Response from Mr Pete McSweeney, Arnside Parish Council
1. Mr Pete McSweeney, Arnside Parish Council : 10 Oct 2012 17:31:00
Please add your response below: (Limit 3000 words)
LAND ALLOCATIONS EXAMINATION
Submission to SLDC regarding SLDC’s Response to Matter 1.6
From Arnside Parish Council and Arnside Parish Plan Trust
13 October, 2012
This response to SLDC’s reply to the Inspectors questions under Matter 1.6 is presented below on behalf on both Arnside Parish Council and Arnside Parish Plan Trust.
Process Overview.
We note the comments by SLDC on the consultation process and in the “Process Overview” (1.6.4). We also note that an amended schedule of Arnside sites (ref EX020A) was presented as part of the Council’s response.
We are concerned, however, that the new schedule gives inadequate recognition to the strong objections of both APC and APPT to the inclusion of sites R81 (Redhills Road) and RN225 (Hollins Lane). In addition, a petition of 550 signatures from a residents’ group was presented to the Council in December, 2011, objecting, inter alia, to the inclusion of these sites. Nor are the objections of the AONB to R81 recorded.
We are also concerned that no mention is made of the considerable efforts made by APPT/APC to engage the Council in discussion concerning alternative sites; so far SLDC have not been able meet us to review our suggested alternatives, despite repeated requests.
Response 1.6.17; Site size thresholds
SLDC’s response effectively confirms that the minimum threshold of 0.3ha is merely an arbitrary local policy decision. SLDC admit that there is “no national standard”. The Council’s assessment of the size needed is at odds with those of the neighbouring Lake District National Park and Lancaster City Council.
The LDNPA appears to be taking the duty to protect its countryside from inappropriate development seriously.
Lancaster share responsibility for the AONB and also appear to have robustly adopted more sensitive policies to protect the principal purpose of the AONB. So far as the inclusion of small sites in their Land Allocations they say “Small infill development can help to meet the housing needs of rural settlements without harming the character of the area.”
SLDC seems however to be paying general “lip service” to its duty in its core strategy, but does not take sufficiently seriously the additional steps needed to distinguish policies for the AONB from the rest of the District in the way it approaches this issue.
APPT have identified a number of small sites which can fulfill the essential affordable housing needs within Arnside with minimum effect on the character and environment of the village within the AONB, but these are still not recognised in the Land Allocations documents by SLDC.
Until this is corrected SLDC cannot claim to have met the high duty of care required of them within an AONB.
General Policy
Although not mentioned in SLDC’s response we understand that there is the possibility that a new joint body might be formed to manage planning policies within the Arnside & Silverdale AONB.
SLDC should ensure that no irreversible Allocations are made within the AONB until this is settled, unless the principal stakeholders - including APC/APPT - agree in the meantime on a site-by-site basis.
