Response from Mr Stephen Harrison (Individual)
1. Mr Stephen Harrison (Individual) : 7 Dec 2017 09:44:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes
Appendices, maps or other
General comment / comment on procedure
1.3 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be sound?
Yes
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
We support the proposed DPD for the Arnside & Silverdale AONB and recommend its acceptance as drafted. In particular, our support is based on the following points;
* We compliment the officers of both South Lakeland District & Lancaster City Councils and the staff of the Arnside & Silverdale AONB team on a thorough document which clearly states the national policies and land use criteria applicable to the AONB with protection of the landscape as the overriding objective,
* it selects development sites which are consistent with those policies and protects the general open character of the settlements within the AONB Landscape as well as meeting other key criteria,
* it recognises that development should only be permitted to fulfil essential local needs,
* it further states that the main essential local need is that for affordable housing,
* it sets a ratio of affordable versus market housing development which is consistent with all the relevant criteria for the AONB.
While we understand that achieving this ratio will be challenging for commercial developers and may make some sites inappropriate for commercial development, we also maintain that commercial development within the AONB is not appropriate unless it produces a very high yield of affordable housing. To do otherwise would sacrifice highly valued landscape for no benefit to meeting essential local needs.
We also understand that there are good prospects that bodies such as housing associations will step in to finance affordable housing needs.
For these reasons we recommend that the DPD should be considered “sound”.
For the above reasons and the following, the application (SL/2017/0935) should be refused because it is within a protected site in which development is prohibited in both the current and proposed planning policies.
Plus, there is strong evidence that this part of the site regularly floods and affects properties further down Lawrence Drive and Parkside Drive. On Wednesday 22nd November, Parkside Drive was flooded again after heavy rain requiring the fire service to assist by pumping flood water away. This was due, in part, to run off from the hill above and from this particular field where the development is proposed. It is likely that any building or hard-landscaping in this area could have an adverse impact on adjoining properties and Parkside Drive.
Steve and Paula Harrison
