4 responses from Mr Robert Pickup, Arnside & Silverdale Landscape Trust
1. Mr Robert Pickup, Arnside & Silverdale Landscape Trust : 19 Apr 2012 10:28:00
Paragraph No.
2.8
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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.
3--There is a failure to provide evidence for and subdivide a required housing total between Beetham [AONB Part] and Arnside within the AONB and the overall SLDC figures, thus not applying National AONB/ National Park legislation correctly.[see 7]
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
3--There is a failure to provide evidence for and subdivide a required housing total between Beetham [AONB Part] and Arnside within the AONB and the overall SLDC figures, thus not applying National AONB/ National Park legislation correctly.[see 7]
2. Mr Robert Pickup, Arnside & Silverdale Landscape Trust : 19 Apr 2012 10:31:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Arnside sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 Arnside& Silverdale Landscape Trust [ASLT} is under the opinion that the proposals are not sound in respect to the following points in terms of the SLDC part of Arnside & Silverdale AONB, with respect to AONB/National Park Planning Legislation. The comments exclude the part of Beetham which lies outside of the AONB of which it is accepts is sound.
The Trust is a voluntary Landscape society with over 1000 members most of who live locally, but also with a smaller national component It covers the whole of the Arnside & Silverdale AONB, across county boundaries. It is not a protest organisation and our remit is landscape understanding, enhancement and education, for the benefit of society. We have been in existence for over 40 years being spawned to promote the landscape as part of our national identity and amongst others persuade the Public Enquiry that the route of the current A590 expressway was not in the national interest to pass through what was to become the A&SAONB. The Arnside and Silverdale AONB [A&SONB]is one of the countries smallest AONB`s , but the ASLT is one of the largest voluntary support organisations across the whole AONB designations. However all of the organisations officers are not professional planners.
We acknowledge that over the many stages of consultation many of ASLT comments have been taken into consideration by SLDC and indeed some of them acted upon, we also thank their officers for assisting in our understanding during the tight time constraints of the latest stage.
However we have only become aware at this very late stage that in hindsight, due to the proposals in the adjacent Lake District National Park LDF, land allocation proposals being put out to consultation, that the A&S AONB may not have got the best possible deal in landscape protection terms under SLDC LDF by not being considered as a planning entity in its own right, over and above the general high landscape quality of SLDC as a whole. Hence our claim that the process has been UNSOUND, for example we quote Coniston /Torver Village as an example of this and differentials between S/E -LDNP and N/E-LDNP.[Appendices to follow]
1---The A&SLT are of the opinion that the Arnside and Silverdale AONB within the overall SLDC plan, that due account of the equal National Park landscape/community/cultural planning criteria have not been seen to be met. Our recent attention has been brought to the differing Proposals of the nearby Lake District National Park LDF in protection of its similar quality of landscape in parts of its Southern Area.ie sites down to 0.1ha are included and all housing is to be 100% affordable .combined with cross community land transfer criteria. Bearing this in mind we are aware that within Arnside Village there is great anxiety to site R81 being designated for development and we now support the large percentage of people in that community, in believing that this site should NOT BE DEVELOPED due to its transitional woodland to pasture nature, especially in respect to the public footpath on the edge of the community in the above context.
2--- The SLDC have not sufficiently highlighted and made this organisation and the public fully aware of the very special nature of the Arnside/Silverdale AONB in National Planning terms as above, as part of the LDF over and above the rest of the nationally less important SLDC District Landscape.
4--The % of local/affordable homes allocation in the AONB ie, 35/65% is no different than for the rest of the SLDC District., taking insufficient account of the AONB Management Plan fully into account and national AONB/ National Park Legislation
5—Beetham and Arnside and indeed Lancashire Village local plans in the AONB have not seen to be been fully taken into account with respect to stated designated /affordable local needs housing, outside of small hamlets.
.6---In terms of point 5 not considering the AONB area within Cumbria as a strategic whole, again as per the AONB management plan.
7---Brownfield sites have been left out of the plan which are above or around 0.3 Ha which are reportedly “favoured “for development, thus slewing the percentages for deliverable sites and distorting meaningful statistics of total deliverable numbers.eg RE187 and the 0.3Ha adjacent old coal yard , within the overall plan. These sites are also seen as important by Beetham Parish Council in improving infrastructure to nearby sites on Quarry Lane, as well as increasing the viability of Storth /Sandside as a vibrant community.[ See 4 re affordable homes]
It would be appreciated if the Local Authority would consider this as an emerging document and allow further comments on similar lines to be considered prior to any public enquiry.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
The Arnside& Silverdale Landscape Trust [ASLT} is under the opinion that the proposals are not sound in respect to the following points in terms of the SLDC part of Arnside & Silverdale AONB, with respect to AONB/National Park Planning Legislation. The comments exclude the part of Beetham which lies outside of the AONB of which it is accepts is sound.
We acknowledge that over the many stages of consultation many of ASLT comments have been taken into consideration by SLDC and indeed some of them acted upon, we also thank their officers for assisting in our understanding during the tight time constraints of the latest stage.
However we have only become aware at this very late stage that in hindsight, due to the proposals in the adjacent Lake District National Park LDF, land allocation proposals being put out to consultation, that the A&S AONB may not have got the best possible deal in landscape protection terms under SLDC LDF by not being considered as a planning entity in its own right, over and above the general high landscape quality of SLDC as a whole. Hence our claim that the process has been UNSOUND, for example we quote Coniston /Torver Village as an example of this and differentials between S/E -LDNP and N/E-LDNP.[Appendices to follow]
1---The A&SLT are of the opinion that the Arnside and Silverdale AONB within the overall SLDC plan, that due account of the equal National Park landscape/community/cultural planning criteria have not been seen to be met. Our recent attention has been brought to the differing Proposals of the nearby Lake District National Park LDF in protection of its similar quality of landscape in parts of its Southern Area.ie sites down to 0.1ha are included and all housing is to be 100% affordable .combined with cross community land transfer criteria. Bearing this in mind we are aware that within Arnside Village there is great anxiety to site R81 being designated for development and we now support the large percentage of people in that community, in believing that this site should NOT BE DEVELOPED due to its transitional woodland to pasture nature, especially in respect to the public footpath on the edge of the community in the above context.
2--- The SLDC have not sufficiently highlighted and made this organisation and the public fully aware of the very special nature of the Arnside/Silverdale AONB in National Planning terms as above, as part of the LDF over and above the rest of the nationally less important SLDC District Landscape.
4--The % of local/affordable homes allocation in the AONB ie, 35/65% is no different than for the rest of the SLDC District., taking insufficient account of the AONB Management Plan fully into account and national AONB/ National Park Legislation
5—Beetham and Arnside and indeed Lancashire Village local plans in the AONB have not seen to be been fully taken into account with respect to stated designated /affordable local needs housing, outside of small hamlets.
.6---In terms of point 5 not considering the AONB area within Cumbria as a strategic whole, again as per the AONB management plan.
7---Brownfield sites have been left out of the plan which are above or around 0.3 Ha which are reportedly “favoured “for development, thus slewing the percentages for deliverable sites and distorting meaningful statistics of total deliverable numbers.eg RE187 and the 0.3Ha adjacent old coal yard , within the overall plan. These sites are also seen as important by Beetham Parish Council in improving infrastructure to nearby sites on Quarry Lane, as well as increasing the viability of Storth /Sandside as a vibrant community.[ See 4 re affordable homes]
3. Mr Robert Pickup, Arnside & Silverdale Landscape Trust : 19 Apr 2012 10:34:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R81 ARNSIDE REDHILLS ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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.
we are aware that within Arnside Village there is great anxiety to site R81 being designated for development and we now support the large percentage of people in that community, in believing that this site should NOT BE DEVELOPED due to its transitional woodland to pasture nature, especially in respect to the public footpath on the edge of the community in the above context.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
we are aware that within Arnside Village there is great anxiety to site R81 being designated for development and we now support the large percentage of people in that community, in believing that this site should NOT BE DEVELOPED due to its transitional woodland to pasture nature, especially in respect to the public footpath on the edge of the community in the above context.
4. Mr Robert Pickup, Arnside & Silverdale Landscape Trust : 19 Apr 2012 10:39:00
Policy/Site No.
LA2.12 Mixed Use Allocation at Sandside Road, Arnside
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
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 Arnside& Silverdale Landscape Trust [ASLT} is under the opinion that the proposals are not sound in respect to the following points in terms of the SLDC part of Arnside & Silverdale AONB, with respect to AONB/National Park Planning Legislation. The comments exclude the part of Beetham which lies outside of the AONB of which it is accepts is sound.
We acknowledge that over the many stages of consultation many of ASLT comments have been taken into consideration by SLDC and indeed some of them acted upon, we also thank their officers for assisting in our understanding during the tight time constraints of the latest stage.
However we have only become aware at this very late stage that in hindsight, due to the proposals in the adjacent Lake District National Park LDF, land allocation proposals being put out to consultation, that the A&S AONB may not have got the best possible deal in landscape protection terms under SLDC LDF by not being considered as a planning entity in its own right, over and above the general high landscape quality of SLDC as a whole. Hence our claim that the process has been UNSOUND, for example we quote Coniston /Torver Village as an example of this and differentials between S/E -LDNP and N/E-LDNP.[Appendices to follow]
1---The A&SLT are of the opinion that the Arnside and Silverdale AONB within the overall SLDC plan, that due account of the equal National Park landscape/community/cultural planning criteria have not been seen to be met. Our recent attention has been brought to the differing Proposals of the nearby Lake District National Park LDF in protection of its similar quality of landscape in parts of its Southern Area.ie sites down to 0.1ha are included and all housing is to be 100% affordable .combined with cross community land transfer criteria. Bearing this in mind we are aware that within Arnside Village there is great anxiety to site R81 being designated for development and we now support the large percentage of people in that community, in believing that this site should NOT BE DEVELOPED due to its transitional woodland to pasture nature, especially in respect to the public footpath on the edge of the community in the above context.
2--- The SLDC have not sufficiently highlighted and made this organisation and the public fully aware of the very special nature of the Arnside/Silverdale AONB in National Planning terms as above, as part of the LDF over and above the rest of the nationally less important SLDC District Landscape.
4--The % of local/affordable homes allocation in the AONB ie, 35/65% is no different than for the rest of the SLDC District., taking insufficient account of the AONB Management Plan fully into account and national AONB/ National Park Legislation
5—Beetham and Arnside and indeed Lancashire Village local plans in the AONB have not seen to be been fully taken into account with respect to stated designated /affordable local needs housing, outside of small hamlets.
.6---In terms of point 5 not considering the AONB area within Cumbria as a strategic whole, again as per the AONB management plan.
7---Brownfield sites have been left out of the plan which are above or around 0.3 Ha which are reportedly “favoured “for development, thus slewing the percentages for deliverable sites and distorting meaningful statistics of total deliverable numbers.eg RE187 and the 0.3Ha adjacent old coal yard , within the overall plan. These sites are also seen as important by Beetham Parish Council in improving infrastructure to nearby sites on Quarry Lane, as well as increasing the viability of Storth /Sandside as a vibrant community.[ See 4 re affordable homes]
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
The Arnside& Silverdale Landscape Trust [ASLT} is under the opinion that the proposals are not sound in respect to the following points in terms of the SLDC part of Arnside & Silverdale AONB, with respect to AONB/National Park Planning Legislation. The comments exclude the part of Beetham which lies outside of the AONB of which it is accepts is sound.
We acknowledge that over the many stages of consultation many of ASLT comments have been taken into consideration by SLDC and indeed some of them acted upon, we also thank their officers for assisting in our understanding during the tight time constraints of the latest stage.
However we have only become aware at this very late stage that in hindsight, due to the proposals in the adjacent Lake District National Park LDF, land allocation proposals being put out to consultation, that the A&S AONB may not have got the best possible deal in landscape protection terms under SLDC LDF by not being considered as a planning entity in its own right, over and above the general high landscape quality of SLDC as a whole. Hence our claim that the process has been UNSOUND, for example we quote Coniston /Torver Village as an example of this and differentials between S/E -LDNP and N/E-LDNP.[Appendices to follow]
1---The A&SLT are of the opinion that the Arnside and Silverdale AONB within the overall SLDC plan, that due account of the equal National Park landscape/community/cultural planning criteria have not been seen to be met. Our recent attention has been brought to the differing Proposals of the nearby Lake District National Park LDF in protection of its similar quality of landscape in parts of its Southern Area.ie sites down to 0.1ha are included and all housing is to be 100% affordable .combined with cross community land transfer criteria. Bearing this in mind we are aware that within Arnside Village there is great anxiety to site R81 being designated for development and we now support the large percentage of people in that community, in believing that this site should NOT BE DEVELOPED due to its transitional woodland to pasture nature, especially in respect to the public footpath on the edge of the community in the above context.
2--- The SLDC have not sufficiently highlighted and made this organisation and the public fully aware of the very special nature of the Arnside/Silverdale AONB in National Planning terms as above, as part of the LDF over and above the rest of the nationally less important SLDC District Landscape.
4--The % of local/affordable homes allocation in the AONB ie, 35/65% is no different than for the rest of the SLDC District., taking insufficient account of the AONB Management Plan fully into account and national AONB/ National Park Legislation
5—Beetham and Arnside and indeed Lancashire Village local plans in the AONB have not seen to be been fully taken into account with respect to stated designated /affordable local needs housing, outside of small hamlets.
.6---In terms of point 5 not considering the AONB area within Cumbria as a strategic whole, again as per the AONB management plan.
7---Brownfield sites have been left out of the plan which are above or around 0.3 Ha which are reportedly “favoured “for development, thus slewing the percentages for deliverable sites and distorting meaningful statistics of total deliverable numbers.eg RE187 and the 0.3Ha adjacent old coal yard , within the overall plan. These sites are also seen as important by Beetham Parish Council in improving infrastructure to nearby sites on Quarry Lane, as well as increasing the viability of Storth /Sandside as a vibrant community.[ See 4 re affordable homes]
