Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.1 Development Boundaries- KENDAL

Yes

No

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

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

Please note that we have submitted a full version of these representations including appendices via email, sent to developmentplans@southlakeland.gov.uk on 17 April 2012 from dpage@geraldeve.com.

[Refer to attached pdf]



Gerald Eve LLP is instructed to submit further representations to the Council’s Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) in relation to land at the Ghyll and Hylands, Brigsteer Road, Kendal. These representations follow initial submissions made by Knight Frank LLP (letter dated 8 April 2011) and representations made by Gerald Eve LLP at the ‘further consultation’ stage (letter dated 8 September 2011).

In addition to those submissions our clients met with Damien Law and Dan Hudson (in early February 2012) and we met with our clients and Dan Hudson on Thursday 5 April 2012.

Background

Following the earlier representations submitted to the Land Allocations DPD, and following consideration of the proposed changes to the document by the Full Council on 18th January 2012, alterations have been proposed to the Development Boundary in relation to our clients’ site.

The boundary previously ran east to west along Underbarrow Road and south to north along the eastern boundary of Hylands. The currently proposed development boundary now includes the residential allocation to the north of our clients’ site (R129M and R143) and the allocation directly to the south (R103M/MOD) and dissects our clients’ property in two, the new line running between Brigsteer Road to the south and the boundary with R129M, the residential allocation, to the north.

Given the apparent inevitability of the proposed housing developments surrounding our clients’ property on all sides they feel they have no option but to support the proposed changes to the Development Boundary, but believe it is only appropriate for the Development Boundary to be changed to include the proposed residential allocations to the north and south of their site if the new boundary includes all of The Ghyll’s curtilage and land in its entirety along the full length of their western and southern boundaries. Our clients believe that the laudable attempt to differentiate between their already developed curtilage and other parts of their land in the proposed ‘curved’ development boundary which dissects their site, represents a significant set of missed opportunities. A firmer boundary could create a strong edge to the built up area and lead to a number of wider benefits of a more joined up approach to the residential developments proposed along the western edge of Kendal. These matters are discussed in more detail below.

Planning Policy Changes

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was adopted in March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning polices for England. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of Local Plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions (Paragraph 2).

In relation to the preparation of Local Plans, Annex 1: Implementation states that:

“The policies contained in this framework are material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account from the day of its publication. The framework must also be taken into account in the preparation of plans.” (Paragraph 212)

In relation to Local Plans the NPPF further reiterates the ‘golden thread’ of sustainable development. It states:

“Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.” (Paragraph 151)

The NPPF goes on to state:

“Local Plans should be aspirational but realistic. They should address the spatial implications of economic, social and environmental change. Local Plans should set out the opportunities for development and clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where.” (Paragraph 154)

The NPPF is a significant change to the planning system and is a material consideration to the preparation of this Land Allocations DPD. The Framework clearly identifies the presumption in favour of sustainable development and, with specific reference to Local Plans, identifies the objective of being “aspirational” and addressing “spatial implications”. These elements are considered to be particularly relevant to our clients’ latest representations.

The Extent of the Development Boundary

As set out above, changes are proposed to the Development Boundary, with the boundary now including part of our clients’ site, and the entire residential allocations to the north and south of their site. Whilst we support this approach, we also believe that the curved line splitting our clients’ site should be moved further to the west, to benefit the comprehensive redevelopment of all the new residential development proposed on the west side of Kendal.

Turning to the objectives of development boundaries, it is broadly acknowledged that they should provide the distinction between the built up area and the open countryside, which will support the growth of the urban area and protect the countryside from urban sprawl.

It must follow that to meet that aim that development boundaries should be clearly defined and often fixed to existing physical barriers such as roads, field boundaries or merely following the edge of existing built form. For a Development Boundary to be arbitrary i.e. a line on a plan that does not relate well to obvious natural boundaries or physical features, could cause confusion and may not clearly distinguish between the built up area and the countryside.

In this particular case it would seem entirely appropriate to move the boundary westwards along Brigsteer Road, to run between the proposed allocations to the north and south, along an existing field boundary. That would more closely follow the approach adopted along the entire Settlement Boundary to the west of Kendal – sharp and firm boundary lines, along existing field boundaries or land ownerships – but more importantly, could lead to a number of planning benefits which could better link up the residential allocations to the north and south and provide better access to the wider countryside.

Benefits of Including the Entire Site in the Development Boundary

As noted above, we believe that the inclusion of the entire site within the settlement boundary could lead to the following planning benefits:

• A more appropriate Settlement Boundary, set along an existing physical feature of a dry stone wall, which would more clearly distinguish the built up area from the open countryside;

• Offer the opportunity to provide public access between the residential allocations to the north and south and, in particular to the residential allocation to the north, offer public access onto Underbarrow Road and further westwards to the open countryside, which would otherwise not be possible without walking the full length of Underbarrow Road (eastwards) and then out along Brigsteer Road (westwards);

• Provide a further area of land appropriate for residential development, to assist with meeting the Council’s housing targets – what better location than a site sandwiched on three sides by existing or proposed residential development;

• The development of this site would facilitate improvements to the existing drainage/flooding situation along Brigsteer Road, with the inclusion of an appropriate drainage system;

• The introduction of a new mini roundabout to obtain access to the site could act as a natural safety mechanism, by slowing traffic travelling away from Kendal along Brigsteer Road;

• Create an appropriate ‘entrance’ into Kendal, with the provision of mixed housing, that would clearly demarcate the transition from open countryside to the built up area; and

• Assist with creating ‘linked areas of amenity open space’ as specifically identified at paragraph 3.30 of the Land Allocations DPD, on this mistakenly identified ‘grassland and scrub’ which is clearly not considered to offer any benefit in its current state.

These benefits will never be achievable if this additional small area of land is not included within the Development Boundary. The Land Allocations DPD makes it clear that the principle of development would be unacceptable outside the new Boundary. Our clients’ site would therefore remain in private ownership and be highly unlikely to come forward for development, in either this context or in support of the sites to the north, east and south, which clearly will do during the Plan period.


Summary

In summary it is noted that the Land Allocations DPD makes reference to Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 (Defining the Boundaries of Towns and Large Villages) at paragraph 2.2. The DPD goes on to state that development boundaries have been reviewed using the following criteria, inter alia:

• Including the small infill or rounding off sites; and
• Including areas with scope to improve any unsatisfactory settlement edge.

None of the criteria would oppose the inclusion of our clients’ site in the Settlement Boundary, while both the above criteria would actually support the further small change now proposed by our clients.

With specific reference to sites that have been excluded from allocation, paragraph 2.21 of the DPD sets out the criteria. The proposed minor change would not discord with any of the criteria listed.

With specific reference to Kendal and the surrounding area, the factors influencing location of development, set out at paragraph 3.2, which includes safeguarding very high quality landscaped areas, the district's natural heritage, the quality of the built environment, issues of flood risk and the fact that there is very limited previously developed land, would all appear to support the principle of this minor change.

In final summary, we believe there is an opportunity to make a further minor change to the Development Boundary, to include the area to the south and west of our clients’ site which is currently excluded from being within the development boundary.

The key benefits to this change would be:

• A more practical and functional Development Boundary, along an existing physical feature, that would clearly distinguish the open countryside from the built up area; and

• Enable a better quality, more comprehensive residential development along the eastern boundary of Kendal, providing public access between residential allocations and a mixed density development (which is all that is physically possible on the site given the topography and existing trees) to the north of Brigsteer Road that would assist the Council with its housing targets and lead to a mix of dwelling types and sizes.

We believe making this change would result in the DPD being justified, effective and consistent with National policy.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

We believe there is an opportunity to make a further minor change to the Development Boundary, to include the area to the south and west of our clients’ site which is currently excluded from being within the Development Boundary.

The key benefits to this change would be:

• A more practical and functional Development Boundary, along an existing physical feature, that would clearly distinguish the open countryside from the built up area; and

• Enable a better quality, more comprehensive residential development along the eastern boundary of Kendal, providing public access between residential allocations and a mixed density development (which is all that is physically possible on the site given the topography and existing trees) to the north of Brigsteer Road that would assist the Council with its housing targets and lead to a mix of dwelling types and sizes.

We believe making this change would result in the DPD being justified, effective and consistent with National policy.

Please notify me