Local Development Framework Consultation

These comments are submitted by Smith & Love Planning Consultants Ltd on behalf of Applethwaite Ltd and follow comments made previously in response to the AONB DPD Issues and Options Consultation in December 2015.

1. AONB DPD Vision

Applethwaite Ltd previously commented that the DPD Vision should make clear that new development will be “planned and delivered” and not simply “managed” in order to meet objectively assessed market and affordable housing needs in the AONB. The revised Vision partially incorporates this change but adds the unnecessary additional wording; “contribute towards meeting the needs of the communities of the AONB….” This introduces uncertainty and conflicts with the NPPF requirement to ensure that the DPD is positively prepared. The wording of the DPD Vision should therefore be revised simply to; “meet the needs of the communities of the AONB…..”

2. AONB DPD Objectives

Applethwaite Ltd previously commented that the term ‘local needs’ could be misconstrued to relate to solely affordable housing, whereas the objective of the DPD is to ensure that all market, affordable and specialist housing needs within the AONB are met. Applethwaite suggests that draft Objective (IV) is therefore amended as follows and made consistent with its suggested change to the DPD Vision; “To provide a sufficient supply and mix of high quality housing to meet the market and affordable housing needs of the AONB’s communities, without adverse impact on the landscape character and Special Qualities of the AONB.”

3. Draft Policy AS01

The draft policy text; “Development in the AONB will be permitted where it furthers the primary purpose of AONB designation”, could be too restrictive such that the DPD is not positively-planned and cannot be delivered. A preferable form of words is; “Development in the AONB will be permitted where it does not conflict with the primary purpose of AONB designation.”

Applethwaite Ltd agrees with the proposed list of settlements to be defined as AONB Local Service Centres.

Applethwaite Ltd recommends that greater precision and clarity is needed to add certainty to the wording of Policy AS01 to define the meaning of development proposed “within”, “on the edge of” and “outside” settlements, given that the DPD does not propose to delineate settlement boundaries.

Applethwaite Ltd agrees that the question of whether a proposed development constitutes major development will be a matter for the relevant decision taker, but disagrees that a determination should be based on the assessment of whether development has the potential to have a significant adverse impact on the natural beauty of the AONB. The justification for using the wording “has the potential to” is not explained and justified, and Applethwaite considers the alternative word “will” should be used, such that the proposed policy reads; “…….whether development will have a significant adverse impact on the natural beauty of the AONB.”

4. Draft Policy AS02

Applethwaite Ltd suggests that the wording of Criteria (IV) of the draft policy is revised so that new development proposals will be supported where they; “retain and/or restore the scale and pattern of the landscape, with its characteristic highly diverse mosaic of contrasting landscape types.”

5. Draft Policy AS04

Applethwaite Ltd has significant concerns over the wording and requirements of this policy. It is not correct to assert that because the AONB is a protected landscape, allocated housing sites and windfall sites that are suitable for housing, should be developed specifically to help meet local affordable or other locally identified housing needs. The logic that “to do otherwise would fail to address these needs, which could then only be met by releasing more sensitive sites, causing harm and compromising the primary purpose of the AONB designation”, applies equally if the DPD does not ensure that market housing needs arising with the AONB are met. The DPD must ensure that all objectively assessed housing needs (market, affordable and specialist) are met wherever possible, and it should not prioritise local affordable housing delivery in preference to local market needs as both are equally needed and justified within the AONB.

There is also an added viability complication in pursuing a blanket policy of at least 50% affordable housing provision on all housing sites within the AONB, such that the policy is likely to fail and inhibit the delivery of both affordable and market housing. By their nature, housing sites within the AONB will generally be smaller, more constrained and more expensive to develop than sites outside, as a result of higher land acquisition prices and abnormal development and infrastructure costs. Provision of at least 50% affordable housing on all housing sites will not be viable on small sites and can only be achieved if the level of market housing is sufficiently increased to facilitate delivery. As that is unlikely to be possible on many sites within the AONB, flexibility and discretion is required to determine if and when an allocated or proposed housing site can deliver 50% affordable housing.

Paragraph 173 of the NPPF emphasises that ensuring viability is paramount to sustainable plan-making so that DPDs are deliverable. It is clear that; “sites and the scale of development identified in a DPD should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.”

6. Draft Section 4.5 Design

The interpretation of draft Paragraph 4.5.23 is unnecessarily restrictive as presently worded and its relationship with proposed Policy AS07 Key Settlement Landscapes is unclear. Key Settlement Landscapes are proposed to be designated to protect land from development that makes an important contribution to the character of the AONB and its settlements. To ensure greater consistency with draft Policy AS07 it is suggested that draft paragraph 4.5.23 is revised to read; “Much of the (Silverdale) village is fringed by small to medium sized pastures, which are enclosed by a characteristic pattern of limestone walls. Pockets of development are interspersed with woodlands and pastureland that form attractive open spaces and pastures follow a pattern of ancient enclosures in some areas. Some of these open areas form an important part of Silverdale’s character.”

7. Draft Policy AS16

Applethwaite Ltd does not support the proposed allocation of only 0.30ha of Site Ref. S56 at Whinney Fold, Silverdale for the development of approximately 6 no. dwellings. The whole of Site S56 is suitable, achievable and available for development and can yield a higher number of much-needed new homes, and should therefore be allocated for development as it is the only proposed housing allocation included in the draft AONB DPD at Silverdale. The detailed reasons for this are set out in the response to draft site brief Policy AS23 below.

8. Draft Policy AS23

Applethwaite Ltd has an interest in Site Ref. S56 comprising 0.76ha of land to the south of Whinney Fold at Silverdale.

Silverdale is proposed to be defined as a Local Service Centre in the draft DPD and is already defined as a Sustainable Rural Settlement in the Lancaster settlement hierarchy and an identified location for rural housing growth in the Development Management DPD (Policy DM42) of December 2014. It is the principal settlement within the part of the AONB within the Lancaster City Council area.

As a sustainable village and a suitable location for growth, Silverdale is the only settlement in the AONB (together with Arnside in South Lakeland), that provides the full range of essential local community services and facilities including convenience shopping to meet daily needs, St Johns C of E Primary School, bus and rail public transport, health services, public houses / food and drink provision, a village hall / institute, places of worship, a library and sport and recreation facilities. It is a popular village and an attractive residential area for both working families and retired and older people, and there is a very good prospect of new housing development being delivered in the short term as there is strong market interest and take-up.

The AONB DPD evidence base demonstrates that Site S56 is suitable for moderate housing development. It comprises developable land immediately adjoining residential development in the southern part of Silverdale, and within 450m walking and cycling distance of the village centre, that does not contain any important features and aside from the limited loss of agricultural grazing, has no technical, environmental, heritage, infrastructure, access and ownership constraints.

The site scores highly in the Basic Information, Exclusion Criteria, Suitability / Sustainability Criteria and Deliverability Criteria in the DPD Appendix 2: Site Assessment Spreadsheet. For completeness, the missing deliverability criteria are as follows and confirming that the site can be provided with a full range of utility services;

Close proximity - Water services? A mains water supply is available
Close proximity - Sewerage services? The site can be provided with full biological wastewater package treatment facilities and a drainage field meeting the requirements of Part H2 of the Building Regulations 2015.
Close proximity - Electrical services? A mains electricity supply is available
Close proximity - Gas services? A mains gas supply is available
Close proximity - Telecom services? Telephone and fast broadband is available

In respect of the Biodiversity Test, Applethwaite notes the Site Assessment Spreadsheet score the site as ‘orange’ due to the Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) relating to its use as farmland. The SMR is an agricultural management standard and not an indication of the ecological importance or interest of the site and its suitability for, or constraint from, development. This is confirmed by the AONB Development Plan Site Allocations - Cumbria Wildlife Trust Assessments report, which demonstrates that there are no insurmountable constraints preventing the development of the whole of Site 56. This conclusion was also reached by ecologists appointed by Applethwaite in 2015 to appraise the ecological importance of the site and the limited effect new housing development is likely to have on local biodiversity, qualifying species and/or habitats of European designated sites and European protected species. Overall, there is no ecological constraint to development and the DPD site assessment should record the site as ‘green’.

In respect of the Landscape Test, Applethwaite Ltd disagrees with the conclusions for Site S56 drawn by Hyder Consulting in the Landscape and Visual Field Survey Sheet (AONB SHLAA Sites) Report. This confirms the site occupies a secluded position in the AONB and benefits from limited views in and out. It considers the loss of landscape character would be harmful in combination with the redevelopment of Site 46 (Kayes Garden Centre), however there is no indication that site is deliverable due to access and ownership constraints, and it has consequently not been taken forward in the DPD. In addition, the Hyder Report does not fully consider mitigation or more importantly, the scope for landscape character compensation, which Site S56 can deliver.

The Appendix 2 : Site Assessment Spreadsheet is also silent in respect of the Viability Test. For the reasons explained in the response to draft Policy AS04, the expectation that the allocation of only 0.3ha of the site for the development of 6 no. dwellings, of which at least 3 no. are expected to be affordable units, is unrealistic and is not deliverable. As the only proposed housing site included in the DPD for Silverdale, it is critical that S56 is financially viable and deliverable, and that in the absence of suitable, achievable and available alternative sites, the DPD enables the full development potential of the site to be realised.

Applethwaite Ltd maintains its comment that the whole of Site S56 is therefore a suitable, sustainable and appropriate location for new housing development. The site is available and development is achievable and can be made financially viable, enabling housing to be delivered in the short term so it makes a valuable contribution to the 5 year housing land supply within the AONB DPD. Applethwaite recommends that draft Policies AS16 and AS23 are therefore amended in the next version of the AONB DPD to allocate the whole of Site S56 for an increased number of dwellings.

No

No