3 responses from Mr Proudlove, C/o Steven Abbott Associates
1. Mr Proudlove, C/o Steven Abbott Associates : 8 Dec 2017 15:27:00
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.
Y101 Yealand Redmayne
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.
Site: Y101 and Y102 – Silverdale Road, Yealand Redmayne
Mr Miles Proudlove and Mr Michael Holgate
Arnside Silverdale AONB Development Plan Document Publication Version Consultation Response
I am writing on behalf of my clients who between them own sites that were referenced as Y101 and Y102 in the draft Development Plan Document Allocation and Background Papers.
It is noted that the sites have not been taken forward for housing particularly because of concerns about landscape.
As far as I am aware only 9 sites are being taken forward through the process out of 130 submitted.
Policy AS01, Development Strategy, in effect breaks down two categories of development to Local Service Centres and development at small villages. However, with regard to Yealand Redmayne there is reference to development being limited to conversion of buildings, reuse of brownfield land or regeneration opportunities. We feel that this does not go far enough given the limited number of sites put forward and the limited number of dwellings proposed. We have rehearsed elsewhere the arguments regarding viability and affordability and feel that the low number of sites put forward, taken together with their size, raises serious concerns about whether the aspirations of the Plan can be delivered.
Despite the approach of policy AS01, Yealand Redmayne is a specific settlement and will continue to function in tandem with Yealand Conyers and we are aware that the public house has now reopened as a community business. For the Yealands to be sustainable and thriving moving forward it is considered that some level of allocation should be provided. Again, arguments have been rehearsed elsewhere relating to the age of the population and the need for a supply of housing for younger people to ensure that communities can continue to function in a viable manner and retain and foster services such as public houses.
In any decision about an allocation or a planning application balance must be struck between the effects on the natural environment and the effects of not allocating or granting housing within a community, and in this instance we feel that the balance has tipped away from the Yealands being able to be considered as vibrant local communities.
I attach the relevant maps for sites Y101 and Y102.
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.
In terms of policy AS01, Development Strategy, the reference to development on the edge and outside of settlements is welcomed because it is considered that the site has the potential to comply with this generic policy. Given the small scale of allocations we would consider that sites Y101 and Y102 should be allocated to provide a small and sustainable development at Yealand Redmayne to assist in continuing to foster the services that both Yealand Redmayne and Yealand Conyers contain.
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
2. Mr Proudlove, C/o Steven Abbott Associates : 8 Dec 2017 15:36:00
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.
Y102 Yealand Redmayne
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.
Site: Y101 and Y102 – Silverdale Road, Yealand Redmayne
Mr Miles Proudlove and Mr Michael Holgate
Arnside Silverdale AONB Development Plan Document Publication Version Consultation Response
I am writing on behalf of my clients who between them own sites that were referenced as Y101 and Y102 in the draft Development Plan Document Allocation and Background Papers.
It is noted that the sites have not been taken forward for housing particularly because of concerns about landscape.
As far as I am aware only 9 sites are being taken forward through the process out of 130 submitted.
Policy AS01, Development Strategy, in effect breaks down two categories of development to Local Service Centres and development at small villages. However, with regard to Yealand Redmayne there is reference to development being limited to conversion of buildings, reuse of brownfield land or regeneration opportunities. We feel that this does not go far enough given the limited number of sites put forward and the limited number of dwellings proposed. We have rehearsed elsewhere the arguments regarding viability and affordability and feel that the low number of sites put forward, taken together with their size, raises serious concerns about whether the aspirations of the Plan can be delivered.
Despite the approach of policy AS01, Yealand Redmayne is a specific settlement and will continue to function in tandem with Yealand Conyers and we are aware that the public house has now reopened as a community business. For the Yealands to be sustainable and thriving moving forward it is considered that some level of allocation should be provided. Again, arguments have been rehearsed elsewhere relating to the age of the population and the need for a supply of housing for younger people to ensure that communities can continue to function in a viable manner and retain and foster services such as public houses.
In any decision about an allocation or a planning application balance must be struck between the effects on the natural environment and the effects of not allocating or granting housing within a community, and in this instance we feel that the balance has tipped away from the Yealands being able to be considered as vibrant local communities.
I attach the relevant maps for sites Y101 and Y102.
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.
In terms of policy AS01, Development Strategy, the reference to development on the edge and outside of settlements is welcomed because it is considered that the site has the potential to comply with this generic policy. Given the small scale of allocations we would consider that sites Y101 and Y102 should be allocated to provide a small and sustainable development at Yealand Redmayne to assist in continuing to foster the services that both Yealand Redmayne and Yealand Conyers contain.
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
3. Mr Proudlove, C/o Steven Abbott Associates : 8 Dec 2017 15:40:00
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.
Policy AS01, Development Strategy, in effect breaks down two categories of development to Local Service Centres and development at small villages. However, with regard to Yealand Redmayne there is reference to development being limited to conversion of buildings, reuse of brownfield land or regeneration opportunities. We feel that this does not go far enough given the limited number of sites put forward and the limited number of dwellings proposed. We have rehearsed elsewhere the arguments regarding viability and affordability and feel that the low number of sites put forward, taken together with their size, raises serious concerns about whether the aspirations of the Plan can be delivered.
Despite the approach of policy AS01, Yealand Redmayne is a specific settlement and will continue to function in tandem with Yealand Conyers and we are aware that the public house has now reopened as a community business. For the Yealands to be sustainable and thriving moving forward it is considered that some level of allocation should be provided. Again, arguments have been rehearsed elsewhere relating to the age of the population and the need for a supply of housing for younger people to ensure that communities can continue to function in a viable manner and retain and foster services such as public houses.
In any decision about an allocation or a planning application balance must be struck between the effects on the natural environment and the effects of not allocating or granting housing within a community, and in this instance we feel that the balance has tipped away from the Yealands being able to be considered as vibrant local communities.
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.
In terms of policy AS01, Development Strategy, the reference to development on the edge and outside of settlements is welcomed because it is considered that the site has the potential to comply with this generic policy. Given the small scale of allocations we would consider that sites Y101 and Y102 should be allocated to provide a small and sustainable development at Yealand Redmayne to assist in continuing to foster the services that both Yealand Redmayne and Yealand Conyers contain.
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