Response from Mrs A Athersmith, c/o Coates Associates
1. Mrs A Athersmith, c/o Coates Associates : 24 May 2012 11:18:00
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 - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
RN193#
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.
To accurately portray County Council comments. [See additional statement - full text below]
Introduction:
1 This statement relates to the objection to the omission to allocate land off Union Lane, Ulverston for housing (Ref: RN193).
2 The Land Allocations Document Plan Document (DPD) has undergone various consultations. There have been no substantive objections raised through the consultation process to the proposal for allocation for housing. This submitted objection statement is based on the soundness of the decision not to allocate the land for housing with regard to whether that decision is justified, effective and consistent with National Policy.
Site Description:
3 The land lies to the west of Ulverston town centre and adjoins the settlement. It is contained by trees to the west, existing housing and the hospital development to the east, housing to the north and the housing approved for housing development known as Union Lane phase l (Ref: SL/2010/0806 + SL/2011/0027)).
Relevant Planning History:
4 In 2011 the County Council was consulted by the District Council on the proposed allocated for housing of the site. In November 2011 the County Council provided comments on the proposed allocation, which are set out in paragraph x below.
5 In September 2010 a planning application (SL/2010/0806) was submitted for 27 dwellings on land off Union Lane (known as Union Lane phase l). As part of this planning application process, and transport statement was submitted, as well as an assessment provided. The access for the development included the widening of Union Lane to facilitate at least the phase l development. In January 2011 a Conservation Area Consent application (SL/2011/0027) was submitted to run in conjunction with the planning application. The Conservation Area Consent was necessary as a wall within the Conservation Area was to be demolished as part of the road widening/improvements to Union Lane. Both applications were approved in January 2012, with conditions attached, including that the widening of Union Lane to be carried out prior to commencement of development on the site.
6 Access to Union Lane phase ll would be via Union Lane phase l. All access agreements are in place.
Issues:
7 The only issue expressed by the District Council for not including the site RN193 as an allocation for housing was due to an ‘objection’ from the County Council. Therefore the only issue is:
• Whether the County Council comments constituted an objection to development.
Consultation:
8 The Land Allocation DPD has undergone various consultations. Of relevance is the consultation with the County Council which was consulted in the autumn of 2011. In November 2011 the County Council’s comments relating to this site were:
Transport Statement required. Question suitability of Union Lane for further development. Roads to be brought to adoptable standards.
Policy Context:
9 The South Lakeland Core Strategy indicates that most development will occur in the major settlements which includes Ulverston.
10 In March 2012, central Government published its much awaited National Planning Policy Framework to replace existing planning policy guidance (PPGs and PPSs). The main thrust of that guidance is the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Soundness:
Justified
11 It is clear that the timing of the consultation for the housing allocation was out of kilter with consultations on the Union Lane phase l planning application. It is also clear that the County Council’s consultation comments submitted in November 2011 were based on the existing highway network and preceded any approved widening proposals for the Union Lane which was to take place as part of the planning permission for the Union Lane phase l development.
12 The District Council advises that the decision not to allocate the site for housing was based upon objections from the County Council. However the County Council has confirmed that its comments were as stated in paragraph x above, and also that those comments preceded the planning application. On examination of the County Council
comments there is no statement which suggests an objection to the proposed allocation. The County Council did raise some concern over the ‘current Union Lane’ and that roads needed to be adoptable standard. However, there is nothing contained within the County Council comments which indicate an ‘objection’. Therefore the presumption of an objection from the County Council is unfounded, and also that the County Council concerns could not be overcome is flawed.
13 Whilst it is understood is that Union Lane in its current (unaltered) form is unsuitable to cater for any additional traffic. However, the grant of planning permission for Union Lane phase l has changed the ‘starting point’ on which an assessment should be made. An assessment on the capacity of Union Lane was made on the unaltered Union Lane, rather than being revised to take account of the improved/widened Union Lane.
14 On that basis, the decision not to allocate the land for housing by reason of an ‘objection’ from the County Council is flawed and not justified. Furthermore, as inevitably the different sections (planning policy and development management) of the District Council would be in regular consultations, each section would have been aware of the District Council’s grant of planning permission for Union Lane phase l. The developer was aware of the potential for Union Lane phase ll, as access rights already existed, and the developer was aware of the need for the improved Union Lane to cater for both phase l and phase ll.
Effective
15 The failure to take proper account of correct consultations at appropriate times, means that an effective assessment of the implications of not allocating the land for housing was not taken. The decision not to allocate the land for housing is not effective.
National Policy
16 There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The site is located adjacent to the centre of Ulverston and consequently there will be a reduced reliance on the need to travel by car given the proximity of shops and services. In addition, the bus services are also close by. The site is in a wholly sustainable location. Accordingly, the decision not to allocate the land for housing is not in accordance with national policy.
Conclusion:
17 The consultation process with the County Council failed to take account of changing circumstances, in particular to the improved widening of Union Lane. As a result, the comments on which the District Council based it decision had been superceded by the grant of planning permission for Union Lane phase l. In any event, the District Council’s description of the County Council’s comments as an ‘objection’ to the proposed allocation for housing is false, and do not accurately portray the County Council comments.
18 It is concluded, that the decision not to allocate the land for housing comprising Union Lane phase ll is not sound, and that this objection is entirely justified.
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.
The decision not include the site for housing is based on incorrect information and assumptions, and the process of consultation did not take account of changing circumstances [see additional statement - full text below]
Introduction:
1 This statement relates to the objection to the omission to allocate land off Union Lane, Ulverston for housing (Ref: RN193).
2 The Land Allocations Document Plan Document (DPD) has undergone various consultations. There have been no substantive objections raised through the consultation process to the proposal for allocation for housing. This submitted objection statement is based on the soundness of the decision not to allocate the land for housing with regard to whether that decision is justified, effective and consistent with National Policy.
Site Description:
3 The land lies to the west of Ulverston town centre and adjoins the settlement. It is contained by trees to the west, existing housing and the hospital development to the east, housing to the north and the housing approved for housing development known as Union Lane phase l (Ref: SL/2010/0806 + SL/2011/0027)).
Relevant Planning History:
4 In 2011 the County Council was consulted by the District Council on the proposed allocated for housing of the site. In November 2011 the County Council provided comments on the proposed allocation, which are set out in paragraph x below.
5 In September 2010 a planning application (SL/2010/0806) was submitted for 27 dwellings on land off Union Lane (known as Union Lane phase l). As part of this planning application process, and transport statement was submitted, as well as an assessment provided. The access for the development included the widening of Union Lane to facilitate at least the phase l development. In January 2011 a Conservation Area Consent application (SL/2011/0027) was submitted to run in conjunction with the planning application. The Conservation Area Consent was necessary as a wall within the Conservation Area was to be demolished as part of the road widening/improvements to Union Lane. Both applications were approved in January 2012, with conditions attached, including that the widening of Union Lane to be carried out prior to commencement of development on the site.
6 Access to Union Lane phase ll would be via Union Lane phase l. All access agreements are in place.
Issues:
7 The only issue expressed by the District Council for not including the site RN193 as an allocation for housing was due to an ‘objection’ from the County Council. Therefore the only issue is:
• Whether the County Council comments constituted an objection to development.
Consultation:
8 The Land Allocation DPD has undergone various consultations. Of relevance is the consultation with the County Council which was consulted in the autumn of 2011. In November 2011 the County Council’s comments relating to this site were:
Transport Statement required. Question suitability of Union Lane for further development. Roads to be brought to adoptable standards.
Policy Context:
9 The South Lakeland Core Strategy indicates that most development will occur in the major settlements which includes Ulverston.
10 In March 2012, central Government published its much awaited National Planning Policy Framework to replace existing planning policy guidance (PPGs and PPSs). The main thrust of that guidance is the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Soundness:
Justified
11 It is clear that the timing of the consultation for the housing allocation was out of kilter with consultations on the Union Lane phase l planning application. It is also clear that the County Council’s consultation comments submitted in November 2011 were based on the existing highway network and preceded any approved widening proposals for the Union Lane which was to take place as part of the planning permission for the Union Lane phase l development.
12 The District Council advises that the decision not to allocate the site for housing was based upon objections from the County Council. However the County Council has confirmed that its comments were as stated in paragraph x above, and also that those comments preceded the planning application. On examination of the County Council
comments there is no statement which suggests an objection to the proposed allocation. The County Council did raise some concern over the ‘current Union Lane’ and that roads needed to be adoptable standard. However, there is nothing contained within the County Council comments which indicate an ‘objection’. Therefore the presumption of an objection from the County Council is unfounded, and also that the County Council concerns could not be overcome is flawed.
13 Whilst it is understood is that Union Lane in its current (unaltered) form is unsuitable to cater for any additional traffic. However, the grant of planning permission for Union Lane phase l has changed the ‘starting point’ on which an assessment should be made. An assessment on the capacity of Union Lane was made on the unaltered Union Lane, rather than being revised to take account of the improved/widened Union Lane.
14 On that basis, the decision not to allocate the land for housing by reason of an ‘objection’ from the County Council is flawed and not justified. Furthermore, as inevitably the different sections (planning policy and development management) of the District Council would be in regular consultations, each section would have been aware of the District Council’s grant of planning permission for Union Lane phase l. The developer was aware of the potential for Union Lane phase ll, as access rights already existed, and the developer was aware of the need for the improved Union Lane to cater for both phase l and phase ll.
Effective
15 The failure to take proper account of correct consultations at appropriate times, means that an effective assessment of the implications of not allocating the land for housing was not taken. The decision not to allocate the land for housing is not effective.
National Policy
16 There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The site is located adjacent to the centre of Ulverston and consequently there will be a reduced reliance on the need to travel by car given the proximity of shops and services. In addition, the bus services are also close by. The site is in a wholly sustainable location. Accordingly, the decision not to allocate the land for housing is not in accordance with national policy.
Conclusion:
17 The consultation process with the County Council failed to take account of changing circumstances, in particular to the improved widening of Union Lane. As a result, the comments on which the District Council based it decision had been superceded by the grant of planning permission for Union Lane phase l. In any event, the District Council’s description of the County Council’s comments as an ‘objection’ to the proposed allocation for housing is false, and do not accurately portray the County Council comments.
18 It is concluded, that the decision not to allocate the land for housing comprising Union Lane phase ll is not sound, and that this objection is entirely justified.
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.
I am prepared to participate in the oral part of the examination. However, I will leave the decision to the Inspector to determine the most appropriate procedure.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
