7 responses from Mr Keith Reed (Individual)
1. Mr Keith Reed (Individual) : 16 Dec 2015 12:41:00
Discussion Paper section
2. Background
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Q1
There should not be a rigid definition of major development, but the Local Plan should make it clear how each case will be assessed. The South Downs National Park Authority has received a legal opinion on this matter, derived from the caselaw, guidance and appeal decisions, from James Maurici QC. This is summarised as follows:
1. The determination is a matter of planning judgment to be decided by the decision maker in light of all the circumstances and the context of the site.
2. The phrase “major development” is to be given its ordinary meaning. Accordingly, it would be wrong in law to:
a. Apply the definition of major development contained in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.
b. Apply any set or rigid criteria.
c. Restrict the definition to proposals that raise issues of national significance.
3. The decision maker may consider whether the development has the potential to have a serious adverse impact on the natural beauty and recreational opportunities provided by a National Park or AONB by reason of its scale, character or nature. However, that does not require (and ought not to include) an in-depth consideration of whether the development will in fact have such an impact. Instead, a prima facie assessment of the potential for such impact, in light of the scale, character or nature of the proposed development is sufficient.
4. As a matter of planning judgement, the decision maker must consider the application in its local context. The same development may amount to “major development” in one National Park, but not in another; or in one part of a National Park, but not in another part of the same National Park.
5. The application of criteria such as whether the development is EIA development, whether it meets the 2010 Order definition, or whether it requires an appraisal of the likely traffic, health, or retail implications of the proposal will all be relevant considerations, but will not determine the matter and may not even raise a presumption either way.
6. Having considered all the circumstances, including the local context, the decision maker must take a common sense view on whether the proposed development can appropriately be described – in ordinary language - as “major development”. This will normally be much larger than 6 housing units.
The Preferred Options Local Plan for the SDNPA contains a policy (SP3) on major development which states:
‘ In determining what constitutes major development the SDNPA will consider whether the development, by reason of its scale, character or nature, has the potential to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the natural beauty, wildlife or cultural heritage of, or opportunities for quiet recreation provided by, the National Park. The potential for adverse impact on the National Park will be dependent on the individual characteristics of each proposal and its context.’
It is suggested that this could be adapted for the AONB context as follows:
‘In determining what constitutes major development the Councils will consider whether the development, by reason of its scale, character or nature, has the potential to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape, scenic beauty, wildlife, cultural heritage or special qualities of the AONB. The potential for adverse impact on the AONB will be dependent on the individual characteristics of each proposal and its context.’
2. Mr Keith Reed (Individual) : 16 Dec 2015 12:42:00
Discussion Paper section
3. Evidence Base
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Q2
The Councils should identify housing requirements (as distinct from housing need) for the AONB. This should be based on the objectively assessed housing need for the Housing Market Area (or Areas) in which the AONB sits, but should also take other factors into account. There should not be an over-reliance on the local housing needs survey, which represents a snapshot in time, only looks 5 years ahead, and is a separate and distinct approach from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The requirement should also not be a simple pro rata sub-division of the SHMA need(s) because:
a) This would not take into account the great weight to be given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of AONBs (para 115 of the NPPF), which should be the key consideration in arriving at a housing requirement (as opposed to housing need)
b) It would not give due consideration, in relation to major development, to the scope for meeting need elsewhere outside the designated area (para 116 of the NPPF), and
c) It would not be sufficiently sensitive to the local demographic characteristics of the AONB, in particular the preponderance of elderly population which will not generate births to the same extent as in the wider HMA and whose deaths will release existing housing stock at a greater than average rate over the plan period.
Additional information required will therefore include the local population and household characteristics and the capacity for any housing need to be accommodated nearby outside the AONB, such as in Carnforth and Milnthorpe.
Q3
In addition to the evidence referred to in response to Q2, further evidence will be required on:
• the feasibility and environmental capacity of Silverdale to accommodate development based on private sewage treatment systems and/or the cost and impact of introducing mains drainage;
• the likelihood of the existing bus services, in particular the Silverdale Shuttle, surviving local government cuts and/or the feasibility of funding these services through CIL or Section 106 agreements;
• the scope for improving cycle access to Milnthorpe and Carnforth from Arnside/ Storth/ Beetham and Silverdale/ The Yealands/ Warton respectively.
• the extent to which existing community facilities (e.g. primary schools, doctors’ surgeries, library, parks and play facilities, community halls, public houses, post offices, shops etc.) can remain viable with and without further housing development and the acceptability in terms of landscape impact of the level of development likely to be required to ensure such facilities remain;
• the likely date for the introduction of high speed broadband where not currently available in the AONB and for the redevelopment of the Silverdale telephone exchange to enable affordable housing in a sustainable location during the plan period.
3. Mr Keith Reed (Individual) : 16 Dec 2015 12:43:00
Discussion Paper section
4. Vision and Objectives
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Q4
The vision for the AONB DPD is supported.
Q5
The objectives for the AONB DPD are supported.
4. Mr Keith Reed (Individual) : 16 Dec 2015 12:45:00
Discussion Paper section
5. Policy Issues
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Q6
The DPD should identify a proportion of affordable housing to be developed, taking into account the government’s recent proposals to include discounted market housing within this term and ensuring that such housing does not take the place of genuinely affordable social housing to rent or other intermediate housing types such as shared ownership.
There is a danger that the provision of affordable housing will be used to justify unacceptable market housing, of a type which attracts in-migration rather than catering for local need and on a scale which would have an adverse impact on the special qualities of the AONB. In order to avoid this, a very high proportion of affordable housing (in excess of 50%) should be required at any housing site and certain housing sites should be identified for exclusively affordable and local housing needs.
Q7
While it may not be possible to do this for all sites, it should be done for selected sites, especially those in the most sustainable locations.
Q8
Site-specific policies should be prepared to ensure that an appropriate mix of housing type and size is provided taking account of the latest information on housing need (which may change over the plan period) but also the specific characteristics of the site and its surroundings, in order to ensure that the house types proposed for the site will respect its setting.
Unless required for consistency within the South Lakeland part of the plan area, there is no need to duplicate Policy DM 41 of the Lancaster Development Management DPD, which states that new residential development should provide an appropriate dwelling mix in accordance with robust evidence of local housing need, and Policy SC4 of the Lancaster Core Strategy which states that the Council will aim to maximise the opportunities offered by the development of new dwellings to:
• Redress imbalances in the local housing market;
• Achieve housing that genuinely addresses identified local housing need; and
• Secure units of “in-perpetuity” affordable housing.
Indeed, the latter will form the strategic justification for site specific policies in the Arnside and Silverdale DPD.
Q9
No comment.
Q10
The DPD should prioritise brownfield land but a locally appropriate target is not realistic in view of the relatively small amount of brownfield land available. Even where brownfield land is not currently available (i.e. the site is developable but not deliverable), it should be taken into account by allocating it for a later phase of the plan period. This is likely to be the case for the Silverdale telephone exchange site, which is understood to be possibly available after 10 years.
The plan should also prioritise sites which are not strictly brownfield in terms of the NPPF definition but which have been subject to other uses such as a private garden (e.g. land at 12 Emesgate Lane in Silverdale village centre) or nursery (e.g. the part of Kay’s Nursery which does not protrude into open countryside).
Q11
The density of development should emerge from an appropriate assessment of the constraints and context of the site concerned, rather than being a rigid pre-determinant. If guidance is to be given on density of development it should be on a site-specific basis after taking account of all available information, most importantly a visual impact/ landscape assessment.
Q12
Yes, the DPD should identify land for community infrastructure. The requirements for community infrastructure should be taken from Village Plans and any subsequent expressions of interest from the local community. It is important to stress that such infrastructure should meet local needs and not those of a wider area outside the AONB. For instance proposals for a skate park and MUGA on the Institute Field in Silverdale should not be supported unless there is evidence of sufficient demand to justify such a facility from within the village’s population.
Q13
Support should be given to measures which assist working from home, such as high speed broadband. The railway goods yard site at Red Bridge Lane (S70) site, if not considered appropriate for housing, should be investigated for employment use, subject to an assessment of viability in such a location. It would be well located to serve commuters by train from Arnside as well as being accessible by shuttle from Silverdale.
Q14
Large scale renewable energy projects are not appropriate in the AONB and would be unlikely to pass the tests in paragraph 116 of the NPPF. Policies should make this clear while setting policies for small scale domestic renewable energy such as solar panels.
Q15
Policies should support existing bus services especially those serving the railway stations, such as the Silverdale Shuttle. This should be a high priority for CIL/ section 106 agreements.
Site allocations should take into account possible safety and congestion issues at peak visitor times when on-street parking may restrict visibility, such as Shore Road, Silverdale when parking on the shore itself is inaccessible or full.
Q16
In addition to further parking at Arnside station, extra parking at Silverdale station should be considered possibly in conjunction with either a housing or an employment development at site S70.
Further, well-designed parking (including disabled spaces and cycle parking) should be provided as a part of a landscaped square in Silverdale village centre, incorporating the Royal car-park and land opposite if this comes forward for housing development at a later phase of the DPD. Such a scheme was promoted through the Silverdale Village Plan and should be given strength as a material consideration through allocation in the DPD and through the Infrastructure Plan/ CIL Infrastructure Schedule and/or relevant Section 106 agreements.
There is also scope for car-parking to serve Silverdale village centre on land to the rear of 17-21 Emesgate Lane, with access off Bank House Lane, adjoining the public toilets.
Q17
The existing policies in the Lancaster DM DPD and the South Lakeland Local Plan give the right approach. They may be helped by specific policies in the AONB DPD, especially to clarify the limited permitted extent of caravan parking at Gibraltar Farm and restrictions on events and noise at this sensitive location.
Static caravan sites already have an adverse impact on the scenic beauty of the AONB, although they also bring welcome expenditure to support village facilities. Measures to restrict their impact, such as agreements to control the colour of replacement caravans and schemes for landscaping more exposed locations, should be investigated. A policy to support and encourage this should be included in the plan and such measures could form part of section 106 agreements when proposals for redevelopment / extension of caravan site facilities (as recently constructed at Holgates) come forward for approval.
Q18
The elements suggested are sensible. One additional element, however, should be the extent to which the site is potentially under threat from development pressure. This might apply to some of the unacceptable sites put forward as part of the call for sites.
There should also be reference within the criteria to the extent to which the site contributes to the special qualities of the AONB as set out in the Statutory Management Plan 2015.
Q19
I am not convinced that all of the land shown adequately meets the criteria set in paragraph 5.29. While I would support the protection of most of these sites from development, they could equally be protected by general countryside policies and the blanket approach to some areas, apparently based on ownership by the National Trust, creates a danger that the concept of Important Open Space is devalued and that sites not so allocated have a ‘second class’ level of protection.
In order to avoid this, there should be either a much wider spread of land included in this category, or a more selective approach to the sites put forward. For instance, while part of Site S61 (The Lots) is extremely important and meets the criteria, the north–eastern part of Bank House Farm is arguably less so, while Site S68 (Lodge Meadow) is an isolated field on Hollins Lane with no relationship with the existing settlement of Silverdale. Where such areas are protected through ownership by the National Trust or others, giving them spurious additional protection could undermine the conservation of other land in private ownership.
Q20
If the extensive areas of designation as Important Open Space shown in Silverdale remain in the DPD then other land under threat from development and with as much or more contribution to the landscape should be included, such as sites S43, S50, S54, S55, S56, S58, and S98.
In particular the small valley west of Lindeth Road (Sites S56 and S S58, together with part of Site S46/S41) forms an important part of the setting of the village and is an excellent example of the landscape described by the Statutory Management Plan for the AONB as part of the first special quality (Outstanding Landscape and Spectacular Views) as follows:
“The small-scale yet complex nature of the landforms gives an intimate feeling within valleys and woodlands which contrasts with the open nature and expansive views from higher ground and along the coast.”
Other areas of land to be considered for designation as Important Open Space are:
• The Institute Field, Spring Bank
• The playground, Cove Road
• The bowling green, Cove Road.
Q21
All views from existing public rights of way, including glimpsed views between frontage development, should be protected; but such protection should not be confined to public viewpoints and should apply to green corridors adjoining existing settlements regardless of public access to them. The landscape and countryside of the AONB must be protected for its own sake and development on greenfield sites, especially that which comes within the definition of major development, should be refused except in exceptional circumstances and in the public interest. AONBs have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty and such national designation will normally outweigh local development needs.
Q22
Existing policies are probably adequate, but if a greenfield site is allocated for development the opportunity should be taken to protect and enhance biodiversity on some of the land within or adjoin the site.
Q23
Development in Silverdale should be restricted to a level which will not harm groundwater quality and which would not result in harm to the internationally recognised SSSI/ SPA of Morecambe Bay. Since there are no watercourses in Silverdale as a result of the heavily fissured limestone bedrock, any packaged treatment plants or individual sceptic tanks need to discharge into a drainage field which must meet the requirements of the Building Regulations and be at least 15metres away from any building. A specific policy relating to the requirements for foul and surface water drainage in Silverdale should be included in the plan and any site allocations should only be made once it is established that these requirements can be met either within the site or on adjoining land in the same ownership. This is especially critical for sites close to the shore where effluent may drain quickly into Morecambe Bay, contaminating bird feeding grounds, possibly even after treatment and certainly in the event of poor maintenance of plant or power cuts (which are not infrequent).
Q24
Existing policies may be adequate.
Q25
Development should avoid the ‘suburbanisation’ which has occurred in several settlements in the AONB to date. The DPD should seek to define the crucial elements of design which contribute to the built character of the AONB, as opposed to those which detract from it. These should form the basis of design guidance for allocated sites and for windfall development.
5. Mr Keith Reed (Individual) : 16 Dec 2015 12:46:00
Discussion Paper section
6. Options for Meeting the Objectives and Delivering the Vision
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Q 26
Given the need to ensure that the landscape impact of any development is minimised, I consider that any sites in secondary settlements should not be ruled out if their environmental impact is acceptable and they meet a local community need. I do not consider that reliance on exceptions sites and /or an assumption of some development elsewhere will achieve this. Although such sites may be less sustainable than sites in the Primary Settlements, it must be accepted that travel by private car will remain the main mode and that this can only be mitigated to some extent by support for bus services and cycling.
I therefore consider that option (v) is the most appropriate approach to development in the AONB. I do not consider that this approach need necessarily rule out the possibility of additional housing on windfall sites and that an assumption can be made about a small amount of development on such sites, typically large gardens, coming forward in the future as they have done in the past. Indeed some of the sites identified under the call for sites come into this category and should be treated as such rather than being specifically identified in the DPD.
Q27
I attach a table commenting on the sites put forward for development in Silverdale. All sites must be capable of meeting Building Regulations in relation to the treatment and percolation of foul and surface water drainage. In summary, I consider that they can be grouped as follows:
Sites Suitable for Development
S47 Land between 10B and 12 Lindeth Road (subject to retention of the views through the site to the valley beyond)
S49 Land east of 12 Emesgate Lane (subject to availability; best developed towards the end of the plan period as part of a comprehensive scheme for the whole site in accordance with a planning brief to ensure it contributes to the improvement of the village centre).
S53 Land south east of Woodlands Hotel
S54 Land south of Cove Drive
S70 Railway Goods Yard, Red Bridge Lane (employment use)
Sites Suitable for Development in Part
S46 Kayes Garden Centre, Lindeth Road (south-eastern half of site only)
S48 Land east of Lindeth Close (northern part of site only)
Sites not Suitable for Development
S41 36 Lindeth Road
S42 Blue Hills Cottage, Spring Bank (already developed)
S43 Elmslack Field, Cove Road (but the frontage onto Cove Road, apart from a narrow field access, may be suitable if justified to meet local needs and if developed in such a way as to ensure no future extension onto this site)
S44 Hawes Villa, Moss Lane
S 45 Hawthorn Bank, Cove Road (but possible space for one dwelling in the grounds)
S50 Land east of St John’s Avenue (but the frontage onto St John’s Avenue, apart from a narrow field access, and a small corner to the east of St John’s Grove may be suitable if justified to meet local needs and if developed in such a way as to ensure no future extension onto this site)
S51 Land north of Woodlands Cottage, Woodlands Drive
S52 Land east of Hawes Villa, Moss Lane
S55 Land south of Park Road and east of the Row
S56 Land south of Whinney Fold (but a small area at the northern extremity of the site may be suitable if justified to meet local needs and if developed in such a way as to ensure no future extension on this site or into site S58)
S57 Land south of Windy Ridge, Wallings Lane (but possible site for one carefully designed house)
S58 Land west of Lindeth Road
S98 Sixteen Buoys, Ford lane, Waterslack
Q28
Sites which might be suitable for development in sustainable locations near the village centre are set out below. There are several sites which form parts of large private gardens the availability of which are dependent on owners’ intentions. They may not be allocated but instead form part of the evidence to support a windfall allowance. The possible exception to this is the curtilage of 12-14 Emesgate Lane. This central site is understood to be not currently available but it which offers an opportunity to enhance the village centre. It could therefore be allocated for development towards the end of the plan period, subject to a development brief.
• Telephone exchange, Gaskell Close (after 10 years)
• Curtilage of 12-14 Emesgate Lane, including site S49 (after 10 years)
• Land south and south-east of Clarence House, Silverdale Green
• Land north of Hillcrest, Spring Bank
• Land west of Bradshawgate (possible access via S45 and/ or through gardens on Bradshawgate)
• Land west of 29 Emesgate Lane/ Green Arbour/ Bleasdale School (subject to access and existing uses)
• Site of / west of 31 Emesgate Lane
These sites will need further investigation in order to establish their deliverability and (in some cases) developability.
Q29
Yes, I believe that the DPD should identify development boundaries in order to provide more certainty about the protection of greenfield land in the future and in order to provide a clear indication to potential developers. This does not, of course, rule out the possibility of exceptions sites outside the development boundaries where appropriate. It should at least apply to Arnside, Silverdale, Storth/ Sandside, and Beetham. I am not clear on the practicality of defining meaningful boundaries for the other four settlements.
6. Mr Keith Reed (Individual) : 16 Dec 2015 12:47:00
Discussion Paper section
7. Delivery of Development
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Q30
Yes, the DPD should phase development in three 5 year bands to correspond with those in the NPPF (para 47). This will allow at least some of the sites above to come forward at later stages and ensure that local housing needs are met throughout the plan period and not just at the beginning when an over-supply could encourage in-migration. Phasing based purely on infrastructure coming forward would not achieve this.
Q31
No comment.
7. Mr Keith Reed (Individual) : 16 Dec 2015 12:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Discussion Paper section
6. Options for Meeting the Objectives and Delivering the Vision
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Appendix to Consultation Response from Keith Reed: Site Assessment Table
This constitutes a table which cannot be copied into this space. I will therefore send it separately by e-mail.