Local Development Framework Consultation

HEVERSHAM AND LEASGILL

R109 RN325 RN310 RN221 R167 RN326

Oppose

Heversham and Leasgill have been designated a rural village where only limited development should be allowed under the definitions of “infill” and “rounding off”.

The village lies within an area designated by the revised Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance Toolkit (CLCG) as 8b Broad Valleys. Core Strategy policy CS8.2 identifies that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character landscape types identified in the CLCG.
With regard to development the CLCG identifies the importance to conserve and protect the character of historic stone built villages in their landscape settings. To minimise the impact of housing development by careful siting, avoiding open valley floors and obstruction of corridor views. Setting high standards of landscape treatment.
The village lies on the eastern edge of the valley floor. We can all enjoy the open views to the West of the village over towards the upper tidal estuary of Morecambe Bay and the wide open floodplain of the river Kent (areas of national and ecological importance) which are backed by ancient mosses and hillsides. It is also crossed by the Cumbria cycleway.
Also,to the East the land rises up to Heversham head.
Core Strategy policy CS8.2 also identifies the importance of “Green Gaps”:
1. To avoid coalescence between settlements.
2. To maintain a settlement’s identity, landscape setting and character.
3. Comprise predominantly open land maintaining an “open” aspect.
4. Where possible afford recreational and biodiversity opportunities.

It would not be consistent with these policies to develop every Greenfield space along the road side, which would also destroy the rural aspect and character of the village when viewed from the wider landscape or as you travel through the village. Also, it would not be consistent with the definition of “infill” or “rounding off” where there is not a built-up street frontage, or areas of previously developed land particularly to the North of the village.

The following alternative sites put forward cannot be seen as better options due to:
R109 (including RN324) visually more prominent site when viewed from the A6 and entrance to village and as you travel through village. Not infill or rounding off. Weaker scores on SA.
RN325 (part of R75) visually more prominent site when viewed from A6 and coastal road due to steep slope of site and relationship with surrounding open countryside. Would obstruct the only “open” valley views towards estuary and beyond which we all can enjoy and should be treated as a “green gap”. Not infill or rounding off. Weaker scores on SA. Multiple ownership.
RN310 (part of R75) problems with access off very narrow side road. Not infill or rounding off. Multiple ownership.
RN221 problem with narrow access past listed Plum Tree Hall giving weaker score on SA. Not infill or rounding off.
R167 problem with narrow access past school. Not infill or rounding off.
RN326 large site considering village status; but RN316, or part of, could be considered an alternative.

Support

Due to the changing circumstances in the economy and with new government proposals, it is sensible to have a review part way through the plan period.

Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document