Local Development Framework Consultation

SOUTH LAKELAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT (DPD)
Public Examination

Comments on the Council’s response to the Planning Inspector’s ‘Schedule of Matters and Issues for the Examination’.

Site reference R642M – land adjacent to Binfold Croft, Kirkby Lonsdale

In the Council’s response to Matter 1.6, the Summary of Assessment asserts that the site is “considered to have low to moderate landscape impact” and “low impact on built heritage”. Both of these statements seem at odds with what was written in the original Fact File where the term “prominent” was used to describe the location, and reference was made to “the popular Devil’s Bridge and River Lune riverside recreation areas”. Devil’s Bridge is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade 1 listed structure. Reference was also made in the Fact File to “the sensitivity of views of the site from the east”, followed by the suggestion that development should be limited to the western part of the site; this is clearly a recognition that the landscape impact would be significant, rather than “low to moderate”. These inconsistencies serve to undermine the integrity of the statements being made, leading to a questioning of the soundness of the documents.

No doubt there is seen to be a ‘convenience factor’ in that the site is owned by the Council and therefore its development likely to be more straightforward than instances where the land is in other ownership. However, the original Consultation Document does assert the importance of “maintaining and enhancing parks and open spaces” and during previous attempts to secure planning permission to build on this site, these and other arguments have prevailed. Indeed, following the publication of the South Westmorland Local Plan in 1986 there was a Public Inquiry leading to a decision in 1988 to delete this site from the plan (for building) on the Inspector’s recommendation “that there should be no further development of any kind south of Binfold Croft”.

As mentioned above, the Council’s response to Matter 1.6 says, in its Conclusion of Assessment, that “Part of the site is recommended for residential allocation”. It is assumed that this refers to the suggestion, in the original Consultation Documents, that development would be limited to the western part of the field – indeed this is what has been represented in the published site plans during the land allocations process, and is therefore what the community has been led to believe is the intention. Should the Inspector decide, despite the strong objections raised by local residents and organisations, that it is appropriate to proceed with developing this site, adherence to this criterion (i.e. development of the western part only) is paramount, in order to preserve at least some element of the natural green space that is such an important component of one of the town’s main visitor attractions.


13.10.12