Local Development Framework Consultation

Overall I am impressed by the depth and capacity of this plan and fully support the landscape and biodiversity 'first' approach,
which I hope will become an exemplar to other AONB's and be adopted throughout the country.
The statement in the foreword of both Councils having a 'Commitment to applying polices consistently' is to be applauded and a great asset to the AONB.

AS05 Natural Environment - I fully support the intention and sentiment in this section.
V11 - compensatory measures - in addition to the measures X1 to X1V I feel that any species planted and habitat recreated should only
use locally sourced species, an approach that has already been successfully achieved in the area.

4.2.16 Local sites -Great strides could be made in collating the location and knowledge of these sites by coordinating the immense number of volunteer naturalists that already exist within the AONB

A MAJOR OMISSION - In the plan (as far as I can see) is the lack of recognition of the only natural habitat -
the limestone sea cliff face and immediate top. These are by their location non-intervention zones,
their management is largely directed by natural processes (wind, salt spray) some parts contain species rich grassland that has existed
without management for years and could be small remnants of 'Refugia' grassland i.e naturally occurring grassland that has survived
from the end of the last ice age. They have been and are being damaged by major extension seawards of the footprint around caravans at Far Arnside.

4.8 Camping, Caravan and Visitor Accommodation
AS12
(1) and (1V) I fully support this approach, but suggest that - There should be a clear distinction made as to the permitted
footprint of units and their spacing to prevent an incremental increase in size e.g a 'Lodge' is double the size of a static caravan
and is far greater in landscape impact but often passed off as less impact because of its plastic faux wood. Without restriction of what is allowed within the AONB, the future development and advances in technology and production, will lead to bigger units which would all be permitted because they are called by the name (Lodge/Caravan) that is mentioned in the plan.
(11) There needs to be a clear distinction between temporary movable - tents and more permanent pods yurts and shepherds caravans.
Most of the latter can have permanent bases and sometimes paths.
(111) - surely this clashes with the intended spirit of number (1)

4.8.6 and 7 Recent permissions have been given for pods within the footprint of sites which have countered the aims in the AS05 Natural Environment section of the plan where it states -

"Development proposals will not be permitted that would be likely to compromise the extent, value or integrity of:
(I) any site or habitat protected for its biodiversity or geodiversity value at an international, national or local level;"

Pods have already been built upon and destroyed species rich grassland which is designated a County Wildlife Site despite objections from Cumbria Wildlife Trust. So to allow more just because they are within the footprint does not guarantee that they will not damage irreplaceable habitats.

Well done, in the main it's an excellent plan, everyone involved deserves full praise.