4 responses from Mr Mark Donoghue, C/o Steven Abbott Associates
1. Mr Mark Donoghue, C/o Steven Abbott Associates : 8 Dec 2017 14:29:00
Policy Reference
Site Omission
If you have selected policy / site omission, please enter the site reference or location, or specify the policy area as appropriate.
Site Omission A7
1.1 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
The DPD is not positively prepared
The DPD is not effective
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.
I am writing on behalf of my client, Mr Donoghue, who owns land at High Close, Arnside which was put forward for residential development under the AONB Call for Sites, and was registered as Site A7.
It is noted that the site has not been taken forward for housing because it is not considered to meet the criteria set out for sites to be sustainable, and that there are also concerns with regard to landscape and the proximity of the site to Arnside Knott.
In response to this we would point out that a number of sites on Knott Lane have received planning permission for dwellings in recent years, identifying that the area, including my client's site, could be considered to be part of the settlement of Arnside. Indeed, we
understand that some encouragement has been given to a proposal for a dwelling very close to this site.
I would specifically wish to comment on policy AS03, Housing Provision. It is welcomed that the development strategy AS01 accepts Arnside as a Local Service Centre, as it is bound to do under the provisions of the Core Strategy identifying it as such.
You will be aware that I have made other representations on behalf of other clients with regard to the limited size of the AONB and the relatively high population.
This brings a situation about whereby, to maintain the viability of the population and to make sure that the Arnside & Silverdale AONB as a thriving area from an aspect of human occupation, then there must be room for some growth.
The area hosts a population that is skewed towards older age groups with over 40% of the population being over 65. This is compared to a 17.7% UK average in 2014. Because of this a greater number of allocations have to be made to ensure that Arnside is sustainable in terms of population.
We have been looking at what is a proposal of 3 or 4 houses on this site but, as you will know from my previous correspondence, the allocation of the site would also enable development to come forward that would give a 4 acre woodland to the village or, potentially, the local wildlife trust.
Again, as was seen from the earlier representation, we view that an exemplar development could be brought forward on this site that would have both landscape and ecological benefits, rather than being viewed as being in conflict with it. The considerable grounds of High Close would allow for much additional enhancement both from a landscape and ecological perspective.
Given the extremely limited number of allocated sites for Arnside we are of the view that in the Plan the intention of policy AS01 and AS03 mean that Arnside does not fulfil its role as a Local Service Centre, as required by the Core Strategy.
With direct reference to policy AS03 this requires that not less than 50% of proposals are affordable homes. We have specific concerns about this because the original viability appraisal put forward in support of the plan considered that even 35% was marginal, but we now have a situation where the policy sponsors 50% provision with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This does not reflect the constrained nature of many of the sites within the AONB and also the fact that the ones that have been allocated are aimed at smaller developers, many of whom do not exist in the current housing market since the recession and I know that this is something that the Policy Planners at Lancaster City Council recognise.
The allocations are not aimed at very small self-builders who might take one or two houses and neither are they aimed at medium sized housebuilders, which is another reason why in our view they are not likely to be delivered.
We are also of the view that the increase in build costs since the viability assessment was prepared and also taking into account the higher level of specification that would be required by the design and landscape policies themselves, simply will not result in viable schemes at this scale with 50% affordable in combination with CIL.
In the light of the above and our previous representations we would again offer the site for a low density, landscape based development that could allow considerable enhancement of what is essentially a large lawned area. Photographs previously provided show how well screened the site is from the Knott and any proposal would help to reinforce this.
I trust that these representations will be taken into account in consideration of the publication
version of the plan.
I attach a plan which indicates how the site could be developed.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
Allocate site A7 for 3 to 5 dwellings.
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, recommendations published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr Mark Donoghue, C/o Steven Abbott Associates : 8 Dec 2017 14:34:00
Policy Reference
AS03 - Housing Provision
1.1 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound
The DPD is not positively prepared
The DPD is not effective
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
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.
I would specifically wish to comment on policy AS03, Housing Provision.
Given the extremely limited number of allocated sites for Arnside we are of the view that in the Plan the intention of policy AS01 and AS03 mean that Arnside does not fulfil its role as a Local Service Centre, as required by the Core Strategy.
With direct reference to policy AS03 this requires that not less than 50% of proposals are affordable homes. We have specific concerns about this because the original viability appraisal put forward in support of the plan considered that even 35% was marginal, but we now have a situation where the policy sponsors 50% provision with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This does not reflect the constrained nature of many of the sites within the AONB and also the fact that the ones that have been allocated are aimed at smaller developers, many of whom do not exist in the current housing market since the recession and I know that this is something that the Policy Planners at Lancaster City Council recognise.
The allocations are not aimed at very small self-builders who might take one or two houses and neither are they aimed at medium sized housebuilders, which is another reason why in our view they are not likely to be delivered.
We are also of the view that the increase in build costs since the viability assessment was prepared and also taking into account the higher level of specification that would be required by the design and landscape policies themselves, simply will not result in viable schemes at this scale with 50% affordable in combination with CIL.
I trust that these representations will be taken into account in consideration of the publication
version of the plan.
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, recommendations published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mr Mark Donoghue, C/o Steven Abbott Associates : 8 Dec 2017 14:38:00
Policy Reference
AS01 - Development Strategy
1.1 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound
The DPD is not positively prepared
The DPD is not effective
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
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.
It is welcomed that the development strategy AS01 accepts Arnside as a Local Service Centre, as it is bound to do under the provisions of the Core Strategy identifying it as such.
Given the extremely limited number of allocated sites for Arnside we are of the view that in the Plan the intention of policy AS01 and AS03 mean that Arnside does not fulfil its role as a Local Service Centre, as required by the Core Strategy.
I trust that these representations will be taken into account in consideration of the publication
version of the plan.
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
4. Mr Mark Donoghue, C/o Steven Abbott Associates : 8 Dec 2017 14:42:00
Appendices, maps or other
General comment / comment on procedure
1.1 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound
The DPD is not positively prepared
The DPD is not effective
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
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.
You will be aware that I have made other representations on behalf of other clients with regard to the limited size of the AONB and the relatively high population.
This brings a situation about whereby, to maintain the viability of the population and to make sure that the Arnside & Silverdale AONB as a thriving area from an aspect of human occupation, then there must be room for some growth.
The area hosts a population that is skewed towards older age groups with over 40% of the
population being over 65. This is compared to a 17.7% UK average in 2014. Because of this a
greater number of allocations have to be made to ensure that Arnside is sustainable in terms of population.
I trust that these representations will be taken into account in consideration of the publication
version of the plan.
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
