Local Development Framework Consultation

2. Background

Q1: Should the AONB DPD define what would constitute ‘major development’ (a threshold above which planning consent would not normally be granted) in the AONB or should this be considered on a case by case basis? If there should be a definition, what should it be?

The definition given in Statutory Instrument 2010 No.2184 is a suitable definition of a 'major development' in the AONB.

Q6: Should the AONB DPD identify the proportion of affordable housing to be developed in the AONB? If so, what proportion and how would it be delivered?

Yes. A majority of new housing should be affordable. Multi-dwelling developments should be mainly or totally affordable housing.

5. Policy Issues

Q7: Should the AONB DPD restrict new housing development to local people and/or those who are going to use the property for their sole or main occupancy?

All affordable housing should be restricted to local people, which I would define as those that already live or work in the AONB.

Q8: How should the AONB DPD promote the development of certain housing types within the AONB to meet particular housing needs?

Yes. In addition to affordable housing I believe there is a need for housing for older people to move into when their existing homes is no longer suitable for their needs.

Q12: Should the AONB DPD identify allocations of land for community infrastructure? What community infrastructure is required and where?

Yes. There is an unmet demand in Silverdale for additional sports facilities such as tennis courts, a multi-use games area and a skate park.

Q14: What types of energy technology should policies in the AONB DPD cover? How should policies deal with energy-related developments?

The AONB in not a suitable place for any energy related developments except on a very small scale, such as roof mounted solar panels.

Q16: Do you consider that there is a need for any additional parking facilities in the AONB’s settlements and, if so, where should it be located?

For different reasons parking is a problem on The Promenade at Arnside, on Emesgate Lane in Silverdale and on Main Street in Warton. If any development land is identified close to these areas it should be considered for parking. At both Arnside and Silverdale stations the station yards should, if possible, be developed as car parks.

Q17: What policy stance should the AONB DPD take towards proposals for new or expanded caravan sites within the AONB?

I agree with the existing policies of Lancaster and South Lakeland.

Q20: Aside from those spaces marked on the accompanying maps, are there any other parcels of land that you feel should be given Important Open Space designation? Why?

Given that the area is an AONB I would expect all or almost all farm land, wood and moss to be designated, except for areas adjacent to any existing development. If that is not accepted, then places that have significant public access should be designated. The obvious examples of places not included on the maps are Warton Crag, Leighton Hall park, Leighton Moss, and Gait Barrows nature reserve.

Inside existing settlements, the Institute Field in Silverdale should be designated as an open space as it is one of the few green spaces close to the centre of the village.

6. Options for Meeting the Objectives and Delivering the Vision

Q26: Which option(s) represent the most appropriate approach to development in the AONB? Are there any other options we should consider?

Option 5 - Allocate predominantly in Primary Settlements and in smaller amounts in Secondary settlements and Beetham + exceptions criteria for everywhere else – would be the most appropriate approach.

Q27: Have you any comments on any of the sites put forward?

Site A2: Arnside Edge. Not an appropriate location. Development here would destroy the view from the road and from the shore.

Site A7: High Close. This would be a major development in a largely undeveloped area and therefore not acceptable.

Site A12: Land North of Briery Bank 2. This would be a major development and therefore not acceptable.

Site A17: Land Adjoining Cemetery 2. This would be a major development in a largely undeveloped area and therefore not acceptable.

Site A18: Land West of Saltcotes Hall. This would be a major development and therefore not acceptable.

Site A26: Station Yard, Sandside Road. Some development of this area would be acceptable provided it includes significant station car parking.

Site A97: Middlebarrow Quarry. It is difficult to imagine a suitable development for this site. Given its location the best option would allow it to become a nature reserve like Trowbarrow Quarry.

Site S42: Blue Hills Cottage, Spring Bank, Silverdale. This site is already developed more than the plan would suggest, leaving little room for further development. Problems exist with access via Spring Bank – see planning applications 09/00903/FUL and 15/00739/FUL.

Site S44: Hawes Villa, Moss Lane, Silverdale. This site is away from other habitation and on the edge of Hawes Water, one of the most attractive parts of Silverdale. Access is via Moss Lane which is a single track road not suitable for increased traffic.

Site S46: Kayes Garden Centre, Lindeth Road, Silverdale. This would be a major development and therefore not acceptable.

Site S48: Land East of Lindeth Close, Silverdale. This would be a major development and therefore not acceptable.

Site S50: Land East Of St Johns Avenue, Silverdale. This would be a major development and therefore not acceptable. When viewed from the 'Pepper Pot' on King William's Hill any development would be highly visible.

Site S52: Land East of Hawes Villa, Moss Lane, Silverdale. This is an undeveloped field, apart from an old railway wagon. The site is away from other habitation and on the edge of Hawes Water, one of the most attractive parts of Silverdale. Aces is via Moss Lane which is a single track road not suitable for increased traffic.

Site S54: Land South Of Cove Drive, Silverdale. This may be a major development and therefore not acceptable. When viewed from the 'Pepper Pot' on King William's Hill any development would be highly visible.

Site S56: Land South Of Whinney Fold, Silverdale. This may be a major development and therefore not acceptable. If a larger development is required in Silverdale this would be more suitable than many other locations as it would less intrusive.

Site S58: Land West of Lindeth Road, Silverdale. This may be a major development and therefore not acceptable. If a larger development is required in Silverdale this would be more suitable than many other locations as it would less intrusive.

Site S67: Townsfield, Silverdale. Part of this land either adjacent to Emsgate Lane or Cove road could be sites for sports facilities such as tennis courts or a multi-use games area.

Site S70: Railway Goods Yard, Red Bridge Lane 1, Silverdale. The station car park is adjacent to this and was part of the old goods yard. Due to its shape the car park can only take unto about five cars and is often full. A larger car park is required, especially if Silverdale looses its bus services. This land should be developed as a car park.

Site S98: Sixteen Buoys, Ford Lane, Waterslack. This site is undeveloped other than a large agricultural/industrial building. It is separated from other buildings at Waterslack by the railway line. It is therefore not part of an existing development, other than the large building.

7. Delivery of Development

Q31: Are there any other issues that the AONB DPD should address? Have you any other comments?

I think the AOND PDP should attempt to define what 'sustainable development' means in the context of an AONB or National Park. I would expect this to be different from the meaning sustainable development in other areas.