41 responses from Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District
1. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 21:42:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Paragraph No.
3.31
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including the Appleby Road Broad Location for Development.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
Appleby Road Broad Location For Development:
The Appleby Road Broad Location for Development (paragraph 3.31) lies within an area designated 7b ‘Drumlin Field’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG describes the following characteristics:
“The drumlins are mainly covered in pastoral fields, usually divided by thick well managed hedges. Limestone walls can be found bounding fields in higher parts and around villages. The strong patchwork of fields forms a distinctive pattern that crosses up and down the drumlins. Small broadleaved woods, orchards and hedgerow trees are abundant around Kendal…
…The combination of drumlin landforms overlain by a geometric net of fields gives this landscape a strong identity…
…A journey through it reveals a series of contrasts from enclosed sheltered hollows to exposed open hilltops affording long views. In some cases the views open across valleys where farmland and towns, such as Kendal, are framed in the landscape.”
The Vision states that:
“This well composed landscape will be conserved and enhanced to retain its distinctive characteristics. Its unique topography will be maintained and enhanced as a striking asset.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape. Avoid prominent hill tops or cutting across slopes.”
FLD would refer to the assessment made by the Planning Inspector at the last Local Plan Review. A large part of the proposed Appleby Road Broad Location for development, then known as ‘North East of Sandylands’, was identified during this Review, and subsequently deallocated following the Inspector’s recommendations. The Inspector noted that:
“I can do no better than to quote Mr Garnett, who stated at the Inquiry that ‘the essence of the landscape is in its unimpeded sweep upwards towards Benson Knott.’ It is in the vicinity of the North Sandylands site, in my view, that the valley setting of Kendal can best be appreciated, and the landforms which comprise the landscape context of the town can best be seen… From viewpoints on the western side of Kendal, and from the A591, the full extent of the proposed development would be clearly seen. The site is also prominent in views on approach to the town, or on leaving Appleby Road. The remnant of open land around Spital would not offer an adequate ‘gateway’, being limited by the bend in the A685. I conclude, therefore, that the landscape impact of the proposed allocation would be severe.” (South Lakeland Local Plan Alteration 1 - Inspector’s Report, 2.13 – 2.15)
The inspector subsequently recommended deallocation of the employment and mixed use allocation, and designation as County Landscape.
The proposed Broad Location extends up the valley side. Given this, any development would be widely visible in wider views, such as that afforded from the junction of Queens Road and Low Fellside, to the south west. The development of land such as this threatens to erode the strongly rural feel characteristic of Kendal, evoked by glimpses of undeveloped valley sides from within the town.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including the Appleby Road Broad Location for Development.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 21:47:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R103M-mod KENDAL STAINBANK GREEN
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R103M-mod
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
R103M-mod:
R103M-mod is located on the western fringes of the town. The site lies in very close proximity to the boundary of the Lake District National Park, which will draw even closer should the current area proposed for extension be ultimately adopted. The site lies within an area designated 3a ‘Open Farmland and Pavement’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The character description highlights the linkage of this type with the National Park, noting that the sub type extends into the latter around Kendal. The guidance goes on to highlight the characteristic “pockets of scrub… and deciduous woodlands”. The Vision for the sub-type states that “development proposals will respect the open unspoilt tops and commons and will avoid causing disruption in the lower-scale patterns of farmland, woods and villages. There will be support for the maintenance of key components such as the historic pattern of small fields, stone walls and hedges in lower areas.” The guidance goes on to note that “planned and incremental expansion of villages and towns could result in a loss of vernacular character… This could erode the distinctive character of the area.”
R103M-mod exhibits a strong, open countryside character. The site features the strong field patterns demarcated by dry stone walls, and pockets of scrub and deciduous woodland alluded to by the CLCG. The site reflects the high quality landscape character of the adjacent National Park. The site also includes a well-used public footpath.
FLD are concerned that the housing development upon this site, particularly of the density envisaged by the Council, and considered in conjunction with R129M to the north, would result in a significant detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of the town. The features noted above would be significantly compromised should the site be developed. In our view, this site constitutes significant encroachment into the open countryside and should be regarded as ribbon development.
The impact of the development would be reduced if the site boundary was drawn further back towards Stainbank Green in our view. The area encompassing the fields immediately adjacent to Brigsteer Road, up to and including and the woodland through which the above noted footpath runs, should remain undeveloped. We would encourage the retention of existing site features, such as the woodland and right of way should the site be developed
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R103M-mod
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 21:50:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R121M-mod KENDAL EAST OF CASTLE GREEN ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R121M-mod
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
R121M-mod:
R121M-mod is located on the eastern fringes of the town. The site lies within an area designated 11a ‘Foothills’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG notes that:
“At lower levels in all these areas land use is predominantly improved pasture and meadows and there is a strong pattern of stone walls giving way to hedges at lower levels… Small woodlands are common on steeper slopes and alongside streams and rivers.
Although easy to access the countryside is attractive and peaceful and is highly valued locally and is often as a rural backwater.
The strong matrix of stone walls and hedges provide a framework to the improved and semi improved pasture. Wooded ghylls, woodland and hedgerow trees provide interest …Farmsteads and villages …follow the grain of the rolling topography and are sensitive to unsympathetic expansion and redevelopment.”
The Vision for the area states:
“This landscape will be conserved and enhanced. Field boundaries, woodland, other natural features, cultural and historic features will be conserved and enhanced to reinforce the distinctiveness of the areas….Existing settlements and built features will be conserved and new development will respect the grain and scale of the landscape…”
The western part of the site, adjoining Castle Green Road, was considered for development during the previous Local Plan Review, but was ultimately dismissed by the Inspector on landscape grounds.
R121M-mod reflects the characteristics highlighted by the CLCG above. It exhibits a strong, open countryside character, which contributes to the overall character of Kendal in two key respects. Firstly, when travelling out of the town towards Sedbergh, the swathe of green pasture bounded by stone walls towards the lower part of the site softens the development edge of the town, and provides a gradual transition from urban to rural, which adds considerably to the visual amenity of Kendal as a whole.
Secondly, the site is located upon rising land, increasing its prominence in wider views. It forms part of the undeveloped valley side surrounding Kendal, glimpses of which evoke the strongly rural feel identified by local people as a key characteristic of the town. From a viewpoint such as Castle Hill for example, it is clear that the development of this site would extend the built footprint of the town further up the valley side. It should also be noted that the proposed site boundary disregards existing field boundaries, and cuts across a slope, in conflict with the above noted CLCG guidelines, exacerbating the impact of development further.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R121M-mod
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
4. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 21:56:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R107M mod and R150M KENDAL KENDAL PARKS
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R150M/R107M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
R150M/R107M:
R150M is located on the southern fringes of the town. The site lies immediately adjacent to an area designated 11a ‘Foothills’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG notes that:
“At lower levels in all these areas land use is predominantly improved pasture and meadows and there is a strong pattern of stone walls giving way to hedges at lower levels…
Although easy to access the countryside is attractive and peaceful and is highly valued locally and is often as a rural backwater.”
The Vision for the area states:
“This landscape will be conserved and enhanced. Field boundaries, woodland, other natural features, cultural and historic features will be conserved and enhanced to reinforce the distinctiveness of the areas….Existing settlements and built features will be conserved and new development will respect the grain and scale of the landscape…”
R150M exhibits the open countryside character described by the CLCG above, and is visible from a number of viewpoints around the town, from where it is clear that the site forms part of the undeveloped valley side surrounding Kendal, glimpses of which evoke the strongly rural feel identified by local people as a key characteristic of the town.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R150M/R107M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
5. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 21:58:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - E31M KENDAL LAND SOUTH OF K SHOES, NATLAND ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including E31M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
E31M
E31M is located on the southern fringes of the town. The site lies within an area designated by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG) as 8b ‘Broad Valleys’. Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG. A number of well used public footpaths run alongside the site.
The CLCG notes the following characteristics for 8b:
“Fields of improved pasture dominate… In more open parts there is a sense of calm within a working farmland. Close to large towns and roads there is a busier feeling but the rural qualities still dominate.”
The Vision for the sub-type states:
“Development will be sited to complement traditional settlement patterns and use vernacular materials.”
Guidelines include:
“Public rights of way should be well maintained and quiet recreational areas and facilities should be improved and developed to be compatible with the pastoral character of this sub type.”
E31M currently exhibits a strong, open countryside character. FLD are concerned that industrial development upon this site would result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of the town. The boundary of the town is clearly defined in this area by existing built development at Watercrook Farm. In our view, this site constitutes encroachment into the open countryside.
The visual impact of the development of this site would be heightened through the number of receptors affected. The site lies at the intersection of a number of public rights of way, which are well used by local people.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 12.6 Ha should be allocated to Kendal. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that this target can easily be met in Kendal, without the need to develop E31M. (In FLD’s view, Kendal’s employment land needs could be met without the need to develop sites E4M, E31M, or M2M, given the reduced target, and potential contributions in the longer term over the plan period from both the Kendal Canal Head Area, and the Kendal Quarry site).
In FLD’s view therefore, there is very little justification for the continued allocation of sites which would be damaging to local landscape character, such as E31M.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including E31M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The recent Employment Land Review undertaken by the Council (February 2012) also makes it clear that the allocation of this site is not justified by local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
6. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:05:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.6 Strategic Employment Sites - E4M KENDAL LAND AT SCROGGS WOOD, MILNTHORPE ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including E4M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
E4M
E4M is located on the southern fringes of the town. The site lies in close proximity to the proposed revised boundary of the Lake District National Park, within an area designated by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG) as 8b ‘Broad Valleys’. Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The character description highlights the linkage of this type with the National Park, noting that the sub type extends into the latter. A public footpath runs along the northern boundary of the site, linking the paths along the riverside and Helsington Laithes.
The CLCG notes the following characteristics for 8b:
“Fields of improved pasture dominate… The farmland is broken up by pockets of scrub, deciduous woodland and small blocks of coniferous plantation.
Fields are both irregular and regular in shape and bounded by hedges or stone walls and provide a strong pattern of boundaries… Hedgerow trees and riverside trees are common. These contribute to the wooded character of the valleys.
In more open parts there is a sense of calm within a working farmland. Close to large towns and roads there is a busier feeling but the rural qualities still dominate.”
The Vision for the sub-type states:
“Development will be sited to complement traditional settlement patterns and use vernacular materials.”
Guidelines include:
“Minimise the impact of infrastructure and housing development by careful siting, avoiding open valley floors
Public rights of way should be well maintained and quiet recreational areas and facilities should be improved and developed to be compatible with the pastoral character of this sub type.”
The landscape assessment undertaken by Gillespies for the South Lakeland Employment and Housing Land Search Study (Appendix 5, page 56) states that:
“Scroggs Wood forms a strong boundary to the town and development to the south of this would be highly visible in the wider landscape, and should, therefore, not be permitted.” (With regard to the Council’s previous response to FLD’s concern in this respect, which we highlighted at the time of the Emerging Options consultation, we would stress that the reference is to land to the south of Scroggs Wood, rather than the wood itself. The Council’s response – that Scroggs Wood would itself be protected from development – does not address this issue therefore.)
FLD have significant concerns over the development of this site. The site reflects the characteristics highlighted by the CLCG above. In particular, whilst it lies close to a town, rural qualities still dominate. The site exhibits a strong open countryside character. This is due in part to the strong boundary to the town formed by Scroggs Wood, as observed by Gillespies.
Development of this site would result in significant landscape and visual impacts in both local and wider terms. The site is clearly visible in views from the higher points surrounding the town, and from the A6 adjacent. Development for industrial use would not only result in the loss of the open countryside character of this area, it would also significantly adversely affect the setting of the town.
The impact of development upon the setting of the National Park is a key consideration in regard to this allocation. The clear demarcation between urban and rural highlighted by Gillespies is particularly apparent when viewed from the higher ground around Helsington to the south west of the site, which is currently being considered for inclusion within the National Park. The development of a large industrial park on the site suggested would significantly impact upon the amenity of users of this area.
Development would also impact upon users of the Helm, to the south east, from where the site is again, clearly visible. The Helm is a particularly valuable local asset, which is well used by local people, who benefit from expansive 360 degree views across the landscape. FLD own the southern half of the Helm, which we have recently opened up to public access.
Views from the higher ground to the east and west of the site are currently characterised by the rolling undeveloped fields along the valley floor, sweeping up towards the hills which surround the town. This would be fundamentally changed by the development. An industrial park in this location would significantly detract from the strongly established character of the area in our view.
It is key to note that the area in which E4M lies forms an important gateway to the town. For the great majority of road users entering Kendal, this site will form their first impression of the town. Kendal is often voted one of the most desirable places to live and work in the country. Its popularity with tourists is also widely noted. Its high quality environment is fundamental to this appeal. The development of an industrial park upon this site will significantly detract from this in our view.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would again stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 12.6 Ha should be allocated to Kendal. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that this target can easily be met in Kendal, without the need to develop E4M. (In FLD’s view, Kendal’s employment land needs could be met without the need to develop sites E4M, E31M, or M2M, given the reduced target, and potential contributions in the longer term over the plan period from both the Kendal Canal Head Area, and the Kendal Quarry site).
Paragraph 8.23 of the Employment Land Review states that:
“Given the historic take-up by market sector (and supported by the type of site requested by respondents to the 2005 business survey), it is appropriate that the majority of allocated sites should be local employment sites. On the basis of historic take-up alone it is difficult to gauge the demand for Strategic Employment Sites and Science / Business Parks.”
The paragraph goes on to explain that the only justification for the allocation of a Strategic Employment Site appears to be that 25% of respondents to a 2005 business survey indicated demand for such sites.
This clearly represents a low percentage overall and, notwithstanding this, dates from a seven year old study, undertaken when economic circumstances were very different from what they are currently. Such strategic sites were a product of the regional planning frameworks of the early 2000s, and in the light of current economic and political circumstances, are now an obsolete concept.
In FLD’s view therefore, there is very little justification for the continued allocation of a Strategic Employment Site at Scroggs Wood.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The aforementioned 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit. (It nonetheless highlighted major concerns in regard to major development in this location – which should have generated further detailed assessment in FLD’s view).
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development, including E4M. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including E4M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The recent Employment Land Review undertaken by the Council (February 2012) also makes it clear that the allocation of this site is not justified by local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
The range of issues raised by this allocation are complex and wide ranging. They have major implications for the Council's overall approach to employment development in the district. This is a very large and prominent site in a very sensitive area. The landscape impact of this proposal is potentially very significant. Given these factors, it is felt appropriate to discuss the proposal in more detail at the oral part of the examination.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
7. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:08:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R129M KENDAL SOUTH OF UNDERBARROW ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R129M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
R129M:
R129M is located on the western fringes of the town. The site lies in very close proximity to the boundary of the Lake District National Park, which will draw even closer should the current area proposed for extension be ultimately adopted. The site lies within an area designated 3a ‘Open Farmland and Pavement’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The character description highlights the linkage of this type with the National Park, noting that the sub type extends into the latter around Kendal. The guidance goes on to highlight the characteristic “pockets of scrub… and deciduous woodlands”. The Vision for the sub-type states that “development proposals will respect the open unspoilt tops and commons and will avoid causing disruption in the lower-scale patterns of farmland, woods and villages. There will be support for the maintenance of key components such as the historic pattern of small fields, stone walls and hedges in lower areas.” The guidance goes on to note that “planned and incremental expansion of villages and towns could result in a loss of vernacular character… This could erode the distinctive character of the area.”
R129M exhibits a strong, open countryside character. Although housing development exists to the north of the site, this is of a very low density, and set far back from the road. The site features the strong field patterns demarcated by dry stone walls, and pockets of scrub and deciduous woodland alluded to by the CLCG. The site reflects the high quality landscape character of the adjacent National Park.
FLD are concerned that the housing development upon this site, particularly of the density envisaged by the Council, and considered in conjunction with R103M to the south, would result in a significant detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of the town. The features noted above would be lost should the site be developed. In our view, this site constitutes ribbon development.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R129M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
8. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:10:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN117M KENDAL WEST OF VALLEY DRIVE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R117M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
RN117M:
RN117M is located within the built boundary of the town. As such, it is not directly covered by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG), as this excludes the county’s main towns. However, the site exhibits many of the characteristics of landscape sub-type 7b ‘Drumlin Field’, which encompasses much of the landscape surrounding Kendal.
In regard to 7b, The CLCG notes that:
“The drumlins are mainly covered in pastoral fields, usually divided by thick well managed hedges… The strong patchwork of fields forms a distinctive pattern that crosses up and down the drumlins.
The combination of drumlin landforms overlain by a geometric net of fields gives this landscape a strong identity…”
The Vision states that:
“This well composed landscape will be conserved and enhanced to retain its distinctive characteristics. Its unique topography will be maintained and enhanced as a striking asset.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape. Avoid prominent hill tops or cutting across slopes…”
RN117M exhibits a strong rural character. Livestock can often be seen grazing on the land, which strengthens this character. It is prominent in the townscape, since it’s landform rises, reflecting the drumlin characteristic of the local landscape described above. It encompasses all of the characteristics highlighted by local people as being of particular value (see above).
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R117M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
9. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:12:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R44 KENDAL WEST OF HIGH GARTH
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R44
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
R44
FLD are concerned that the housing development upon this site would result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of the town. A very clear demarcation between developed urban and undeveloped rural exists in this location. The site is very prominent in the local landscape. It lies adjacent to the busy A5284, and as such can be regarded as part of a key gateway to the town in landscape and visual terms. The sensitivity of the site is compounded through its proximity to the National Park.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs”.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
ii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iii) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R44.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
10. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:14:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN169M+ RN299# KENDAL WEST OF HIGH SPARROWMIRE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R169M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
R169M
R169M is located on the northern fringes of the town, in close proximity to the boundary of the Lake District National Park. The site lies within an area designated 7b ‘Drumlin Field’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG describes the following characteristics:
“The drumlins are mainly covered in pastoral fields, usually divided by thick well managed hedges. Limestone walls can be found bounding fields in higher parts and around villages. The strong patchwork of fields forms a distinctive pattern that crosses up and down the drumlins. Small broadleaved woods, orchards and hedgerow trees are abundant around Kendal…
The combination of drumlin landforms overlain by a geometric net of fields gives this landscape a strong identity…
…A journey through it reveals a series of contrasts from enclosed sheltered hollows to exposed open hilltops affording long views. In some cases the views open across valleys where farmland and towns, such as Kendal, are framed in the landscape.”
The Vision states that:
“This well composed landscape will be conserved and enhanced to retain its distinctive characteristics. Its unique topography will be maintained and enhanced as a striking asset… field patterns (will be) maintained and strengthened.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Discourage boundary removal and field enlargement.
Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape. Avoid prominent hill tops or cutting across slopes…”
Gillespies (South Lakeland Employment and Housing Land Search Study Appendix 5, p.57) state that the area within which the site lies is clearly visible from the higher ground around the town, including from within the National Park to the south west.
FLD are concerned that the housing development upon this site would result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of Kendal. A very clear demarcation between developed urban and undeveloped rural exists in this location. The site exhibits the open countryside characteristics outlined by the CLCG. It is very prominent in both the local and wider landscape. R169M lies adjacent to the busy A5284, and as such can be regarded as part of a key gateway to the town in landscape and visual terms. The sensitivity of the site is compounded through its proximity to the National Park. The impact upon the National Park is therefore a key material consideration.
The site is located upon rising land, increasing its prominence in wider views. The development of land such as this threatens to erode the strongly rural feel which is characteristic of Kendal, evoked by glimpses of undeveloped valley sides from within the town. It is also key to note that the proposed site boundary disregards existing field boundaries, and cuts across a slope, in conflict with the above noted CLCG guidelines, exacerbating the impact of development further.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R169M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
11. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:16:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R151M-mod MILNTHORPE SOUTH OF MILNTHORPE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R151M
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
R151M is located on the southern fringes of the town, within an area designated by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG) as 7a ‘Low Drumlins’. Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG notes the following characteristics for 7a:
“The drumlins are farmed and have a strong agricultural pattern… Field boundaries reinforce the distinctive shape of the drumlins as they rise up and down the sides and skirt along the edges… The strongly orientated, small scale and distinctive drumlin forms are sensitive to development that would affect their overall form and appearance in the landscape.”
The Vision for the sub-type states:
“This is a well composed landscape which will be conserved and enhanced. The distinctive field pattern will be maintained along with the conservation and restoration of natural features such as hedges and streams. The unique topography within this type will be maintained through strict controls regarding development and any other potentially detrimental activities.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape. Avoid siting development on prominent hill tops or cutting across slopes…”
FLD have a number of concerns in regard to the above. The CLCG description indicates a high quality landscape, with a strongly defined character. As such, it is particularly sensitive to inappropriate development. R151M is sited partly upon one of the characteristic drumlins highlighted by the CLCG. The site is prominent, due to the rising nature of the land. The proposed site boundary would exacerbate the impact of the development upon the drumlin through its lack of regard for existing field boundaries, and through cutting across a slope, in conflict with the above guidance.
Development would result in a significant impact locally. The site is located adjacent to the A6, the main road to Milnthorpe, and as such forms part of an important gateway to the town. Development would represent significant encroachment into the open countryside setting of the town.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs”.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
ii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS5 – The East (including Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale) seeks to protect and enhance the diverse character and local distinctiveness of the area.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iii) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R151M
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
12. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:25:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.4 Broad Locations for New Housing - LAND ADJACENT TO FIRS ROAD, MILNTHORPE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Please note that there is no direct reference to this Broad Location in the text of the Plan - only on the Milnthorpe settlement map - hence the above reference to 'all Milnthorpe sites'. To clarify, these comments relate to the proposed Broad Location for development only.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of housing allocation in light of defined need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including the Broad Location for Development located to the south east of Milnthorpe (formerly R462M).
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
The Broad Location for Development located to the south east of Milnthorpe (formerly R462M) is located on the south western fringes of the town, within an area designated by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG) as 7a ‘Low Drumlins’. Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG notes the following characteristics for 7a:
“The drumlins are farmed and have a strong agricultural pattern… The strongly orientated, small scale and distinctive drumlin forms are sensitive to development that would affect their overall form and appearance in the landscape.”
The Vision for the sub-type states:
“This is a well composed landscape which will be conserved and enhanced… The unique topography within this type will be maintained through strict controls regarding development and any other potentially detrimental activities.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape. Avoid siting development on prominent hill tops or cutting across slopes…”
FLD have a number of concerns in regard to the above. The CLCG description indicates a high quality landscape, with a strongly defined character. As such, it is particularly sensitive to inappropriate development. The site is located upon one of the characteristic drumlins highlighted by the CLCG, and is prominent in wider views, due to the rising nature of the land. It is clearly visible from the public footpath leading towards the town through Dallam Deer Park.
The Allocations document notes that 186 dwellings are needed in Milnthorpe to meet the target to 2025. The proposed development of all the allocated housing sites proposed would meet this target, without the need to develop the area proposed as a Broad Location for Development. Development of this area would therefore be both unsustainable, in regard to the level of development which Milnthorpe should be expected to accommodate - given its role and function in the settlement hierarchy - and damaging in landscape character terms.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs”.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
ii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS5 – The East (including Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale) seeks to protect and enhance the diverse character and local distinctiveness of the area.
CS6.1 – Meeting the Housing Requirement sets the housing requirement for the Plan period, and states that dwellings will be built in locations having regard to need and capacity to support additional development.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iii) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of housing allocation in light of defined need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including the Broad Location for Development located to the south east of Milnthorpe (formerly R462M).
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
13. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:27:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R489M BURNESIDE LAND ADJ HALL PARK
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Review boundary of R489M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
R489M lies within an area designated 7b ‘Drumlin Field’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG describes the following characteristics:
“The drumlins are mainly covered in pastoral fields, usually divided by thick well managed hedges. Limestone walls can be found bounding fields in higher parts and around villages. The strong patchwork of fields forms a distinctive pattern that crosses up and down the drumlins. Small broadleaved woods, orchards and hedgerow trees are abundant around Kendal…
The combination of drumlin landforms overlain by a geometric net of fields gives this landscape a strong identity…
…A journey through it reveals a series of contrasts from enclosed sheltered hollows to exposed open hilltops affording long views. In some cases the views open across valleys where farmland and towns, such as Kendal, are framed in the landscape.”
The Vision states that:
“This well composed landscape will be conserved and enhanced to retain its distinctive characteristics. Its unique topography will be maintained and enhanced as a striking asset… field patterns (will be) maintained and strengthened.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Discourage boundary removal and field enlargement.
Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape. Avoid prominent hill tops or cutting across slopes…”
R489M is visible in the wider landscape. Key views of the site are afforded from the A5284 heading northwards out of Kendal.
The site includes a number of trees, which are visible in the wider landscape, and which contribute to the overall character of sub type 7b as noted above. In FLD’s view, the boundary of this site should be reviewed, in order that the prominent band of trees towards the south east of the site can be retained. This would provide screening for the site, and help to mitigate the effect of development upon local landscape character.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site to the extent proposed would result in a adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review boundary of R489M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. Had a detailed assessment of landscape character been undertaken, the current proposed boundary of the site would have been found to raise issues in regard to local landscape character.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
14. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:17:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - M41M ENDMOOR NORTH OF SYCAMORE DRIVE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including M41M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
M41M lies within an area designated 7b ‘Drumlin Field’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG describes the following characteristics:
“The drumlins are mainly covered in pastoral fields, usually divided by thick well managed hedges. Limestone walls can be found bounding fields in higher parts and around villages. The strong patchwork of fields forms a distinctive pattern that crosses up and down the drumlins.
The combination of drumlin landforms overlain by a geometric net of fields gives this landscape a strong identity…
…A journey through it reveals a series of contrasts from enclosed sheltered hollows to exposed open hilltops affording long views. In some cases the views open across valleys where farmland and towns… are framed in the landscape.”
The Vision states that:
“This well composed landscape will be conserved and enhanced to retain its distinctive characteristics. Its unique topography will be maintained and enhanced as a striking asset… field patterns (will be) maintained and strengthened.”
FLD have a number of specific landscape and visual concerns in regard to M41M. The CLCG description indicates a high quality landscape, with a strongly defined character. As such, it is particularly sensitive to inappropriate development. Development would result in a significant impact locally. The site is located to the north of the existing built boundary of the settlement, adjacent to the A65, the main road through the village. Development would represent significant encroachment into the open countryside surrounding the town. The site does not benefit from any screening through established tree cover or the local topography. As noted by Gillespies (South Lakeland Employment and Housing Land Search Study, Appendix 5, p.24), development in this area would be highly visible in the wider landscape. The proximity of the site to the A65, and the local footpath network would exacerbate its visual impact.
The level of development proposed by the Council for Endmoor is unsustainable in FLD’s view. The Housing Needs Survey Report undertaken by the Cumbria Rural Housing Trust for Preston Richard Parish in October 2007 shows that 10 households are in need of affordable housing for the period to 2012. The Endmoor Settlement Fact file indicates that only four new dwellings have been built in the settlement since 2003. The Land Allocations document however, proposes the development of a total of 125 dwellings in the village, over the period to 2025. Even after extrapolating the housing needs data to 2025, it is clear that the LDF Allocation is far in excess of local need and demand.
The document proposes the allocation of a large-scale greenfield site, beyond the existing settlement boundary, encroaching into the open countryside surrounding the village. The level of development proposed is not commensurate with the size of the village, its function as a Local Service Centre in the spatial hierarchy, and the limited services it provides. Despite Endmoor’s relative proximity to Kendal, the settlement fact file highlights issues with public transport provision, rendering it impractical for those wishing to commute to the latter for work.
Given these factors, it would be logical to assume that the large levels of housing development proposed will result in further commuting by private vehicle, with the settlement assuming the role of a dormitory town. This does not reflect policy, which aims to limit development to that which addresses local need only.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reusing brownfield land, and focusing development in sustainable locations..
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty, take account of and enhance landscape character, minimise the need to travel, and direct development to existing service centres where there is adequate service and infrastructure capacity.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS6.1 – Meeting the Housing Requirement sets the housing requirement for the Plan period, and states that dwellings will be built in locations having regard to need and capacity to support additional development.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
Policy 10.2 – Transport Impact of New Development seeks to ensure that development reduces the need to travel.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including M41M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The local Housing Needs Survey Report would indicate that the proposed level of development far exceeds local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reusing brownfield land, and focusing development in sustainable locations..
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
15. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:35:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - EN20, EN33# ENDMOOR LAND NORTH OF GATEBECK LANE, GATEBECK
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity, and sustainability issues.. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including EN20/EN33#.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
EN20/EN33# lies within an area designated 7b ‘Drumlin Field’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG describes the following characteristics:
“The drumlins are mainly covered in pastoral fields, usually divided by thick well managed hedges. Limestone walls can be found bounding fields in higher parts and around villages. The strong patchwork of fields forms a distinctive pattern that crosses up and down the drumlins.
The combination of drumlin landforms overlain by a geometric net of fields gives this landscape a strong identity…
…A journey through it reveals a series of contrasts from enclosed sheltered hollows to exposed open hilltops affording long views. In some cases the views open across valleys where farmland and towns… are framed in the landscape.”
The Vision states that:
“This well composed landscape will be conserved and enhanced to retain its distinctive characteristics. Its unique topography will be maintained and enhanced as a striking asset… field patterns (will be) maintained and strengthened.”
FLD have a number of specific landscape and visual concerns in regard to EN20/EN33#. The CLCG description indicates a high quality landscape, with a strongly defined character. As such, it is particularly sensitive to inappropriate development. The site is located in the remote open countryside. The western portion of the site (EN33#) is located upon rising ground forming part of one of the characteristic drumlins. Given this, any development upon this site would be highly visible in the wider landscape, and represent significant encroachment into the open countryside.
In FLD’s view, the scale of development proposed is also unsustainable in this location. The level of development proposed is not commensurate with the size of the village, its function in the spatial hierarchy, and the limited services it provides.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that only 0.62Ha of land should be allocated in Gatebeck (at Fallbeck). It is key to note that the Employment Land Review also recommended deletion of EN33#, concluding that it is a “remote site with poor accessibility and no local amenities”, and that development would have a “significant impact on the open countryside”.
It is clear therefore that this site is highly unsustainable in a number of respects.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reusing brownfield land, and focusing development in sustainable locations..
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty, take account of and enhance landscape character, minimise the need to travel, and direct development to existing service centres where there is adequate service and infrastructure capacity.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
Policy 10.2 – Transport Impact of New Development seeks to ensure that development reduces the need to travel.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity, and sustainability issues.. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including EN20/EN33#.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The recent Employment Land Review undertaken by the Council (February 2012) also makes it clear that the allocation of this site is not justified by local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reusing brownfield land, and focusing development in sustainable locations..
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
16. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:37:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - E18M HOLME LAND AT ELMSFIELD PARK
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity, and sustainability issues.. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including E18M
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
E18M lies within an area designated by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG) as 7a ‘Low Drumlins’. Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG notes that:
“The drumlins are farmed and have a strong agricultural pattern. Fields are usually medium to large sized and regular in shape. They are predominantly improved pasture, but there are occasional arable fields.”
The Vision for the sub-type states:
“This is a well composed landscape which will be conserved and enhanced. The distinctive field pattern will be maintained along with the conservation and restoration of natural features such as hedges and streams.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape…”
E18M is situated in an isolated open countryside location, north of Holme. The existing industrial complex is already of a significant size, and is in FLD’s view inappropriate to the location, both in terms of impact upon landscape character, and sustainable access. We are concerned that further development would serve to exacerbate this effect. As well as impacting upon the characteristics of landscape sub-type 7a highlighted above, the development is also likely to result in adverse effects upon the adjacent sub-type, 3a, which includes Holme Park Fell, given the ‘Extensive views from high ground’ which are highlighted as a Key Characteristic.
The area features a network of small lanes, which are popular with local cyclists, walkers and horseriders. The additional traffic generated by the development is likely to impact upon the tranquillity of these lanes. In addition, issues of light pollution also form an important consideration when considering impacts upon local character.
In FLD’s view, the scale of development proposed is also unsustainable in this location. The level of development proposed is not commensurate with the size of the village, its function in the spatial hierarchy, and the limited services it provides.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that only 7.56 Ha of land should be allocated in Local Service Centres. The Allocations DPD allocates 12Ha however.
It is clear therefore that this site is highly unsustainable in a number of respects.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reusing brownfield land, and focusing development in sustainable locations..
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty, take account of and enhance landscape character, minimise the need to travel, and direct development to existing service centres where there is adequate service and infrastructure capacity.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
Policy 10.2 – Transport Impact of New Development seeks to ensure that development reduces the need to travel.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity, and sustainability issues.. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including E18M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The recent Employment Land Review undertaken by the Council (February 2012) also makes it clear that the allocation of this site is not justified by local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reusing brownfield land, and focusing development in sustainable locations..
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
17. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:38:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R675M-mod HOLME WEST OF BURTON ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R675M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
R675M is located on the southern fringes of the town, within an area designated by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG) as 7a ‘Low Drumlins’. Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The Vision for the sub-type states:
“This is a well composed landscape which will be conserved and enhanced. The distinctive field pattern will be maintained along with the conservation and restoration of natural features such as hedges and streams. The unique topography within this type will be maintained through strict controls regarding development and any other potentially detrimental activities.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape…”
Further Development Plan Policy of relevance in regard to landscape include RSS Policy EM1, and saved Structure Plan Policy E37. At a national level, PPS7 contains a presumption of protecting the countryside for its intrinsic character and beauty, and the places a duty upon planning authorities to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced. (paragraphs 1(iv) and 15 respectively).
FLD have a number of landscape and visual concerns in regard to R675M. The site contributes significantly to the open, rural character of the settlement. It has significant visual amenity. The proximity of the Lancaster Canal is a key consideration. The open aspect looking westwards from the canal towpath should not be compromised by the development of this site.
The level of development proposed by the Council for Holme is unsustainable in FLD’s view. The Parish Plan indicates that local people wish to see new housing restricted to infill, and that only 14% of residents work within the village. The Land Allocations document however, proposes the development of two major sites, totalling 108 dwellings - the majority of which will be open-market housing - in the village over the period to 2025.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reusing brownfield land, and focusing development in sustainable locations..
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty, take account of and enhance landscape character, minimise the need to travel, and direct development to existing service centres where there is adequate service and infrastructure capacity.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
Policy 10.2 – Transport Impact of New Development seeks to ensure that development reduces the need to travel.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R675M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The allocation conflicts with local views, as expressed in the Parish Plan.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reusing brownfield land, and focusing development in sustainable locations.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
18. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:40:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R62 NATLAND WEST OF SEDGWICK RD, NATLAND
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R62.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
R62 is located on the western fringes of the town. The site lies within an area designated by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG) as 8b ‘Broad Valleys’. Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG notes the following characteristics for 8b:
“Fields of improved pasture dominate… Fields are both irregular and regular in shape and bounded by hedges or stone walls and provide a strong pattern of boundaries… In more open parts there is a sense of calm within a working farmland. Close to large towns and roads there is a busier feeling but the rural qualities still dominate.”
The Gillespies study (South Lakeland Employment and Housing Search Study, Appendix 5, p.79) notes that “The existing housing forms a natural edge to the (west of) the settlement, well set within the landscape and in scale and keeping with the local character.”
Natland has a strong, rural character, which is due in part to the views of the wider countryside from within the settlement. R62 is key in this regard. The site currently affords extensive views westwards towards Helsington. FLD are concerned that the development of this site, particularly in conjunction with the residential redevelopment of the former nursery site opposite, would lead to a feeling of enclosure, which is not typical of the village.
The site is also prominent in wider views, such as from the Helm, to the east.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The aforementioned 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs”.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
ii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iii) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R62.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
19. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:44:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - M2M-mod KENDAL LAND EAST OF BURTON 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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including M2M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
M2M:
M2M lies within an area designated 7b ‘Drumlin Field’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG describes the following characteristics:
“The drumlins are mainly covered in pastoral fields, usually divided by thick well managed hedges. Limestone walls can be found bounding fields in higher parts and around villages. The strong patchwork of fields forms a distinctive pattern that crosses up and down the drumlins. Small broadleaved woods, orchards and hedgerow trees are abundant around Kendal…
The combination of drumlin landforms overlain by a geometric net of fields gives this landscape a strong identity…
…A journey through it reveals a series of contrasts from enclosed sheltered hollows to exposed open hilltops affording long views. In some cases the views open across valleys where farmland and towns, such as Kendal, are framed in the landscape.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape. Avoid prominent hill tops or cutting across slopes…”
FLD have significant concerns in regard to the landscape and visual impact of the development of this site, in both local, and wider terms.
The wider landscape and visual impact of the development of this site becomes fully apparent when viewed from an exposed open hilltop, (noted as a characteristic of this landscape sub-type), such as the Helm, situated immediately to the east of the site. It is clear from this elevated position, that the development of this site would comprise significant encroachment into the undeveloped countryside, which currently forms a clear visual break between Oxenholme and Kendal. The site is particularly prominent due to its rising landform. The Helm is a well-used local amenity. As such, the visual impact of this development would be significant from this area.
This site was identified during the last Local Plan review, and subsequently deallocated following the Inspector’s recommendations. The Inspector recognised the value of the area to both residents and visitors, concluding that it is ‘a treasured landscape, which would be highly sensitive to change’ (South Lakeland Local Plan Alteration (No 1) 2002 - Inspector’s Report, 2.1.75). The differing characteristics of Kendal (‘a thriving rural market town set in the open countryside’) and Oxenholme (‘a linear Victorian railway village’) were noted. It was considered that development would ‘result in a strong sense of visual coalescence that would erode the distinct and separate characters of Kendal and Oxenholme’ (2.1.91).
The Inspector went on to highlight the section of A65 which forms the western boundary of the site as an important ‘green visual Gateway to the Lakes’ (2.1.81). The impact upon tourists was further highlighted in 2.1.82 and 2.1.83, which stated ‘In my opinion, visitors’ enjoyment of the special qualities of the Lake District would be seriously impaired (by the development of the site). This could have serious repercussions on Kendal’s tourist trade…’
The comments made by the Inspector in regard to the area’s ‘Gateway’ function are key to note. Kendal is often voted one of the most desirable places to live and work in the country. Its popularity with tourists is also widely noted. Its high quality environment is fundamental to this appeal.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 12.6 Ha should be allocated to Kendal. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that this target can easily be met in Kendal, without the need to develop M2M. (In FLD’s view, Kendal’s employment land needs could be met without the need to develop sites E4M, E31M, or M2M, given the reduced target, and potential contributions in the longer term over the plan period from both the Kendal Canal Head Area, and the Kendal Quarry site).
In FLD’s view therefore, there is very little justification for the continued allocation of sites which would be damaging to local landscape character, such as M2M..
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. . Policy CS8.2 also states that land will be identified in the Allocations of land DPD as forming a green gap where if developed it would cause or add to the risk of future coalescence of two or more individual settlements between which it is important to retain a distinction.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including M2M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The recent Employment Land Review undertaken by the Council (February 2012) also makes it clear that the allocation of this site is not justified by local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92 reiterate the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
The range of issues raised by this allocation are complex and wide ranging. They have major implications for the Council's overall approach to employment development in the district. This is a large and prominent site in a sensitive area. The landscape impact of this proposal is potentially significant. Given these factors, it is felt appropriate to discuss the proposal in more detail at the oral part of the examination.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
20. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:46:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R108M OXENHOLME LAND S OF FELL CLOSE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R108M
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
R108M is located on the southern fringes of Oxenholme. The site lies within an area designated 7b ‘Drumlin Field’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG describes the following characteristics:
“The drumlins are mainly covered in pastoral fields, usually divided by thick well managed hedges. Limestone walls can be found bounding fields in higher parts and around villages. The strong patchwork of fields forms a distinctive pattern that crosses up and down the drumlins. Small broadleaved woods, orchards and hedgerow trees are abundant around Kendal…
The combination of drumlin landforms overlain by a geometric net of fields gives this landscape a strong identity…
…A journey through it reveals a series of contrasts from enclosed sheltered hollows to exposed open hilltops affording long views. In some cases the views open across valleys where farmland and towns, such as Kendal, are framed in the landscape.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape. Avoid prominent hill tops or cutting across slopes…”
The landscape and visual impact of the development of this site becomes fully apparent when viewed from an exposed open hilltop, (noted as a characteristic of this landscape sub-type), such as the Helm, situated immediately to the east of the site. It is clear from this elevated position, that the development of this site would comprise significant encroachment into the undeveloped countryside. The proximity of the site to Natland to the west also raises concerns over coalescence. The Helm is a particularly well-used local amenity. As such, the visual impact of this development would be significant.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs”.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92 reiterate the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
ii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Policy CS8.2 also states that land will be identified in the Allocations of land DPD as forming a green gap where if developed it would cause or add to the risk of future coalescence of two or more individual settlements between which it is important to retain a distinction.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iii) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R108M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92 reiterate the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
21. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:47:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN223 OXENHOLME LAND E OF BURTON RD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R223#
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
RN223 is located on the southern fringes of the village. The site lies within an area designated 11a ‘Foothills’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG notes that:
“At lower levels in all these areas land use is predominantly improved pasture and meadows… Although easy to access the countryside is attractive and peaceful and is highly valued locally…
The strong matrix of stone walls and hedges provide a framework to the improved and semi improved pasture. Wooded ghylls, woodland and hedgerow trees provide interest …”
RN223 reflects the characteristics highlighted by the CLCG above. It exhibits an open countryside character, providing a gradual transition from urban to rural, softening the development edge of Oxenholme. It is a very prominent site, lying adjacent to the A65, and as such, forms part of a key gateway to not just Oxenholme, but also Kendal.
FLD are concerned therefore that the development of this site would result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of Oxenholme and Kendal.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs”.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
ii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iii) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R223#.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
22. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:49:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN213-mod BRIGSTEER LAND OPPOSITE THE WHEATSHEAF
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
RN213M is located on the western fringes of the village. The site lies in very close proximity to the boundary of the Lake District National Park. The site lies within an area designated 3a ‘Open Farmland and Pavement’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG highlights the characteristic ‘pockets of scrub… and deciduous woodlands’. The Vision for the sub-type states that ‘development proposals will respect the open unspoilt tops and commons and will avoid causing disruption in the lower-scale patterns of farmland, woods and villages. There will be support for the maintenance of key components such as the historic pattern of small fields, stone walls and hedges in lower areas.’ The guidance goes on to note that ‘planned and incremental expansion of villages and towns could result in a loss of vernacular character… This could erode the distinctive character of the area.’
RN213M exhibits a strong, open countryside character. The site features the pockets of scrub and deciduous woodland alluded to by the CLCG. The site reflects the high quality landscape character of the adjacent National Park. It is situated on rising land, and is prominent in the local landscape. The open countryside character of the site contributes the strongly rural character of the settlement.
FLD are generally supportive in principle of the development of this site. Given the sensitivity of the location however, we would anticipate a lower density of development, the retention of established trees and hedges where possible, and a high quality design, set back from the road in order to maintain the open rural character of the settlement.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
Yes
2.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
RN213M is located on the western fringes of the village. The site lies in very close proximity to the boundary of the Lake District National Park. The site lies within an area designated 3a ‘Open Farmland and Pavement’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG highlights the characteristic ‘pockets of scrub… and deciduous woodlands’. The Vision for the sub-type states that ‘development proposals will respect the open unspoilt tops and commons and will avoid causing disruption in the lower-scale patterns of farmland, woods and villages. There will be support for the maintenance of key components such as the historic pattern of small fields, stone walls and hedges in lower areas.’ The guidance goes on to note that ‘planned and incremental expansion of villages and towns could result in a loss of vernacular character… This could erode the distinctive character of the area.’
RN213M exhibits a strong, open countryside character. The site features the pockets of scrub and deciduous woodland alluded to by the CLCG. The site reflects the high quality landscape character of the adjacent National Park. It is situated on rising land, and is prominent in the local landscape. The open countryside character of the site contributes the strongly rural character of the settlement.
FLD are generally supportive in principle of the development of this site. Given the sensitivity of the location however, we would anticipate a lower density of development, the retention of established trees and hedges where possible, and a high quality design, set back from the road in order to maintain the open rural character of the settlement.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
23. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:54:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R449/R74 GRANGE-OVER-SANDS OPPOSITE LITTLE FELL GATE FARM
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R74/R449.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
R74/R449 is located on the western fringes of the town, within an area designated 3a ‘Open Farmland and Pavement’ by the recently revised Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The character description highlights the linkage of this type with the National Park, noting that the sub type extends into the latter around Grange. The guidance goes on to state that:
“Both along the coast and inland most of the land is improved and semi improved grazing. There is a distinctive and sometimes historic pattern of fields which are strongly defined by a matrix of limestone walls and hedges at lower levels.”
The Vision for the sub-type states that:
“Development proposals will respect the open unspoilt tops and commons and will avoid causing disruption in the lower-scale patterns of farmland, woods and villages. There will be support for the maintenance of key components such as the historic pattern of small fields, stone walls and hedges in lower areas.”
The guidance highlights:
“Planned and incremental expansion of villages and towns (which) could result in a loss of vernacular character… This could erode the distinctive character of the area.”
R74/R449 exhibits a strong, open countryside character. It serves to soften the development edge of Grange considerably. This is particularly apparent when approaching the town from the west, along the Middle Fell Gate road, and from the south, along the B5277. The rising nature of the landform exacerbates the prominence of the site when viewed from the latter.
In FLD’s view therefore housing development upon this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of the town.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs”.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
ii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iii) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R74/R449.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
24. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 22:58:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA3.2 Mixed Use Allocation at Land South of Allithwaite Road, Kent's Bank, Grange-over-Sands
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including MN25M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
MN25M is located within an area designated 3a ‘Open Farmland and Pavement’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The character description highlights the linkage of this type with the National Park, noting that the sub type extends into the latter around Grange. The guidance goes on to state that:
“Both along the coast and inland most of the land is improved and semi improved grazing. There is a distinctive and sometimes historic pattern of fields which are strongly defined by a matrix of limestone walls and hedges at lower levels.”
The Vision for the sub-type states that:
“Development proposals will respect the open unspoilt tops and commons and will avoid causing disruption in the lower-scale patterns of farmland, woods and villages. There will be support for the maintenance of key components such as the historic pattern of small fields, stone walls and hedges in lower areas.”
The guidance highlights:
“Planned and incremental expansion of villages and towns (which) could result in a loss of vernacular character… This could erode the distinctive character of the area.”
MN25M exhibits the open countryside character described above. It comprises a large, undeveloped area of land which performs an important function in maintaining the separation between Grange/Kents Bank and Allithwaite.
In FLD’s view therefore, development upon this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of both Grange and Allithwaite
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92 reiterate the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
ii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Policy CS8.2 also states that land will be identified in the Allocations of land DPD as forming a green gap where if developed it would cause or add to the risk of future coalescence of two or more individual settlements between which it is important to retain a distinction.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iii) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including MN25M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92 reiterate the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
25. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:00:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R672M GRANGE-OVER-SANDS WEST OF CARDRONA ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including R672M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
R672M is located within an area designated 3a ‘Open Farmland and Pavement’ by the recently revised Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The character description highlights the linkage of this type with the National Park, noting that the sub type extends into the latter around Grange. The guidance goes on to state that:
“Both along the coast and inland most of the land is improved and semi improved grazing. There is a distinctive and sometimes historic pattern of fields which are strongly defined by a matrix of limestone walls and hedges at lower levels.”
The Vision for the sub-type states that:
“Development proposals will respect the open unspoilt tops and commons and will avoid causing disruption in the lower-scale patterns of farmland, woods and villages. There will be support for the maintenance of key components such as the historic pattern of small fields, stone walls and hedges in lower areas.”
The guidance highlights:
“Planned and incremental expansion of villages and towns (which) could result in a loss of vernacular character… This could erode the distinctive character of the area.”
R672M exhibits the open countryside character described above. It is located adjacent to the B5277, and is prominent to receptors travelling towards Grange along this road.
In FLD’s view therefore, development upon this site would result in an adverse impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of Grange
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92 reiterate the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Policy CS8.2 also states that land will be identified in the Allocations of land DPD as forming a green gap where if developed it would cause or add to the risk of future coalescence of two or more individual settlements between which it is important to retain a distinction.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including R672M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92 reiterate the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
26. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:01:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA3.1 Mixed Use Allocation at Berners Pool, Grange-over-Sands
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
FLD are highly supportive of the re-use of the large area of underused and derelict land encompassing the lido and Berners Pool. Regeneration of areas such as this supports Development Plan objectives in regard to efficiency in the use of land. We would wish to see the re-use of the buildings around the lido, which have a strongly defined character, and which could contribute significantly to the overall character of the promenade area.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
Yes
2.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
FLD are highly supportive of the re-use of the large area of underused and derelict land encompassing the lido and Berners Pool. Regeneration of areas such as this supports Development Plan objectives in regard to efficiency in the use of land. We would wish to see the re-use of the buildings around the lido, which have a strongly defined character, and which could contribute significantly to the overall character of the promenade area.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
27. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:03:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN131M,RN141#, RN321# &RN284# Ulverston - Gascow Farm
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including RN131M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
R131M is located on the southern fringes of Ulverston. It is clearly separated from the main body of the town. The site lies within an area designated 2d ‘Coastal Urban Fringe’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG notes that 2d is “busy with many uses and a variety of land cover’, and that ‘Fragmented and sporadic development has a negative influence on the character of this landscape. New housing and business development could reinforce a sporadic characteristic.”
The Vision states that:
“The rural and natural qualities of these areas will be reinforced and there will be the development of a bold landscape structure to unify disparate uses. This will be achieved through the conservation of rural green areas and a reduction in the impact of development in prominent locations.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Protect 'green' areas from sporadic and peripheral development. Support the retention and development of ‘green gaps’, green infrastructure and ecosystem services approaches in Local Development Frameworks where they would help maintain distinctive, undeveloped characteristics.”
Gillespies (South Lakeland Employment and Housing Land Search Study Appendix 5, p.95) are of the opinion that there is some potential for development to the South East of the town, but note the “attractive views from the Leisure Centre and Cemetary across the pastoral landscape to Hermitage Hill”, concluding that “new development would affect this attractive edge to the town.” The “pastoral fields with a parkland character” are highlighted in the vicinity of Hermitage Hill.
FLD are concerned that the housing development upon this site would result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting of Ulverston. This site lies within an area with a strong rural parkland character, which clearly lies outside the urban boundary of the town. This area serves as an attractive gateway to Ulverston. The site is highly prominent, situated directly adjacent to the A5087 on the north east, and a public right of way on the north west. CLCG guidance recommends the retention of high quality green areas such as this within sub-type 2d.
In FLD’s view therefore, development of this site would constitute sporadic ribbon development in the open countryside.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The aforementioned 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS3.1 – Ulverston and Furness Area seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of the Furness Peninsula and individual settlements.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including RN131M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
28. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:04:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.6 Strategic Employment Sites - E30-M26 ULVERSTON LAND AT CANAL HEAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Review boundaries of damaging sites, including E30.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
E30 currently exhibits a strong, undeveloped character. Development of the site would have a significant impact locally. FLD’s main concerns however, are in regard to the impact development would have upon the wider landscape, and the role the area plays in the setting of Ulverston. The latter can best be appreciated from Hoad Hill, immediately to the north of the site. This is a popular recreational area, from which panoramic views across the settlement can be seen.
It is clear when viewed from this area, that the development of E30 would significantly extend the built footprint of Ulverston into the undeveloped countryside. FLD are also concerned that this impact would be exacerbated through the site’s proximity to the hamlet of Next Ness to the north east, raising issues of coalescence. Given the popularity of the Hoad Hill viewpoint, and its clear local amenity value, the visual impact of the development of E30 would be significant.
FLD are concerned therefore that the development of this site would result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting and character of Ulverston.
highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 7.2 Ha should be allocated to Ulverston. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that the development of all the allocated sites in Ulverston would provide 11.78 Ha. This represents a significant overallocation.
Given the landscape impacts of the development of E30 (and M11M) as proposed, in FLD’s view therefore, the scale of allocation in Ulverston should be reviewed, with site boundaries altered accordingly.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
FLD
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS3.1 – Ulverston and Furness Area seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of the Furness Peninsula and individual settlements.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Review boundaries of damaging sites, including E30.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2), as follows -
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
E30 currently exhibits a strong, undeveloped character. Development of the site would have a significant impact locally. FLD’s main concerns however, are in regard to the impact development would have upon the wider landscape, and the role the area plays in the setting of Ulverston. The latter can best be appreciated from Hoad Hill, immediately to the north of the site. This is a popular recreational area, from which panoramic views across the settlement can be seen.
It is clear when viewed from this area, that the development of E30 would significantly extend the built footprint of Ulverston into the undeveloped countryside. FLD are also concerned that this impact would be exacerbated through the site’s proximity to the hamlet of Next Ness to the north east, raising issues of coalescence. Given the popularity of the Hoad Hill viewpoint, and its clear local amenity value, the visual impact of the development of E30 would be significant.
FLD are concerned therefore that the development of this site would result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting and character of Ulverston.
highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 7.2 Ha should be allocated to Ulverston. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that the development of all the allocated sites in Ulverston would provide 11.78 Ha. This represents a significant overallocation.
Given the landscape impacts of the development of E30 (and M11M) as proposed, in FLD’s view therefore, the scale of allocation in Ulverston should be reviewed, with site boundaries altered accordingly.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The recent Employment Land Review undertaken by the Council (February 2012) also makes it clear that the allocation of this site in its entirety is not justified by local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
29. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:06:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - M11M - Mod ULVERSTON LAND AT LIGHTBURN ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Review boundaries of damaging sites, including M11M-mod.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
In FLD’s view, M11M contributes significantly to the setting of Ulverston. It is largely undeveloped, and whilst not of significant value as open countryside in its own right, it performs an important function in softening the built boundary of Ulverston, enabling a gradual transition from urban to rural. It is clearly visible from the A590, the main trunk road into Ulverston. The potential visual impact of the development of this site is significant therefore.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 7.2 Ha should be allocated to Ulverston. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that the development of all the allocated sites in Ulverston would provide 11.78 Ha. This represents a significant overallocation.
Given the landscape impacts of the development of M11M-mod (and E30) as proposed, in FLD’s view therefore, the scale of allocation in Ulverston should be reviewed, with site boundaries altered accordingly.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS3.1 – Ulverston and Furness Area seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of the Furness Peninsula and individual settlements.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Review boundaries of damaging sites, including M11M-mod.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). As follows -
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
In FLD’s view, M11M contributes significantly to the setting of Ulverston. It is largely undeveloped, and whilst not of significant value as open countryside in its own right, it performs an important function in softening the built boundary of Ulverston, enabling a gradual transition from urban to rural. It is clearly visible from the A590, the main trunk road into Ulverston. The potential visual impact of the development of this site is significant therefore.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 7.2 Ha should be allocated to Ulverston. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that the development of all the allocated sites in Ulverston would provide 11.78 Ha. This represents a significant overallocation.
Given the landscape impacts of the development of M11M-mod (and E30) as proposed, in FLD’s view therefore, the scale of allocation in Ulverston should be reviewed, with site boundaries altered accordingly.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The recent Employment Land Review undertaken by the Council (February 2012) also makes it clear that the allocation of this site in its entirety is not justified by local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
30. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:07:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN109M RN315# SWARTHMOOR OFF CROSS-a-MOOR
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including RN315#/RN109M
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
RN315#/RN109M lies within an area designated 2d ‘Coastal Urban Fringe’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG notes that 2d is “busy with many uses and a variety of land cover’, and that ‘Fragmented and sporadic development has a negative influence on the character of this landscape. New housing and business development could reinforce a sporadic characteristic.”
The Vision states that:
“The rural and natural qualities of these areas will be reinforced and there will be the development of a bold landscape structure to unify disparate uses. This will be achieved through the conservation of rural green areas and a reduction in the impact of development in prominent locations.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Protect 'green' areas from sporadic and peripheral development. Support the retention and development of ‘green gaps’, green infrastructure and ecosystem services approaches in Local Development Frameworks where they would help maintain distinctive, undeveloped characteristics.”
FLD are concerned that the housing development upon this site would result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside. It is clearly visible from higher ground in the Pennington hills, to the north west, from where its wider landscape setting can be appreciated. It is clear from this point, that development would represent a significant encroachment into the open countryside setting of Swarthmoor.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The aforementioned 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS3.1 – Ulverston and Furness Area seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of the Furness Peninsula and individual settlements.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including RN315#/RN109M
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
31. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:09:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.10 Existing Green Infrastructure
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
FLD are strongly supportive of the designation of open space within the district. FLD are supportive of the Council’s approach, which reflects current national guidance in seeking to recognise the variety of important functions open space can perform, and enhance quality and value.
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.
FLD are strongly supportive of the designation of open space within the district. FLD are supportive of the Council’s approach, which reflects current national guidance in seeking to recognise the variety of important functions open space can perform, and enhance quality and value.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
32. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:11:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.9 Green Gaps
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Reword the last paragraph of draft Policy LA1.9 in order to reflect the approach to development in Green Belts dictated by the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraphs 87 – 92.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
FLD are strongly supportive of the designation of Green Gaps in the district, for the reasons outlined in paragraphs 2.56 – 2.59 of the Allocations Document.
We have some concerns however, over the proposed policy wording of Policy LA1.9. Given the function they designed to perform, Green Gaps should be regarded as local Green Belt areas, and as such, relevant national policy regarding the latter should apply. The recently published National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 79 to 92) reiterates the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
Paragraphs 87 – 92 outline the restrictive approach to development which should be taken in such areas. The wording of draft policy LA1.9 does not go far enough in this regard in our view. With regard to the last paragraph of the draft policy, it is clear that all development should satisfy Policy CS8.2, regardless of whether or not it is located within a Green Gap. Policy LA1.9 as currently worded would therefore appear to confer no additional protection upon land designated as Green Gap – in conflict with the aims of NPPF guidance.
FLD would therefore recommend a stronger wording for Policy LA1.9, reflecting NPPF paragraphs 87 – 92.
In FLD’s view therefore, the draft policy as currently worded conflicts with the tests of legal compliance and soundness, as is has not had regard to NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92.
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 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.
Proposed Change:
Reword the last paragraph of draft Policy LA1.9 in order to reflect the approach to development in Green Belts dictated by the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraphs 87 – 92.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
FLD are strongly supportive of the designation of Green Gaps in the district, for the reasons outlined in paragraphs 2.56 – 2.59 of the Allocations Document.
We have some concerns however, over the proposed policy wording of Policy LA1.9. Given the function they designed to perform, Green Gaps should be regarded as local Green Belt areas, and as such, relevant national policy regarding the latter should apply. The recently published National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 79 to 92) reiterates the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
Paragraphs 87 – 92 outline the restrictive approach to development which should be taken in such areas. The wording of draft policy LA1.9 does not go far enough in this regard in our view. With regard to the last paragraph of the draft policy, it is clear that all development should satisfy Policy CS8.2, regardless of whether or not it is located within a Green Gap. Policy LA1.9 as currently worded would therefore appear to confer no additional protection upon land designated as Green Gap – in conflict with the aims of NPPF guidance.
FLD would therefore recommend a stronger wording for Policy LA1.9, reflecting NPPF paragraphs 87 – 92.
In FLD’s view therefore, the draft policy as currently worded conflicts with the tests of legal compliance and soundness, as is has not had regard to NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
33. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:13:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.9 Green Gaps between - KENDAL and OXENHOLME
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Kendal and Oxenholme, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the area currently allocated for employment (M2M).
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of site M2M would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to M2M.
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.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Kendal and Oxenholme, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the area currently allocated for employment (M2M).
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of site M2M would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to M2M.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
34. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:14:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.9 Green Gaps between - OXENHOLME and NATLAND
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Oxenholme and Natland, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the area currently allocated for housing (R108M), and the field immediately to the south of this.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of the area noted above would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to R108M.
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.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Oxenholme and Natland, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the area currently allocated for housing (R108M), and the field immediately to the south of this.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of the area noted above would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to R108M.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
35. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 16 Apr 2012 23:16:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.9 Green Gaps between - GRANGE-over-SANDS and ALLITHWAITE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Kents Bank and Allithwaite, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the areas currently allocated for mixed use (MN25M) and housing (R672M).
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of the areas noted above would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to MN25M and R672M.
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.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Kents Bank and Allithwaite, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the areas currently allocated for mixed use (MN25M) and housing (R672M).
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of the areas noted above would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to MN25M and R672M.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
36. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 17 May 2012 10:31:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Paragraph No.
2.43
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Review boundaries of damaging sites, including M11M-mod.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
In FLD’s view, M11M contributes significantly to the setting of Ulverston. It is largely undeveloped, and whilst not of significant value as open countryside in its own right, it performs an important function in softening the built boundary of Ulverston, enabling a gradual transition from urban to rural. It is clearly visible from the A590, the main trunk road into Ulverston. The potential visual impact of the development of this site is significant therefore.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 7.2 Ha should be allocated to Ulverston. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that the development of all the allocated sites in Ulverston would provide 11.78 Ha. This represents a significant overallocation.
Given the landscape impacts of the development of M11M-mod (and E30) as proposed, in FLD’s view therefore, the scale of allocation in Ulverston should be reviewed, with site boundaries altered accordingly.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS3.1 – Ulverston and Furness Area seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of the Furness Peninsula and individual settlements.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Review boundaries of damaging sites, including M11M-mod.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). As follows -
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Assessment:
In FLD’s view, M11M contributes significantly to the setting of Ulverston. It is largely undeveloped, and whilst not of significant value as open countryside in its own right, it performs an important function in softening the built boundary of Ulverston, enabling a gradual transition from urban to rural. It is clearly visible from the A590, the main trunk road into Ulverston. The potential visual impact of the development of this site is significant therefore.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 7.2 Ha should be allocated to Ulverston. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that the development of all the allocated sites in Ulverston would provide 11.78 Ha. This represents a significant overallocation.
Given the landscape impacts of the development of M11M-mod (and E30) as proposed, in FLD’s view therefore, the scale of allocation in Ulverston should be reviewed, with site boundaries altered accordingly.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The recent Employment Land Review undertaken by the Council (February 2012) also makes it clear that the allocation of this site in its entirety is not justified by local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
37. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 21 May 2012 09:10:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.4 Broad Locations for New Housing - APPLEBY ROAD, KENDAL
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including the Appleby Road Broad Location for Development.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
1) The Impacts of Development
Local Opinion:
In light of the Localism Act’s aim to empower local people to shape their environment (subsequently reflected in the NPPF), it is key to note that the “a significant proportion of responses raised by members of the public” relate to “Impact on existing levels of local/general amenity – views, environmental quality and landscape character”. (Consultation Statement, page 12)
Major Development In Kendal – General Comments:
In order to assess the potential impact of development upon Kendal, it is important to understand its relationship to local topography. The town itself has a strong historic character, reflected in its layout and buildings, and has a clearly defined landscape setting. The inherent linkage between settlement form and character and the distinctive, undulating local landscape is key. The setting of the town creates a rural feel which extends into its centre, due to the proximity of the river and glimpsed views out into the countryside.
Attributes of particular value to the public were reported in The Westmorland Gazette in 2010. These can be summarised as:
Hillsides, and views to the surrounding hills, which give a sense of the town being in a valley;
Green Gaps - separation of the town from nearby villages;
Intimate Areas - small fields, lanes and old farms;
Open, Green Spaces within the built up area;
Drumlins - a principal feature of the local landscape, which have the effect of breaking up and hiding parts of the built area of the town.
The character of the landscape surrounding Kendal has been recognised for its inherent quality since the post-war era, when it was identified in both the Dower and Hobhouse reports which paved the way for the designation of National Parks and AONBs. The town lies between two National Parks – the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. The land immediately surrounding Kendal was until very recently designated County Landscape in the adopted Development Plan. The fact that this designation no longer applies is not indicative of any deterioration in quality. It simply reflects a change in approach adopted by national guidance.
Land to the north and south of the town has been designated for a number of years as Green Gap, the local equivalent of Greenbelt, in recognition of landscape value and the need to prevent coalescence with the neighbouring villages of Burneside and Oxenholme.
It is key to note that a review of the boundary of the Lake District National Park is currently being undertaken by Natural England. The review proposes extending the southern boundary of the Park to include the Helsington Barrows and Sizergh Fell ridge, thus moving the boundary of the Park closer to Kendal. The setting of the National Park is also a key material consideration when considering development on the outskirts of the town.
It is also relevant to note that all of the major development sites identified in Kendal are greenfield. This clearly conflicts with the Council’s previously developed land target of 28%.
Appleby Road Broad Location For Development:
The Appleby Road Broad Location for Development (paragraph 3.31) lies within an area designated 7b ‘Drumlin Field’ by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCG). Core Strategy Policy 8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character types identified in the CLCG.
The CLCG describes the following characteristics:
“The drumlins are mainly covered in pastoral fields, usually divided by thick well managed hedges. Limestone walls can be found bounding fields in higher parts and around villages. The strong patchwork of fields forms a distinctive pattern that crosses up and down the drumlins. Small broadleaved woods, orchards and hedgerow trees are abundant around Kendal…
…The combination of drumlin landforms overlain by a geometric net of fields gives this landscape a strong identity…
…A journey through it reveals a series of contrasts from enclosed sheltered hollows to exposed open hilltops affording long views. In some cases the views open across valleys where farmland and towns, such as Kendal, are framed in the landscape.”
The Vision states that:
“This well composed landscape will be conserved and enhanced to retain its distinctive characteristics. Its unique topography will be maintained and enhanced as a striking asset.”
Guidelines are given to:
“Ensure that all developments are of high quality and well related to the distinctive grain and scale of this landscape. Avoid prominent hill tops or cutting across slopes.”
FLD would refer to the assessment made by the Planning Inspector at the last Local Plan Review. A large part of the proposed Appleby Road Broad Location for development, then known as ‘North East of Sandylands’, was identified during this Review, and subsequently deallocated following the Inspector’s recommendations. The Inspector noted that:
“I can do no better than to quote Mr Garnett, who stated at the Inquiry that ‘the essence of the landscape is in its unimpeded sweep upwards towards Benson Knott.’ It is in the vicinity of the North Sandylands site, in my view, that the valley setting of Kendal can best be appreciated, and the landforms which comprise the landscape context of the town can best be seen… From viewpoints on the western side of Kendal, and from the A591, the full extent of the proposed development would be clearly seen. The site is also prominent in views on approach to the town, or on leaving Appleby Road. The remnant of open land around Spital would not offer an adequate ‘gateway’, being limited by the bend in the A685. I conclude, therefore, that the landscape impact of the proposed allocation would be severe.” (South Lakeland Local Plan Alteration 1 - Inspector’s Report, 2.13 – 2.15)
The inspector subsequently recommended deallocation of the employment and mixed use allocation, and designation as County Landscape.
The proposed Broad Location extends up the valley side. Given this, any development would be widely visible in wider views, such as that afforded from the junction of Queens Road and Low Fellside, to the south west. The development of land such as this threatens to erode the strongly rural feel characteristic of Kendal, evoked by glimpses of undeveloped valley sides from within the town.
2) Inadequate Evidence Base
The above assessment indicates that the development of this site would result in a significant adverse impact upon local character. The Council has not undertaken a sufficiently robust assessment of local landscape character in our view, and has not assessed the full implications of the development of this area. The landscape assessment undertaken by the Council is limited to the following:
The 2008 Housing and Employment Land Search Study considered the landscape setting of the district’s settlements, with a view to informing potential directions for growth. This was not a detailed assessment however, of the type outlined in the Cumbria Landscape Character Toolkit.
In 2011 a Landscape Mitigation Report was undertaken by Woolerton Dodwell on behalf of the Council, to consider potential mitigation measures which could be applied to a number of major sites allocated for development. This report was not intended to question the principle of development however.
In 2012 the Sustainability Appraisal of the Allocations DPD considered landscape character as one of the identified sustainability objectives. The landscape implications of the development of this site were considered in a limited way. This was a desk based exercise, based upon “maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs” – which nonetheless concluded that the development of this area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character.
The 2012 Settlement Fact Files updates make reference to the Cumbria Landscape Toolkit. This is limited to stating which landscape sub-type a site lies within however. No assessment of impact against identified characteristics has been undertaken.
3) Conflicts with Tests of Legal Compliance
i) The conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal have not been used to inform the DPD. The Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the development of this site area could result in a significant negative effect on landscape character. A detailed landscape assessment of the impact of development should therefore subsequently have been undertaken in light of this finding, and the allocation reviewed as appropriate.
ii) The allocation has not has regard to the following National Policy:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
iii) The allocation conflicts with Core Strategy Policy in the following regards:
CS1.1 – Sustainable Development Principles, aims to (inter alia) protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty and take account of and enhance landscape character.
CS1.2 – The Development Strategy gives priority to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, and seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites.
CS2 – Kendal Strategy seeks to ensure that greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of the town.
CS6.6 – Making Effective and Efficient Use of Land and Buildings seeks to ensure that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings.
CS8.1 Green Infrastructure seeks to (inter alia) protect the countryside from inappropriate development, and protect and enhance the linkages between open spaces within the service centres, other rural settlements and in the wider countryside.
Policy CS8.2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landsacpe and Settlement Character states that proposals should be informed by, and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscape types identified in (inter alia) the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.
Policy CS8.10 – Design states that (inter alia) the siting, and scale of development should be of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape.
iv) The allocation has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy, which highlights South Lakeland’s “stunning landscape and varied natural heritage” as an “especially distinctive characteristic”.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including the Appleby Road Broad Location for Development.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
38. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 21 May 2012 09:26:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Endmoor sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 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 level of development proposed by the Council for Endmoor is unsustainable in FLD’s view. The Housing Needs Survey Report undertaken by the Cumbria Rural Housing Trust for Preston Richard Parish in October 2007 shows that 10 households are in need of affordable housing for the period to 2012. The Endmoor Settlement Fact file indicates that only four new dwellings have been built in the settlement since 2003. The Land Allocations document however, proposes the development of a total of 125 dwellings in the village, over the period to 2025. Even after extrapolating the housing needs data to 2025, it is clear that the LDF Allocation is far in excess of local need and demand.
The document proposes the allocation of a large-scale greenfield site, beyond the existing settlement boundary, encroaching into the open countryside surrounding the village. The level of development proposed is not commensurate with the size of the village, its function as a Local Service Centre in the spatial hierarchy, and the limited services it provides. Despite Endmoor’s relative proximity to Kendal, the settlement fact file highlights issues with public transport provision, rendering it impractical for those wishing to commute to the latter for work.
Given these factors, it would be logical to assume that the large levels of housing development proposed will result in further commuting by private vehicle, with the settlement assuming the role of a dormitory town. This does not reflect policy, which aims to limit development to that which addresses local need only.
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.
Proposed Change:
Undertake district level landscape character assessment and review scale of allocation in light of environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete the most damaging sites, including M41M.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary:
We would wish to reiterate our comments submitted in box 1.3, sections 1) and 2). We would add the following in regard to the tests of soundness:
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The local Housing Needs Survey Report would indicate that the proposed level of development far exceeds local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reusing brownfield land, and focusing development in sustainable locations..
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
39. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 21 May 2012 09:42:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Paragraph No.
2.43
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
FLD highlighted our opposition to the adopted employment land target throughout the consultation on the Core Strategy. In particular, we feel that the Council have not sought to balance the need to deliver employment sites with a recognition of the environmental capacity of the area. We would stress in this regard the intrinsic linkage between a healthy economy and a high quality environment (as recognised in the NPPF).
It is key to note that the Core Strategy employment land target is based upon an Employment Land and Premises Study, which was undertaken in 2005. Clearly, the economy has undergone significant change since this time. The Council have recently undertaken an Employment Land Review, base dated February 2012. This review concluded that 36Ha of land should be provided for the period 2010 -2025. This clearly represents a significant reduction from the 60Ha allocated in the Core Strategy. The Employment Land Review apportions this revised target according to the development strategy – and concludes that 12.6 Ha should be allocated to Kendal. Table 10.2 subsequently illustrates that this target can easily be met in Kendal, without the need to develop M2M. (In FLD’s view, Kendal’s employment land needs could be met without the need to develop sites E4M, E31M, or M2M, given the reduced target, and potential contributions in the longer term over the plan period from both the Kendal Canal Head Area, and the Kendal Quarry site).
In FLD’s view therefore, there is very little justification for the continued allocation of sites which would be damaging to local landscape character, such as M2M..
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.
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.
Review scale of employment allocation in light of revised estimates of need for sites, environmental capacity and local concerns. Undertake district level landscape character assessment, including detailed landscape character assessment of all proposed allocations. Delete significantly damaging sites, including M2M.
i) The DPD is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. As stated in 1) and 2), in our view, the landscape character evidence base is insufficiently robust. The recent Employment Land Review undertaken by the Council (February 2012) also makes it clear that the allocation of this site is not justified by local need.
ii) The DPD is not consistent with National Policy in the following regards:
NPPF paragraph 7 highlights the importance of the environment as one of the three dimensions of sustainable development. The NPPF states that (inter alia) the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing the environment and use resources prudently. The NPPF also recognises the inherent linkage between socio-economic and environmental quality.
NPPF paragraph 17 outlines Core Planning Principles which include the empowerment of local people to shape their surroundings, taking account of the character of different areas, protecting the intrinsic character of the countryside, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and reusing brownfield land.
NPPF paragraphs 79 to 92 reiterate the importance of ensuring the permanence of Green Belt boundaries, and restricting development within these areas.
NPPF paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by (inter alia) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
NPPF paragraph 111 encourages the re-use of brownfield land.
NPPF paragraph 150 states that Local Plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the views and aspirations of local communities.
NPPF paragraph 158 states that local planning authorities should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
NPPF paragraph 165 states that planning policies and decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the natural environment.
NPPF paragraph 170 states that where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
The range of issues raised by this allocation are complex and wide ranging. They have major implications for the Council's overall appraoch to employment development in the district. This is a large and prominent site in a sensitive area. The landscape impact of this proposal is potentially significant. Given these factors, it is felt appropriate to discuss the proposal in more detail at the oragl part of the examination.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
40. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 21 May 2012 09:52:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.9 Green Gaps - Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
M2M
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Kendal and Oxenholme, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the area currently allocated for employment (M2M).
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of site M2M would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to M2M.
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.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Kendal and Oxenholme, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the area currently allocated for employment (M2M).
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of site M2M would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to M2M.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
41. Mr Richard Pearse, Friends of the Lake District : 21 May 2012 09:58:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.9 Green Gaps - Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
R108 and field immediately to south of this.
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Oxenholme and Natland, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the area currently allocated for housing (R108M), and the field immediately to the south of this.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of the area noted above would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to R108M.
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.
Proposed Change:
Whilst supporting the proposed areas of Green Gap designation between Oxenholme and Natland, FLD would wish to see the proposed designation extended in order to incorporate the area currently allocated for housing (R108M), and the field immediately to the south of this.
Reasons Why This Is Necessary
In FLD’s view, development of the area noted above would be damaging in landscape character terms, and in regard to the aims of Green Gap designation. For justification in terms of legal tests, and tests of soundness, please see our comments in regard to R108M.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me