5 responses from Ellis Family , c/o Walker Morris
1. Ellis Family , c/o Walker Morris : 24 Apr 2012 11:17:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations
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.
We act on behalf of the Ellis family ("our Clients") who own land to the north west of Kendal known as land West of High Sparrowmire (RNJ69M + RN299#). The Council has proposed that the site be allocated for residential development and our Clients fully support this decision. However we have two specific suggested changes to make to the contents of the DPD as set out below.
Phasing of Development
Paragraph 2.29 of the DPD states that " ... indicative phasing has been identified based on the following factors:
• Infrastructure Capacity
• Development Management Issues
• Constraints
• Whether sites are immediately developable"
However, policy LA 1.3: Housing Allocations sets out the sites that are proposed for allocation along with the proposed phasing. We suggest that the word "indicative" is inserted before "phase" in the final column to ensure that the phasing is not seen as a barrier to future development where it is clear that a site is deliverable, and also to accord with paragraph 2.29. Paragraph 50 (third bullet point) confirms need for flexibility through the plan period. Prescriptive phasing policies would negate this principle. Given the
overall scale of need and the relatively modest scale of supply to meet it, it would be unsound to introduce fixed phasing policies for any site or sites...............
In order to meet the annual requirement for housing delivery in Kendal it is important that polices in the DPD are not seen to restrict development. The''N'ational Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") at paragraph 47 states that "Local Planning Authorities should boost significantly the supply of housing". This again reinforces our suggestion to include the word "indicative" into the table in policy LA 1.3 to allow deliverable sites to come forward earlier in the plan period than may be indicated by the phasing...
In summary, we do not consider the DPD to be generally unsound but recommend that two changes are made: adding the word "indicative" to that final column in policy LAI.3; and to change the wording of policy LA2.1 so that other solutions can be investigated in order for the site to come forward for development.
2. Ellis Family , c/o Walker Morris : 24 Apr 2012 15:03:00
Paragraph No.
2.29
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.
We act on behalf of the Ellis family ("our Clients") who own land to the north west of Kendal known as land West of High Sparrowmire (RNJ69M + RN299#). The Council has proposed that the site be allocated for residential development and our Clients fully support this decision. However we have two specific suggested changes to make to the contents of the DPD as set out below.
Phasing of Development
Paragraph 2.29 of the DPD states that " ... indicative phasing has been identified based on the following factors:
• Infrastructure Capacity
• Development Management Issues
• Constraints
• Whether sites are immediately developable"
However, policy LA 1.3: Housing Allocations sets out the sites that are proposed for allocation along with the proposed phasing. We suggest that the word "indicative" is inserted before "phase" in the final column to ensure that the phasing is not seen as a barrier to future development where it is clear that a site is deliverable, and also to accord with paragraph 2.29. Paragraph 50 (third bullet point) confirms need for flexibility through the plan period. Prescriptive phasing policies would negate this principle. Given the
overall scale of need and the relatively modest scale of supply to meet it, it would be unsound to introduce fixed phasing policies for any site or sites...............
In order to meet the annual requirement for housing delivery in Kendal it is important that polices in the DPD are not seen to restrict development. The''N'ational Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") at paragraph 47 states that "Local Planning Authorities should boost significantly the supply of housing". This again reinforces our suggestion to include the word "indicative" into the table in policy LA 1.3 to allow deliverable sites to come forward earlier in the plan period than may be indicated by the phasing.
3. Ellis Family , c/o Walker Morris : 24 Apr 2012 15:07:00
Paragraph No.
2.18
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.
Core Strategy policy CS6.1: Meeting the housing requirement states that 8800 dwellings will be built between 2003 and 2025. The dwellings are to be built in locations that accord with the Spatial Strategy having regard to the needs of each location and their capacity to suppot additional development. The table on page 77sets out the Housing Split. In Kendal it is evident that 3038 dwellings need to be provided between 2003- 2025 and once completions have been deducted (since 2003), 2714 dwellings are to be provided through the DPD. It is evident that the sites suggested in each indicative phase to not total the
number required in the Core Strategy. 169 dwellings per annum are to be provided for in Kendal based on the Core Strategy figures yet the phasing set out in the DPD only suggests that 72 dwellings per annum will be provided in the first phase, 135 dwellings in the second phase and 69 dwellings per annum in the third phase. Therefore, whilst the phasing in the DPD is indicative, it does not accord with the Housing Split set out in the Core Strategy and sites that are deliverable should be allowed to come forward earlier to
meet the requirement set out in the Core Strategy.
4. Ellis Family , c/o Walker Morris : 24 Apr 2012 15:15:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN169M+ RN299# KENDAL WEST OF HIGH SPARROWMIRE
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
Yes
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.
We act on behalf of the Ellis family (our clients) who own the land to the north west of Kendal known as land west of High Sparrowmire (RN169M + RN299#). The council has proposed that the site be allocated for residential development and our clients fully support this decision.
5. Ellis Family , c/o Walker Morris : 4 May 2012 07:51:00
Policy/Site No.
LA2.1 Land West of High Sparrowmire
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 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.
Infrastructure Capacity
It is evident that there are potential future restrictions to development due to the sewerage capacity that is managed by United Utilities. Paragraph 3.8 of the DPD states that:
"major sites in the Bumeside and north west Kendal area shall not be developed until such time as sewer capacity issues in the area are resolved. It is likely that this is not until phase 3 of the Plan".
We understand from conversations with a Planning Officer that United Utilities are in the bidding process to obtain funding to expand the capacity to allow further development to take place in KendaL If United Utilities' bid for funding is successful then they will be able to commence working on expanding the capacity in 2015 with a 2020 end date.
We are not aware of any formal representations that United Utilities have made to the DPD in terms of objecting to specific sites from coming forward, indeed, the Infrastructure Position Statement prepared by the Council states at paragraph 4.22 that:
"United Utilities is not objecting in principle to the levels of development proposed and are willing to make bids in 2014 where improvements are required".
Futhermore, at paragraph 4.23 it is stated that: "funding is likely to be acquired in cases where there is development certainty".
Indeed, the law requires sewerage undertakers to provide infrastructure once planning issues have been resolved (see Barrett Homes Ltd v Welsh Water (2009]). Whilst it is important to take account of the undertaker's views in the overall process, in this case, th e issue could effectively provide a blanket proscription on development across a wide area which, if accepted by the Council, would provide a charter for ine1tia to the Statutory Undertaker addressing the problems. Ultimately, the financial burden will fall on
local taxpayers and it is for the Council to decide on a much broader range of planning issues where development should be located. In this case the lack of suitable sites overall means that the Council cannot afford not to take the lead on addressing the infrastructure issues by allocating the affected sites.
The Appropriate Assessment states in section 6. 1.2 that a limit of 2000 properties must be adhered to unless better technology is installed as the Waste Water Treatment Works or the Environment Agency are successful in tackling other sources of phosphate in the catchment It is evident that only 1388 dwellings have been allocated leading to the conclusion that all these sites can be brought forward within the 2000 property limit. This again reinforces our view that the phasing should be indicative with those developments that can come forward early in the plan period, not being restricted.
Policy LA2. I is specific to our Client's land and states that:
"development of this site cannot take place until measures are in place to resolve pressure on the sewerage network in North Kendal".
We do not consider that the wording of this part of the policy is sufficiently precise to ensure that development can be accommodated on the site if another solution can be found to the sewer capacity issues by developing this site. We therefore suggest that this pmt of the policy reads:
'"development of this site cannot take place until a satisfactmy solution is agreed regarding any sewage management issues that would arise from the development of this site".
This would allow for other solutions to be found to the problem such as an on-site treatment scheme or a temporary pumping solution. Our Clients have instmcted BSCP to investigate this option and to have discussions with United Utilities and we shall be presenting this information at a later date. It is also apparent that our Client's site is not specifically identified in the Appropriate Assessment as having a detrimental impact on the River Kent SAC in itself.
It should be recognised that the NPPF states at paragraph 187 that Local Planning Authorities "should look for solutions rather than problems" when making decisions on development proposals and we consider our suggested change to accord with this national policy.
In summary, we do not consider the DPD to be generally unsound but recommend that two changes are made: adding the word "indicative" to that final column in policy LAI.3; and to change the wording of policy LA2.1 so that other solutions can be investigated in order for the site to come forward for development.