Local Development Framework Consultation

LAND ALLOCATIONS EXAMINATION STAGE –
‘Main Modifications’ 18 September 2012

With reference to sites in Arnside

Main Modification 01 Para 1.23 p.11 Section 1: Introduction
« Policy LA1.0 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development » refers to “specific policies in that …[NPPF]…framework indicate that development should be restricted”.
SLDC DPD is still deficient in ignoring national protected status of AONBs (NPPF14, Footnote 9; NPPF 115; NPPF 116) and has not justified or amended its methodology in selection of sites to take this special protection into account.
• Request DPD change to reflect Arnside’s protected status and to prevent unnecessary and inappropriate overdevelopment of sites within the AONB.

Main Modification 02 Para 1.24 p.11 Section 1: Introduction
‘Duty to Cooperate’ and “management of environmental assets”.
SLDC still fails to address special protected status of AONBs (see above) and does not even mention the AONB in this context in its amended Introduction. SLDC has also provided no evidence of cross-border cooperation (a legal requirement) with Lancaster District to protect the Arnside and Silverdale AONB from inappropriate overdevelopment and has, once again, failed to alter its methodology criteria in selection of sites to take this national protection into account.
• Request DPD change to address special protection status for communities within an AONB, plus evidence of cross-border cooperation with Lancaster District to ensure such protections are adhered to (NPPF 178 – ref. para 156, & NPPF 182).

Main Modification 18 Para 3.93 p.86 Section 2: Land Allocations
SLDC is still ignoring Arnside village residents’ significant opposition to development of the designated ‘greenfield’ and ‘local green space’ sites within the village boundaries, is wilfully ignoring the Arnside Parish Plan Trust/Arnside Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan, and has left unchanged its criteria in selection of sites, to take their special status into account.
• Request DPD change to conform to ‘local green space’ highest status protection (NPPF 76 & NPPF 77).

Submission relating to Main Modification 05 -Levens Site RN121M-MOD (Levens Former Poultry Sheds, Brigsteer Road):

As this proposal by SLDC (the removal of the Levens site RN121M-MOD from the DPD) meets the objectives of myself and the group of residents that I represent, I would like to register my support for Main Modification 05.

Full details are contained in my "Further Statement To Inspector" dated 31 August 2012.

Submission relating to Main Modification 05 -Levens Site RN121M-MOD (Levens Former Poultry Sheds, Brigsteer Road):

As this proposal implies the removal of the Levens site RN121M-MOD from the DPD, I would like to register my support for Main Modification 05.

I wish to re-iterate my previous statement that the Levens site RN121M-MOD (Levens Former Poultry Sheds,
Brigsteer Road/NLC23/US12) would be totally unsuitable for building development.
Therefore, I support SLDC's proposed Main Modification 05 to delete the proposed site RN121M.

SOUTH LAKELAND - LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT (DPD)
Proposed Main Modifications 18 September 2012

I refer to the above Main Modification No 3 of which proposed the exclusion of sites RN148 and RN171 from the proposed village development boundary. The objectors whom I represent fully support this amendment. We request however, that the Council’s reasoned justification be extended to include the reasons put forward earlier by the Parish Council and ourselves in our formal objections to the Development Plan i.e. that both sites would be an unjustifiable extension of ribbon development into the open countryside.

Response from Allan Steward (on behalf or Levens Residents Group Committee), with reference to the Main Modification proposed re. site RN121M-mod (Former Poultry Sheds, Brigsteer Road, Levens), i.e., to delete proposed site allocation for housing and retain in agricultural use or possibly allocate a reduced area for B1 employment. In view of the fact that SLDC has not proposed a replacement site in Levens for the 23 houses proposed for RN121M-mod, we support the proposed modification.

R103M-mod
Main Modification 10
LA2.7 Land at Stainbank Green
With regard to the ecological survey to determine the extent of Meadow Saxifrage within the NE corner of the site,obviously as the plant flowers in high summer this survey would have to be carried out in the summer. I would like to point out that I sent photographs with my original reponse regarding this species, which I found was widely distributed over a large area, not just the NE corner as detailed.

Once again I remind you as in my previous correspondence of the diverse amount of flora and fauna in this area. I would describe the area consisting of fields, hedgerows,ancient walls, bushes and woodland as a 'buffer zone' for wildlife between Scout Scar and the urban spread of southern Kendal.
In the press there are constant reminders of waning populations of many species, is there sufficient justification for this irreversible loss of habitat?

Submission relating to Main Modification 05 - Levens Site RN121M-MOD (Levens Former Poultry Sheds, Brigsteer Road):

As this proposal by SLDC (the removal of the Levens site RN121M-MOD from the DPD) meets the objectives of myself, my wife and the group of residents in the immediate area, I would like to register my support for Main Modification 05.

Full details are contained in "Further Statement To Inspector" dated 31 August 2012 submitted by our neighbour, John Fitch.

Tim Wallis, for and on behalf of self and Barbara Anne Wallis (formerly Lewis)

SOUTH LAKELAND LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT

MATTERS AND ISSUES FOR THE EXAMINATION

MATTER 1.6
REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF MRS E. MACALLUM

LPA SITE REF: R124
Our Ref: CNG/204/CSL
LPA Ref: 6880

15TH OCTOBER 2012


Christopher Garner BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI
Garner Planning Associates Ltd. Registered No. 7416102 at Companies House, Cardiff
20 Beacon Buildings, Yard 23 Stramongate Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4BH Tel: 01539 734365
chris@garnerplanning.co.uk www.garnerplanning.co.uk

MATTER 1.6

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This representation is submitted in relation to South Lakeland District Council’s document prepared in response to a specific request by The Inspector.

1.2 The case has been made separately regarding the need to identify additional sites to meet the Core Strategy housing requirement.

1.3 Site R124 scores highly in sustainability terms and was identified as suitable for residential development in both the SHLAA and the South Lakeland Housing and Employment Land Search Study.

1.4 The authority accept the site scores well in terms of sustainability have not allocated the site according to Appendix 1 because of flood risk issues, highway capacity issues and a lack of community support.

2. FLOOD RISK
2.1 The site is in Flood Risk Zone 1 and a small part in Zone 3a. However it is clear from the authority’s Matter 1.6 statement that residential sites have been identified in flood risk Zone 2 and 3a. These sites must be considered lower priority in any sequential test.

2.2 Appendix 1 refers to an impact on the Stock Beck Alleviation Scheme, however from the Fact File it is evident that:-

“The Environment Agency advises a site specific Flood Risk Assessment should determine flood constraints and state that this is a problematic site to develop without increasing flood risk elsewhere.”

Clearly a specific Flood Risk Assessment with appropriate on-site attenuation could overcome this flood risk concern. Indeed in the context of an allocated site nearby the Environment Agency make almost exactly the same comment.

2.3 For site R121M-mod, ON50 and RN302# the Fact File states:-

“A site specific flood risk assessment is required that should thoroughly investigate and determine all flood constraints and opportunities to mitigate the impact of any development.”

2.4 There is no reason to treat R124 any differently from R121M-mod etc. R124 should also be allocated and be allocated before sites which clearly lie within Zone 2 and 3A.


3. HIGHWAY CAPACITY
3.1 There is no evidence to suggest that there is any highway capacity issue associated with the site.

3.2 The Fact File states:-

“Cumbria County Council Highways state cumulative impact may mean intervention is required and a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan would be required. Mitigation measures are likely to be required on Milnthorpe Road and all dwellings should be well connected to public transport.”

3.3 Residential development on the north east side of Kendal cannot surely impact on Milnthorpe Road on the south side of the town. The planning authority appears to be relying on incorrect information in rejecting the site because of highway concerns.

4. COMMUNITY SUPPORT
4.1 If reliance on community support is a determinant of whether or not a site should be allocated for residential development then there would probably be no residential allocations. There appears to be significant objection to all allocations around Kendal. There is no reason why objections to the suggested allocation of R124 hold more weight than objections regarding other sites.

5. CONCLUDING COMMENTS
5.1 At 1.6.46 South Lakeland District Council state:-

“The above represents a thorough, evidence based, systematic and consistent approach in site selection...”

5.2 The authority has not taken a consistent approach in relation to R124. The reasons for the site not being allocated are not consistent with the approach taken to other sites.

Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above documents, details of which were received on 18 September 2012.

We have considered the proposed modifications in relation to sites which have small areas within Flood Zones 2 or 3a to confirm that inappropriate development will not be permitted within these areas. We have met with the council to discuss these sites and the sequential approach to managing flood risk and the proposed modifications reflect our recommendations from the meeting. As such, we have no objection to the proposed modifications.

[see attached document]

Local Development Framework
DPD Hearings
South Lakeland House
Kendal
SUBMISSION BY LEVENS PARISH COUNCIL
OCTOBER 2012

Levens Parish Council fully support comments made by the Levens Residents Group on Matter 11 site R682LV & R682LVM. The Levens Residents Group sent a survey to EVERY household in Levens and what emerged from the 73% of respondents is significant opposition to the development of this site among residents of Levens, even those who do not live near to the site. This information was provided in the Emerging Options consultation. The site is so important to parishioners and visitors in a range of rural landscape terms and is situated around 200yards from the new boundary of the Lake District National Park and will be clearly visible from within the National Park.

Of special significance is the fact that SLDC had already accepted the findings of these earlier consultations and withdrawn the site. As the true position is clearly against any development we feel there should be no compromise and that development should not take place on this site.
Levens Parish Council also makes a response in support of the SLDC Proposed Main Modification concerning site RN121M-mod, residents opinion this site is suitable for agricultural/employment land.

Main Modification 03 Policy LA1.1 Alternative sites RN 148 & RN 171

SLDC proposed Change to DPD and reasoned justification states

“……The Parish Council have subsequently come to a view that the development boundary should not now be extended to include these sites”

We believe this statement should have included at the end of the sentence the wording “to prevent ribbon development.”

Milnthorpe Parish Council would like to make the following comments on two proposed development sites in Milnthorpe village:

- site RN140 - We understand the inspector's reservations. However, although it appears from the map as though its adoption for housing would have a significant effect on the Green Gap, in reality a site visit will show that, because of its position and land contours, this would not be the case. Using it for housing would be a good use of an untidy and derelict site that is frequently used for fly-tipping.

- site R462M - We are concerned that, following withdrawal of site M9M2 and the possible exclusion of site RN140, virtually all site allocations are now in the south-east of the village, resulting in village imbalance and raising questions about the ability of the proposed new junction with the A6 to handle the (extra) traffic.

Thank you for notifying National Trust of the above consultation.

Having reviewed the relevant documents I can inform you that there are no particular comments that the National Trust wishes to make on this occasion. However, the Trust does of course remain interested in the Council’s LDF work and would wish to continue to be notified of such consultations.

NATS HAS NO COMMENTS TO MAKE.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

South Lakeland Land Allocations DPD Proposed Main Modifications

Network Rail has no comments in regards to the above.

Thank you for consulting North Yorkshire County Council about proposed modifications to the South Lakeland Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and your Council's response to Matter 1.6 of the Inspectors 'Matters and Issues'. Carl Bunnage has asked me to reply.

The proposed modifications and response would not seem to present any strategic issues for North Yorkshire, and as such I have no comments to raise from a strategic planning perspective.

Many thanks for consulting the County Council on this matter. I hope you find this response helpful.