Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R449/R74 GRANGE-OVER-SANDS OPPOSITE LITTLE FELL GATE FARM

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

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

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

INTRODUCTION

1. These representations are made on behalf of Ainscough Strategic Land and relate to two areas of land identified as R74 and R449 within the Land Allocations Development Plan Document (the DPD). Site R74 is privately owned. Site R449 is owned by a Trust and Ainscough Strategic Land has a developer option on it. There is, therefore, a clear commercial developer appetite to bring forward residential development of site R449 in the short term.
2. Within the DPD the combined site R74/R449 is identified as a housing allocation under Policy LA 1.3: Housing Allocations. The site is listed as follows:
R449/R74 Grange-over-Sands
Opposite Little Fell Gate Farm
Site area 2.04 ha
Dwellings 46 – Phase 2 2017-2022
3. Fundamentally Ainscough Strategic Land supports the allocation of the two areas R449/R74 for housing within the DPD as the sites are suitable for housing, are available and development is achievable. In this regard the allocation of R449/R74 for housing under Policy LA 1.3 is considered to be “sound”. However, due to the different ownership interests and aspirations associated with the two separate sites they have been treated separately in earlier stages in the LDF process and in the 2009 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. It is appropriate and desirable for the sites to be identified as separate and discrete housing allocations by Policy LA 1.3. Such an approach provides greater flexibility in terms of delivery and phasing, and would therefore accord with National Planning Policy.
4. There are also other aspects of the DPD which raise issues of soundness, principally in terms of housing delivery and the phasing of development. We believe that certain changes are required to the DPD, and in particular the paragraphs within the DPD which deal with “Phasing” (paragraphs 2.29 – 2.30), in order to make the document sound. Our main concern is that the DPD does not make it explicitly clear that the phasing indicated within Policy LA 1.3 is purely indicative. Furthermore, the text and policy does not promote or encourage the early delivery of housing on allocated sites (or parts thereof) as we believe it should do in order to meet the “soundness” requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF).
POLICY BACKGROUND
5. The NPPF (paragraph 182) sets out the matters that will be considered through Local Plan Examination, namely:
• Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
• Justified – the plan would be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
• Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
• Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.
6. We believe that changes to the DPD are required in order to make it sound. As currently drafted we do not believe that paragraphs 2.29 – 2.30 of the DPD represent a plan which is positively prepared or which is consistent with national policy. In particular the LPA faces significant challenges associated with housing delivery (including a past record of under-delivery) and it is imperative that the policy framework in the DPD promotes and encourages the early delivery of new housing.
7. The following aspects of the NPPF are particularly relevant:
• Paragraph 47 – “To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:
- use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, so far as is consistent with the policies set out in this framework, including identifying sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;
- identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planning supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;
- identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15;
- for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and
- set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.”
8. South Lakeland District Council is in a position where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. That is clear if one considers the five year housing land position (based on the most up-to-date information) for South Lakeland. We have utilised the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 as the most up-to-date information. Table 4.1 has been utilised as the basis for our assessment.
Annual Requirement 2003-2011 (8 years) = 3,200 (400 p.a.)
Net Completions 2003-2011 (8 years) = 1,690 (211 p.a.)
Shortfall – 1,511 dwellings
Five Year Requirement – 3,510 (1,510 shortfall plus 5 x 400)
• annual requirement – 702
Sites with Planning Permission – 947
That represents a mere 1.35 year supply of sites in terms of committed sites with planning permission. Even if one adds in 94 dwellings on sites in progress through the planning system only 1,041 dwellings are likely, or a 1.48 year supply.
The 2,677 SHLAA Category 1 sites are effectively “windfall” sites at this stage, and should not be considered to be deliverable. They should not be relied upon as a committed source of housing supply.
Despite the best efforts of the author of the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 we do not believe that Table 4.1 provides a realistic and robust assessment of the five year supply position.
9. That record of under delivery is also clear from the table provided at paragraph 2.8 of the DPD. It is of concern that paragraph 2.8 refers to the “ambition to deliver 400 dwellings per year between 2003 and 2025.” That term “ambition” is also used within Table 1A of the DPD.
For clarity Policy CS 6.1 of the adopted Core Strategy sets a “housing requirement” of 400 dwellings which should be met. The DPD should properly recognise that requirement as such and not refer to it as an ambition. The DPD must clearly and unequivocally ensure that the full objectively assessed need for new housing is planned for and met if it is to accord with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.
10. Furthermore, because of the record of persistent under delivery the DPD should seek to ensure that five years worth supply of sites for housing plus a 20% buffer is provided for (moved forward from later in the plan period).
11. It is vital, therefore, to ensure that the DPD is framed positively so that the identified/allocated sites can be delivered early in the lifeline of the DPD where that is practicable and feasible on a site by site basis. In order to address this issue we would suggest that the text accompanying Policy LA 1.3 of the DPD dealing with phasing makes the following factors clear:
(i) that the phasing indicated within Policy LA 1.3 is indicative only;
(ii) that the LPA will adopt a positive and proactive stance towards proposals to secure the earlier delivery of allocated sites (or parts thereof);
(iii) that, where allocated sites are made of different land parcels (possibly with different ownerships), the early development of parts of the overall allocation will be considered positively subject to development management issues.
12. This is particularly relevant to our client’s interests as different ownership interests affecting allocation R449/R74 may mean that aspirations for early housing development differ. If one landowner is content to see their element of the allocation come forward in a later phase of the Plan period that should not preclude other elements coming forward earlier in the Plan period, provided development management issues can be resolved.
13. For these reasons we would respectfully suggest the following minor changes to the text at Policy LA 1.3 would deal with the issues of soundness raised by these representations:
• Identification of sites R74 and R449 as separate and discrete housing allocations within Policy LA 1.3.
• Revised/additional wording to the Phasing section at paragraphs 2.29 - 2.30 to confirm the following:
(i) the phasing within Policy LA 1.3 is indicative;
(ii) the LPA will promote and encourage earlier delivery where that is practical and feasible;
(iii) confirmation that different parts of allocated sites could be developed at different times subject to development management issues.
• Deletion of the word “ambition” and replacement with the word “requirement” in the context of housing delivery.
14. These changes would ensure the soundness of these aspects of the DPD in terms of consistency with national policy and ensuring the DPD is positively prepared, and is flexible enough to promote delivery.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspectors understanding of the issues and matters raised.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R449/R74 GRANGE-OVER-SANDS OPPOSITE LITTLE FELL GATE FARM

Yes

Yes

Our client Ainscough Strategic Land supports the principal of allocating sites R74/R449 for housing development under Policy LA1.3.
That said separate representations relating to the soundness of the DPD in terms of how Policy LA1.3 if framed and worded in respect of sites R74/R449 have also been submitted on behalf of Ainscough Strategic Land.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

2.29

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

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

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

4. There are also other aspects of the DPD which raise issues of soundness, principally in terms of housing delivery and the phasing of development. We believe that certain changes are required to the DPD, and in particular the paragraphs within the DPD which deal with “Phasing” (paragraphs 2.29 – 2.30), in order to make the document sound. Our main concern is that the DPD does not make it explicitly clear that the phasing indicated within Policy LA 1.3 is purely indicative. Furthermore, the text and policy does not promote or encourage the early delivery of housing on allocated sites (or parts thereof) as we believe it should do in order to meet the “soundness” requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF).
POLICY BACKGROUND
5. The NPPF (paragraph 182) sets out the matters that will be considered through Local Plan Examination, namely:
• Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
• Justified – the plan would be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
• Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
• Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.
6. We believe that changes to the DPD are required in order to make it sound. As currently drafted we do not believe that paragraphs 2.29 – 2.30 of the DPD represent a plan which is positively prepared or which is consistent with national policy. In particular the LPA faces significant challenges associated with housing delivery (including a past record of under-delivery) and it is imperative that the policy framework in the DPD promotes and encourages the early delivery of new housing.
7. The following aspects of the NPPF are particularly relevant:
• Paragraph 47 – “To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:
- use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, so far as is consistent with the policies set out in this framework, including identifying sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;
- identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planning supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;
- identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15;
- for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and
- set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.”
8. South Lakeland District Council is in a position where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. That is clear if one considers the five year housing land position (based on the most up-to-date information) for South Lakeland. We have utilised the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 as the most up-to-date information. Table 4.1 has been utilised as the basis for our assessment.
Annual Requirement 2003-2011 (8 years) = 3,200 (400 p.a.)
Net Completions 2003-2011 (8 years) = 1,690 (211 p.a.)
Shortfall – 1,511 dwellings
Five Year Requirement – 3,510 (1,510 shortfall plus 5 x 400)
• annual requirement – 702
Sites with Planning Permission – 947
That represents a mere 1.35 year supply of sites in terms of committed sites with planning permission. Even if one adds in 94 dwellings on sites in progress through the planning system only 1,041 dwellings are likely, or a 1.48 year supply.
The 2,677 SHLAA Category 1 sites are effectively “windfall” sites at this stage, and should not be considered to be deliverable. They should not be relied upon as a committed source of housing supply.
Despite the best efforts of the author of the Housing Land Position Statement 2011 we do not believe that Table 4.1 provides a realistic and robust assessment of the five year supply position.
9. That record of under delivery is also clear from the table provided at paragraph 2.8 of the DPD.It is of concern that paragraph 2.8 refers to the “ambition to deliver 400 dwellings per year between 2003 and 2025.” That term “ambition” is also used within Table 1A of the DPD.
For clarity Policy CS 6.1 of the adopted Core Strategy sets a “housing requirement” of 400 dwellings which should be met. The DPD should properly recognise that requirement as such and not refer to it as an ambition. The DPD must clearly and unequivocally ensure that the full objectively assessed need for new housing is planned for and met if it is to accord with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.
10. Furthermore, because of the record of persistent under delivery the DPD should seek to ensure that five years worth supply of sites for housing plus a 20% buffer is provided for (moved forward from later in the plan period).
11. It is vital, therefore, to ensure that the DPD is framed positively so that the identified/allocated sites can be delivered early in the lifeline of the DPD where that is practicable and feasible on a site by site basis. In order to address this issue we would suggest that the text accompanying Policy LA 1.3 of the DPD dealing with phasing makes the following factors clear:
(i) that the phasing indicated within Policy LA 1.3 is indicative only;
(ii) that the LPA will adopt a positive and proactive stance towards proposals to secure the earlier delivery of allocated sites (or parts thereof);
(iii) that, where allocated sites are made of different land parcels (possibly with different ownerships), the early development of parts of the overall allocation will be considered positively subject to development management issues.
12. This is particularly relevant to our client’s interests as different ownership interests affecting allocation R449/R74 may mean that aspirations for early housing development differ. If one landowner is content to see their element of the allocation come forward in a later phase of the Plan period that should not preclude other elements coming forward earlier in the Plan period, provided development management issues can be resolved.
13. For these reasons we would respectfully suggest the following minor changes to the text at Policy LA 1.3 would deal with the issues of soundness raised by these representations:
• Identification of sites R74 and R449 as separate and discrete housing allocations within Policy LA 1.3.
• Revised/additional wording to the Phasing section at paragraphs 2.29 - 2.30 to confirm the following:
(i) the phasing within Policy LA 1.3 is indicative;
(ii) the LPA will promote and encourage earlier delivery where that is practical and feasible;
(iii) confirmation that different parts of allocated sites could be developed at different times subject to development management issues.
• Deletion of the word “ambition” and replacement with the word “requirement” in the context of housing delivery.
14. These changes would ensure the soundness of these aspects of the DPD in terms of consistency with national policy and ensuring the DPD is positively prepared, and is flexible enough to promote delivery.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspectors understanding of the issues and matters raised.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

2.8

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

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

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

It is of concern that paragraph 2.8 refers to the “ambition to deliver 400 dwellings per year between 2003 and 2025.” That term “ambition” is also used within Table 1A of the DPD.
For clarity Policy CS 6.1 of the adopted Core Strategy sets a “housing requirement” of 400 dwellings which should be met. The DPD should properly recognise that requirement as such and not refer to it as an ambition. The DPD must clearly and unequivocally ensure that the full objectively assessed need for new housing is planned for and met if it is to accord with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.
10. Furthermore, because of the record of persistent under delivery the DPD should seek to ensure that five years worth supply of sites for housing plus a 20% buffer is provided for (moved forward from later in the plan period).
11. It is vital, therefore, to ensure that the DPD is framed positively so that the identified/allocated sites can be delivered early in the lifeline of the DPD where that is practicable and feasible on a site by site basis. In order to address this issue we would suggest that the text accompanying Policy LA 1.3 of the DPD dealing with phasing makes the following factors clear:
(i) that the phasing indicated within Policy LA 1.3 is indicative only;
(ii) that the LPA will adopt a positive and proactive stance towards proposals to secure the earlier delivery of allocated sites (or parts thereof);
(iii) that, where allocated sites are made of different land parcels (possibly with different ownerships), the early development of parts of the overall allocation will be considered positively subject to development management issues.
12. This is particularly relevant to our client’s interests as different ownership interests affecting allocation R449/R74 may mean that aspirations for early housing development differ. If one landowner is content to see their element of the allocation come forward in a later phase of the Plan period that should not preclude other elements coming forward earlier in the Plan period, provided development management issues can be resolved.
13. For these reasons we would respectfully suggest the following minor changes to the text at Policy LA 1.3 would deal with the issues of soundness raised by these representations:
• Identification of sites R74 and R449 as separate and discrete housing allocations within Policy LA 1.3.
• Revised/additional wording to the Phasing section at paragraphs 2.29 - 2.30 to confirm the following:
(i) the phasing within Policy LA 1.3 is indicative;
(ii) the LPA will promote and encourage earlier delivery where that is practical and feasible;
(iii) confirmation that different parts of allocated sites could be developed at different times subject to development management issues.
• Deletion of the word “ambition” and replacement with the word “requirement” in the context of housing delivery.
14. These changes would ensure the soundness of these aspects of the DPD in terms of consistency with national policy and ensuring the DPD is positively prepared, and is flexible enough to promote delivery.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspectors understanding of the issues and matters raised.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

2.30

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

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

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

4. There are also other aspects of the DPD which raise issues of soundness, principally in terms of housing delivery and the phasing of development. We believe that certain changes are required to the DPD, and in particular the paragraphs within the DPD which deal with “Phasing” (paragraphs 2.29 – 2.30), in order to make the document sound. Our main concern is that the DPD does not make it explicitly clear that the phasing indicated within Policy LA 1.3 is purely indicative. Furthermore, the text and policy does not promote or encourage the early delivery of housing on allocated sites (or parts thereof) as we believe it should do in order to meet the “soundness” requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF).
POLICY BACKGROUND
5. The NPPF (paragraph 182) sets out the matters that will be considered through Local Plan Examination, namely:
• Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
• Justified – the plan would be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
• Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
• Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.
6. We believe that changes to the DPD are required in order to make it sound. As currently drafted we do not believe that paragraphs 2.29 – 2.30 of the DPD represent a plan which is positively prepared or which is consistent with national policy. In particular the LPA faces significant challenges associated with housing delivery (including a past record of under-delivery) and it is imperative that the policy framework in the DPD promotes and encourages the early delivery of new housing.

• Revised/additional wording to the Phasing section at paragraphs 2.29 - 2.30 to confirm the following:
(i) the phasing within Policy LA 1.3 is indicative;
(ii) the LPA will promote and encourage earlier delivery where that is practical and feasible;
(iii) confirmation that different parts of allocated sites could be developed at different times subject to development management issues.

•14. These changes would ensure the soundness of these aspects of the DPD in terms of consistency with national policy and ensuring the DPD is positively prepared, and is flexible enough to promote delivery.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspectors understanding of the issues and matters raised.

Please notify me