Local Development Framework Consultation

2. Background

Q1) No they should not set an arbitrary threshold as that can be easilly manipulated. Also 5 houses would potentially have major ramifications on water movement with less infiltration and thus more overland flow. Water movement is a particular issue in certain places within Warton and thus though it is only 5 houses its implications could be major.

Q2)The survey was a good methodology but it does not take account of the number of young people that have already been priced out of the market and had to move into other settlements – and thus their opinions were not obtained . I personally know of 4 people that this is the case for and they are not accounted for due to the questions being aimed into the future rather than incorporating those that have grown up in the village but had to move away. It is difficult to legitimately calculate the extent to which the need for affordable housing is underestimated but it certainly is. I would possit more than twice as much but as I said it is virtually impossible to calculate.

Q3) Historical maps could be good to identify historical brown field sites - for instance where old railway cuttings are over grown and thus overlooked as a woodland in a drive-by survey. It may be useful to contact the Mourholme Historical Society for maps etc. Traffic is also an issue that could be remedied through the use of disused railway lines which previously joined the Leeds and Barrow line, they cross both the river and the main road and thus could be readily used with minimal disruption. There has also been an ongoing issue with sewerage from Warton and Millhead in the summer. Though I know work has recently been done, I am unaware if the capacity has been increased and thus if the infrastructure will be able to handle increased usage and need?

Q4) Yes I would say that the vision is correct with emphasis on social and environmental sustainability.

Q5) Yes I would say the objectives are correct with the emphasis on travel due to the high proportion of commuters in the AONB

Q6) Yes the proportion of affordable housing should be defined and should be higher than the Lancaster District due to the high house prices in the village coupled with the importance of low wage jobs in the local economy (service sector). Thus those in affordable housing are less likely to commute and in turn are less likely compound those traffic issues in and out of Warton, particularly in peak times. Also the definition of affordable housing as espoused by the LCC is not in accord with the real time wages of the local people. With an average house price of £180,000 the 'affordable' price would be around £130,000 and in turn would require a household income of over £30,000 to obtain a mortgage at 95%, which is far and above the real time finances of most people that work in the local community.

Q7) Yes all housing in new developments should be primary residences - ideally for local people with as high a proportion of affordable housing as possible.

Q8) Yes the DPD should put emphasis on local people and truly-affordable houses and make it a requirement of getting planning/allowing a development.

Q9) Where it is for workers with agricultural ties to the housing - and there are no objections, it should be allowed but it should not be used as a mechanism for wealth accumulation etc.

Q10) Yes 'brownfield first' is a good policy but, as suggested earlier, a more thorough investigation into historical brownfield sites and or orphan sites could be done through historical societies etc. For instance in Warton, there is an old POW camp and old railway lines that have been over looked.

Q11) Yes the DPD should guide density - in order to ensure a diversity of buildings and ensure that the majority have a garden. Though this may seem like a misallocation of space, in reality gardens generally increase species diversity and richness whereas small areas get hard-surfaced and thus have no ecological value. Also space is so important in its contribution to the 'rural way of life' i.e. having friends over for a BBQ. So for environmental and cultural reasons the majority should have a big enough garden for a vegetable patch. Also, though it seems strange, gardens can be a valuable resource in regard to food security - as both those in rural areas and urban learned in WW2.

Q12) Warton is in desperate need of a shop and soon we will not have a bus service. Both of these need reinstating in order to add to the vibrancy of the community. Also parking is a huge issue particularly in the centre of the village though there is a lack of space for a car park. It would also be vital for the footpath between Warton and Millhead to be widened – and/or another added to the northerly side on the Warton Hall Farm edges.

Q13) It has been posited many times at the bar that it would be a good idea to revert the fields between Millhead and Warton to a native wetland - and in essence extend Leighton Moss around the crag helping to generate more tourism and thus more jobs.

Q14) Energy security is a pertinent issue that is gaining momentum. Though it is not widely touted there is great scope for the use of biogas in order to increase local energy security and also reduce the pressure on the waste water infrastructure going into the future. There is great scope for wind power in Warton due to its location though the amount of migrating birds could cause conflict. For this reason would suggest that small scale wind with helicoidal blades would be advisable.
Q15) With house prices being as high as they are in Warton, there is no reason that all of the new houses could not be passive houses and epitomise green construction. Yes this would impact profits made but there is no economic risk in building a house in this area and this surely with reduced risk there should be reduced profit?

Q16) Yes there is need for more parking certainly within Warton but I am unsure as to what space there is that would reduce the parking issues in the village centre.

Q17) No more tourist caravan sites - seasonal tourism is helpful to the local economy but we need something more substantial and year round.

Q18) Yes the correct elements have been identified for open space.

Q19) I, as well as many others, feel strongly that reverting the flooded fields back to nature would have significant ecological, economic and cultural benefits.

Q20) As above.

Q21) All assessment not predicated on subject-specific knowledge should be done through widespread, stakeholder public consultation.

Q22) Biodiversity and geodiversity should be enhanced through educating land owners and managers about land management at scale. For instance, a lot of the flooding on Sand Lane in Warton and at the bottom of the hill is a direct consequence of poor land management (I am an environmental scientist and thus have the subject specific knowledge to make this comment). Removal of grass and planting crops in bare earth allows water to flow over not being slowed and soaking through grass.

Q23) With the envisaged increase in environmental variability associated with Global Warming there is an increased risk of flooding both on site (changes in the water table) and beyond the site due to impacting the way the water moves at a landscape scale.

Q24) We should aim to build on the extensive history of the area and aim to conserve, preserve and enhance our historic environment.

Q25) As suggested before, all new developments should be built to passive/the highest standards and that is very achievable - given house prices. We should be aiming to increase resilience and sustainability through energy security both in production and use. Also the building should take into consideration local building materials i.e. no more fake sandstone monoliths to developers’ greed.

Q26) Option 5 seems the best all round approach through spreading the development pressure but also steering development toward existing infrastructure.
Q27) Of the proposed sites, they all have the potential to detract from the scenic and natural beauty of the village. To the north of Sand Lane would spoil the views to the Crag of all those living there. Those to the south (behind the houses) would spoil the rear views of those houses and also create a traffic issue in that you will have two roads then branching off Sand Lane. Also there is a significant issue of flooding due to dismal land management on Sand Lane’s fields and Warton generally. As I walked to work today I walked past 5 houses with sand bags covering their drives - so flooding on these sites is evidently an ongoing problem and the areas highlighted for roadways are where the flood water is diverted. Also I feel it would be pertinent to add that within the AONB it has been established in court that views have a value (Marilyn Barnes in Arnside), and thus disrupting the views could incur unexpected costs as views are normally not regarded as having a tangible value but this case over turns this precedent. Mrs Barnes was fined commensurate with the value added to her property due to increased views. The houses on Sand Lane look back toward Ingleborough which is an iconic view and a significant contributor to the outstanding natural beauty of the area. On the whole I agree that there should be no building on uphill side of Warton for both scenic and flooding reasons and those at the back of Sand Lane are essentially in the ‘soak away’ for said flooding. There is a serious land and water management issue in Warton and until it is resolved virtually all proposed development will exacerbate this issue. I hope the individual reading this does not think I am a NIMBY protestor because I am also compiling a suggested site that is literally in my back garden and building on land that I have been working for years. I will not see any financial return from this but it is in the best interests of the village and I want to raise my children here!
Q28) I have submitted a proposal for the development toward the end of Sand Lane on flat ground and no flooding risk. It will only spoil the views of myself and one neighbour rather than a whole street who may seek financial reimbursement for loss of property value, I know that some are thinking of getting valuations before development for this very reason.

Q29) Yes development boundaries should be put in place for the primary settlement in accordance with aesthetic (I.e. not up the hill from the village) and safety i.e. not on low crag road beyond the straight out of the village as the road is thin and windy and thus unsafe.
Q30) Yes development should be phased in 3 lots of 5 years and done in accordance with the highest proportion of affordable housing/whichever will deliver the best returns to the community first. This is the best way because no added pressure can be put on the AONB in the next 15 years and a lot can change in 15 years. For instance, if house prices were to re-establish their link with wages then there may not be as much of a need for affordable housing - or if the financialisation of housing continues we may need more affordable housing and future governments can insist on a larger social housing contingent (based on higher prices and thus greater capacity to cross subsidise). Though it is understood that we need more housing, that does not necessitate more monoliths to developers’ greed. The development should serve the community - not as has been the case, where the detriment to the community has served the pockets of developers.

Q31) Though I understand why the AONB DPD is being done separately, the cause of the two main issues in the village lay beyond the AONB, namely flooding and traffic. Flooding is particularly bad in Warton due to the bridge over the Keer in Millhead causing a bottleneck, behind which water build up and the heightened water table has ramifications back up the catchment i.e. Warton (and Scotland Road and Truckhaven further back). You may be able to see on maps that there is a disused railway bridge over the River Keer that also goes over the main road and could come down either side on disused land. Through redirecting traffic this way traffic pressure could be alleviated on the bridge and it potentially removed (leaving the secondary foot bridge) which would also help alleviate flooding in Warton. Just a suggestion but I think it would be a good line of enquiry and could be coupled with development of the TDG site in Carnforth.

As a graduate in Environmental Science and Politics I am familiar with and capable of analysing a large array of documents. Even with my experience I found it time consuming and at times difficult to decipher what was being said and I could understand how some would find this process difficult and fealt incapable of contributing. Might I suggest that future documents come with a less wordy break down of what is being said in lay mans terms. Other than that I found the process transparent. As a caveat might I also add that I think it would have been beneficial for those facilitating the face to face consultation were a little more informed as to what was going on. Had the community of known that the plan was to find a site for 20 houses then the process may have been better received.

Possibly but due to time constraints I did not have time to critically analyse this document.