. These often related to concerns that the design and appearance of a development may alter the character of an area to the detriment of existing heritage value or may alter the setting and identity of an area. Other responses related to the historic pattern/evolvement of settlements and how development of a particular site would not be in keeping with existing built patterns and forms. A small number of responses related to the possible impact of development on archaeological value and potential remains.’

Paragraph 4.24 then includes a Table to show how the main issues have been addressed in the development of the Land Allocations DPD Emerging Options Document. Against ‘Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality, landscape character’ the document states that ‘Impact on general amenity and landscape character is a fundamental factor that has been taken into account in the development of the Land Allocations DPD Emerging Options Document. It has been considered in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of site options. The site visits have been used to inform decisions regarding the scale of impact of likely development on local/general amenity and landscape character.’ There is no mention of engagement with the AONB Unit or consideration of the AONB Management Plan or of the AONB designation at all. In contrast, in addressing concerns over impact on biodiversity it is given: ‘The Council has ensured that it has engaged with key environmental bodies such as Natural England and Cumbria Wildlife Trust in the consideration of site Options’. European sites in the context of appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations are referred to as well as local designations - RIGS and Limestone Pavement Orders specifically.

Against ‘Impact on heritage assets i.e. Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, site of archaeological value and locally valued heritage assets/features’ the document states ‘Engagement with English Heritage, Cumbria County Council and SLDC Conservation officers has ensured that the Council has taken into consideration the likely impact of any development on existing heritage assets. Evidence in the Council’s Draft Conservation Character Appraisals has been used to inform views/assessment of sites in respect of Conservation Areas. These factors have also been considered in the SA of site options through consideration of potential impacts of development on Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) and Listed Buildings as well as other heritage assets and features.’ Again, mention of other national designations but not the AONB and no engagement with the AONB Unit.

Responses on Biodiversity/Environment Issues by other organisations are considered on page 26. It is very disappointing that Natural England did not mention the AONB designation in its response, summarised in paragraphs 4.40 and 4.41.

There is no record in this section of any comments made by the AONB Unit.

It is noteworthy that Conservation Areas, SSSIs Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed buildings etc are mentioned specifically as being important and included in the sustainability assessments but there is no mention at all about the AONB designation in this document. There is mention of Habitats Regulations and assessment of impact on European sites but no mention of the European Landscape Convention.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

19

4.2

Support in part

Section 4 Context & Objectives considers links to other policies, plans and programmes. Section 4.2 states ‘The context set by these documents has been considered throughout the SA process to ensure that the approach taken is compliant and consistent with statutory requirements and wider policy direction. Although the AONB Management Plan has been recognised as a document having implications for the Land Allocations DPD, the importance of the AONB designation has not been fully considered - please see my detailed comments on the SA Scoping Report.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

19

4.3

Support in part

Baseline Data. Section 4.3 states: ‘Before undertaking an appraisal of the impact proposed site options are likely to have on sustainability, it is imperative to understand the current position of the District by establishing a set of baseline data. Without this information, it would be difficult to assess the key issues for the District and difficult to predict the nature of any possible impacts of developing particular sites…..The baseline data can be found in Appendix 2 of the SA Scoping
Report December 2010.’ This baseline data for landscape comprises % dwellings built on greenfield sites and No of Tree Preservation Orders made. The condition/status of the special landscape within the AONB is not mentioned at all whereas the condition/status of other designations such as SSSIs, listed buildings, SAMS etc. have been included as indicators for biodiversity/geodiversity and the built environment respectively. It is difficult to see how a meaningful assessment of the landscape impact can be made on the basis of such limited baseline data. Landscape Character Assessment could be used to strengthen assessment of sites.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

20

4.10

Support in part

Paragraph 4.10 identifies the key environmental issues for South Lakeland: -
-Protecting a rich cultural heritage from unsympathetic alterations, development,
and activity securing resources for its repair and improvement;
-Protecting extensive nationally important nature conservation areas, often
vulnerable to leisure and recreation pressures more than direct development;
-Overall long term decline in wider characteristic habitats and species, including
that resulting from changing farming or land management practices;
-Vulnerability of landscape to erosion of character – also loss of tranquillity and
impact of lights on night sky;
-Bland or poor design can harm distinctiveness of local built character.

These issues include protection of nationally important nature conservation areas but excludes protection of nationally important landscape areas ie. the AONB, instead referring only to the vulnerability of the landscape in general to erosion of character. The importance of the AONB landscape does not appear to have been fully taken into account.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

22

4.16

Support in part

The environmental objectives are set out in paragraph 4.16:
Effective Protection of the Environment
EN1 To protect and enhance biodiversity
EN2 To preserve and enhance landscape quality and character
EN3 To improve the quality of the built environment
Please see my comments on the Scoping Report concerning lack of consideration of the AONB designation.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

22

4.17

Support in part

Paragraph 4.17 states: This set of objectives seeks to protect and enhance the unique manmade and natural environments of South Lakeland. Currently, although South Lakeland boasts a high quality landscape and many areas of environmental designation and protection, development pressures are a threat to the District’s environmental features. Meeting these objectives should ensure that whether subject to formal protection or not, the District’s wildlife, habitats, geology, landscape and distinctive character are retained for the benefit of future residents and visitors alike. This paragraph mentions areas of environmental designation and protection but does not mention areas of landscape designation and protection. As stated in the report, much of South Lakeland boasts a high quality landscape but it is important to distinguish the Arnside and Silverdale AONB as a specific designation for landscape where there are additional requirements for landscape protection.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

23

4.24

Paragraph 4.24 refers to ‘cumulative’ impacts. It is not apparent how the cumulative impacts have been assessed in terms of erosion of landscape character within the AONB.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

section starts page 29

Paragraph 7.1 ‘considers the significant positive and negative effects of the emerging site options, and thus the Land Allocations DPD against the sustainability criteria identified for the SA Framework’. The sustainability appraisal objective stated in the Scoping Report for landscape is ‘To conserve and enhance landscape quality and character for future generations.’ That quoted in the final document in section 7.1 is ‘To preserve and enhance landscape quality and character’. According to section 7.17, the SA assessed each site against potential landscape impacts based on the size of the site and the character and topography of the landscape. No mention is made of assessing the sites in the context of the special landscape character of the AONB. It is interesting to note, SSSIs are specifically mentioned under the objective ‘To preserve and enhance biodiversity’. The SA assessed each site against information on the location and type of biodiversity resource, such as designated sites of special scientific importance or records of the presence of particular species. There is no similar mention of assessment against type of landscape resource which would include the AONB designation.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

36

8.2

Oppose

Paragraph 8.2 states ‘It should be remembered at all times that the Land Allocations document should be considered alongside the Core Strategy and that identified likely impacts of individual sites should be considered alongside the policies set out in that document, as it is the policies of the Core Strategy that potential sites for development would be required to comply with in order to achieve planning consent. For example, although a site might score poorly in relation to potential impact on the landscape or built environment, there are policies in the Core Strategy that would require the design, layout and type of new development on that site to take impacts on the landscape and built environment into account and thus minimise, mitigate or avoid any negative impacts’. This statement indicates that it is considered that mitigation can overcome local impact on landscape. It does not indicate that the impact of development on the special landscape of the AONB has been considered or that the cumulative impact of development on this designated landscape has been taken into account.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

38

Section 9 Implementation and Monitoring – see previous comments on inadequacy of landscape indicators relevant to the AONB designation.

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

6

1.1

As a Local Authority, the Council also has a statutory duty to have regard to the purpose of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty i.e. to conserve and enhance their natural beauty, as set out in Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW) (2000). This duty is not mentioned here and this is a significant omission. By contrast the duty to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity as set out in the NERC Act is mentioned.

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

10

In Section 3 Context Review, the Arnside/Silverdale AONB Management Plan 2009 is identified as having implications for the Land Allocations DPD as well as identifying sustainability objectives with relevance for the plan. It is listed as being reviewed under the ‘Biodiversity and Geodiversity’ and ‘Landscape’ headings.

Under the Biodiversity and Geodiversity topic, the relevant aims and / or objectives from the reviewed plans, includes ‘Recognising and protecting the special qualities of the AONB’. Under the heading ‘Main Implications for the DPD’, reference is also made to the AONB: ‘Land Allocations DPD must take account of the special qualities and features of the AONB and consider how the location of and type of development proposed for sites could affect these as well as seeking opportunities to reinforce and respect the landscape’.

Under the Landscape topic, the list of relevant aims and objectives includes ‘Recognising and protecting the special landscape of the AONB and other sensitive landscape areas as well as their contribution to the character of the wider area’. These references are welcomed. However, under the heading ‘Main Implications for the DPD’, the special landscape of the AONB is not specifically mentioned. This is a significant omission.

Under Culture and Heritage, the AONB Management Plan is not listed as a relevant document, despite having relevance. The AONB is mentioned briefly under Local Economy and Tourism but only in the context of identifying land adjacent the National Parks and AONB to provide, when necessary, locations for tourism development.

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

section 4 starts page 29

32

Section 4 sets out current baseline information in relation to each topic is set out in a series of tables. The AONB designation is recognised within the Landscape topic (page 32) although its status as a landscape of national importance as well as county and district importance is not highlighted. Also, very little detail is given as to the important landscape characteristics of the AONB. The AONB Landscape Character Assessment is currently being finalised and could be a valuable additional document to contribute to this baseline information.

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

section 5 starts page 37

Section 5 identifies sustainability issues and problems. A significant omission in this section is the absence of recognition of the AONB designation or mention of the AONB Management Plan. Biodiversity, geodiversity and landscape are considered together here, whereas previously in the document, landscape has been considered as an important separate issue. The vulnerability of the ‘wider landscape’ to development is acknowledged as an issue but impact on the AONB designation is ignored. In the ‘Supporting Evidence’ column, there is nothing cited at all for ‘Landscape’, a further significant omission.

The AONB Managment Plan is not referenced under Culture and Heritage in section 5.5.

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

47

6.2

6.2 sets out the sustainability appraisal framework and appraisal questions together with any ‘Additional Decision Making Criteria (relevant to the Land Allocations DPD)’.

Sustainability Appraisal Objective EN2 is ‘To conserve and enhance landscape quality and character for future generations’. The questions posed refer to protection of local landscape quality and rural landscapes generally but no distinction is made for any particular protection for the designated, nationally important landscape character of the AONB.

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

54

6.3

6.3 discusses Indicators and Data Collection and refers to Appendix 2 which sets out a series of proposed indicators. The condition or status of other designations such as SSSIs, listed buildings, SAMS etc. have been included as indicators for biodiversity/geodiversity and the built environment respectively. However, the special nature of the landscape within the AONB as defined by its designation is not differentiated from the landscape in general. The special status of the AONB landscape appears not to have been fully taken into account.

Appropriate Assessment Screening Report

58

7.1

Section 7 ‘Sustainability Appraisal Process’ gives information on the scoring system that is used with, in brackets, the source of information used to derive scores for each criteria.
For the impact on landscape character the following is given:

EN2
Effect on landscape character (maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs)
__ Potential for significant positive effect on landscape character
_ Potential for moderate positive effect on landscape character
~ Likely neutral effect on landscape character
X Potential for moderate negative effect on landscape character
XX Potential for significant negative effect on landscape character
No specific mention is made of the AONB designation as an area of special landscape quality and therefore warranting additional consideration and protection.

In contrast for impact on biodiversity, sites of biodiversity importance are identified specifically in the scoring of this criteria:
EN1
Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and potential to contribute (GIS layers of sites of biodiversity importance and species records)
To score this criteria, notes were made as to any biodiversity/geodiversity designation of species precorded that might be affected by the site.

Also, for the assessment of impact on the built environment, listed building designation and SAMS are referred to:
EN3
Effect on built environment and potential to contribute (GIS layers showing Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings, local
knowledge, aerial photos)
__ Clear potential to significantly improve built environment, including where this would enhance the setting of a listed building orSAM
_ Clear potential to moderately improve built environment, including where this would enhance the setting of a listed building or SAM
~ Limited potential to improve built environment but no evidence to suggest negative effects to built environment likely
X Moderate potential to detract from built environment, including where this would detract from the setting of a listed building or SAM

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

In summary, it would appear that although the AONB Management Plan has been recognised as a document having implications for the Land Allocations DPD, the importance of the AONB designation as a nationally protected landscape has not been fully considered at the SA Scoping stage.

Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices

Appendix 1

In the Sustainability Appraisal for Arnside, the results table shows for the majority of sites an assessment of ‘potential for moderate negative effect on landscape character’ and identifies that the village is located within AONB.

The SA Scores summary states ‘Arnside scores least well in terms of access to a secondary school, take-up of greenfield land, landscape character, built environment and access to open space.’ Also, ‘Care will also need to be taken to ensure that impacts on the landscape, biodiversity, air quality and the built environment are avoided or minimised and that adequate water supply capacity is in place’. Although the AONB is identified within the landscape character column in the assessment table, this is not then reflected by a specific mention in the summary. It would again indicate that impacts on the landscape in general have been considered rather than impacts on the nationally important and protected landscapes of the AONB. Elsewhere, eg, on the SA Summary for Burton in Kendal, the impact on the landscape and built environment is specifically identified as ‘due to listed structures and the Conservation area’. There appears to be a lack of consistency in the application of the assessment methodology between settlements ie. consideration of certain attributes and designations in detail, eg listed structures, Conservation Areas, but not others such as the AONB designation.

In the Sustainability Appraisal for Storth and Sandside, the location of the settlements within the AONB is recognised but the assessed impacts vary widely from being potential significant positive effect to potential significant negative effect on landscape character depending on the individual sites.

The SA score summary states ‘Storth/Sandside sites score least well in terms of biodiversity and landscape impacts, the effects on the built environment, air quality, water supply and the take-up of Greenfield land’. Also ‘Care will also need to be taken to ensure that impacts on the landscape, biodiversity, air quality and the built environment are avoided or minimised and that adequate water supply/sewer capacity is in place.’ Again there is no mention of the AONB specifically and likely impacts on the designated landscape.

In the Sustainability Appraisal for Beetham and Slackhead again there is no mention in the SA score summary of the AONB specifically and likely impacts on the designated landscape.

In the Sustainability Appraisal for Carr Bank and also Rural East open countryside sites within the AONB, again there is no mention in the SA score summary of the AONB specifically and likely impacts on the designated landscape.

Land Allocations Emerging Options Consultation Document *

Overall comments on behalf of the AONB Partnership, can be summarised as follows:

- South Lakeland District Council has a statutory responsibility to pay due regard to the purpose of AONB designation in its decision making.
- The AONB Partnership welcomes the reduction in scale and number of sites under consideration within the AONB but remains concerned about negative impacts on this nationally protected landscape in some locations.
- Proposed development sites should only be taken forward as preferred options if they are consistent with policies within the AONB Management Plan.
- The AONB recognises the need for affordable housing in the local area.

The Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
Sites under consideration in Arnside, Storth, Sandside, Carr Bank, Beetham and Slackhead are within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB, a nationally protected landscape. Some sites under consideration in Milnthorpe are outside but important to the setting of the AONB. The landscape quality of an AONB is recognised in law to be of equal quality and national importance to that of a National Park. The statutory purpose of AONB designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) it is the statutory duty of South Lakeland District Council to pay due regard to the purpose of AONB designation in their decision making.

Planning policy
Policies CS5 and CS8.2 of the SLDC adopted Core Strategy afford a high level of protection to the AONB landscape and its setting including landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity and historic character, with the aim of safeguarding the AONB from inappropriate development.

The AONB Management Plan
In the 2009 - 2014 AONB management plan, which South Lakeland District Council has prepared jointly with Lancaster City Council, Lancashire County Council and Cumbria County Council, the vision for the built environment (residential and other development) within the AONB is as follows:

The villages, hamlets and farmsteads of the AONB are rural in scale and retain their distinctive characteristics and historic patterns. Infrastructure impacts, from necessary signs, street-lighting and overhead wires, are minimised. Affordable housing meets local needs; modern development and conversions of redundant buildings meet high design standards, are carbon-neutral and respect the local context, character and distinctiveness of the AONB.

Relevant management objectives relating to the built environment include:

BE1.1 Ensure local planning policies and decisions maintain and enhance the local distinctiveness of the area. Encourage the provision of appropriate advice about the character of settlements within the AONB.
BE1.3 Promote the positive conservation, enhancement and provision of open spaces and “green infrastructure” between and within the settlements that maintain historic settlement patterns, provide links to the surrounding countryside and reduce the scale and intensity of development.
BE2.1 Support infill and village edge development that avoid sites that if developed would have a detrimental impact on either the historic form or character of a village; its setting, visual amenity, tranquillity, wildlife interest and landscape character. Encourage the assessment of the impacts of development on the site, village and surroundings.

Proposed sites should only be taken forward as preferred options in the Allocations of Land DPD following rigorous assessment, which clearly demonstrates that there would be no significant adverse effect on:

- conservation of the landscape character, natural beauty and local distinctiveness of the area
- conservation of bio and geo diversity
- historic character of a village or settlement
- conservation of open space and “green infrastructure” within settlements
- setting, visual amenity and tranquillity of the AONB
- capacity of the surrounding road systems to cope with increased traffic
- adequacy of public transport and services provision

If sites that do not meet these criteria are eventually developed, this would contribute to an incremental degradation of the natural beauty and landscape character over time, precisely what the AONB designation is meant to prevent.


The AONB Unit would welcome the chance to work further with SLDC and Lancaster City Council to develop joint supplementary planning guidance for the AONB as part of the two Local Development Frameworks to ensure that future development is not detrimental to the AONB landscape. Modern development within the AONB offers an opportunity to achieve sustainable development that meets local affordable housing needs, is of high design quality, carbon neutral and respects the local context, character and distinctiveness of the AONB.

The AONB Unit would also encourage SLDC to work in partnership to look at options for habitat restoration and enhancement and provision of new access routes in conjunction with the development of sites in order to use this as an opportunity to achieve other management objectives within the AONB Management Plan.

Interim Consultation Statement

This document as it stands does not demonstrate that, through consultation, the AONB designation as a nationally protected landscape has been fully and appropriately considered at this stage in the SA process, despite comments being submitted.