Local Development Framework Consultation

Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9

Hollins Lane Development Plan

The Cumbria Rural Housing Trust published the results of the housing needs survey for the Arnside & Silverdale AONB in September 2014. The site allocations contained in the AONB DPD that had been drafted prior to the public consultation in the winter of 2016, provided more than enough development land to satisfy the housing needs outlined in the CRHT survey. There is no evidence to suggest that a need for more development land has been proven since that survey. The Hollins Lane site is currently designated as an Open Green Space, and in our opinion it should remain so.

The AONB contracted a surveyor to ascertain the suitability of each site in Arnside. He found that the site A9 forms part of the historical development of Arnside and forms an integral part of the urban mosaic which defines this part of Arnside. Development of site A9 is in conflict with some of the policies these being:

• AS07 – this policy protects areas of land within settlements that are not publicly accessible but which are important to the settlement character and the wider ANOB landscape.
• AS08 – requires new developments to protect and enhance the historic environment, historic character and heritage features of the ANOB.
• AS511 – ensures appropriate new infrastructure is provided where needed in the ANOB but any new infrastructure does not harm the ANOB’s landscape character. It also gives priority to support walking, cycling and public transport.
• AS13 – ensures that consideration is given to the management of water quality, sewerage systems and drainage.

Hollins Lane is one of the narrowest roads in Arnside; there are few passing places and the road struggles at times to accommodate the traffic that uses it. There are no footpaths on either Hollins Lane or for parts of Silverdale Road; I feel that children walking to and from school down either road are in some danger. This is especially the case in the summer when Hollins Lane is frequented by tourists who use it as a cut through from Silverdale road to Black Dyke Road. Fourteen houses could mean 28 more cars and maybe 28 children. The potential increase in traffic could be extremely hazardous alongside the possible increase in the number of young children.

The consultation with the HSE stated the National Planning Policy Framework (Para 172) requires that planning policies should be based on up to date information on the location of major accident hazards. I may be alone in thinking that the risk that even one child may be injured or worse walking to school to be a major accident hazard.

Cumbria constabulary suggested that the council encourage developers to consult with the Crime Prevention Design Advisor prior to application. The intention of this is to address potential vulnerability in the layout of a proposed development. The development and open public space would certainly make houses on Hollins Lane vulnerable as anyone walking along the public space will have a direct view into the homes of most dwellings thereby being able to ascertain whether there are any residents present. This creates an opportunity to those seeking unlawful entry to a property. The constabulary go on to state that location, layout, landscaping and lighting must be considered as part of the design of new developments.

The Spatial Planning Team identifies a need for sustainably located local transport to be a key consideration when assessing development proposals. There is a bus stop on Briary Bank with an infrequent service that can be accessed via Hollins Lane, a single track lane without pavements. Spatial planning state that policy should include the availability of safe walking route (e.g. footpath and crossing) between sites and key attractions like schools and doctors surgeries. This development would certainly not comply with this.

Home Housing planned to build 8 houses on the site a few years ago; they found the plot completely unsuitable for development. Home housing found much of the land is Limestone and there is no natural drainage on the site. They also found the sewers/drains on Hollins Lane are running at full capacity, some properties already have problems with drains and I know of at least one house on Swinnate that on some occasions has raw sewage seeping into the back garden. I are all aware of the stream that cascades down Hollins Lane after a downpour.

The density of the development is certainly not in keeping with the houses surrounding the field, the suggested 14 houses on the plot marked for development is tight. There are only 8 houses from Hollins Lane that back onto the field in that area and less properties backing onto the field on Silverdale Road.

There is a plot of land on Redhills Road that has not been included in the development plan. The land has planning permission for 14 apartments, seven of these being affordable. The land has recently been sold. The housing needs survey identified a need for eight 1 or 2 bedroomed apartments; this development could fulfill most of those needs. The survey also identified a need for 1 or 2 bedroomed flats for over 55’s. There are apartments for over 55’s advertised at Millom Court. A need for 5 x 3 bedroomed houses was also identified, I suggest that as Home Housing found it was totally unsuitable and in no way cost effective to build 8 homes on the field on Hollins Lane it would be even less effective to build 5 x 3 bedroomed houses. There are currently several 3 bedroomed properties for sale in Arnside that could possibly be acquired by housing associations in order to be rented out as affordable housing. I think this would be a better solution for people needing affordable housing and far cheaper than creating sustainable drainage, increasing the capacity of sewers and building new properties.

The Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 offers protection for a person’s private and family life. The privacy of the houses on Hollins Lane would be adversely affected by the proposed development which may be an interference with our rights under Article 8. Because of the incline of the field and the positioning of the proposed development the residents of the development would be able to see directly into bedrooms windows. People walking along the proposed walkway would have a direct view into the window of many of the houses on Hollins Lane, some of the windows being bedroom windows. The rear gardens of properties along Hollins Lane would have absolutely no privacy.

The case for privacy has been highlighted in recent years in the Yorkshire Dales when a planning officer dismissed an appeal against refusal of permission for a 2 bedroomed property on land at Spedding. This was because the proposed development would be overbearing and severely harm the neighbours’privacy.

The proposed development on Hollins Lane would have a marked impact on the properties that back onto the field because of the gradient of the field. The Prescription Act of 1832 protects the windows of properties that have had the required 20 years of unobstructed daylight. The proposed development would cast a shadow over many of the houses that back onto the field restricting the amount of light to the windows of the properties. The proposed properties would have to be very low in order not to obstruct light from the properties on Hollins Lane.

There are sites that are far more suitable in Arnside that have previously been identified. There are sites with more suitable access to local amenities such as the primary school, doctor’s surgeries, public transport and local shops.

Extracts from the inspectors report 14/11/2013
214. However, in allocating sites for housing, the Plan as originally submitted is based on the uniform application of the aforementioned exclusion criteria. As such, sites below 0.3 hectares have not been considered. But in the context of its status of protection, consideration of smaller sites in the AONB amounts to a reasonable alternative. Indeed, it seems to me that smaller sites would be more likely to ensure that the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB is protected in the way envisaged by the NPPF.
215. Moreover, some of the sites proposed for allocation add to my misgivings. At the hearing session, the Council confirmed that the land proposed to be allocated for housing at Station Road (RN337#), Hollins Lane (RN225-mod) and Redhills Road (R81) is considered to currently perform a greenspace function. I am told that the Council judges these sites to have amenity value, in that they contribute positively to the character and appearance of the settlement and thus of the AONB, to some degree. From my site visits, I concur with that analysis.
216. Overall, in the context of the policy protection applying to the AONB, the combination of discounting smaller sites from the site selection process and the visual contribution made by some of the sites chosen for allocation, I consider the proposed housing sites in the AONB to be unsound.

I wish to reiterate that: The site allocations contained in the AONB DPD that had been drafted prior to the public consultation in the winter of 2016, provided more than enough development land to satisfy the housing needs outlined in the CRHT survey. These sites did not include Hollins Lane.

Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9

Objection to the Allocation for Housing Development and Public Open Space on Site A8/A9, Hollins Lane, Arnside
I was under the impression that SLDC were responsible for the development plan for the AONB and not landowners who stand to make substantial profit from this development. The suggested development is contrary to both the surveyors report that A9 is suitable for a development up to 6 houses and the inspectors report stating the site has amenity value and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the settlement and thus of the AONB.
I walked down Hollins Lane on Sunday from Silverdale Road to the junction with Swinate, the walk probably took a maximum of 5 minutes. During this time I had to stand in 8 times to allow vehicles to pass. There were 3 vans and 5 cars that were on the road during that time, there were also 2 cyclists. By developing plots A8/9 the traffic will increase and the safety of pedestrians will most certainly be put at risk.
A submission dated the 14 July 2017 has been made on behalf of the owner of site A8/A9 to amend the proposals and allocations for this site. Most respondents will not be made aware of the proposal now put forward, and all residents originally consulted should have the opportunity to assess and comment on the revisions. Would the Development Manager at SLDC please check the correct procedures that the local planning authority should follow in dealing with this late amendment? In light of the change to the proposals our supplementary comments are listed below.
The revised proposal hints at “providing an opportunity” to meet a wide range of housing needs. The housing needs survey found that in the next five years 2 affordable bungalows would be required for older people, I believe sites that meet all the housing needs identified by the survey have been located.
The revised proposal is for an increase in the area proposed for residential development. How can residents object to the development when in the original consultation document there is no reference to housing types or numbers. On the basis of this revised proposal, the outcome, if supported by the local planning authority, would be additional development, with no guarantee that it would meet the needs of those retiring in the local community. When permission is granted for development, and land sold to a developer, there is often pressure applied to build a different and more profitable scheme.
The revised proposal outlined 4 additional points. My comments respond to each in turn.
1. Indicative layout. If the layout should be indicative, why submit a revised layout with more land proposed for development? To be accurate (and to allow the public to fully understand what is proposed), the revised layout should also show the relocation of the cul-de-sac and the resulting loss of open space/greenspace.
2. Depth of the site. If the intention is to build bungalows for the retired of the community, surely manageable rear gardens would be preferred and larger rear gardens would not be required.
3. 99 and 101 Silverdale Road. Yes, there is an unsatisfactory relationship between the depth of the proposed housing development site and the amenities of numbers 99 and 101 Silverdale Road. The answer to this is to delete the development from this area and not to increase the area proposed for development.
4. Public Open Space v Greenspace. This proposal appears to be contradictory. If the majority of the open space should be for the use of the wider community, and assuming active use, there is no room for any meaningful greenspace, as the landowner is now proposing to increase the size of the housing development. Will the newly retired residents of the new development really be responsible for the management of the public open space?