Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Kendal sites

Suggested housing site at NAtland Road, Kendal

Yes

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

The site should be allocated for housing - see detailed representations below.


Representations on Behalf of Newclose Properties Limited
Site at Natland Road, Kendal
1. These representations are made on behalf of Newclose Properties Limited and relate to part of a site identified as EEA25 in the Land Allocations Development Plan Document (the DPD). Within the DPD the site is identified for economic development. Separate representations have been submitted explaining why that economic development is not sound. These representations are made on the basis that identification of the site for housing development is a reasonable alternative and is, in fact, the most appropriate strategy for this particular site.
2. The NPPF (paragraph 182) sets out the matters that will be considered through Local Plan Examination, namely:
• 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 would 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.
3. We believe that changes to the DPD are required in order to make it sound. As currently drafted we do not believe that the housing aspects of the DPD represent a plan which is positively prepared or which is consistent with national policy. In particular the LPA faces significant challenges associated with housing delivery (including a past record of under-delivery) and it is imperative that the policy framework in the DPD promotes and encourages the early delivery of new housing.
4. The following aspects of the NPPF are particularly relevant:
• Paragraph 47 – “To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:
- use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, so far as is consistent with the policies set out in this framework, including identifying sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;
- identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planning supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;
- identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15;
- for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and
- set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.”
5. South Lakeland District Council is in a position where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. That is clear if one considers the five year housing land position (based on the most up-to-date information) for South Lakeland. We have utilised the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 as the most up-to-date information. Table 4.1 has been utilised as the basis for our assessment.
Annual Requirement 2003-2011 (8 years) = 3,200 (400 p.a.)
Net Completions 2003-2011 (8 years) = 1,690 (211 p.a.)
Shortfall – 1,511 dwellings
Five Year Requirement – 3,510 (1,510 shortfall plus 5 x 400)
• annual requirement – 702
Sites with Planning Permission – 947
That represents a mere 1.35 year supply of sites in terms of committed sites with planning permission. Even if one adds in 94 dwellings on sites in progress through the planning system only 1,041 dwellings are likely, or a 1.48 year supply.
The 2,677 SHLAA Category 1 sites are effectively “windfall” sites at this stage, and should not be considered to be deliverable. They should not be relied upon as a committed source of housing supply.
Despite the best efforts of the author of the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 we do not believe that Table 4.1 provides a realistic and robust assessment of the five year supply position.
6. That record of under delivery is also clear from the table provided at paragraph 2.8 of the DPD. It is of concern that paragraph 2.8 refers to the “ambition to deliver 400 dwellings per year between 2003 and 2025.” That term “ambition” is also used within Table 1A of the DPD.
For clarity Policy CS 6.1 of the adopted Core Strategy sets a “housing requirement” of 400 dwellings which should be met. The DPD should properly recognise that requirement as such and not refer to it as an ambition. The DPD must clearly and unequivocally ensure that the full objectively assessed need for new housing is planned for and met if it is to accord with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.
7. Furthermore, because of the record of persistent under delivery the DPD should seek to ensure that five years worth supply of sites for housing plus a 20% buffer is provided for (moved forward from later in the plan period).
8. Other parties will be making combined representations for Newclose Properties Limited and other Cumbria house builders suggesting that the DPD is not sound because it does not provide a policy framework which will meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in South Lakeland. We concur with those general representations. As a result it will be necessary, in our view, for additional deliverable sites to be identified in the DPD, in particular to meet the short term needs generated by the historic pattern of under delivery.
9. It is clear that the site is a suitable one for residential development. It is previously developed land within the defined urban area of Kendal, which is a Principal Service Centre to which development and growth is directed.
10. The suitability of the site for housing development is confirmed by the fact that it is identified in the Council’s latest Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) as a Category 2 site – such sites are deemed suitable for housing but deliverability may be subject to certain constraints.
The site is identified in the SHLAA and it is classified as a Category 2 site in the SHLAA – i.e. sites with constraints but which still appear to be achievable/deliverable. It is important to consider the SHLAA as a fundamental part of the evidence base and to understand the process of assessment which was followed. A key part of the assessment of the suitability of sites for new housing undertaken by the SHLAA exercise was to consider which historic employment sites could be considered potentially surplus to requirements for economic/employment development. The following elements of the SHLAA are important in understanding what types of site were ultimately identified as being suitable and developable for housing;
• Paragraph 4.15 – the sources of potential housing sites were considered including: employment and open space sites that are considered to be potentially surplus.

• Paragraph 4.16 – the initial list of 800 sites was compiled from the various sources listed above in paragraph 4.15 (including employment sites considered to be potentially surplus). That list of 800 sites was then whittled down by the removal of duplicate sites, sites which officers from the Council considered to have no realistic prospects for housing, and sites outside existing settlement boundaries.

• Paragraph 4.17 – following site visits and further detailed consultation with the Council, it was agreed that a further 118 sites should be excluded. As a result a nil yield was applied to a number of sites including those “in active employment uses and SLDC consider that this should remain the case.”

Following those aspects of the assessment the site subject of these representations (identified by reference 786 in the SHLAA documents) was identified as a Category 2 site with a potential yield of 9 dwellings. It must be the case therefore, that it was (and is) considered by the consultants undertaking the SHLAA and the Local Planning Authority to be a historic employment site which is potentially surplus, which is not in active use and which the Local Planning Authority does not consider must remain in employment use.

Paragraph 6.11 of the SHLAA confirms that Category 2 sites have a limited level of constraints such that they are likely to be available for delivery after the first five years. That said paragraph 6.15 of the SHLAA confirms that sites assigned to a lower category band can come forward and can be allocated in the LDF if it can be demonstrated that constraints could be overcome to secure delivery. In the case of the representation site there are no insuperable physical or technical constraints which would prevent allocation and development of the site for housing. The land owner is positively seeking a housing allocation so that delivery is assured.
11. The evidence within the SHLAA confirms at the very least that residential development of the site represents a “reasonable alternative” as set out in paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework. We believe that the balance of the evidence and market signals suggest that housing is the most appropriate strategy, not least because it represents a strategy which is deliverable.
12. For these reasons the Newclose Properties Land at Natland Road should be allocated for housing development under Policy LA 1.3: Housing Allocations.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspector's understanding of the key issues.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.5 Existing Employment Areas - EEA25 KENDAL RIVERSIDE BUSINESS PARK (incl. Vacant sites)

Yes

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

Representations on Behalf of Newclose Properties Limited
Site at Natland Road, Kendal


These representations are made on behalf of Newclose Properties Limited and relate to an area of land which forms part of the site EEA25 within the Local Plan Allocations Development Plan Document (the DPD). These representations object to the DPD on the basis that it is not sound. In particular the representations challenge the robustness of the evidence base provided by the South Lakeland District Employment Land Review 2012 insofar as it relates to our clients site at Natland Road.

The site is vacant and disused and has been since 2003. That has been the case despite the active efforts of the site owners to market and develop the site for economic development over that 9 year period. That has included significant investment of time and resources to secure a number of planning permissions (speculative and bespoke) for a range of economic development proposals. The site has not proven attractive to the market even through the more buoyant economic period during 2003 – 2007. Reasons put forward by local companies for their lack of appetite for the site include:
• Poor commercial location:
• Limited access for larger commercial vehicles;
• Onerous operating hours conditions on planning permissions;
• Proximity to the River Kent generating concerns about potential pollution issues.

On the basis of the clear market signals the owners are promoting the site as a potential housing site (through the LDF/DPD process and via a planning application). For the reasons set out below the evidence base is flawed in respect of our client’s site, and the employment allocations derived from it are not sound as they are not justified (not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, and not based on proportionate evidence), are not effective (the economic development is not deliverable), and are not consistent with national policy (they will not enable delivery of sustainable development).


On a general note our concerns relate to the way the site assessments within the Employment Land Review appear to have been undertaken. We note that the Introduction to the document indicates that it has been prepared in accordance with the ODPM Guidance Note: Employment Land Reviews (December 2004) and that it is intended to deliver a rigorous and realistic market based assessment.

However, we feel that we must raise serious concerns in respect of the absence of the involvement of key stakeholders (e.g. developers and landowners) as required by the ODPM Guidance Note. The ODPM Guidance Note has a section on “Involving Key Stakeholders”. In respect of our clients land there is little, or any, suggestion that the ODPM Guidance Note was adopted and followed in the production of the Employment Land Review. The ODPM Guidance Note contains the following relevant guidance:

• “3.13 Recent policy and practice reforms have placed greater emphasis on consultation and partnership with wider interest groups, including engaging with the business sector at all stages in the planning process…..

PPS 12 stresses the importance of inviting developers and landowners to bring forward specific site proposals at an early stage to avoid “new” sites being brought forward at the public examination.”

• “3.14 When developing the ‘evidence base’ for policies, it is important that authorities understand private sector aspirations and market realities. Deliverability is an important consideration alongside other policy objectives. The involvement of the business community will help to inject market realism and ‘real time’ analysis of the suitability of sites compared to perceived market demand.”

• “3.19 Individual LDF authorities (and sub-regional groups) undertaking employment land reviews need to consider how to involve both the community and stakeholder groups in the process. These arrangements need to be consistent with the overall arrangements for consultation on the LDF set out in the Statement of Community Involvement.”

“In Stage 1 it will be appropriate to involve representative groups and those involved professionally in property development in determining the brief for the employment land review and (possibly on a confidential basis) the review of individual sites."

• “3.20 In Stage 3, authorities will need to consider when and how to involve individual landowners, developers and community groups…..

Paragraph 4.11 of PPS 12 refers to the need to seek involvement of relevant groups and organisations in the development of the evidence base, and further guidance is available in Creating Local Development Frameworks”.

It appears to us that the Employment Land Review does not accord with these aspects of the ODPM Guidance Note. For example, the Methodology section of the document does not refer to any tangible involvement of key stakeholders as required by the ODPM Guidance Note. Stage 1 refers to an initial assessment being carried out as a desk top study and site inspections. It does not appear that there was any engagement with developers, landowners or property professionals at this stage. Again at Stages 2 and 3 it does not appear that such stakeholders were involved in the process in terms of providing empirical factual information or market demand.

In the context of the ODPM Guidance Note, paragraph 3.14, it is worrying that the site assessments undertaken as part of the preparation of the Employment Land Review were based on site visits where “A site proforma was completed for each site recording the physical characteristics of the site, suitability for development, observations of development or marketing activity and perceptions about potential market interest.” That approach does not, in our view, sit well with the guidance at paragraph 3.14 of the ODPM Guidance Note which indicates that “The involvement of the business community will help to inject market realism and ‘real time’ analysis of the suitability of sites compared to perceived market demand.”

It cannot be claimed that the Employment Land Review takes any account of market realism or ‘real time’ analysis when it is self-evidently based on perceptions about potential market interest rather than first hand knowledge of marketing activity and interest.

On a site specific note our clients have noted the information provided at paragraph 6.9 of the Employment Land Review on letting patterns and rental values at the Riverside Business Park, which they own and operate. I am advised that the information at paragraph 6.9 is not correct and that it was not provided to the Council (or its consultants) by our client.

You will appreciate our concerns in respect of this important part of the evidence base. In order for the Council, other interested parties and, ultimately an Examination Inspector to have confidence in an evidence base document we believe that its production must demonstrably accord with the ODPM Guidance Note. Unfortunately we do not believe that the Employment Land Review has been produced in accordance with the ODPM Guidance Note, and as a result its findings and conclusions in respect of the Natland Road site must be called into question.

The employment allocation (existing and proposed) should be deleted from the DPD.

Further email clarification of site reference - see text below (and attached plan):

We have submitted a number of representations on behalf of Newclose Properties in respect of land at Natland Road, Kendal. Based on the published documents and the evidence base there may be distinct areas relevant to the separate representations.. For example I believe that the site we are promoting as a housing allocation may differ from the site which is ‘safeguarded’ for employment development by Policy LA1.5.

I have attached our plan (SAA 1761.01) indicates the land which we are promoting as a housing allocation through representations. The other plan I have attached is the plan provided by the Council (ref 5/204) indicating the extent of the employment site referred to in the Employment Land Review. It did strike me that this plan was possibly the product of a desk exercise rather than a site specific assessment on the ground.

For the purposes of the representation our plan SAA 1761.01 should be utilised, but you will appreciate the confusion when the Employment Land Review makes reference to only a part of that site.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspector's understanding of the key issues and to robustly articulate the objectors case

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.5 Existing Employment Areas

Yes

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

Representations on Behalf of Newclose Properties Limited
Site at Natland Road, Kendal.
________________________________________________________________

1. These representations are made on behalf of Newclose Properties Limited and relate to an area of land identified as part of a site EEA25 within the Land Allocation Development Plan Document (the DPD).

2. The site is owned by Newclose Properties Limited. Historically the site was in industrial/commercial use as part of the K Shoes factory. However, the site has been dis-used/vacant since 2003. That continuing vacancy and lack of active use has persisted despite the active efforts of the site owners to market and develop the site for economic development over the intervening nine year period. That has included significant investment of time and resources to secure a number of planning permissions (speculative and bespoke) for a range of economic development proposals.

3. The site has not proven attractive to the market even through the more buoyant economic period during 2003-2007. Reasons put forward by local companies for their lack of appetite for the site include:

• Poor commercial location;
• Limited access for larger commercial vehicles;
• Onerous operating hours conditions on planning permissions;
• Proximity to the River Kent generating concerns about potential pollution issues.
On the basis of the clear market signals the owners are promoting the site as a potential housing site (through the LDF/DPD process and via a planning application). For the reasons set out below in these representations Policy LA1.5 of the DPD is not sound. In particular it does not satisfy the various tests for examination set out in Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF).
4. Policy LA1.5 of the DPD is flawed in two fundamental respects:

(i) When considered alongside the proposed new employment/economic development allocation in Policies LA1.6, LA1.7 and LA1.8 the overall supply of economic development land is significantly in excess of the objectively assessed needs;

(ii) It does not avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of sites being used for that purpose.

In those respects it is not based on proportionate evidence, it is not justified and it is not consistent with national planning policy.

5. The following aspects of NPPF are relevant:

• The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 14 applies equally to plan making and 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.

• Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 core planning principles one of which states that planning should:
“Proactively drive and support the sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities;”
• In the context of planning for a strong, competitive economy local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business. However, paragraph 22 of NPPF states:
“Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.”
• The “Plan Making” section of NPPF provides policy guidance on the use of a proportionate evidence base including in the context of business. Paragraph 160 stresses the need for local authorities to work closely with the business community to understand their changing needs and address and identify barriers to investment, including a lack of housing, infrastructure or viability.

• Paragraph 161 of NPPF stresses that – “Reviews of land available for economic development should be undertaken at the same time as, or combined with, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and should include a reappraisal of the suitability of previously allocated land.”

6. In our view the production of the current DPD is an appropriate opportunity to review the allocation of our clients land at Natland Road. Separate representations indicate that there are no reasonable prospects of the site being used for the allocated employment use. The Council’s 2012 Employment Land Review is flawed in the way it has assessed the site in question, in that it has no regard to the clear market signals relating to the site.

7. Furthermore, it is clear that it is not necessary for the site (or at least our client’s part of it) to be formally allocated for economic/employment development in order to ensure that the objectively assessed need for employment land is satisfied. That is because there is a clear and significant over-provision in the DPD in terms of employment land when considered against the 2012 Employment Land Review. Two of the key purposes of the 2012 review were to quantify the need for new employment/economic development allocations, and to review and advise on the suitability, market attractiveness and deliverability of the sites currently suggested for employment/economic development uses in the Spring 2012 Emerging Options Land Allocations DPD.

Separate representations question the robustness of the 2012 review in respect of the site at Natland Road not least because the 2012 review seems to consider a 0.29 ha portion of the wider site which has an area of 0.75 ha. That of itself indicates a lack of appreciation of the physical site characteristics and context and the recent planning history.

8. Notwithstanding those concerns the 2012 Employment Land Review presents a number of conclusions regarding employment land needs and requirements for South Lakeland. For the period 2010-2025 the employment forecast based projections suggest a total requirement of just 6.2 ha. However, based on a historic annual take up of just less than 2 ha per year, and providing an additional allowance of 20% for choice and competition, a total requirement of 36 ha of employment land is identified for the plan period 2010-2025.

9. If one contrasts that objectively assessed requirement and additional 20% allowance (36 ha) with what the DPD provides for there is a significant over-provision. If one considers initially all of the new employment land allocations provided for by Policies LA1.6, LA1.7 and LA1.8 of the DPD the following picture is evident.

South Kendal
Lakeland

LA1.6
Strategic Employment Sites 24.3 ha 17.9 ha

LA1.6
Business and Science Park Sites 9.62 ha 6.52 ha

LA1.7
Local Employment Allocations 31.81 ha 7.42 ha

TOTALS 65.73 31.84


10. It is clear, therefore, that the DPD is making adequate provision for employment land to meet the objectively assessed needs for the Plan period. What is most encouraging is that many of the proposed allocations are responding to clear market signals for good quality, highly accessible and flexible land allocations which can meet the broad spectrum of requirements.

11. In addition to those allocations Policy LA1.5 identifies a further 159.4 ha across South Lakeland (54.96 ha in Kendal) in the form of “Existing Employment Areas”. The original 2005 Employment Land Premises Study recognised the physical and commercial market constraints of many of those existing sites. In our view it is unnecessary for Policy LA1.5 to contain a presumption in favour retention of all of the identified sites. Such an approach is, in our view, in conflict with the policy at paragraph 22 of NPPF.

In our view it is self-evident that the “loss” of some those sites would not compromise the District’s supply of employment land and premises.

12. We are aware of a perception that South Lakeland in general and Kendal in particular, has a limited supply of employment sites. However, when set against the objectively assessed requirement of 26 ha for the period 2010-2025 that is clearly not the case. In those circumstances the blanket retention of the LA1.5 sites in employment use is not justified, and Policy LA1.5 is, in our view, unsound.

13. We believe that Policy LA1.5 should be deleted from the DPD or be drastically amended to more closely reflect the national policy in NPPF.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspector's understanding of the key issues and to robustly articulate the objectors case

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - Site Omission

R49, R536 and part of EEA25

Yes

No

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.

Representations on Behalf of Newclose Properties Limited
Site at Natland Road, Kendal
1. These representations are made on behalf of Newclose Properties Limited and relate to part of a site identified as EEA25 in the Land Allocations Development Plan Document (the DPD). Within the DPD the site is identified for economic development. Separate representations have been submitted explaining why that economic development is not sound. These representations are made on the basis that identification of the site for housing development is a reasonable alternative and is, in fact, the most appropriate strategy for this particular site.
2. The NPPF (paragraph 182) sets out the matters that will be considered through Local Plan Examination, namely:
• 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 would 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.
3. We believe that changes to the DPD are required in order to make it sound. As currently drafted we do not believe that the housing aspects of the DPD represent a plan which is positively prepared or which is consistent with national policy. In particular the LPA faces significant challenges associated with housing delivery (including a past record of under-delivery) and it is imperative that the policy framework in the DPD promotes and encourages the early delivery of new housing.
4. The following aspects of the NPPF are particularly relevant:
• Paragraph 47 – “To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:
- use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, so far as is consistent with the policies set out in this framework, including identifying sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;
- identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planning supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;
- identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15;
- for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and
- set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.”
5. South Lakeland District Council is in a position where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. That is clear if one considers the five year housing land position (based on the most up-to-date information) for South Lakeland. We have utilised the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 as the most up-to-date information. Table 4.1 has been utilised as the basis for our assessment.
Annual Requirement 2003-2011 (8 years) = 3,200 (400 p.a.)
Net Completions 2003-2011 (8 years) = 1,690 (211 p.a.)
Shortfall – 1,511 dwellings
Five Year Requirement – 3,510 (1,510 shortfall plus 5 x 400)
• annual requirement – 702
Sites with Planning Permission – 947
That represents a mere 1.35 year supply of sites in terms of committed sites with planning permission. Even if one adds in 94 dwellings on sites in progress through the planning system only 1,041 dwellings are likely, or a 1.48 year supply.
The 2,677 SHLAA Category 1 sites are effectively “windfall” sites at this stage, and should not be considered to be deliverable. They should not be relied upon as a committed source of housing supply.
Despite the best efforts of the author of the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 we do not believe that Table 4.1 provides a realistic and robust assessment of the five year supply position.
6. That record of under delivery is also clear from the table provided at paragraph 2.8 of the DPD. It is of concern that paragraph 2.8 refers to the “ambition to deliver 400 dwellings per year between 2003 and 2025.” That term “ambition” is also used within Table 1A of the DPD.
For clarity Policy CS 6.1 of the adopted Core Strategy sets a “housing requirement” of 400 dwellings which should be met. The DPD should properly recognise that requirement as such and not refer to it as an ambition. The DPD must clearly and unequivocally ensure that the full objectively assessed need for new housing is planned for and met if it is to accord with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.
7. Furthermore, because of the record of persistent under delivery the DPD should seek to ensure that five years worth supply of sites for housing plus a 20% buffer is provided for (moved forward from later in the plan period).
8. Other parties will be making combined representations for Newclose Properties Limited and other Cumbria house builders suggesting that the DPD is not sound because it does not provide a policy framework which will meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in South Lakeland. We concur with those general representations. As a result it will be necessary, in our view, for additional deliverable sites to be identified in the DPD, in particular to meet the short term needs generated by the historic pattern of under delivery.
9. It is clear that the site is a suitable one for residential development. It is previously developed land within the defined urban area of Kendal, which is a Principal Service Centre to which development and growth is directed.
10. The suitability of the site for housing development is confirmed by the fact that it is identified in the Council’s latest Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) as a Category 2 site – such sites are deemed suitable for housing but deliverability may be subject to certain constraints.
The site is identified in the SHLAA and it is classified as a Category 2 site in the SHLAA – i.e. sites with constraints but which still appear to be achievable/deliverable. It is important to consider the SHLAA as a fundamental part of the evidence base and to understand the process of assessment which was followed. A key part of the assessment of the suitability of sites for new housing undertaken by the SHLAA exercise was to consider which historic employment sites could be considered potentially surplus to requirements for economic/employment development. The following elements of the SHLAA are important in understanding what types of site were ultimately identified as being suitable and developable for housing;
• Paragraph 4.15 – the sources of potential housing sites were considered including: employment and open space sites that are considered to be potentially surplus.

• Paragraph 4.16 – the initial list of 800 sites was compiled from the various sources listed above in paragraph 4.15 (including employment sites considered to be potentially surplus). That list of 800 sites was then whittled down by the removal of duplicate sites, sites which officers from the Council considered to have no realistic prospects for housing, and sites outside existing settlement boundaries.

• Paragraph 4.17 – following site visits and further detailed consultation with the Council, it was agreed that a further 118 sites should be excluded. As a result a nil yield was applied to a number of sites including those “in active employment uses and SLDC consider that this should remain the case.”

Following those aspects of the assessment the site subject of these representations (identified by reference 786 in the SHLAA documents) was identified as a Category 2 site with a potential yield of 9 dwellings. It must be the case therefore, that it was (and is) considered by the consultants undertaking the SHLAA and the Local Planning Authority to be a historic employment site which is potentially surplus, which is not in active use and which the Local Planning Authority does not consider must remain in employment use.

Paragraph 6.11 of the SHLAA confirms that Category 2 sites have a limited level of constraints such that they are likely to be available for delivery after the first five years. That said paragraph 6.15 of the SHLAA confirms that sites assigned to a lower category band can come forward and can be allocated in the LDF if it can be demonstrated that constraints could be overcome to secure delivery. In the case of the representation site there are no insuperable physical or technical constraints which would prevent allocation and development of the site for housing. The land owner is positively seeking a housing allocation so that delivery is assured.
11. The evidence within the SHLAA confirms at the very least that residential development of the site represents a “reasonable alternative” as set out in paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework. We believe that the balance of the evidence and market signals suggest that housing is the most appropriate strategy, not least because it represents a strategy which is deliverable.
12. For these reasons the Newclose Properties Land at Natland Road should be allocated for housing development under Policy LA 1.3: Housing Allocations.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspector's understanding of the key issues.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

2.18

Yes

No

The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

Representations on Behalf of Newclose Properties Limited
Site at Natland Road, Kendal
1. These representations are made on behalf of Newclose Properties Limited and relate to part of a site identified as EEA25 in the Land Allocations Development Plan Document (the DPD). Within the DPD the site is identified for economic development. Separate representations have been submitted explaining why that economic development is not sound. These representations are made on the basis that identification of the site for housing development is a reasonable alternative and is, in fact, the most appropriate strategy for this particular site.
2. The NPPF (paragraph 182) sets out the matters that will be considered through Local Plan Examination, namely:
• 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 would 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.
3. We believe that changes to the DPD are required in order to make it sound. As currently drafted we do not believe that the housing aspects of the DPD represent a plan which is positively prepared or which is consistent with national policy. In particular the LPA faces significant challenges associated with housing delivery (including a past record of under-delivery) and it is imperative that the policy framework in the DPD promotes and encourages the early delivery of new housing.
4. The following aspects of the NPPF are particularly relevant:
• Paragraph 47 – “To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:
- use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, so far as is consistent with the policies set out in this framework, including identifying sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;
- identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planning supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;
- identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15;
- for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and
- set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.”
5. South Lakeland District Council is in a position where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. That is clear if one considers the five year housing land position (based on the most up-to-date information) for South Lakeland. We have utilised the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 as the most up-to-date information. Table 4.1 has been utilised as the basis for our assessment.
Annual Requirement 2003-2011 (8 years) = 3,200 (400 p.a.)
Net Completions 2003-2011 (8 years) = 1,690 (211 p.a.)
Shortfall – 1,511 dwellings
Five Year Requirement – 3,510 (1,510 shortfall plus 5 x 400)
• annual requirement – 702
Sites with Planning Permission – 947
That represents a mere 1.35 year supply of sites in terms of committed sites with planning permission. Even if one adds in 94 dwellings on sites in progress through the planning system only 1,041 dwellings are likely, or a 1.48 year supply.
The 2,677 SHLAA Category 1 sites are effectively “windfall” sites at this stage, and should not be considered to be deliverable. They should not be relied upon as a committed source of housing supply.
Despite the best efforts of the author of the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 we do not believe that Table 4.1 provides a realistic and robust assessment of the five year supply position.
6. That record of under delivery is also clear from the table provided at paragraph 2.8 of the DPD. It is of concern that paragraph 2.8 refers to the “ambition to deliver 400 dwellings per year between 2003 and 2025.” That term “ambition” is also used within Table 1A of the DPD.
For clarity Policy CS 6.1 of the adopted Core Strategy sets a “housing requirement” of 400 dwellings which should be met. The DPD should properly recognise that requirement as such and not refer to it as an ambition. The DPD must clearly and unequivocally ensure that the full objectively assessed need for new housing is planned for and met if it is to accord with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.
7. Furthermore, because of the record of persistent under delivery the DPD should seek to ensure that five years worth supply of sites for housing plus a 20% buffer is provided for (moved forward from later in the plan period).
8. Other parties will be making combined representations for Newclose Properties Limited and other Cumbria house builders suggesting that the DPD is not sound because it does not provide a policy framework which will meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in South Lakeland. We concur with those general representations. As a result it will be necessary, in our view, for additional deliverable sites to be identified in the DPD, in particular to meet the short term needs generated by the historic pattern of under delivery.
9. It is clear that the site is a suitable one for residential development. It is previously developed land within the defined urban area of Kendal, which is a Principal Service Centre to which development and growth is directed.
10. The suitability of the site for housing development is confirmed by the fact that it is identified in the Council’s latest Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) as a Category 2 site – such sites are deemed suitable for housing but deliverability may be subject to certain constraints.
The site is identified in the SHLAA and it is classified as a Category 2 site in the SHLAA – i.e. sites with constraints but which still appear to be achievable/deliverable. It is important to consider the SHLAA as a fundamental part of the evidence base and to understand the process of assessment which was followed. A key part of the assessment of the suitability of sites for new housing undertaken by the SHLAA exercise was to consider which historic employment sites could be considered potentially surplus to requirements for economic/employment development. The following elements of the SHLAA are important in understanding what types of site were ultimately identified as being suitable and developable for housing;
• Paragraph 4.15 – the sources of potential housing sites were considered including: employment and open space sites that are considered to be potentially surplus.

• Paragraph 4.16 – the initial list of 800 sites was compiled from the various sources listed above in paragraph 4.15 (including employment sites considered to be potentially surplus). That list of 800 sites was then whittled down by the removal of duplicate sites, sites which officers from the Council considered to have no realistic prospects for housing, and sites outside existing settlement boundaries.

• Paragraph 4.17 – following site visits and further detailed consultation with the Council, it was agreed that a further 118 sites should be excluded. As a result a nil yield was applied to a number of sites including those “in active employment uses and SLDC consider that this should remain the case.”

Following those aspects of the assessment the site subject of these representations (identified by reference 786 in the SHLAA documents) was identified as a Category 2 site with a potential yield of 9 dwellings. It must be the case therefore, that it was (and is) considered by the consultants undertaking the SHLAA and the Local Planning Authority to be a historic employment site which is potentially surplus, which is not in active use and which the Local Planning Authority does not consider must remain in employment use.

Paragraph 6.11 of the SHLAA confirms that Category 2 sites have a limited level of constraints such that they are likely to be available for delivery after the first five years. That said paragraph 6.15 of the SHLAA confirms that sites assigned to a lower category band can come forward and can be allocated in the LDF if it can be demonstrated that constraints could be overcome to secure delivery. In the case of the representation site there are no insuperable physical or technical constraints which would prevent allocation and development of the site for housing. The land owner is positively seeking a housing allocation so that delivery is assured.
11. The evidence within the SHLAA confirms at the very least that residential development of the site represents a “reasonable alternative” as set out in paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework. We believe that the balance of the evidence and market signals suggest that housing is the most appropriate strategy, not least because it represents a strategy which is deliverable.
12. For these reasons the Newclose Properties Land at Natland Road should be allocated for housing development under Policy LA 1.3: Housing Allocations.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspector's understanding of the key issues.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

2.43

Yes

No

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.

Representations on Behalf of Newclose Properties Limited
Site at Natland Road, Kendal


These representations are made on behalf of Newclose Properties Limited and relate to an area of land which forms part of the site EEA25 within the Local Plan Allocations Development Plan Document (the DPD). These representations object to the DPD on the basis that it is not sound. In particular the representations challenge the robustness of the evidence base provided by the South Lakeland District Employment Land Review 2012 insofar as it relates to our clients site at Natland Road.

The site is vacant and disused and has been since 2003. That has been the case despite the active efforts of the site owners to market and develop the site for economic development over that 9 year period. That has included significant investment of time and resources to secure a number of planning permissions (speculative and bespoke) for a range of economic development proposals. The site has not proven attractive to the market even through the more buoyant economic period during 2003 – 2007. Reasons put forward by local companies for their lack of appetite for the site include:
• Poor commercial location:
• Limited access for larger commercial vehicles;
• Onerous operating hours conditions on planning permissions;
• Proximity to the River Kent generating concerns about potential pollution issues.

On the basis of the clear market signals the owners are promoting the site as a potential housing site (through the LDF/DPD process and via a planning application). For the reasons set out below the evidence base is flawed in respect of our client’s site, and the employment allocations derived from it are not sound as they are not justified (not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, and not based on proportionate evidence), are not effective (the economic development is not deliverable), and are not consistent with national policy (they will not enable delivery of sustainable development).


On a general note our concerns relate to the way the site assessments within the Employment Land Review appear to have been undertaken. We note that the Introduction to the document indicates that it has been prepared in accordance with the ODPM Guidance Note: Employment Land Reviews (December 2004) and that it is intended to deliver a rigorous and realistic market based assessment.

However, we feel that we must raise serious concerns in respect of the absence of the involvement of key stakeholders (e.g. developers and landowners) as required by the ODPM Guidance Note. The ODPM Guidance Note has a section on “Involving Key Stakeholders”. In respect of our clients land there is little, or any, suggestion that the ODPM Guidance Note was adopted and followed in the production of the Employment Land Review. The ODPM Guidance Note contains the following relevant guidance:

• “3.13 Recent policy and practice reforms have placed greater emphasis on consultation and partnership with wider interest groups, including engaging with the business sector at all stages in the planning process…..

PPS 12 stresses the importance of inviting developers and landowners to bring forward specific site proposals at an early stage to avoid “new” sites being brought forward at the public examination.”

• “3.14 When developing the ‘evidence base’ for policies, it is important that authorities understand private sector aspirations and market realities. Deliverability is an important consideration alongside other policy objectives. The involvement of the business community will help to inject market realism and ‘real time’ analysis of the suitability of sites compared to perceived market demand.”

• “3.19 Individual LDF authorities (and sub-regional groups) undertaking employment land reviews need to consider how to involve both the community and stakeholder groups in the process. These arrangements need to be consistent with the overall arrangements for consultation on the LDF set out in the Statement of Community Involvement.”

“In Stage 1 it will be appropriate to involve representative groups and those involved professionally in property development in determining the brief for the employment land review and (possibly on a confidential basis) the review of individual sites."

• “3.20 In Stage 3, authorities will need to consider when and how to involve individual landowners, developers and community groups…..

Paragraph 4.11 of PPS 12 refers to the need to seek involvement of relevant groups and organisations in the development of the evidence base, and further guidance is available in Creating Local Development Frameworks”.

It appears to us that the Employment Land Review does not accord with these aspects of the ODPM Guidance Note. For example, the Methodology section of the document does not refer to any tangible involvement of key stakeholders as required by the ODPM Guidance Note. Stage 1 refers to an initial assessment being carried out as a desk top study and site inspections. It does not appear that there was any engagement with developers, landowners or property professionals at this stage. Again at Stages 2 and 3 it does not appear that such stakeholders were involved in the process in terms of providing empirical factual information or market demand.

In the context of the ODPM Guidance Note, paragraph 3.14, it is worrying that the site assessments undertaken as part of the preparation of the Employment Land Review were based on site visits where “A site proforma was completed for each site recording the physical characteristics of the site, suitability for development, observations of development or marketing activity and perceptions about potential market interest.” That approach does not, in our view, sit well with the guidance at paragraph 3.14 of the ODPM Guidance Note which indicates that “The involvement of the business community will help to inject market realism and ‘real time’ analysis of the suitability of sites compared to perceived market demand.”

It cannot be claimed that the Employment Land Review takes any account of market realism or ‘real time’ analysis when it is self-evidently based on perceptions about potential market interest rather than first hand knowledge of marketing activity and interest.

On a site specific note our clients have noted the information provided at paragraph 6.9 of the Employment Land Review on letting patterns and rental values at the Riverside Business Park, which they own and operate. I am advised that the information at paragraph 6.9 is not correct and that it was not provided to the Council (or its consultants) by our client.

You will appreciate our concerns in respect of this important part of the evidence base. In order for the Council, other interested parties and, ultimately an Examination Inspector to have confidence in an evidence base document we believe that its production must demonstrably accord with the ODPM Guidance Note. Unfortunately we do not believe that the Employment Land Review has been produced in accordance with the ODPM Guidance Note, and as a result its findings and conclusions in respect of the Natland Road site must be called into question.

The employment allocation (existing and proposed) should be deleted from the DPD.

Further email clarification of site reference - see text below (and attached plan):

We have submitted a number of representations on behalf of Newclose Properties in respect of land at Natland Road, Kendal. Based on the published documents and the evidence base there may be distinct areas relevant to the separate representations.. For example I believe that the site we are promoting as a housing allocation may differ from the site which is ‘safeguarded’ for employment development by Policy LA1.5.

I have attached our plan (SAA 1761.01) indicates the land which we are promoting as a housing allocation through representations. The other plan I have attached is the plan provided by the Council (ref 5/204) indicating the extent of the employment site referred to in the Employment Land Review. It did strike me that this plan was possibly the product of a desk exercise rather than a site specific assessment on the ground.

For the purposes of the representation our plan SAA 1761.01 should be utilised, but you will appreciate the confusion when the Employment Land Review makes reference to only a part of that site.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspector's understanding of the key issues and to robustly articulate the objectors case

Please notify me