4 responses from Rawdon Property (RP) and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets , c/o HOW Planning LLP
1. Rawdon Property (RP) and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets , c/o HOW Planning LLP : 8 May 2012 08:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Policy/Site No.
LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - M11M - Mod ULVERSTON LAND AT LIGHTBURN ROAD
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Land At West Lodge, Lightburn Road, Ulverston
[This should be read in conjunction with the attached file containing technical appendices and other supplementary reports, images, maps etc]
1. Introduction & Site Context
Overview
1.1 These Representations are submitted on behalf of
Rawdon Property (RP) and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets
Limited (SSL) in relation to land located at West Lodge,
Lightburn Road, Ulverston (the site). The site comprises a
total of 4.6ha, 3.1ha of which is identified in the Publication
Version Land Allocations DPD (the DPD) as a B1
employment allocation for a Business/Science Park. RP are
promoting the site for a mixed use development comprising
retail development and high quality employment floor space.
1.2 RP have been promoting the site for a number of
years and previously submitted representations to the
Councils Land Allocations Emerging Options Consultation
Development Plan Document in April 2011 (a copy of
these representations are attached for reference). The
Emerging Options DPD identified approximately 4ha of the
site as an employment allocation (reference M11M). The
representations submitted sought an amendment to the
DPD in order that it should identify the site as a mixed use
retail/employment site.
1.3 The February 2012 Publication Version of the DPD
carries forward the allocation of land at West Lodge as a
proposed employment site but the extent of land comprising
the allocation has been reduced by approximately 1 hectare
as the Council have removed the westernmost parcel of
land. The Council’s ‘Land Allocations DPD - Consultation
Statement’ document confirms that the Council have opted
to reduce the extent of the proposed employment allocation
primarily in response to an objection received in relation to
the landscape impacts of development. Furthermore the
Council’s Conservation Area Officer has also stated that
not developing the western most parcel of land, or using it
for tree planting is required to better protect the setting of a
listed building in the vicinity.
1.4 These Representations consider the site in further
detail, relevant planning policy objectives in addition to the
soundness of the proposed approach to the land allocations
DPD. Information is provided to demonstrate that delivery
of the site solely for employment purposes is not viable
and that a higher value use is required to bring forward
positive economic development in the form of a mixed use
development. It is also shown that this approach would
comply with the tests of soundness and that allocating the
entire site for mixed use will maximise the planning benefits
of development and would also be technically achievable
and deliverable.
Site Context
1.5 As illustrated in the aerial context plan the site is located
on the western side of Ulverston approximately 400 metres
walking distance from the nearest part of the site boundary
to Lightburn Road and the edge of Ulverston town centre1.
The site is in a sustainable location, is served by public
transport and is strongly influenced by surrounding urban
development including Lightburn Road to the north (A590)
and neighbouring development including Daltongate
Business Centre, Hill Foot Hotel and residential properties.
To the south is the Ulverston to Barrow-in-Furness railway
line and residential properties located on Woodland Road.
The site is readily accessible to the surrounding urban area
including existing services and facilities in the town such as
Ulverston train station.
1.6 As demonstrated in the ownership plan the site
comprises land in 4 distinct ownerships. RP control the
central section (plot 1) and have secured an agreement with
SSL to bring this land forward for a Sainsbury’s supermarket
development. An element of land within plot 1 could also be
developed for employment use. The remainder of the site
which is promoted for employment development is within
private ownership. RP have obtained agreement from the
relevant landowners to promote this land for development
and to submit these representations.
Planning Policy Context
South Lakeland Core Strategy
(Adopted October 2010)
2.1 With regards to the economy in South Lakeland the
Core Strategy Spatial Portrait recognises an imbalance in
the number of people commuting out of the area to travel
to work and that there is a heavy reliance on tourism. The
Core Strategy makes reference to the Council’s Sustainable
Community Strategy which identifies the need to grow the
local economy in a sustainable way by supporting local
businesses and attracting new investment. It also notes that
the supply of employment land needs to be more responsive
to demand by providing more sites for new development
to encourage the growth of indigenous businesses. The
Core Strategy Strategic Objectives also set out to ensure
that provision is made for a range of types and sizes of
employment land to meet local needs and promote new
business creation across the plan area.
2.2 The Core Strategy identifies Ulverston as a Principle
Service Centre under Policy CS1.2 and confirms that future
development is to be concentrated in these locations. Policy
CS1.2 identifies that provision should be made in Service
Centres for ‘An appropriate supply of readily available
employment land’. The Spatial Strategy for Ulverston and
Furness identifies that Ulverston has a unique cluster of
high added value, knowledge-intensive engineering jobs
that need nurturing. It also recognises that in respect of
retailing, a key issue is the leakage of convenience goods
expenditure which means that local people are travelling out
of Ulverston to shop. It states that this supports the need for
further convenience and comparison floorspace in the area.
2.3 Policy CS3.1 outlines the Councils key aims for the
Ulverston and Furness area. It identifies that Ulverston
will be a location for regeneration, substantial new areas
of housing and that the settlement will be ‘expanded’ to
accommodate in the region of 12 hectares of employment
development between 2010 and 2025. It also notes that new
employment uses should be located in accessible locations
and that new office development will be focussed as far as
possible in or adjacent to Ulverston town centre.
2.4 Core Strategy Policy CS7.1 confirms that the Council will
seek to ensure that around 4 hectares of employment land
is allocated per annum and to provide a rolling provision of
5 years worth of ‘high quality unconstrained land’ for each
market sector that is readily available for development at any
one time. The quantum of employment land to be provided is
to be kept under review in line with a review of employment
trends and needs in the area. With regard to the allocation
of new employment sites, the policy states that the Council
will work with owners and developers in relation to sites with
‘surmountable’ constraints to bring forth mitigation measures
to make them attractive for commercial use.
2.5 Policy CS7.2 sets out anticipated future employment
land requirements for the Borough. The preceding text
states that whilst it would not be appropriate for the Core
Strategy to break down employment requirements by
use class type, that there is a requirement to identify B1
allocations in particular, relating to high quality office,
research and development and light industrial uses.
2.6 The Core Strategy employment allocations are based
on the evidence contained in the Employment Land
Study (2005) undertaken by Arup and a 2008 site review
undertaken by the Council. The evidence recommended
the Council allocate a total of 60 hectares of additional
employment land in the Core Strategy split 26% for strategic
sites, 32% for business/science parks and 42% for local
employment sites. The Core Strategy identifies that the
largest site category (local employment sites) is intended
to satisfy the local need to provide expansion sites and to
encourage local businesses to remain in the area which
is a key priority for the Core Strategy thus ensuring ample
facilities for new investment.
2.7 Policy CS7.2 states that of the 60 hectares to be
allocated, 70% will be for general B use class development
and 30% specifically for high quality B1 uses. The
policy identifies a total of 13ha of employment land to
be developed in Ulverston, 6ha of which is identified to
be developed as a ‘business/science park’. The Core
Strategy identifies that the land at Lightburn Road should
be developed for B1 employment use as a high quality
employment site aimed at offices/high tech industry.
2.8 Policy CS7.5 sets out the town centre and retailing
strategy for the Borough. It confirms that Ulverston is a
medium town centre serving a wide rural catchment and that
site selection for retail development should follow prevailing
national policy. Despite identifying the need to enhance
local provision within centres and to encourage sustainable
shopping patterns by addressing high levels of leakage to
outside areas (which the Core Strategy acknowledges is the
case in Ulverston) no retail allocations are identified in the
Core Strategy.
Land Allocations Development Plan
Document
(Proposed Submission Edition – March 2012)
2.9 The Land Allocations DPD sets out the Council’s
proposed development locations to cater for the needs of the
Borough over the Plan (Core Strategy) period. In reference
to proposed employment allocations the DPD notes that
there may be instances where mixed use development is
justified. Paragraph 2.38 that:
‘In some cases, there may be opportunities for mixeduse
developments, particularly for office, research and
development and light industrial uses which can co-exist
with housing and other uses.’
2.10 The DPD identifies 3.1ha of land at Lightburn Road for
B1 employment use (allocated for a business park) referred
to as ‘Lightburn Business Park’ (reference: M11M-mod).
This is illustrated on the Land Allocations Proposals Map
extract overleaf. It states that this is ‘a natural extension of
the existing employment areas at Lightburn and Daltongate
and is in a sustainable location relatively close to the town
centre’. The DPD identifies that B1 uses should be located
in accessible locations and that office and knowledge based
uses will be favoured on town centre and edge of town sites.
In relation to the proposed Lightburn Road employment
allocation the DPD also states that:
‘Key issues affecting this site are the need for a
new access onto the A590, the need for sewerage, the
landscaping of this sensitive site at the approach to the
town, the need to protect important trees and hedges,
the need for green infrastructure, the need to safeguard
the residential amenity of Beehive Cottages and the
need to safeguard access to the aqueduct. Care will
need to be undertaken with the siting of any SUDS
(Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme) if sited at the
western end of the site. If storage ponds are located at
the western end of the site near to Beehive Cottages
they may need to be lined. Any submitted planning
application should further investigate the need for
such measures and take such technical guidance into
account.’
2.11 With regards to retailing the DPD does not promote any
sites for new retail development in Ulverston.
The National Planning Policy Framework
2.12 The NPPF was published by the Government on 27th March 2012 and
replaces old PPG’s and PPS documents. The approach and content of the Land
Allocations DPD will need to be reviewed in light of the introduction of the NPPF
as paragraph 151 confirms that Local Plans must be consistent with the principles
and policies set out in the Framework. Paragraph 158 requires Local Plans to
be based upon adequate, up to date and relevant evidence regarding economic,
social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. It also advises
that the assessment of, and strategies for development are integrated and take ‘full
account of relevant market and economic signals’.
2.13 The NPPF positively encourages sustainable development confirming that
sustainable development means positive growth. It requires Local Authorities
to plan positively for future development needs in their areas and to adopt a
presumption in favour of proposals for sustainable development.
The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in
favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden
thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
For plan-making this means that:
? local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the
development needs of their area;
? Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient
flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless:
– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or
– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted.
For decision-taking this means:
? approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
? where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are
out-of-date, granting permission unless:
– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or
– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted.
2.14 The presumption in favour of sustainable development
relates to both plan making and decision taking. It requires
that LPA’s should positively seek opportunities to meet
the development needs of their area and that Local Plans
should meet objectively assessed needs unless the adverse
impacts of doing so would ‘significantly and demonstrably’
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies
in the NPPF or where the Framework indicates development
should be restricted.
2.15 The NPPF’s Core Planning Principles state that
planning should proactively drive and support economic
development to deliver development which the country
needs. It advises that ‘every effort should be made to
objectively to identify and then meet the...development
needs of an area’. The Principles also encourage mixed use
developments and active management of growth to make
the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and
cycling and to focus significant development in locations
which are or can be made sustainable.
2.16 The Framework requires that the economic benefits
of proposals are given equal weight in the determination
of planning applications and states that growth and new
development are necessary to reverse the economic
fortunes of the country and to contribute towards economic
recovery. The NPPF confirms that the role of planning
should be to encourage but not act as an impediment to
sustainable growth and that significant weight should be
placed on the need to support economic growth through the
planning system.
2.17 With regards to retail development the NPPF advises
that town centres should be supported in order to support
their viability and vitality. It advises LPA’s to allocate
appropriate sites to meet identified needs firstly within
centres where possible, then on the edge of centres and
that if sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified,
to set policies to meet identified needs in other accessible
locations that are well connected to the town centre.
2.18 With regards to plan making the NPPF requires that
Local Plans should seek opportunities to achieve each
of the economic, social and environmental dimensions
of sustainable development and that significant adverse
impacts on any of these should be avoided and, wherever
possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate
such impacts should be considered. Local Plans should be
prepared to respond flexibly to changing circumstances.
Paragraph 157 advises that Local Plans should also:
• Plan positively for development and infrastructure to
meet the objectives, principles and policies in the NPPF
• Allocate sites to promote development and flexible use of
land, bringing forward new land where necessary
2.19 In assessing business needs the NPPF advises LPA’s
to use necessary evidence to understand the need for
land or floorspace for economic development including the
quantitative and qualitative needs for all foreseeable types
of economic activity over the Plan period including retail
development. LPA’s are also advised to assess the capacity
of existing centres to accommodate new town centre
development.
2.20 In respect of viability and deliverability of development,
paragraph 173 requires Councils to pay careful attention
to viability and costs in plan making and decision taking. It
notes that plans should be deliverable and that sites and
the scale of development identified in the plan should not be
subject to obligations or policy hurdles such that their ability
to be developed viably is threatened.
2.21 The NPPF requires that Local Plans meet certain tests
in order that they can be considered acceptable that crucially
they must be ‘sound’. The tests of soundness and their
relationship with the Land Allocations DPD and specifically
the developments needs of Ulverston are considered in
further detail in these representations.
3. Delivering Viable Economic Development
3.1 Through the Land Allocations DPD, the Council
have identified that land at West Lodge is suitable for
development and that it represents a sustainable location
capable of meeting development requirements in Ulverston
over the Core Strategy period. The Council’s aspirations
are to deliver employment development in order to meet
a number of objectives which include ensuring that the
level of growth in the Borough is adequately balanced, to
reduce out-commuting, encourage investment and jobs
and to provide readily available employment land for local
businesses.
3.2 As identified previously RP have promoted the site
at Lightburn Road for several years for a mixed use
development. RP’s proposals have been developed and
tested to ensure that they are both deliverable and viable. In
this regard RP have commissioned property experts Colliers
International (Colliers) to undertake an Employment Land
Viability Review comprising a property market overview of
Ulverston and a detailed development viability analysis. A
copy of this report is attached to these representations.
3.3 The report confirms that in Colliers professional
opinion, the site is a suitable location (in market terms) for
industrial (B2), office (B1) and retail (A1) development. It
also demonstrates that the uptake of employment premises
in Ulverston has been subdued in recent years, the office
market in the area is currently very limited and that demand
for industrial premises is local in nature. Colliers conclude
that at the present time, the level of demand supply for
employment premises is limited and that future requirements
are likely to be for B1 units of between 5,000sqft -10,000sqft.
This is corroborated by the Council’s own up to date
Employment Land Review (ELR)2.
3.4 The Council’s ELR recommends that rather than
identifying the Lightburn Road site as a strategic business
site/business park the site should be directed towards
meeting a range of local employment needs across the ‘B’
use classes. Importantly it recommends that whilst the site
will provide an important resource for future employment
development, part of the site may need to be released for
‘higher value uses’ to ensure its delivery.
3.5 The conclusion of the Council’s independent consultants
in this respect is strongly supported by the viability work
undertaken by Colliers. Viability appraisals have been
undertaken in order to test a number of development
scenarios for the site. The appraisals illustrate that
developing the site entirely for B1 development would result
in a loss of circa £3.3m which is clearly wholly unviable.
A major cost to developing the site is the provision of new
infrastructure and services which have been conservatively
costed at approximately £1.58m. A number of variables are
considered in the viability appraisal including the elimination
of land costs however even on this basis developing the
site wholly for B1 development is still massively unviable
(resulting in a loss of circa £1.45m). It concludes that given
market conditions this scenario is likely to prevail for at least
the next 5 years and possibly longer.
3.6 The major barrier to unlocking the site for development
is the provision of infrastructure including the new vehicular
junction to the A590, ground works and provision of services
necessary to service the entire site. In the current economic
climate gap funding is not available therefore the prospects
of unlocking the site for employment development are
very limited. The viability evidence submitted with these
representations demonstrates however, that through the
introduction of a higher value use in the form of a foodstore,
the necessary subsidy (in the form of site infrastructure) can
be delivered to allow employment development to proceed
viably. Sainsbury’s have confirmed that they wish to deliver
this investment in Ulverston and importantly, they are fully
prepared to fund the level of infrastructure required to
service development of the entire site.
3.7 As set out further in these representations, initial
studies have been undertaken by RP which confirm that
the site is deliverable in technical terms. As previously
identified RP control a substantial element of the site and
the agreement of the remaining landowners to promote
the site for development has been obtained. The draft site
masterplan opposite has been prepared to illustrate how the
land at Lightburn Road could be brought forward for a mixed
use development comprising a new foodstore and high
quality, modern employment development. The site would
be accessed via a new junction to the A590 which would
include pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities.
Delivering New Jobs
3.8 Importantly the proposals will provide a substantial
number of new jobs including approximately 200 jobs
associated with the Sainsbury’s store. Whilst the retail jobs
would not be generated by virtue of ‘traditional’ B class
employment uses they would otherwise meet the aspirations
of the Core Strategy to deliver increased employment and
investment in the Borough. Subject to the grant of planning
consent, the retail development would have the capacity
to deliver a substantial number of jobs in the shorter term
including a range of full and part time flexible positions.
Furthermore, local jobs would be created in construction and
additional positions through the supply chain.
3.9 Investment by Sainsbury’s to enable the remainder
of the site for employment development has the capacity
to generate a substantial number of additional jobs. On
the basis of the draft masterplan and assuming that the
employment development comprises entirely of B1 offices,
the site has the capacity to generate up to an additional 432
further jobs3. This would provide a total of 632 jobs overall.
Summary
3.10 This section has demonstrated that development
of the site solely for B1 development is wholly
unviable and is likely to remain so for many years. A
higher value use is required to deliver the necessary
investment to secure vital infrastructure. This will open
the site up for employment development by removing
the major cost barrier to allow new employment
development to come forward in line with Core
Strategy objectives. The development of a foodstore
will also generate a substantial number of new jobs
and provide access to skills and training for the local
community.
3.11 The following section assesses RP’s proposals
for the site in the context of the tests of soundness
and considers additional evidence in relation to retail
capacity in Ulverston.
4. Meeting the Test of Soundness
Overview
4.1 It has been demonstrated that a higher value use is
required to deliver viable development and that substantial
employment could be generated in the local area through
the new investment proposed. A mixed use employment/
retail development has the capacity to provide a viable
source of employment land to meet local needs in a much
accelerated timeframe than would otherwise be the case.
4.2 In addition to securing these planning benefits this
section of the representations demonstrates that a mixed
use allocation is necessary in order to ensure that the Land
Allocations DPD complies with the Council’s most up to
date evidence base and critically, the tests of soundness
identified at paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
Examining Local Plans
182. The Local Plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to
assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to
Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements, and whether it is sound. A
local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it
considers is “sound” – namely that it is:
? Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy
which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure
requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring
authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving
sustainable development;
? Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when
considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate
evidence;
? Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on
effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
? Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of
sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the
Framework.
The Council’s Evidence Base
4.3 The NPPF requires that plans are prepared utilising an
up to date evidence base. It should be noted that the Land
Allocations DPD Consultation report was approved by SLDC
Full Council for consultation on 18th January 2012 however
the updated employment and retail evidence reports were
not published until the commencement of the consultation
period in March 2012. The DPD will need to be reviewed
by the Council in view of this more up to date evidence as
required by national policy. The tests of soundness and their
relationship with the site are considered in further detail
below.
The Tests of Soundness
(i) That the Plan has been positively prepared
4.4 Whilst the DPD identifies land at Lightburn Road to be
developed for a business/science park, the updated ELR
recommends that this site should focus on delivering local
employment needs, most notably for B1 but potentially other
employment uses. The ELR also recognises that part of the
site may need to released for a higher value use in order
to ensure delivery. These representations confirm that this
is required. Furthermore the work undertaken by Colliers
confirms that the site would be appropriate for B1 and B2
employment uses and for retail development. The Councils
identification of land at Lightburn Road to meet employment
requirements in Ulverston is entirely appropriate based on
the evidence available and is compliant with the requirement
to plan positively for development needs in the area.
4.5 With regard to the quantum of employment land required
the Core Strategy states that a total of 13ha is needed in
Ulverston. The ELR provides an up to date assessment of
employment requirements in Ulverston and recommends
that provision for a lower amount of employment land is
made, approximately 7.2ha over the plan period. It then
identifies a portfolio of favoured sites to meet employment
including 3.1ha of land at Lightburn Road. The most up
to date evidence produced to support the DPD therefore
identifies that land at Lightburn Road will provide an
important source of employment land to meet local needs,
however, it recommends that the overall employment land
requirement in Ulverston is reduced from that identified in
the adopted Core Strategy.
4.6 With regards to retail requirements in Ulverston the
Council commissioned Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners to
produce the South Lakeland Retail Study Update which was
published recently (February 2012). In accordance with the
adopted Core Strategy this report demonstrates that only
57.7% of convenience retail expenditure generated within
Ulverston (identified as zone 9) is retained in the area
with the majority (84.4%) being directed to freestanding
stores including Booths at Oubas Hill. There is a substantial
leakage of convenience retail expenditure to Barrow-in-
Furness with regards to convenience retail expenditure.
4.7 It is clear from this up to date evidence that the capacity
exists for Ulverston to redress the balance of shopping
patterns and retain this leakage through the development
of a substantial new foodstore. This is confirmed in the
report which states that immediate convenience capacity in
Ulverston could accommodate a medium sized foodstore
operated by one of the “Big Four” supermarkets or a store
operated by a discount retailer. This immediate capacity
does not take into account the additional retail capacity
which would be generated as a result of the potential for a
main store in Ulverston to ‘claw back’ some of the current
expenditure leakage by repatriating retail trips being made to
destinations such as Barrow.
4.8 The evidence demonstrates there is a clear need
for further convenience retailing facilities in Ulverston as
acknowledged by the Council’s consultants. The NPPF
requires that Council’s should assess the needs of business
including retail and that land should be allocated where the
evidence suggests this should happen. At present the DPD
does not address the identified need since it makes no land
allocation or other provision.
4.9 In order to meet this need in Ulverston it is necessary to
consider potential sites on the basis of the sequential test.
The NPPF says that such needs should be met in centre
and where no sites are available that edge of centre sites
should be considered. If development options do not exist
for edge of centre sites then other accessible, well located
sites should be considered.
4.10 With regard to meeting the identified convenience
goods need in centre, previous representations submitted
have identified that there are no available, deliverable or
viable sequentially preferable sites within or on the edge
of Ulverston town centre. The former Brewery site in the
Town Centre is the subject of a planning application for retail
development but has received substantial objections from
English Heritage due to the impacts upon this important
heritage asset. It is understood that the plans for this site
are being substantially revised due to significant heritage
constraints which require the retention of several key
buildings.
4.11 This will mean that any revised scheme will lead to
a reduction in the size of the store which was already at
the bottom end of the range likely to be acceptable to a
main retailer. It is clear that this site cannot provide an
appropriate floorplate format to accommodate either a
discount retailer or larger foodstore operator and as such
does not represent a suitable or alternative site to Lightburn
Road in order to meet the need identified in the NLP report.
It is also clear that with the very significant infrastructure and
other costs associated with this site it would not provide a
viable development opportunity for a discount retailer either.
4.12 Land at Canal Head is also recognised as a potential
sequential site however it faces a number of substantial
development constraints including land ownership issues,
significant highways and access complexities and other
technical issues. HOW Planning’s April 2011 representations
should be referred to for further information.
4.13 The NPPF requires the Council to plan positively
for the future employment and retail needs of Ulverston.
Specifically, paragraph 26 requires that Local Plans should
allocate a range of sites to meet the scale and type of retail
development needed. Accordingly the failure of the Council
to address the need for a store suitable for occupation
by one of the major food retailers would render the plan
unsound in terms of compliance with the NPPF.
4.14 On the basis of the recent evidence published by the
Council, allocation of the West Lodge site to accommodate a
foodstore would evidently meet the requirements of the test
as there are no suitable sites either within or on the edge of
Ulverston to meet the identified retail requirement. It should
also be noted that the site would act as a counterbalance
and help to reduce expenditure leakage to Barrow and
provide for the needs of the new population arising from
substantial new areas of housing in Ulverston as identified in
the DPD.
4.15 Making provision for retail development as part of a
mix of uses would not prejudice the employment objectives
of the Core Strategy for Ulverston or the wider area. The
proposed allocation would provide approximately 2.1ha of
employment land, which, in combination with other identified
sites in Ulverston4 would comfortably exceed the ELR
recommendation to provide a total of 7.2ha of employment
land in the area. In reality, the nature of the allocation sought
would ensure that the quantum of future employment land
in Ulverston is more in line with the recommendations of
the ELR. As identified previously, a foodstore is required
to enable development of the site and will allow the site
to come forward to meet anticipated demand for local
employment needs.
(ii) The Plan is Justified
4.16 This test requires that the DPD should represent
the most appropriate strategy when considered against
the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate
evidence.
4.17 The submitted viability evidence demonstrates that
development of the site for employment development will not
proceed without the fiscal investment in site infrastructure
which would be secured by a foodstore investment. Other
uses such as housing development would not generate the
values required and, in any event, the DPD already makes
adequate provision for housing elsewhere in Ulverston to
meet identified requirements. There are no other land uses
which would be compatible and appropriate in this location
to allow delivery of employment development.
4.18 It should also be noted that whilst not representing a
traditional B use class, retail development in the form of a
foodstore will generate a substantial number of permanent
jobs in Ulverston. This is in keeping with the Core Strategy
objective to grow the local economy in a sustainable manner
and to provide local employment opportunities.
4.19 On the basis of the Councils most up to date
employment land and retail evidence base and the
unavailability of other suitable and deliverable alternative
sites in Ulverston a mixed use retail/employment allocation
would be entirely justifiable and in line with the development
objectives of the adopted Core Strategy. No other mix
of uses than including retail would deliver the viable
development of the site for employment development.
Therefore it can be concluded that a mixed use allocation as
proposed by RP represents the most appropriate strategy
when considered against the reasonable alternatives. It is
also the case that this is justified on the basis of the most up
to date evidence.
(iii) The Plan is Effective
4.20 Allocating all of the land shown in the draft masterplan
for mixed use development would ensure the delivery of
sustainable development in this location in the shorter term
and enable viable development of this land to act as an
important resource to meet future local employment needs.
This would ensure the effectiveness of the DPD in this
respect is maximised.
4.21 In proposing to allocate land at West Lodge for
development, the Council have satisfied themselves
that the site is an appropriate location for development
and that it can be delivered in technical terms. As
part of the Emerging Options DPD evidence base the
Council prepared a number of ‘Fact Files’ for the various
settlements in the Borough. The Ulverston Fact File
confirmed that the entirety of the land at West Lodge
(ref. M11M) did not function as part of the Green Gap
designation and that it was suitable and appropriate for
future development. The Publication Version DPD reduces
the proposed allocation on the basis of consultation
responses raising landscape objections and heritage
issues.
4.22 RP have commissioned a professional technical
team to undertake detailed studies across a range of
technical disciplines including landscape and heritage
issues. This work, which is explored in further detail in
these representations demonstrates that development
of the entire site indicated in the draft masterplan can be
accommodated without giving rise to unacceptable impacts
in landscape and heritage terms. Furthermore it has been
demonstrated that the development of the wider site can
be accommodated in highways terms and that there are no
engineering or other technical constraints to development.
All of the recommended mitigation measures for the site
identified in the DPD can be provided.
4.23 In summary, a mixed use retail/employment allocation
is deliverable. Conversely, development of the site solely
for employment development would not be deliverable in
the foreseeable future and hence a mixed use allocation
should be made. It has been shown that there is no technical
reason or other advantage to reducing the scope of the
allocation and that appropriate mitigation can be provided
where required. It has been shown that the circumstances
exist to justify this mix of uses which Paragraph 2.38 of the
DPD acknowledges may be required.
(iv) The Plan is Consistent with National Policy
4.24 Whilst it is recognised that the Council have not yet had
the opportunity to revise the Land Allocations DPD in light
of the policies contained in the NPPF, these representations
have demonstrated that the DPD is currently not sound
as it fails to meet the requirements of NPPF paragraph
14. Critically the DPD does not plan positively for retail
development and specifically convenience needs retailing in
Ulverston. The DPD makes no allocation or other provision
for this which is contrary to the evidence of the February
2012 Retail Study.
4.25 As currently proposed, allocation M11M-mod does
not take account of viability considerations and the costs
of delivering infrastructure which the NPPF requires. The
allocation requires increased flexibility which a mixed use
allocation for retail/employment would achieve thus allowing
the infrastructure investment necessary to unlock the site.
It has been demonstrated that there are no sequential sites
within or on the edge of Ulverston town centre which could
accommodate the requirement for a substantial foodstore
to meet identified needs. Consequently the mixed use
allocation of land at West Lodge would fulfil this requirement
compliant with the sequential test. Sainsbury’s are proposing
a foodstore which is commensurate with the level of need
identified in the updated retail evidence and which would
be supplemented by repatriating the substantial amount of
convenience goods leakage identified.
4.26 It is clear that a mixed use allocation would meet both
the convenience goods retailing requirements for Ulverston
and would also deliver land for local employment needs. In
view of the evidence highlighted previously and otherwise
compliance with the NPPF, development of this land for
retail/employment development would not give rise to
adverse impacts that are capable of outweighing the benefits
of development nor would it otherwise be in conflict with the
policies of the NPPF.
4.27 RP’s proposals for the site represent a valuable and
sustainable economic development opportunity which is
precisely in line with the objectives of the NPPF. There is
a presumption in favour of such proposals. The proposed
mixed use development attracts the clear support of the
NPPF which requires Councils to proactively drive and
support economic development and to place substantial
weight on economic growth. The mixed use development
of the entire site identified in the masterplan would clearly
deliver sustainable development in line with the policies of
the NPPF, thus meeting this test of soundness.
Summary
4.28 This section has demonstrated that the available
evidence and other contextual information clearly
indicates that RP’s proposals for the site meet with
the tests of soundness. Principally the DPD requires
revision in line with the policies of the NPPF to make
provision for local convenience retailing needs in the
form of a retail allocation. The DPD does not comply
with test (i) in that it has not been positively prepared to
meet objectively assessed development requirements.
4.29 It has been shown that to bring the site forward
for development a higher value use in the form of a
foodstore is required. An alternative mix of uses will not
deliver viable development. The proposals will viably
unlock the site to meet local employment requirements.
The scale of employment land required in Ulverston
has been revised downwards from the Core Strategy
requirements but the site is confirmed as being required
to meet anticipated local employment needs.
4.30 A substantial foodstore development in this
location is capable of meeting the sequential test and
would therefore be compliant with the retail policies of
the NPPF. The Council have concluded that the site
is accessible and sustainable. The proposals would
therefore satisfy soundness tests (i) and (ii) in that they
will ensure that the DPD makes appropriate provision
for development requirements in Ulverston and is fully
justified representing the most appropriate strategy on the
basis of the available evidence.
4.31 The proposals are deliverable both in fiscal and
technical terms. There is no sound technical justification
to the proposed reduction in the extent of the site
allocation and therefore land to the west of allocation
M11M-mod should be reinstated as part of the allocation.
Land to the east, which is also available for development
as identified in these representations should also be
incorporated to maximise the planning benefits of
development. The proposed allocation would meet the
third test of soundness as being demonstrably deliverable
(flexible) and hence effective.
4.32 For the reasons identified above, it would also be
compliant with national policy in the form of the National
Planning Policy Framework. The following sections
confirm the changes which are sought to the Publication
Version Land Allocations DPD and provide further
technical information in relation to the site.
Changes sought to the DPD:
5.1 Viability information has demonstrated that a higher
value use is required to deliver the site for employment use.
The mixed use allocation of this land for a foodstore and
employment development would deliver immediate benefits
in terms of retail job opportunities in the new foodstore
and enable the remainder of the site to provide for local
employment needs.
5.2 Evidence has been recently published by the Council
in relation to employment and retail issues which was not
available to the Local Authority during the preparation or
examination of the adopted Core Strategy over 2 years ago.
The DPD should be reviewed and amended to ensure that
full provision for development requirements is made.
5.3 Very up to date evidence justifies a change to the
proposed allocation “M11M-mod” to incorporate a higher
value use. There is a pressing requirement for a substantial
foodstore in Ulverston which the DPD does not currently
address. It has been shown that accommodating this
requirement on the land at West Lodge will meet the
employment and retail objectives of the adopted Core
Strategy and would be fully consistent with the NPPF’s
requirement for soundness and other national policies
controlling the location of retail development. The DPD and
its approach to positively meeting development requirements
In Ulverston should therefore be amended and the following
change made:
Draft Policy LA1.7: ‘Business and Science Park
Sites’ should be amended so that in addition to
B1 development being listed as an acceptable
use the DPD should also make reference to the
requirement for ‘A1 retail development’ in the
form of a new foodstore which is essential to
the viable and timely delivery of much needed
economic development in Ulverston. The
allocation should be expanded to include all of
the land identified in the enclosed masterplan
which is available for development.
5.4 This change is entirely justified on the basis of very up
to date evidence. The Council have rightly concluded that
none of the site performs a role as Green Gap and therefore
the entire site should be allocated in order to maximise
the benefits of sustainable development and economic
growth to Ulverston. To ensure compliance with the tests of
soundness, the allocation should be revised as identified.
6.Technical Considerations
Overview
6.1 RP have commissioned a range of technical consultants
to assess the site and to ensure that development is
delivered in a technically acceptable and sustainable
manner. Key technical issues are summarised in this
section. The technical appendix to these representations
should also be referred to for further information.
Landscape and Visual
Considerations
6.2 Initial studies have identified that an appropriate
strategy for re-grading of the site topography would be
required to accommodate development and that substantial
landscape mitigation will also be proposed as part of
this. Work undertaken to date has identified the proximity
and sensitivity of heritage assets and other buildings and
locations which have potential views of the proposed
development.
6.3 The assessment has included a comprehensive Tree
Survey, an assessment of landscape character as well as
the visibility of the development proposed. This exercise has
identified that the site is overlooked by several prominent
buildings forming the current edge of the Ulverston built up
area including Dalton Conference Centre to the north, new
areas of housing and individual buildings such as residential
dwellings.
6.4 The proposed mixed use allocation site is overlooked by
existing development within the immediate vicinity however
beyond this it has been concluded that the local topography
and tree cover combines to obscure the site at ground level
from most directions. To mitigate for potential views of the
development (which have been identified as being mostly
longer range) a series of ‘buffer zones’ will be provided to
create tree and shrub belts to screen the development with a
particular focus on more sensitive locations such as adjacent
to existing properties.
6.5 The proposals will promote a land regrading strategy
and landscape screening will be provided to limit views of
the development to the more sensitive boundaries of the site
including towards the west. Work undertaken has shown
that the entire site can be developed without giving rise to
unacceptable landscape impacts.
Traffic and Transport
6.6 The Technical Appendix submitted with these
representations demonstrates that it is proposed to upgrade
the existing Lightburn Road/Daltongate priority junction
to provide a signal controlled access arrangement in to
the West Lodge site. This main access will be utilised
for pedestrians and vehicular access. Servicing for the
Sainsbury’s store will be from a separate access point to the
west of the main access point connecting directly with the
A590. Further discussions will be undertaken with SLDC and
Cumbria County Council to agree the precise details of the
access arrangements.
6.7 Initial studies show that the proposed mixed use
development of the site can be satisfactorily accommodated
on the existing highway network in capacity terms without
the requirement for mitigation works to the A590. It has also
been shown that the proposed new junction can adequately
serve both the scale of retail and employment development
proposed.
Design
6.8 Sainsbury’s propose that the new foodstore would
promote a contemporary design that is in keeping with the
character of the local area and distinctive to Ulverston. This
would result in the delivery of a high quality building utilising
materials appropriate to the character of the area including
for example the use of local stone.
6.9 Details of the employment development have not been
finalised however these are envisaged as being a maximum
2 storeys in height comprising a mix of smaller pavilion style
units. Buildings would be of an appropriate mass and scale
in keeping with surrounding development and would include
a substantial amount of high quality landscape planting
informed by the landscape and visual studies which would
help to create an attractive environment.
Sustainability
6.10 Sainsbury’s have a robust and challenging Corporate
Responsibility Strategy which requires implementation of
energy efficiency technologies and sustainability techniques
in all new stores. The new Ulverston store would commit to
the principle of investment in energy efficiency and reduction
in carbon emissions. Investment in energy efficiency
measures has been determined by Sainsbury’s as the most
commercially and technically viable approach to achieving
significant reductions in carbon emissions.
6.11 A number of energy efficiency measures will be utilised
in the store including a rainwater harvesting system, lighting
controls, use of LED lighting, re-utilisation of cold air from
chillers as air conditioning and the implementation of a full
store Building Management System to intelligently manage
energy use. In addition Sainsbury’s propose that the
Ulverston store would incorporate a biomass boiler utilising
wood chip or pellets as fuel to provide energy for the store
in the form of hot water and heating for the customer sales
area. Air Source Heat Pumps are also proposed to provide
heating and cooling to the customer areas of the store.
6.12 The employment development will be constructed in
line with sustainability and energy efficiency requirements
according to the appropriate building regulation standards.
Heritage Considerations
6.13 The key heritage considerations for the site are as
follows:
• The site to the south of Lightburn Road comprises
no designated or non-designated heritage assets.
Traditionally open agricultural land, the site is outside
the boundary of Ulverston Conservation Area and is
distanced from the sensitive historic core of the town.
• The most significant elements of the landscape setting
of Ulverston Conservation Area include the hill range to
the north of the town centre and, in particular, the Barrow
Monument on Hoad Hill to the north west. The site, to the
south of Lightburn Road, occupies an area of landscape
that has a limited visual or historic relationship with the
conservation area.
• Hill Top is a grade II listed building and of significance
as the residence of a wealthy Ulverston resident. It
is an elegantly proportioned building placed at the
crest of a hill along Lightburn Road and was subject to
extensions and embellishments that also contribute to
its significance. Whilst Hill Top was intended to overlook
the landscape to the west to some degree, the house
is particularly related to its intimate and well defined
immediate setting comprises of enclosed private grounds
with the main facade of the house orientated towards
and overlooking the designed garden to the east. There
is no evidence of a historic or functional relationship with
land to the west. It is separated from the site by fencing
and planting that creates enclosure and limits interaction
between the two areas.
• Dykelands is significant as a fashionable middle class
villa situated within its own secluded grounds. It is
designed in one of the most fashionable styles of the
period and is likely to have been a commission for the
famous Cumbrian architect, George Webster. Dykelands
is located further from the site than Hill Top and is
separated from the site by the Furness railway line. As
with Hill Top, the setting of Dykelands is well defined and
characterised by the enclosed and insular nature of its
grounds, surrounded by trees, designed to allow only
glimpse views of the dwelling. The setting of the property
is characteristically private and secluded and the site to
the south of Lightburn Road does not make a positive
contribution to the significance of the asset, either
historically or visually.
Summary
6.14 The technical appendix to these representations
contains further information confirming that development
of the site can be successfully delivered and should be
referred to for further information. In summary there are no
constraints to the successful development of the site for
mixed use employment/retail development.
2. Rawdon Property (RP) and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets , c/o HOW Planning LLP : 8 May 2012 08:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Policy/Site No.
LA1.2 Town Centre Boundaries - ULVERSTON
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
Omission retail allocation in Ulverston. DPD does not propose any site for a retail allocation.
No retail site allocation policy in the DPD.
New site proposed by representor extended site M11M - mod (propose site extended to the west and east), Lightburn Road, off A590.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
2.11 With regards to retailing the DPD does not promote any
sites for new retail development in Ulverston.
3. Rawdon Property (RP) and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets , c/o HOW Planning LLP : 8 May 2012 08:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
The approach and content of the Land Allocations DPD will need to be reviewed in light of the introduction of the NPPF as paragraph 151 confirms that Local Plans must be consistent with the principles and policies set out in the Framework. Paragraph 158 requires Local Plans to be based upon adequate, up to date and relevant evidence regarding economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. It also advises that the assessment of, and strategies for development are integrated and take ‘full account of relevant market and economic signals’.
4.3 The NPPF requires that plans are prepared utilising an
up to date evidence base. It should be noted that the Land
Allocations DPD Consultation report was approved by SLDC
Full Council for consultation on 18th January 2012 however
the updated employment and retail evidence reports were
not published until the commencement of the consultation
period in March 2012. The DPD will need to be reviewed
by the Council in view of this more up to date evidence as
required by national policy. The tests of soundness and their
relationship with the site are considered in further detail
below.
4.8 The evidence demonstrates there is a clear need
for further convenience retailing facilities in Ulverston as
acknowledged by the Council’s consultants. The NPPF
requires that Council’s should assess the needs of business
including retail and that land should be allocated where the
evidence suggests this should happen. At present the DPD
does not address the identified need since it makes no land
allocation or other provision.
4.13 The NPPF requires the Council to plan positively
for the future employment and retail needs of Ulverston.
Specifically, paragraph 26 requires that Local Plans should
allocate a range of sites to meet the scale and type of retail
development needed. Accordingly the failure of the Council
to address the need for a store suitable for occupation
by one of the major food retailers would render the plan
unsound in terms of compliance with the NPPF
4.28 This section has demonstrated that the available
evidence and other contextual information clearly
indicates that RP’s proposals for the site meet with
the tests of soundness. Principally the DPD requires
revision in line with the policies of the NPPF to make
provision for local convenience retailing needs in the
form of a retail allocation. The DPD does not comply
with test (i) in that it has not been positively prepared to
meet objectively assessed development requirements.
4. Rawdon Property (RP) and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets , c/o HOW Planning LLP : 8 May 2012 08:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Policy/Site No.
LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
Ulverston - off Lightburn Road - Extension to M11M - mod (new site area includes an extension to the east and west of the site). Includes land to the east of M11M -mod, not previously put forward for consideration in the Land Allocations DPD process.
Proposed DPD Policy - LA1.7
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
3.2 As identified previously RP have promoted the site
at Lightburn Road for several years for a mixed use
development. RP’s proposals have been developed and
tested to ensure that they are both deliverable and viable. In
this regard RP have commissioned property experts Colliers
International (Colliers) to undertake an Employment Land
Viability Review comprising a property market overview of
Ulverston and a detailed development viability analysis. A
copy of this report is attached to these representations.
3.3 The report confirms that in Colliers professional
opinion, the site is a suitable location (in market terms) for
industrial (B2), office (B1) and retail (A1) development. It
also demonstrates that the uptake of employment premises
in Ulverston has been subdued in recent years, the office
market in the area is currently very limited and that demand
for industrial premises is local in nature. Colliers conclude
that at the present time, the level of demand supply for
employment premises is limited and that future requirements
are likely to be for B1 units of between 5,000sqft -10,000sqft.
This is corroborated by the Council’s own up to date
Employment Land Review (ELR)2.
3.4 The Council’s ELR recommends that rather than
identifying the Lightburn Road site as a strategic business
site/business park the site should be directed towards
meeting a range of local employment needs across the ‘B’
use classes. Importantly it recommends that whilst the site
will provide an important resource for future employment
development, part of the site may need to be released for
‘higher value uses’ to ensure its delivery.
3.5 The conclusion of the Council’s independent consultants
in this respect is strongly supported by the viability work
undertaken by Colliers. Viability appraisals have been
undertaken in order to test a number of development
scenarios for the site. The appraisals illustrate that
developing the site entirely for B1 development would result
in a loss of circa £3.3m which is clearly wholly unviable.
A major cost to developing the site is the provision of new
infrastructure and services which have been conservatively
costed at approximately £1.58m. A number of variables are
considered in the viability appraisal including the elimination
of land costs however even on this basis developing the
site wholly for B1 development is still massively unviable
(resulting in a loss of circa £1.45m). It concludes that given
market conditions this scenario is likely to prevail for at least
the next 5 years and possibly longer.
3.6 The major barrier to unlocking the site for development
is the provision of infrastructure including the new vehicular
junction to the A590, ground works and provision of services
necessary to service the entire site. In the current economic
climate gap funding is not available therefore the prospects
of unlocking the site for employment development are
very limited. The viability evidence submitted with these
representations demonstrates however, that through the
introduction of a higher value use in the form of a foodstore,
the necessary subsidy (in the form of site infrastructure) can
be delivered to allow employment development to proceed
viably. Sainsbury’s have confirmed that they wish to deliver
this investment in Ulverston and importantly, they are fully
prepared to fund the level of infrastructure required to
service development of the entire site.
3.10 This section has demonstrated that development
of the site solely for B1 development is wholly
unviable and is likely to remain so for many years. A
higher value use is required to deliver the necessary
investment to secure vital infrastructure. This will open
the site up for employment development by removing
the major cost barrier to allow new employment
development to come forward in line with Core
Strategy objectives. The development of a foodstore
will also generate a substantial number of new jobs
and provide access to skills and training for the local
community.
4.1 It has been demonstrated that a higher value use is
required to deliver viable development and that substantial
employment could be generated in the local area through
the new investment proposed. A mixed use employment/
retail development has the capacity to provide a viable
source of employment land to meet local needs in a much
accelerated timeframe than would otherwise be the case
4.3 The NPPF requires that plans are prepared utilising an
up to date evidence base. It should be noted that the Land
Allocations DPD Consultation report was approved by SLDC
Full Council for consultation on 18th January 2012 however
the updated employment and retail evidence reports were
not published until the commencement of the consultation
period in March 2012. The DPD will need to be reviewed
by the Council in view of this more up to date evidence as
required by national policy. The tests of soundness and their
relationship with the site are considered in further detail
below.
4.4 Whilst the DPD identifies land at Lightburn Road to be
developed for a business/science park, the updated ELR
recommends that this site should focus on delivering local
employment needs, most notably for B1 but potentially other
employment uses. The ELR also recognises that part of the
site may need to released for a higher value use in order
to ensure delivery. These representations confirm that this
is required. Furthermore the work undertaken by Colliers
confirms that the site would be appropriate for B1 and B2
employment uses and for retail development. The Councils
identification of land at Lightburn Road to meet employment
requirements in Ulverston is entirely appropriate based on
the evidence available and is compliant with the requirement
to plan positively for development needs in the area.
4.8 The evidence demonstrates there is a clear need
for further convenience retailing facilities in Ulverston as
acknowledged by the Council’s consultants. The NPPF
requires that Council’s should assess the needs of business
including retail and that land should be allocated where the
evidence suggests this should happen. At present the DPD
does not address the identified need since it makes no land
allocation or other provision.
4.13 The NPPF requires the Council to plan positively
for the future employment and retail needs of Ulverston.
Specifically, paragraph 26 requires that Local Plans should
allocate a range of sites to meet the scale and type of retail
development needed. Accordingly the failure of the Council
to address the need for a store suitable for occupation
by one of the major food retailers would render the plan
unsound in terms of compliance with the NPPF.
4.14 On the basis of the recent evidence published by the
Council, allocation of the West Lodge site to accommodate a
foodstore would evidently meet the requirements of the test
as there are no suitable sites either within or on the edge of
Ulverston to meet the identified retail requirement. It should
also be noted that the site would act as a counterbalance
and help to reduce expenditure leakage to Barrow and
provide for the needs of the new population arising from
substantial new areas of housing in Ulverston as identified in
the DPD.
4.15 Making provision for retail development as part of a
mix of uses would not prejudice the employment objectives
of the Core Strategy for Ulverston or the wider area. The
proposed allocation would provide approximately 2.1ha of
employment land, which, in combination with other identified
sites in Ulverston4 would comfortably exceed the ELR
recommendation to provide a total of 7.2ha of employment
land in the area. In reality, the nature of the allocation sought
would ensure that the quantum of future employment land
in Ulverston is more in line with the recommendations of
the ELR. As identified previously, a foodstore is required
to enable development of the site and will allow the site
to come forward to meet anticipated demand for local
employment needs.
4.18 It should also be noted that whilst not representing a
traditional B use class, retail development in the form of a
foodstore will generate a substantial number of permanent
jobs in Ulverston. This is in keeping with the Core Strategy
objective to grow the local economy in a sustainable manner
and to provide local employment opportunities
4.19...Therefore it can be concluded that a mixed use allocation as
proposed by RP represents the most appropriate strategy
when considered against the reasonable alternatives. It is
also the case that this is justified on the basis of the most up
to date evidence.
4.20 Allocating all of the land shown in the draft masterplan
for mixed use development would ensure the delivery of
sustainable development in this location in the shorter term
and enable viable development of this land to act as an
important resource to meet future local employment needs.
This would ensure the effectiveness of the DPD in this
respect is maximised.
4.23 In summary, a mixed use retail/employment allocation
is deliverable. Conversely, development of the site solely
for employment development would not be deliverable in
the foreseeable future and hence a mixed use allocation
should be made. It has been shown that there is no technical
reason or other advantage to reducing the scope of the
allocation and that appropriate mitigation can be provided
where required. It has been shown that the circumstances
exist to justify this mix of uses which Paragraph 2.38 of the
DPD acknowledges may be required.
4.25 As currently proposed, allocation M11M-mod does
not take account of viability considerations and the costs
of delivering infrastructure which the NPPF requires. The
allocation requires increased flexibility which a mixed use
allocation for retail/employment would achieve thus allowing
the infrastructure investment necessary to unlock the site.
It has been demonstrated that there are no sequential sites
within or on the edge of Ulverston town centre which could
accommodate the requirement for a substantial foodstore
to meet identified needs. Consequently the mixed use
allocation of land at West Lodge would fulfil this requirement
compliant with the sequential test. Sainsbury’s are proposing
a foodstore which is commensurate with the level of need
identified in the updated retail evidence and which would
be supplemented by repatriating the substantial amount of
convenience goods leakage identified.
4.28 This section has demonstrated that the available
evidence and other contextual information clearly
indicates that RP’s proposals for the site meet with
the tests of soundness. Principally the DPD requires
revision in line with the policies of the NPPF to make
provision for local convenience retailing needs in the
form of a retail allocation. The DPD does not comply
with test (i) in that it has not been positively prepared to
meet objectively assessed development requirements.
4.29 It has been shown that to bring the site forward
for development a higher value use in the form of a
foodstore is required. An alternative mix of uses will not
deliver viable development. The proposals will viably
unlock the site to meet local employment requirements.
The scale of employment land required in Ulverston
has been revised downwards from the Core Strategy
requirements but the site is confirmed as being required
to meet anticipated local employment needs.
4.30 A substantial foodstore development in this
location is capable of meeting the sequential test and
would therefore be compliant with the retail policies of
the NPPF. The Council have concluded that the site
is accessible and sustainable. The proposals would
therefore satisfy soundness tests (i) and (ii) in that they
will ensure that the DPD makes appropriate provision
for development requirements in Ulverston and is fully
justified representing the most appropriate strategy on the
basis of the available evidence.
4.31 The proposals are deliverable both in fiscal and
technical terms. There is no sound technical justification
to the proposed reduction in the extent of the site
allocation and therefore land to the west of allocation
M11M-mod should be reinstated as part of the allocation.
Land to the east, which is also available for development
as identified in these representations should also be
incorporated to maximise the planning benefits of
development. The proposed allocation would meet the
third test of soundness as being demonstrably deliverable
(flexible) and hence effective.
5.1 Viability information has demonstrated that a higher
value use is required to deliver the site for employment use.
The mixed use allocation of this land for a foodstore and
employment development would deliver immediate benefits
in terms of retail job opportunities in the new foodstore
and enable the remainder of the site to provide for local
employment needs.
5.2 ...The DPD should be reviewed and amended to ensure that
full provision for development requirements is made.
5.3 Very up to date evidence justifies a change to the
proposed allocation “M11M-mod” to incorporate a higher
value use. There is a pressing requirement for a substantial
foodstore in Ulverston which the DPD does not currently
address. It has been shown that accommodating this
requirement on the land at West Lodge will meet the
employment and retail objectives of the adopted Core
Strategy and would be fully consistent with the NPPF’s
requirement for soundness and other national policies
controlling the location of retail development. The DPD and
its approach to positively meeting development requirements
In Ulverston should therefore be amended and the following
change made
Draft Policy LA1.7: ‘Business and Science Park
Sites’ should be amended so that in addition to
B1 development being listed as an acceptable
use the DPD should also make reference to the
requirement for ‘A1 retail development’ in the
form of a new foodstore which is essential to
the viable and timely delivery of much needed
economic development in Ulverston. The
allocation should be expanded to include all of
the land identified in the enclosed masterplan
which is available for development.
5.4 This change is entirely justified on the basis of very up
to date evidence. The Council have rightly concluded that
none of the site performs a role as Green Gap and therefore
the entire site should be allocated in order to maximise
the benefits of sustainable development and economic
growth to Ulverston. To ensure compliance with the tests of
soundness, the allocation should be revised as identified.