Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes.

DM6 - Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems

No

The DPD is not justified

I find the final version of the Dev. Man. DPD unsound, specifically because you omitted to inform anyone in the DDMP Main Changes document that you had completely removed the chart detailing the document requirements for drainage plans for each stage of the planning application process.

I responded for my council ( Grange Town Council) to the current consultation by looking at the Main Changes detailed and commenting on them. It didn’t occur to me that you might have removed something and not mentioned it in the Main Changes list. I was only informed today by a very concerned resident. My council has been denied the right to comment on this change because it was not notified to them.

This particular omission does not seem to result as a consequence of responses from Cumbria County Council (who have the same chart in their planning policies), as they have not referred to it in the current online responses, apart from suggesting a slightly different preamble to it.

The justification for removing it is not clear and not based on informed consultee responses, as presumably no-one else either knew you were omitting it.

This chart was very welcome to Grange Town Council as it brought transparency and clarity to an area of concern for many residents; drainage is a major issue on and near all our allocated sites and it has been a constant to and froing between the CCC Lead Local Flood Team and the SLDC development management team to understand the developer requirements. Do we now assume that CCC and Dev. Man are not using the same drainage checklist? Why is is not available to local residents through the Dev. Man processes? It is more appropriate and much easier to have drainage conversations with SLDC Dev. Man than try to engage with CCC.

We would welcome a way of rectifying the soundness .

Cllr. Joanna Greenway

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM1 - General Requirements for all development

Yes

No

The DPD is not positively prepared

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

On behalf of our client, Bourne Leisure Ltd., please find below representations in response to South Lakeland District Council’s consultations on the Development Management Policies DPD Publication Document.

By way of background to these representations, Bourne Leisure operates Lakeland Leisure Park which is located to the south of Flookburgh.

This letter supplements completed representation forms on both consultations and demonstrates that a number of policies are considered at present to be unsound in the context of the tests that are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework [the Framework].

The Framework [§182] states that to be sound, a plan must meet the following tests:

- Positively Prepared: the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

- Justified: the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.

- Effective: the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.

- Consistent with National Policy: the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

Policy DM1
The stated purpose of Policy DM1 is:

“To maintain, protect and promote the district’s environmental, economic, social and historic qualities, safeguard local amenity and ensure its sustainability.”

Bourne Leisure endorses the Council’s purpose but notes that criterion 1 of the policy as drafted states that development will be acceptable, provided that it:

“1. ensures the delivery of acceptable levels of amenity, privacy and overshadowing for existing, neighbouring and future users and occupants through:
- provision of adequate spatial separation distances between existing and proposed properties and buildings; and
- retention and provision of adequate public, private and shared spaces and landscaping”

Contrary to the Framework [§152], this approach does not allow for the delivery of these acceptable levels of amenity, privacy and overshadowing through appropriate mitigation and/or compensatory measures, in order to support the economic, social and other environmental benefits that development can deliver. Councils ought to take a balanced, pragmatic approach in this respect and therefore it is considered that as currently drafted, this criterion is incomplete.

It is therefore concluded that this policy is unsound as drafted, as it fails to meet the tests requiring the plan to be: positively prepared; justified; and, consistent with national policy.

It is therefore suggested that criterion 1 should be redrafted as follows:

“1. ensures where feasible the delivery of acceptable levels of amenity, privacy and overshadowing for existing, neighbouring and future users and occupants through:

- provision of adequate spatial separation distances between existing and proposed properties and buildings; and
- retention and provision of adequate public, private and shared spaces and landscaping; or otherwise through
- seeking to provide appropriate mitigation or compensatory measures; and”

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

In order to full state our case.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM4 - Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping

Yes

No

The DPD is not positively prepared

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

On behalf of our client, Bourne Leisure Ltd., please find below representations in response to South Lakeland District Council’s consultations on the Development Management Policies DPD Publication Document.

By way of background to these representations, Bourne Leisure operates Lakeland Leisure Park which is located to the south of Flookburgh.

This letter supplements completed representation forms on both consultations and demonstrates that a number of policies are considered at present to be unsound in the context of the tests that are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework [the Framework].

The Framework [§182] states that to be sound, a plan must meet the following tests:

- Positively Prepared: the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

- Justified: the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.

- Effective: the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.

- Consistent with National Policy: the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

Policy DM4
The stated purposed of Policy DM4 is:

“To ensure a comprehensive and holistic approach is taken to the protection and enhancement of the District’s Green and Blue Infrastructure.”

As drafted, the first section of the policy states:

“All development proposals will result in net green and blue infrastructure gains and demonstrate that they deliver wider requirements and objectives through the use of multifunctional green and blue infrastructure.”

Bourne Leisure considers that the requirement for all development proposals to result in net green and blue infrastructure gains is overly onerous. A requirement that providing net gains in green and blue infrastructure where possible, with due regard to them being commensurate with the status of the land in question, in order to manage, protect and/or enhance, and otherwise to adequately mitigate or compensate for any harm, would be more appropriate and compliant with the Framework [§28] and [§152].

It is therefore considered that this draft policy is unsound as it fails to meet the tests requiring the plan to be: positively prepared; justified; and, consistent with national policy.

It is therefore suggested that the policy be amended as follows:

“Development proposals should demonstrate that they will either protect or enhance green and blue infrastructure, or will otherwise adequately mitigate or compensate for any harm where such harm cannot be avoided.”

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

In order to fully state our case.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM8 - High Speed Broadband for New Developments

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

On behalf of our client, Bourne Leisure Ltd., please find below representations in response to South Lakeland District Council’s consultations on the Development Management Policies DPD Publication Document.

By way of background to these representations, Bourne Leisure operates Lakeland Leisure Park which is located to the south of Flookburgh.

This letter supplements completed representation forms on both consultations and demonstrates that a number of policies are considered at present to be unsound in the context of the tests that are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework [the Framework].

The Framework [§182] states that to be sound, a plan must meet the following tests:

- Positively Prepared: the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

- Justified: the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.

- Effective: the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.

- Consistent with National Policy: the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

Policy DM8
The stated purposed of Policy DM8 is:

“To ensure new development makes appropriate provision for high-speed broadband connectivity.”

Bourne Leisure endorses the Council’s overall approach to the provision of high-speed broadband for new development but with the distinction that this requirement need not apply to new development for tourist accommodation. Whilst high-speed broadband is vital in creating attractive places to live and work, with the associated economic and social benefits that result, this does not apply to tourist accommodation which by the very nature of its purpose and function is not sensitive in this respect. Whilst the Framework [§42, §43] outlines the position that advanced, high quality communications infrastructure is essential for sustainable economic growth, this is in relation to local community facilities and services; it is also stated that this is something that should be supported rather than required.

It is therefore considered that this policy is unsound as it fails to meet the tests requiring the plan to be justified and consistent with national policy.

It is therefore suggested that the policy be amended as follows:

“Development for new residential (sites of 2 dwellings or more) and commercial development (excluding tourist accommodation) must demonstrate how they will provide future occupiers with sufficient broadband connectivity.”

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

In order to fully state our case.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM18 - Tourist accomodation

Yes

No

The DPD is not positively prepared

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

On behalf of our client, Bourne Leisure Ltd., please find below representations in response to South Lakeland District Council’s consultations on the Development Management Policies DPD Publication Document.

By way of background to these representations, Bourne Leisure operates Lakeland Leisure Park which is located to the south of Flookburgh.

This letter supplements completed representation forms on both consultations and demonstrates that a number of policies are considered at present to be unsound in the context of the tests that are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework [the Framework].

The Framework [§182] states that to be sound, a plan must meet the following tests:

- Positively Prepared: the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

- Justified: the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.

- Effective: the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.

- Consistent with National Policy: the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

Policy DM18
The stated purposed of Policy DM18 is:

“To support proposals for tourist accommodation that are located in appropriate locations and that are of an appropriate scale and design, to ensure that proposal will not have a detrimental impact on their surroundings.”

Bourne Leisure was largely supportive of the draft version of this document, prior to the changes made here in the publication version. This is because the draft version included explicit recognition of evolving visitor demand for a variety of accommodation types, including the replacement of static caravans with chalets or log cabins, as well as support in exceptional circumstances for this type of development outside development boundaries. Furthermore, the publication version has been altered to require that development should protect and enhance biodiversity assets, rather than as per the draft version that sought to protect and raise the environmental value of sites. Bourne Leisure considers that development should be required to demonstrate a balance between the protection of biodiversity assets and the scheme’s social and economic benefits, as per the requirements of the Framework [§28, §176].

Bourne Leisure also considers that the requirements for all proposals to be capable of being effectively screened by landform, trees or planting does not take into account the consideration that not all sites will have existing landscape features in which new development can be contained. Whilst the amended policy refers to ‘existing landscape features’, it should be reworded to make it unambiguous.

It is therefore considered that this policy is unsound as it fails to meet the tests requiring the plan to be: positively prepared; justified; and, consistent with national policy.

It is therefore suggested that the policy wording reverts to the draft document version, with the following amendments made to criterion 2:

“2. For both new site and site extensions, the site is contained within landscape features (landform, trees/hedgerows or planting) where such features exist. Additional effective landscaping may be needed to supplement proposals and to minimalise/avoid harmful landscape impacts; and,”

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

In order to full state our case.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM21 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Development

Yes

No

The DPD is not positively prepared

On behalf of our client, Bourne Leisure Ltd., please find below representations in response to South Lakeland District Council’s consultations on the Development Management Policies DPD Publication Document.

By way of background to these representations, Bourne Leisure operates Lakeland Leisure Park which is located to the south of Flookburgh.

This letter supplements completed representation forms on both consultations and demonstrates that a number of policies are considered at present to be unsound in the context of the tests that are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework [the Framework].

The Framework [§182] states that to be sound, a plan must meet the following tests:

- Positively Prepared: the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

- Justified: the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.

- Effective: the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.

- Consistent with National Policy: the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

The stated purpose of Policy DM21 is:
“To promote and encourage appropriate renewable energy proposals.”

Bourne Leisure is supportive of the Council’s approach to safeguard amenity in this respect but considers that this safeguarding should not be limited to residential amenity but extended to include tourist amenity, in order to protect the integrity of tourism assets.

It is therefore considered that this policy is unsound as it fails to meet the test requiring the plan to be positively prepared.

It is therefore suggested that criterion 4 of the policy be redrafted as follows:

“4. safeguard residential and tourist amenity by fully assessing and appropriately mitigating potential effects including visual intrusion, glint and glare, shadow flicker, noise, smell or other pollutants.”

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

In order to fully state our case.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM26 - Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified

On behalf of our client, Bourne Leisure Ltd., please find below representations in response to South Lakeland District Council’s consultations on the Development Management Policies DPD Publication Document.

By way of background to these representations, Bourne Leisure operates Lakeland Leisure Park which is located to the south of Flookburgh.

This letter supplements completed representation forms on both consultations and demonstrates that a number of policies are considered at present to be unsound in the context of the tests that are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework [the Framework].

The Framework [§182] states that to be sound, a plan must meet the following tests:

- Positively Prepared: the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

- Justified: the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.

- Effective: the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.

- Consistent with National Policy: the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

Policy DM26
The stated purposed of Policy DM26 is:

“To guide the determination of planning applications or allocations of sites to meet the accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.”

Bourne Leisure considers it necessary to redraft criterion 2 of the policy to remove the word ‘significant’, on the basis that any nuisance caused would have a harmful impact on tourism and leisure development in the area and, by extension, on their benefits to local businesses, communities and visitors. This consideration is supported by South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS6.5a, which requires that any development related to gypsies and travellers within the District “will have an acceptable impact on the environment or character of the area”.

It is therefore considered that this policy is unsound, as it fails to meet the tests requiring the plan to be justified.

It is therefore suggested that criterion 2 of the policy be redrafted as follows:

“2. the location, scale and design of sites will not cause nuisance or impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and will encourage integration and peaceful co-existence with closest settled community; and”

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

In order to fully state our case.

Please notify me.

DM18 - Tourist accomodation

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

The policy relates to chalets and log cabins but the policy does not specifically refer to these in the text.

At bullet point 2 in relation to farm diversification schemes, applicants are required to demonstrate that the development makes an ongoing contribution to sustain the longer term future of the business that it is diversifying. The interpretation of such wording, by some, is that diversification is only acceptable where the business is failing and needs diversifying and diversification is not acceptable where an agricultural unit is a financially sound commercial operation.

Demonstrating tangible local economic benefits can be difficult and should not be a policy requirement.

With regard to the requirements of all proposals biodiversity assets should be protected or enhanced but not necessarily both.

Add 'chalet, log cabin' after 'new static' in the first line;
- delete 'and it is demonstrated that the development makes an ongoing contribution to sustain the long term future of the business that is diversifying.'
- (f) should be 'protect or enhance'; and
- (h) should be deleted.

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

General comment / comment on procedure

Yes

As set out in the letters as provided by Angela Jones attached we consider that both the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD and Development Management Policies DPD are considered sound but would be enhanced with the changes we have suggested.

The Council Plan 2016-19 sets out the County Council priorities over the next three years. The Plan highlights the importance of securing infrastructure improvements to meet the needs of local communities and support economic growth. When planning applications are submitted consideration is given to their impact on infrastructure and whether provision is required to address the impact. The Council will be proactive in achieving required improvements in new developments through its Planning Obligations Policy and emerging Cumbria Development Design Guide.

Reference is made to the “Cumbria Design Guide” in the DPD and this needs changed to the “Cumbria Development Design Guide “.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM5 - Rights of Way and other routes providing pedestrian and cycle access

Yes

As set out in the letters as provided by Angela Jones attached we consider that both the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD and Development Management Policies DPD are considered sound but would be enhanced with the changes we have suggested.

Comment

The needs of equestrian users require to be taken account of in the Policy. In the supporting justification reference is required to proposals affecting Public Rights of Way needing to be considered against Defra guidance in Rights of way circular 1/09.

Suggested Change

The Policy to be revised to incorporate the need to consider equestrian access alongside pedestrian and cycle access when considering development proposals affecting Public Rights of Way.

The Policy justification to indicate that proposals for the development of land affecting Public Rights of Way will need to be considered against Defra guidance set out in circular 1/09.

Proposed Wording

Change title of Policy to:
“Policy DM5 – Rights of Way and other routes providing pedestrian, cycle and equestrian access”

Change 2nd sub heading of Policy to:
“Other routes providing pedestrian, cycle and equestrian access (non-rights of way, non – definitive)

Revise text under 2nd sub heading of Policy to:
“Proposals should seek to maintain, protect and enhance the character of other existing or proposed routes providing pedestrian, cycle and equestrian access whether of an informal or formal nature”

At bottom of the first paragraph beneath the 3rd sub-heading add:
“On new or improved multi-user routes there will be a requirement to take into account measures to ensure safety of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders including appropriate signage and passing places”.

In paragraph 2.5.2 add a new 2nd sentence
“Proposals for the development of land affecting Public Rights of Way will be considered against Defra guidance in circular 1/09.”

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM6 - Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems

Yes

As set out in the letters as provided by Angela Jones attached we consider that both the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD and Development Management Policies DPD are considered sound but would be enhanced with the changes we have suggested.

Comment

There is a need to indicate the role of gullies and catchpits in Surface Water disposal

Suggested Change

Incorporate additional wording to set out the role of gullys and catchpits and that will not be considered as Sustainable Drainage System pre-treatment devices.

Proposed Wording

Incorporate in Policy DM6 under Surface Water disposal following the last bullet point and before “Where ever possible runoff……”

“Gullies and catchpits will not be considered as SuDS pre-treatment devices offering benefits for water quality. The main purpose of trapped gullies and catchpits is to prevent coarse sediment from blocking the piped system, fine silt and oils do not settle out.”

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM11 - Accessible and Adaptable Homes

Yes

As set out in the letters as provided by Angela Jones attached we consider that both the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD and Development Management Policies DPD are considered sound but would be enhanced with the changes we have suggested.

We welcome the Development Management Policies DPD and are generally supportive of its content. In particular we welcome the requirement for 5% of dwellings on sites of more than 40 dwellings to be wheelchair adaptable dwellings (Policy DM11 – Accessible and Adaptable Homes)

As set out in our response to the earlier consultation on the Development Management Policies DPD the Council strongly supports Policy DM11 in promoting the category 2 accessible and adaptable homes standard.

Comment

There is a need for more explicit support for the role and delivery of Extra Care Housing in the DPD. This is an issue of critical importance given the ageing population within South Lakeland and is an issue reflected within the South Lakeland Housing Strategy 2016 to 2025 and the Cumbria County Council Extra Care Housing and Supported Living Strategy 2016-2025.

Suggested Change

Include reference to Extra Care Housing within Policy DM11 Accessible and Adaptable Homes

Proposed Wording

“The Council will support the delivery of new Extra Care Housing in sustainable locations”.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM8 - High Speed Broadband for New Developments

Yes

As set out in the letters as provided by Angela Jones attached we consider that both the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD and Development Management Policies DPD are considered sound but would be enhanced with the changes we have suggested.

We welcome the Development Management Policies DPD and are generally supportive of its content. In particular we welcome the requirement for broadband fibre to be provided in housing sites of more than 30 dwellings (Policy DM8 High Speed Broadband for New Developments).

DM1 - General Requirements for all development

Yes

Yes

Cumbria GeoConservation is a voluntary geological conservation group working to record and protect important Local Geological Sites (LGS) in Cumbria, formerly Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS). Cumbria GeoConservation seeks to make LGS better known to the public, and to ensure that their geological interest is not lost due to development and/or infilling.
We believe that this Plan is sound and legally compliant. However we believe that the changes requested below would strengthen the Plan.

We note with some concern that protection of geological sites is mentioned only on page 9, under Policy DM1, whose purpose is ‘to maintain, protect and promote the district’s environmental (and other) qualities’. While point 6 refers to ‘protection of biodiversity and geodiversity assets’, the lack of further mention in the Plan does little to help promote the area’s distinctive geological sites. While this policy should adequately ensure that geological sites are properly taken into account, we fear that this might not be happening.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

Appendix 2 - Kendal Canal Head Area Designations

Yes

Yes

Cumbria GeoConservation is a voluntary geological conservation group working to record and protect important Local Geological Sites (LGS) in Cumbria, formerly Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS). Cumbria GeoConservation seeks to make LGS better known to the public, and to ensure that their geological interest is not lost due to development and/or infilling.
We believe that this Plan is sound and legally compliant. However we believe that the changes requested below would strengthen the Plan.
As mentioned above, RIGS are now termed Local Geological Sites (LGS). We would be pleased if you could make this change in Appendix 2, in ‘land to be safeguarded’, under Environmental and Heritage Designations. If LGS could be added to the Glossary this would further help recognition of the need to protect geological sites.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

Glossary

Yes

Yes

Cumbria GeoConservation is a voluntary geological conservation group working to record and protect important Local Geological Sites (LGS) in Cumbria, formerly Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS). Cumbria GeoConservation seeks to make LGS better known to the public, and to ensure that their geological interest is not lost due to development and/or infilling.
We believe that this Plan is sound and legally compliant. However we believe that the changes requested below would strengthen the Plan.
As mentioned above, RIGS are now termed Local Geological Sites (LGS). We would be pleased if you could make this change in Appendix 2, in ‘land to be safeguarded’, under Environmental and Heritage Designations. If LGS could be added to the Glossary this would further help recognition of the need to protect geological sites.

Please notify me.

Other - misc

Yes

Yes

Cumbria GeoConservation is a voluntary geological conservation group working to record and protect important Local Geological Sites (LGS) in Cumbria, formerly Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS). Cumbria GeoConservation seeks to make LGS better known to the public, and to ensure that their geological interest is not lost due to development and/or infilling.
We believe that this Plan is sound and legally compliant. However we believe that the changes requested below would strengthen the Plan.

There are 31 LGS in the SLDC areas but we fear that SLDC may not be using the latest GIS planning layer showing the boundaries of these areas, in order to recognise their existence for planning applications. Our full data and planning layer are no longer held by CCC, but instead are available from the Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre (CBDC) in Carlisle. We would urge SLDC to access this information. We have recently had to archive a LGS, designated in 2014 for 3 ponds which are kettle holes, left by stagnant ice at the end of the Ice Age. Unfortunately the relevant fields have been drained and the ponds no longer exist. We fear that if SLDC had held the latest data this site might not have been lost.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM1 - General Requirements for all development

Yes

Yes

We support the content, structure and approach taken to the preparation of the DM DPD and overall consider the DM DPD is legally compliant and compliant with the Duty to Cooperate.

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

DM1 - General Requirements for all development

Yes

No

The DPD is not effective

The policy is too prescriptive.

2.1.1 The explanatory text indicates development should “seek to enhance its surroundings” etc. If that is the intention then the policy should not be to “require” enhancement.

Note: The Cumbria House Builders Group includes the following companies:
- Applethwaite
- Holbeck Homes
- Oakmere Homes
- Persimmon Homes Lancashire
- Russell Armer; and
- Story Homes

Delete “Subject to other policies…provided it;”
Add “Development proposals should, where relevant, seek to address the following:-“

The “where relevant” wording is used in Policy DM2 so should also be applicable here.

For each bullet point delete “ensure” as the first word.

•1. Second bullet point should read “retention or provision”
•1. Delete “ensures it responds appropriately” and add “respond appropriately”
•5. Delete – it is not clear how developments ensure a healthy environment.
•6. Should say “protection or enhancement”.
•7. Should say “protection or enhancement”.
•8. Delete the words “and enhancement”. This criteria and the wording of 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 will be interpreted by some that if you can see it from a National Park or AONB the development is not acceptable.

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

DM2 - Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design

Yes

No

The DPD is not effective

The policy is too prescriptive.

Note: The Cumbria House Builders Group includes the following companies:
- Applethwaite
- Holbeck Homes
- Oakmere Homes
- Persimmon Homes Lancashire
- Russell Armer; and
- Story Homes

•1. Delete “and reinforce and promote”. It should be sufficient that development proposals respond to local distinctiveness. The change of wording would allow the use of contemporary and innovative styles envisaged in the second bullet point.
•2. Third bullet point change wording from “retains and enhances the existing landscape” to “retains or enhances the existing landscape”.
•4. Second bullet point add “by” so the phrase reads “address streets and routes by avoiding presentation of blank frontages or gables.”

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

DM3 - Historic Environment

Yes

No

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

Listed Buildings

The policy does not comply with the Listed Buildings Act 1990 which allows works to listed buildings, including demolition, if the works are authorised.

Archaeology

It is not clear where sites of national or local significance are defined.

Conservation Areas

The policy should comply with Section 72 of the Listed Buildings Act 1990 which refers to “preserving or enhancing”.

Note: The Cumbria House Builders Group includes the following companies:
- Applethwaite
- Holbeck Homes
- Oakmere Homes
- Persimmon Homes Lancashire
- Russell Armer; and
- Story Homes

Listed Buildings - Delete this section.

Archaeology - Delete “or a site of national or local interest or their setting”.

Conservation Areas - First sentence the wording should be “preserve or enhance”.

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

DM4 - Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping

Yes

No

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

Trees:

The policy wording is too inflexible in requiring the protection and enhancement of existing trees. The NPPF refers to preventing the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside of ancient woodland unless the benefits outweigh the loss (see NPPF 118).

Trees should not be considered a constraint on development regardless of the quality of the trees.

The policy towards the loss of trees should be based on an assessment of the trees quality and the appropriateness of removing trees should be considered on the basis of an assessment of the benefits outweighing the loss.

Open Space:

New developments of over 10 dwellings are required to provide for on-site open space provision of a type and size appropriate to the site, but no guidance is given as to what type and size of open space is considered appropriate.

If new development does not generate a need for new open space then there is no justification for seeking a commuted sum of any amount. It is noted that the 10 dwelling threshold does not apply to the commuted sum element of the policy.

The requirement for commuted sums to fund works unrelated and not justified by the development is contrary to CIL Regulations. The intention to pool funds from several schemes, including schemes of less than 10 dwellings, is contrary to CIL Regulations and PPG.

Note: The Cumbria House Builders Group includes the following companies:
- Applethwaite
- Holbeck Homes
- Oakmere Homes
- Persimmon Homes Lancashire
- Russell Armer; and
- Story Homes

Trees:
Delete this whole section and replace with:-

“Planning applications that impact upon existing trees should be accompanied by a tree survey.

If it is proposed to remove existing trees it must be demonstrated that the benefits of the development outweigh the loss.”

Open Space:

Delete the first to paragraphs and replace with wording that gives an indication to both developers and decision makers as what is considered to be an appropriate type and size of open space.

Delete the paragraph “Where new open space is not required…evidence of local needs at the time of the application.”

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

DM6 - Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems

Yes

No

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

The policy is unnecessary and contradicts national policy. If the policy is not deleted then amendments suggested in Question 7 are proposed along with the reasoning for these amendments.

Note: The Cumbria House Builders Group includes the following companies:
- Applethwaite
- Holbeck Homes
- Oakmere Homes
- Persimmon Homes Lancashire
- Russell Armer; and
- Story Homes

Location of Development – Avoiding areas of Flood Risk.

The four bullet points relate to new development in Zones 1, 2 and 3.

First bullet point – it is not clear why there is a need to mimic natural drainage. This bullet point should be deleted.

Third bullet point – if the site is within Zone 1, the most vulnerable development should be acceptable but the wording indicates that such development must be located in the lowest flood risk area within Zone 1 which is presumably higher ground. This is not appropriate and perhaps not the intention so delete the third bullet point.

The paragraph “Areas shown to be at risk…flood storage can be provided” should be deleted as it contradicts NPPF and associated Technical Guidance which sets out the circumstances where development is acceptable in Zones 2 and 3.

Surface Water disposal

It is not clear why drainage systems must mimic natural drainage systems as closely as possible.

First bullet point – delete. It should not be a developer’s responsibility to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding but instead to ensure the development is safe without increasing risk elsewhere.

Second bullet point – delete. A developer cannot remove pollutants at source if the source of the pollutants is not on site.

It is not clear why runoff should be managed on the surface, therefore this reference should be deleted.

It should not be necessary to provide a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy for each application. The NPPF and Technical Guidance sets out the circumstances where FRA’s are required. Reference is made to the Cumbria Design Guide but the relevant section is not referred to. Rather than contradict national policy the sentence “An appropriate Flood Risk Assessment…and local guidelines” should be deleted.
Maintenance and management arrangements do not necessarily need to be secured by way of planning obligations a planning condition could be acceptable. Delete from last sentence “secured by way of planning obligations and”

Designing Sustainable Drainage System measures

First bullet point – the non-statutory standards referred to need to be specified.

Second bullet point – designing for a SUDs and its failure is belt and braces and excessive. Delete.

Third bullet point – there can be health and safety issues with managing run off on the surface. The policy should not be prescriptive on this point and should allow for site specific design. Delete third bullet point.

Last bullet point – delete. A development should not be required do provide betterment.

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To assist the Inspector with the developer's perspective.

Please notify me.

DM7 - Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality

Yes

No

The DPD is not effective

Location of development:

There is a contradiction between Core Strategy CS1.1’s pre-NPPF sequential approach to development, with the first priority including previously developed land/CS1.2’s reference to 28% of new housing taking place on such sites and a policy that appears to discourage development where there is pollution.

There are of course benefits to remediating contaminated sites.

Pollution:

It is not clear how the effect of the various elements of pollution will be assessed to determine the impact on health.

If all residential developments are going to be assessed on the basis that there can be no increased pollution, when all such developments generate traffic movements, then there will be no new residential developments. That is surely not the intent of the policy.

Air Quality:

It is not clear how a residential development can be made to have a positive and beneficial impact on air quality when traffic movements create pollution.

The circumstances in which an Air Quality Assessment is required should be clarified.

New residential developments will increase air pollution. The Land Allocations document indicates significant peripheral expansion of Kendal and there is an AQMA in Kendal town centre. It is not clear how such development can comply with a policy that precludes the introduction of additional sources of air pollution.

Contaminated Land and exposure to contamination

It is not the correct approach to assume contamination on all sites, including greenfield sites, where the proposed uses are particularly sensitive to contamination, including residential schemes. This means all planning applications for these uses must be accompanied by a contaminated land survey of one form or another.

Note: The Cumbria House Builders Group includes the following companies:
- Applethwaite
- Holbeck Homes
- Oakmere Homes
- Persimmon Homes Lancashire
- Russell Armer; and
- Story Homes

Delete whole policy and replace with:-

“Where on-site contamination is known or suspected to occur, planning applications should be accompanied by an appropriate level of investigation and assessment. Where contamination is present a remediation strategy will need to be agreed with the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development.”

The explanation to the policy should be deleted and replaced with commentary on the three stages of assessment i.e.

Stage One – Desk Study;
Stage Two – Intrusive site investigation; and
Stage Three – Remediation Strategy.

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

DM8 - High Speed Broadband for New Developments

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

This policy is not required and will delay and inhibit the delivery of housing. The planning policy should not go beyond Building Regulations requirements (Part R).

The policy sets out requirements but 2.8.5 indicates that schemes will be considered on a case by case basis. If that is the intention then the policy should say this.

Development proposals must do three things as set out in the three bullet points but:-

1. Early engagement - What if the infrastructure providers do not have the capacity to enter into early engagement? BT’s website indicates that, in order to help them deliver on time they will “now accept registrations at outline stage.” It is not clear if this means at outline submission stage or outline consent stage, but given workload this is most likely to mean they will focus on developments that are likely to happen rather than those that are not yet confirmed as acceptable residential schemes in principle. There is no confirmation that they will engage prior to the submission of a planning application and no indication that they will engage for small schemes of 2 dwellings. The draft policy may preclude the submission of planning applications for anything other than single dwellings.
2.Broadband Statement - The requirement is a Broadband Statement not a Connectivity Statement. The difference is not clear but Openreach have confirmed they no longer provide connectivity statements (see attached email dated 07/12/12). So it would appear the requirement for a Broadband Statement may preclude the submission of planning applications for anything other than single dwellings.
3.Provision of high speed (superfast) broadband - It is not clear what developers must do to comply with the requirement to “undertake all reasonable actions to enable a superfast connection at a future date.” This must mean that the planning authority intend a planning condition that requires those reasonable actions to be undertaken. Such a condition may not comply with the six tests for planning conditions set out in the NPPF (paragraph 206) i.e. necessary, relevant to planning and to the development, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The draft policy requires the provision of Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) for any schemes of 30 dwellings or more. BT will only “fund the building of fibre infrastructure if commercially viable” (see attached). At the time of the submission of a planning application it may not be clear if FTTP is commercially viable and therefore the cost of the developer providing FTTP may also not be clear. The press release (Evidence Paper Appendix 2) estimates half of new properties can be connected to fibre broadband free of charge to developers, so half cannot. The press release refers to developer fixed cost contributions. The planning authority is wrong to assume that there will be no cost to the developer, as it does in the Evidence Paper: High Speed Broadband in New Developments August 2017. There are cost implications not considered in the authority’s viability assessment.

Openreach’s website (see attached) indicates that FTTP is a pure fibre connection all the way from the exchange into your home or business, with speeds up to 1Gbps. Their network serves 345,000 premises, with an intention to reach two million homes and businesses by the end of 2020. So the requirement for FTTP could potentially preclude the delivery of housing in South Lakeland for any large sites not yet with the benefit of planning permission.

2.8.1 Reference is made to the Council’s recent survey work of people buying new homes. This survey should be made available as part of the evidence base if it is part of the justification for the policy. The Evidence Paper: High Speed Broadband in New Developments August 2017 refers to a March 2017 survey. More detail should be released as to the numbers of respondents and what broadband speeds they were dissatisfied with.

2.8.2 The NPPF in Section 5. Supporting high quality communications infrastructure encourages the local planning authorities to support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including telecommunications and high speed broadband (paragraph 42) in the context of radio and telecommunications masts. The NPPF does not encourage local planning authorities to seek to restrict development if certain broadband speeds are not achieved.

2.8.5 The planning authority accept that there is not yet universal high speed broadband coverage, that in some cases new build developments may not be located in areas of high speed coverage and will not require superfast broadband where the costs are disproportionate and schemes will be considered on a case by case basis. This contradicts the policy requirements that will preclude developments of sites of 30 units or more unless there is FTTP.

2.8.6 There is no need to have planning policy to support Building Regulations Part R, it is sufficient to rely on Part R.
[APPENDIX: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Note: The Cumbria House Builders Group includes the following companies:
- Applethwaite
- Holbeck Homes
- Oakmere Homes
- Persimmon Homes Lancashire
- Russell Armer; and
- Story Homes

Delete Policy.

If the policy is not to be deleted then the wording of the policy should be on the basis of:-

“Proposals for new residential development of over 10 dwellings should indicate how they will seek to work with infrastructure providers to seek to provide occupiers with sufficient broadband connectivity.”

No more need to be said than that.

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To provide a developer's perspective on the implications of the policy.

Please notify me.

DM11 - Accessible and Adaptable Homes

Yes

No

The DPD is not positively prepared

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

Policy

The policy requires all dwellings to be Building Regulations Requirement M4(2): Category 2 – Accessible and Adaptable dwellings with exemptions where this is not practically achievable, or where there would be significant harm to financial viability.

In addition, there is a requirement that on sites of over 40 dwellings 5% of the dwellings must be M4(3) Category 3: Wheelchair user dwellings in suitable locations, with the caveat that “If evidence at the time of a planning application indicates a different level of need then this element will be applied flexibly.”

The policy does not make clear what is to be considered a suitable location for M4(3) dwellings.

Lack of Evidence to support the draft policy

Planning Practice Guidance says: - “…Local planning authorities should take account of evidence that demonstrates a clear need for housing for people with specific housing needs and plan to meet this need.” (ID:56-005-20150327).

In September 2016 the planning authority produced an Evidence Paper: Optional Housing Standards. This was updated in June 2017 and again in August 2017. A Strategic Housing Market Assessment was adopted in November 2017. Within these documents it is difficult to find evidence that supports a clear need for 100% M4(2) housing or 5% M4(3) for sites over 40 dwellings.

It is agreed there is evidence of an ageing population but this in itself does not justify the requirements referred to in draft policy. PPG requires a clear need to be demonstrated but the planning authority have failed to demonstrate the need to support the policy requirements.

At 2.54 of the June 2017 Evidence Paper the Council’s position is simply it “would be too problematic in methodological terms” to attempt to define a specific proportion of homes to be M4(2) compliant (see attached extract), so it would be sensible to require all homes to be of M4(2) standards. This has been deleted from the August 2017 Evidence Paper, but it is nevertheless clear that this has been the planning authority’s long standing approach to determining the amount of M4(2) dwellings. It is considered a more robust case is required to justify 100% provision.

The August 2017 Evidence Paper does set out a “wider social justice” reasoning for the draft policy (2.55) which might explain the stance being adopted, but not the clear need for the percentages suggested.

A more appropriate way forward would be to establish the percentage of homes where persons may require Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings and to apply that percentage to newly built homes on schemes above a certain minimum threshold, to houses of a certain size and type, in appropriate locations and always, subject to a comprehensive viability assessment of the policy in the context of other policy requirements.

The June 2017 Evidence Paper indicates the new SHMA will calculate the need for specialist housing for older people (see attached). Section 10 of the SHMA considers both accessibility/wheelchair housing standards and the specific needs of older people. The SHMA does not provide evidence that justifies the requirement for all homes to be M4(2) or 5% of homes on certain schemes to be M4(3).

The SHMA includes analysis of Health-related Population Projections (10.17 to 10.20), People with Disabilities (10.21 to 10.27) and Wheelchair User Housing (10.28 to 10.31) but the statistics do not support the draft policy.

The analysis suggests that at least 40% of the population will have a mobility problem (SHMA 10.20) and 26.1% of households will have someone with a health problem (SHMA Figure 10.9). Neither point to a 100% requirement for M4 (2) or indeed 5% M4 (3) dwellings.

The analysis is partly based upon the 2011 Census returns with the Census question being “Do you have any long-term illness, health problem or disability which limits your daily activities or the work you can do?” This does not mean that those persons require either M4(2) or M4(3) dwellings. This is a broad self-assessment question. A person may have difficulty with physical work, but that does not mean they necessarily have problems getting around their home.

Reference is made in the August 2017 Evidence Paper to South Lakelands’s New Build Home Survey 2017. There does seem to be a lack of meaningful analysis with a tabular format, which might be because the number of respondents was limited, but we do not know.

The text at 2.43 of the August 2017 Evidence Paper simply seems to suggest:-
1. that new home residents may wish to have a larger home if they had children or more children - this would not be a surprising finding, but not one that justifies the policy requirements;
2. a preference for a bungalow for one or a number of residents; and
3. there was no confirmation as to the number of persons who had raised mobility issues.

The Key Findings at 2.57 of the August 2017 Evidence Paper refers to local surveys indicating a desire for older people to remain in their own homes or move to alternative open market housing, as a partial justification for the policy, so this evidence should be made available. This document should be a background paper so its empirical evidence can be analysed.

The planning authority must demonstrate a clear need for the percentages in the draft policy and they have failed to do this.

Proportion

Planning Practice Guidance says: - “…They (the local planning authority) should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements…”
(Paragraph 008 Reference ID 56-008-20160519).

A reasonable definition of proportion is ‘a part, share or number considered comparative to a whole.’

The clear expectation is that, where there is evidence of a need then a proportion, not 100%, of dwellings, will have enhanced accessibility or adaptability standards. A more appropriate way forward would be to establish the percentage of homes where persons may require Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings and to apply that percentage to newly built homes on schemes above a certain minimum threshold, to houses of a certain size and type, in appropriate locations and always, subject to a comprehensive viability assessment of the policy in the context of other policy requirements.

Flexible application

For schemes of over 40 dwellings, the suggested variation to the 5% requirement, based on whatever interpretation of revised evidence, means the 5% requirement can go up or down with the M4 (2) requirement applying wholly to the residual dwellings

The evidence the Council will use to apply the 5% flexibly will be the SHMA, local housing needs surveys, the Housing Register or other relevant sources, but of course such evidence is open to interpretation and there will be some uncertainty as to what developers will be required to provide at the time of the application.

Appropriate only in certain locations

4.1.3 The Reasoned Justification indicates that the M4 (3) dwellings will be required on “larger housing developments in suitable locations”. If that is the intention the policy should say this and confirm what are considered to be suitable locations e.g. perhaps by referring to the Core Strategy settlement hierarchy i.e. Principal and Key Service Centres.

Viability

The policy allows for exemptions from the M4(2) provision where” it would significantly harm the financial viability of the scheme”. After the text setting out requirements in relation to M4(3) there is reference to “Where exemptions are sought on viability grounds…obtain an independent assessment of the appraisal.” It would seem the intention is to allow viability exemptions to both M4 (2) and M4 (3) requirements although this is not entirely clear (and it should be made clearer) that a viability test applies to both standards.

At 2.50 August 2017 Evidence Paper it is indicated that “The Council commissioned a new district wide viability study in early 2017 to support the preparation of the new Development Management policies and to underpin the early work on the new Local Plan….” The October 2016 Consultation Draft already included a policy requiring 100% M4(2) dwellings which would suggest viability considerations came after the planning authority embarked on this policy objective.

The NPPF (173 and 174) refers to the need to avoid a scale of obligations and policy burdens that threaten development viability.

Planning Practice Guidance states:-
“… Decision-taking on individual schemes does not normally require an assessment of viability. However viability can be important where planning obligations or other costs are being introduced. In these cases decisions must be underpinned by an understanding of viability, ensuring realistic decisions are made to support development and promote economic growth. Where the viability of a development is in question, local planning authorities should look to be flexible in applying policy requirements wherever possible."

Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 10-001-20140306

The Cumbria House Builders Group (CHBG) have concerns about the viability implications of this policy in the context of other policy requirements, including 35% affordable housing and a Community Infrastructure Levy (current rate £55.80 per sq.m) and the implications for ensuring competitive returns for developers and landowners.

A considerable number of housing sites have topographical challenges which means costs of providing level access could be high and there will be implications on density and mix as there will be an inevitable need to provide larger dwellings to accommodate revised ground floor arrangements.

Contrary to PPG, it is likely that viability assessments will be required for most housing sites, large and small. It should be noted that the planning authority do not accept that there should be reduced affordable housing provision on sites of 10 units or less which means that affordable housing is a continued policy burden for many small schemes. There are already a significant number of housing sites where the principle of reduced affordable housing has been accepted by the planning authority based on viability grounds. This is likely to increase if this policy is implemented in its current form.

Planning Practice Guidance also refers to the need for a realistic understanding of costs, the value of development and the operation of the market. Direct engagement with developers is considered to be helpful and a collaborative approach is encouraged. PPG specifically encourages “transparency of evidence.”

Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 10-004-20140306

The Cumbria House Builders Group have been frustrated by the planning authority’s unwillingness to engage in dialogue with them from the early conception of this policy in 2015 and make viability evidence available. This frustration is explained most succinctly in correspondence to the planning authority in a letter dated 30/10/17 which refers to previous representations to the planning authority.

It is unfortunate that financial viabilities have only become available very late in the plan making process and only after the planning authority’s Cabinet had committed to the publication of the Plan and shortly before Full Council confirmed that publication should proceed.

On 28/09/17 a Statement on Behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group – South Lakeland Viability Study – Consultation Draft was submitted to the planning authority. This document, submitted before any actual viabilities were made available for inspection, raises a number of issues regarding:-
• Build Cost assumptions;
• Abnormal Cost assumptions;
• Sales Values;
• Transfer Values of affordable dwellings;
• Profit assumptions; and
• Threshold Land Values.

These concerns remain.

M4(3) should not be applied to market housing

PPG states:-
“Local Plan polices for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling.” (ID56-009-20150327).

Any M4(3) requirement can therefore only apply to the affordable housing element, where the local authority may have nomination rights. So the 5% requirement would represent a significant proportion of the affordable housing element of any scheme. The requirement is likely to require the support of housing associations. That support may only be able to be given on a site by site basis in particular locations. The policy exemptions for M4(3) do not allow for a circumstance where there is no identified need at a particular location and reluctance by affordable housing providers to include M4(3) dwellings.

Impact on Housing Supply:

The local context is one of significant under delivery of housing to meet housing requirements and CHBG members fear the implication of DM11 particularly will compound the continued under delivery of housing (see Figure 1 in Appendices).
[SEE APPENDICES ATTACHED]

Note: The Cumbria House Builders Group includes the following companies:
- Applethwaite
- Holbeck Homes
- Oakmere Homes
- Persimmon Homes Lancashire
- Russell Armer; and
- Story Homes

Delete the policy and replace with the following:-

“The Council will support the provision of dwellings that are designed and constructed in a way that enables them to be adapted to meet the changing needs of their occupants.”

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To provide a developer's perspective on the policy and to discuss the 'evidence'.

Please notify me.

DM12 - Self-Build and Custom Build Housing

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not effective

SLDC’s Housing Monitoring Report 2017 refers to a significant number of small sites (less than 10 dwellings) with planning permission (621 dwellings on 422 sites). Many of these will be potentially available to self-builders and custom builders.

Developers will not embrace self-build or custom build housing on their developments with any enthusiasm. Apart from contractual difficulties, potential new house purchase customers may be discouraged from purchasing because of concerns and uncertainty of the nature of the self-build dwellings and the timing of delivery. This has an impact on both viability and deliverability. There are also practical concerns over start and finish of construction, the provision of services and health and safety management issues.

The best assistance the planning authority can provide to self-builders is to increase affordable housing thresholds, as the threshold of three or more dwellings outside Principal and Key Service Centres means a self-build scheme of more than two dwellings is not practical or viable.

Note: The Cumbria House Builders Group includes the following companies:
- Applethwaite
- Holbeck Homes
- Oakmere Homes
- Persimmon Homes Lancashire
- Russell Armer; and
- Story Homes

The sentence “In areas where the Council has evidence of strong local demand…incorporated into development schemes as part of the housing mix” should be deleted.

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

DM8 - High Speed Broadband for New Developments

No

Pleased that six of the eight points GTC raised previously have been covered to some degree in the final version. Disappointed that the below don’t seem to have been addressed:

Ensuring good mobile phone coverage required alongside broadband requirements.

GTC Said:
2.8 Telecommunications
Digital connectivity need to be accompanied by good mobile phone coverage, at least reliable 3G; 4G desirable. People are increasingly using smartphones to access the internet for business, banking, health and family uses, and expect a reliable signal wherever they are. Many rural areas have patchy mobile phone signals, copper or satellite internet access is not yet ubiquitous and would not be enough by itself. Omitting a requirement for rural mobile phone coverage is discriminatory to rural residents and misses an opportunity to promote mast-sharing by providers.
It is particularly useful for the elderly to have reliable phone contact with carers, family and medical services, and can enable a speedier return to coping at home after a hospital stay. It therefore supports the current move to care in the community and reduces the pressure on NHS facilities.
The new policy version only applies the requirements on broadband to 30+ units on new developments, and makes no reference to mobile phone connectivity, so will be no use for existing residents and businesses in our parish, that is 75% of the population.

Please notify me.

DM4 - Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping

No

Pleased that six of the eight points GTC raised previously have been covered to some degree in the final version. Disappointed that the below don’t seem to have been addressed:

Expanding public opportunities for growing, to accompany traditional allotments.

GTC said:

2.4.4
Not clear how a deficiency in allotments might be proved for new developments. Traditional allotments are not always suitable for people with disabilities, those with full-time employment or responsibilities as carers. A ‘range of growing opportunities including allotments’ would be a more inclusive approach and could include mini-allotments, raised beds, public planters and landscape features. It should be required that a range of growing opportunities is provided for everyone, particularly where flats or very small gardens are the norm.
We find no reference to a ‘range of growing opportunities’ and find the policy inadequate and discriminatory to residents in our parish, where age, disability and lack of land are obstacles to full sized allotments. The wording lets developers off the hook and does not challenge them to ‘design in’ appropriate provision.

Please notify me.

DM6 - Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems

No

Pleased that six of the eight points GTC raised previously have been covered to some degree in the final version. Disappointed that the below don’t seem to have been addressed:

Drainage:

There is no mention of compliance with British Geological Society (BGS) recommendations regarding sub surface flows and the potential structural damage caused by erosion. The BGS states for the Kents Bank area quite unequivocally that “The infiltration of water from SuDS in areas with such characteristics may be unstable and could lead to landslide or collapse associated with dissolution or shallow mining”.
This area of Grange is classified as being one of “significant potential geohazard”. Grange Town Council requests that SLDC ensures that the BGS is included and is an integral part of the assessment process.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

General comment / comment on procedure

Yes

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the South Lakeland Local Plan: Development Management Policies DPD Publication document. As the Government's statutory adviser on all matters relating to the historic environment in England, we are pleased to offer our comments. We champion and protect England's historic places, providing expert advice to local planning authorities, developers, owners and communities to help ensure our historic environment is properly understood, conserved and enjoyed.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out various places the requirements for Local Plans in respect of the historic environment. In particular:

- The need to set out a positive and clear strategy for the conservation, enjoyment and enhancement of the historic environment;
- Be based upon adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence, which would include sufficient information to assess the significance of heritage assets;
- Contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment;

The Historic England Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 1 provides further guidance on the Historic Environment in Local Plans, and can be accessed from our website at https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa1-historic-environment-local-plans/

We have previously commented upon the emerging heritage assets policy for the Development Plan document, and we thank the local authority for the positive and constructive way in which we have been able to provide comments and advice throughout this process. In respond to the current consultation, we have considered whether the Plan is sound, and have only picked up some minor points where we feel that slight amendments should be made to ensure that it is consistent with national policy. We have noted these below, in commenting on each of the key elements required of a local plan, in addition to commenting upon more specific details (on the attached table) < [SEE OTHER RESPONSES]

Positive Strategy: The DPD, while forming just one part of the Local Plan, is setting out the Council's detailed policies for managing development, and will be used to assess planning applications. This clearly provides opportunities to further develop the positive strategy for the historic environment, and we there welcome the way in which these opportunities have been integrated throughout the Plan. In addition to a robust Historic Environment policy DM3, the historic environment is recognised within: Policy DM1; Policy DM2; paragraph 2.2.1; Policy DM10, Policy DM13, Policy DM20, and Policy DM21. In this respect, we consider that the Plan is sound.

We have noted in the attached table those areas where the positive strategy might be further improved by additional references to the historic environment.

Strategic Policies for the historic environment: The NPPF (in its paragraph 156) refers to the need to identify strategic priorities, and states that Neighbourhood Plans must be in 'general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan' (paragraph 184 of the NPPF). We recognise that this plan sits within a suite of documents, as set out in part 1.2. For clarity, it would be helpful to identify which of the policies, and within which plan document, should be considered as the 'strategic policies'.

Sustainability: We welcome the very positive and proactive approach taken to sustainability throughout the Plan, as evidenced for example by: Policies DM2, DM4, DM6; and DM21.

Monitoring and Implementation: We welcome that positive approach to monitoring the Plan as set out in Chapter 7 of the plan document.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM3 - Historic Environment

No

The DPD is not justified

Adequate and relevant evidence: The NPPF (paragraph 169) requires that the Plan is based upon the 'up to date evidence about the historic environment'. Given the positive strategy for the historic environment, and the robust heritage policies, we are confident that the Council has this up to date evidence. For example, the heritage policies refer to Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plans, and also to the council's own Local List. However, these have not been referenced within the Evidence Base listed on the website., with only the Historic Landscape Character Assessment referenced. Given the statutory purpose of the National Parks, their Management Plans might also be valuable evidence to cite.

We welcome and support the very positive and proactive approach taken to the historic environment within this policy and supporting text, and appreciate the very helpful ongoing dialogue throughout its drafting.
While the majority of the policy is extremely robust, we have noted a few minor amendments in order to make it sound and in compliance with the NPPF.
The first sentence beneath the Purpose contains a typo, referring to ‘settings’, which we assume should read ‘setting’?
Under ‘Assessing Significance and Impact’, bullet point (1) refers to parts of the heritage asset ‘that would be directly affected by the proposal’. The NPPF does not distinguish between ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ impacts, apart from a reference in paragraph 135 where it refers to applications that affect ‘directly or indirectly’. Drawing a distinction within this policy would therefore potentially be excluding indirect impacts, and both weakening the policy and not providing the full protection advised within the NPPF. We would therefore recommend either removing the word ‘directly’ (which would then allude to any impacts, either direct or indirect), or include the word ‘indirectly’.

While we appreciate the intent behind the wording on Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes, at present it appears to afford greater protection to this type of asset than any other (in that it states that no harm will be permitted, irrespective of any justification such as over-riding public benefit). This part of the policy may therefore be challenged, as Parks and Gardens do not enjoy any additional protection compared to other heritage assets, and should therefore be subject to the same criteria as set out in the NPPF paragraphs 133-135, and as identified elsewhere in the policy and within the supporting text. We would therefore recommend slightly amending the wording, to reflect the need for development proposals that would harm the Parks, Gardens and Landscapes, to provide the level of justification required by the NPPF.

In order for the Plan to demonstrate that it is based on up to date evidence, and therefore to be found sound, we would recommend that the Council updates its Evidence Base to contain all the relevant documents which have informed its approach to the historic environment.

Amend the reference to ‘settings’ to ‘setting’.

Amend bullet point (1) under ‘Assessing Significance and Impact’, to ensure that indirect impacts of proposals are also covered by this policy.

Amend the section on ‘Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes’ to refer to ‘unjustified harm’, or incorporate some reference to the tests as set out in the NPPF.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM2 - Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design

Yes

While we support this policy, the wording of part (9) might more accurately reflect the intention of this section if it refers to reducing the factors contributing to climate change, as well as responding to its effects. The footnote (7) sets out a number of measures which would positively seek to reduce carbon emissions, and the intention to promote these measures would be strengthened by more accurate wording in the policy.

Include ‘….and reduces the factors contributing to, and responds to the effects of, climate change.’

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM4 - Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping

We support this policy, and the very positive approach taken to green and blue infrastructure.

It is worth noting that many elements of the historic environment, including designed landscapes, parks and gardens, archaeological sites and cemeteries, can form an integral part of Green and Blue Infrastructure. It would be helpful to reference these within this section.

In addition, while we support the intention to protect trees, there may be instances where they are actively damaging sensitive heritage assets (such as Scheduled Ancient Monuments), and their removal is necessary for the long term management of the site.

This policy may need to incorporate some qualification that allows the removal of vegetation in particular instances.

Yes

We support this policy, and the very positive approach taken to green and blue infrastructure.

It is worth noting that many elements of the historic environment, including designed landscapes, parks and gardens, archaeological sites and cemeteries, can form an integral part of Green and Blue Infrastructure. It would be helpful to reference these within this section.

In addition, while we support the intention to protect trees, there may be instances where they are actively damaging sensitive heritage assets (such as Scheduled Ancient Monuments), and their removal is necessary for the long term management of the site.

This policy may need to incorporate some qualification that allows the removal of vegetation in particular instances.

Amend the wording of paragraph 2.4.1 to reflect the contribution made by heritage assets to green and blue infrastructure.

Amend Policy DM4 to reflect that, in some instances, there may be an overriding need to remove trees due to the harmful impact upon the significance of heritage assets.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM7 - Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality

Yes

It is worth noting that pollution can have impacts – both direct and indirect - upon heritage assets, including their setting. Further advice on setting is available from our website at https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage-assets/ .

Incorporate reference to the historic environment in the sentence (under the section on ‘Pollution’ referring to the impacts upon the environment.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM16 - Conversion of Buildings in Rural Areas

Yes

Traditional buildings in rural areas may have historic significance, either in themselves, or as part of the wider settlement or landscape. Conversion and reuse offers opportunities to protect, sustain and enhance that significance, and it would be helpful to reference this within the policy or supporting text.

Incorporate a reference to the historic environment.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM18 - Tourist accomodation

Yes

Tourist accommodation can have an adverse impact upon heritage assets, in particular on setting. Under ‘All Proposals’, bullet (b), it would be helpful to refer to the historic environment.

World Heritage Site: There are numerous references throughout the Plan to the need to ensure the protection and enhancement of the special qualities and settings of the National Parks (including the Lake District National Park). However, there does not appear to be any reference to its recent inscription as a World Heritage Site (WHS)? While we appreciate that the DPD does not cover either the Park or the WHS, in seeing to protect views into and out of the protected areas, it would be helpful to refer to the WHS and its Outstanding Universal Value.

For example, references could be made at: Policy DM1 (8); paragraph 2.1.7; and Policy DM18.

Incorporate a reference to the historic environment.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM19 - Equestrian related development

Yes

Equestrian related development both offers opportunities to sustain and enhance, and may also have an adverse impact upon heritage assets, in particular on setting. It would be helpful to refer to the historic environment either within the policy or the supporting text.

Incorporate a reference to the historic environment.

Please notify me.

DM1 - General Requirements for all development

Yes

World Heritage Site: There are numerous references throughout the Plan to the need to ensure the protection and enhancement of the special qualities and settings of the National Parks (including the Lake District National Park). However, there does not appear to be any reference to its recent inscription as a World Heritage Site (WHS)? While we appreciate that the DPD does not cover either the Park or the WHS, in seeing to protect views into and out of the protected areas, it would be helpful to refer to the WHS and its Outstanding Universal Value.

For example, references could be made at: Policy DM1 (8); paragraph 2.1.7; and Policy DM18.

For example, references could be made at: Policy DM1 (8); paragraph 2.1.7; and Policy DM18.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM8 - High Speed Broadband for New Developments

Yes

No

The DPD is not effective

Policy DM8 – High Speed Broadband
This policy is not considered to be sound, as it is not considered to be effective.
This policy requires proposals for new residential (2 or more dwellings) and commercial development to demonstrate how they will provide broadband. It goes on to require sites of 30 dwellings or more to provide Fibre to the Premises infrastructure. The inclusion of digital infrastructure such as high speed broadband and fibre is not within the direct control of the development industry, and as such it is considered that this policy could create deliverability issues for development and developers. Service providers are the only one who can confirm access to infrastructure.

Whilst the requirements of the policy in relation to a Broadband Statement setting out the current connectivity of the site and the potential for future provision, may seem reasonable the Council should be aware that some providers are no longer able to provide Connectivity Statements which may limit the information available to applicants and may again cause delay and limit deliverability.

It is also noted that the justification for the policy notes the role of this policy in supporting Building Regulations. The HBF would like to highlight the work that Government have undertaken to remove red tape associated with planning, particularly where planning and building regulations overlap. Therefore, there is no need to have planning policy to support Building Regulations, it is sufficient to rely on Part R of the Building Regulations.

HBF propose that the policy is modified as follows:

• ‘Proposals for new residential (sites of 2 dwellings or more) and commercial development must demonstrate **engagement with infrastructure providers and show** how they will **work with infrastructure providers to** provide future occupiers with (sufficient - delete) broadband connectivity, **where feasible**.

Delete the following 3 points:

• ‘and be accompanied by a ‘Broadband Statement’ which explains the current internet connectivity in the site’s locality and the potential for the site to be provided with high speed broadband; and’
• ‘make provision for new premises to be provided with high speed (superfast) broadband, or if this is not feasible at the time of the application, undertake all reasonable actions to enable a superfast connection at a future date.’
• ‘For residential sites of 30 units or more, developers will be expected to ensure that Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) infrastructure is provided.’

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To debate the comments made within our representations further and in greater detail. To ensure that the industry can respond to any additional evidence provided by the Council or others following submission of the plan.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM11 - Accessible and Adaptable Homes

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

Policy DM11 – Accessible and Adaptable Homes
This policy is not considered to be sound, as it is not considered to be justified, and not consistent with national policy
This policy requires all new homes to meet the optional Building Regulations for adaptable and accessible standard (M4(2)). Additionally, the Council will also require a proportion of wheelchair adaptable homes (M4(3)) on large development sites in suitable locations, 5% of dwellings on sites of over 40, although this level will be applied flexibly. The policy includes potential for exemptions on viability grounds.

PPG (ID 56-07) identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy, including the likely future need; the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed; the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock; how the needs vary across different housing tenures; and the overall viability. The Optional Housing Standards Evidence Paper (August 2017), provides the Council’s evidence base for this policy. It provides data on the population’s age structure, general information on the accessibility of the national housing stock and assumptions about what that means for South Lakeland. The HBF does not consider that it provides sufficient justification for the need for all new dwellings to meet the requirements of M4(2) Accessible and Adaptable dwellings.

PPG (ID56-009) is clear that Local Plan policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling. It is therefore considered that the 5% requirement within this policy is contrary to national policy.

Housing Standards:

The HBF note that at present South Lakeland Council has decided not to pursue the adoption of nationally described space standards, and that they will keep this position under review. The HBF supports South Lakelands decision not to introduce space standards at this time.

Water Efficiency:

The HBF also support South Lakeland’s decision not to introduce water efficiency standards as there are no major constraints with regards to water resources and it is not an area of water stress.

HBF propose that the policy is modified as follows:

• (delete - ‘New homes must be) **The Council will support the provision of dwellings that are** designed and constructed in a way that enables them to be adapted to meet the changing needs of their occupants over their lifetime. (delete - The Council will require all new homes to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(2): Category 2 – Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings.’)

Delete the following bullet points:

• ‘The Council will only consider exemptions to these requirements where the applicant can provide evidence to robustly demonstrate that any of the following specific circumstances apply: 1. it is not practically achievable given the physical characteristics of the site, or 2. it would significantly harm the financial viability of the scheme.’
• ‘Additionally the Council will also require a proportion of wheelchair adaptable homes (Category M4(3)) on large development sites in suitable locations. Current evidence supports a requirement for 5% of dwellings on sites of over 40 units to be wheelchair adaptable dwellings. If evidence at the time of a planning application indicates a different level of need then this element of the policy will be applied flexibly.’

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To debate the comments made within our representations further and in greater detail. To ensure that the industry can respond to any additional evidence provided by the Council or others following submission of the plan.

Please notify me.

General comment / comment on procedure

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

Thank you for consulting with the Home Builders Federation on the Publication Draft of the South Lakeland Local Plan Development Management Policies document.

The HBF is the principal representative body of the house-building industry in England and Wales. Our representations reflect the views of our membership, which includes multi-national PLC’s, regional developers and small, local builders. In any one year, our members account for over 80% of all new “for sale” market housing built in England and Wales as well as a large proportion of newly built affordable housing.

The Council will recall that the HBF provided comments to the previous consultations on the Development Management policy documents. A key theme that we have made throughout is the need for greater flexibility within the document and its policies. Some policies still appear overly prescriptive with a large list of requirements. To ensure these policies are workable it is important that the various criteria are only applied where appropriate, practicable, achievable and economically viable. Without the inclusion of such flexibility appropriate developments are unlikely to come forward. This will only slow housing delivery and reduce investment in South Lakeland. The NPPF is clear that flexibility is a critical component of any plan (paragraphs 14, 21, etc.) it is therefore recommended that further consideration is given to the inclusion of greater flexibility throughout this document.

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To debate the comments made within our representations further and in greater detail. To ensure that the industry can respond to any additional evidence provided by the Council or others following submission of the plan.

Please notify me.

1.2.1

Yes

My comment follows on from the National Trust response submitted to your previous consultation, which said: “It would be helpful to have a plan showing the area to be covered by the DPD and in particular clarifying on the plan and in additional text the intentions in respect of that part of the District that is to be transferred to the LDNPA for planning purposes from 1 August 2016.”

I note that you have added Figure 1 (which shows the post August 2016 National Park boundaries) and also inserted some text into paragraphs 1.1.3 and 1.2.1, and these amendments are welcomed. However, I believe that some further small tweaks to the text would make the situation clearer. Paragraph 1.1.3 says that the DPD does not cover the extension areas of the National Parks, but paragraph 1.2.1 says that the DPD does cover the extension areas of the NPs, until they adopt their own DPDs that include the extensions.

Please notify me.

Other - misc

Yes

Perhaps a diagram highlighting the extension areas alongside a clearer explanation would be of use. As a suggestion for the map, Cumbria County Council’s recently adopted Local Plan (September 2017) contains a map (Appendix 2) that clearly shows the old NP boundaries as well as the new extension areas. See:
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/eLibrary/Content/Internet/538/755/1929/4298491253.pdf

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM1 - General Requirements for all development

No

The DPD is not justified

2.1 Policy DM1 – General Requirements for all Development

Point 6 – ‘For designated assets harm will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances’.
Natural England’s view is that this wording is misleading for developers and in its current form is not Habitat’s Regulation compliant.

Recommendation: The above wording should be removed and replaced. The following wording would be appropriate. ‘Harm to the integrity of designated sites will not be allowed except where it has been established by the competent authority that there are no alternative solutions that would have a lesser effect on the integrity of the site (known as the Imperative Reasons of Over-riding Public Interest IROPI test).

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

Other - misc

No

The DPD is not justified

- Table 4, Potential Impact Pathways. This table shows the screening out, at an early stage, of potential impacts which may reasonably affect the European Sites listed. There is not sufficient detail within the table or the report to show how this decision was reached.

- For example, in appendix 3, in relation to Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary SPA; air quality threats are identified alongside a list of qualifying features. This list includes features which could be impacted by poor air quality arising from development and Map 3 shows development sites in close proximity to the European Site; however, air quality effects on the SPA (and SACs) have been screened out in Table 4. The reasoning behind this decision is not given in the table or in the supporting text. It would be surprising to screen out air quality impacts on these sites at this early stage where a source, pathway and at risk interest features may exist.

Recommendation: The reasoning behind the screening out of sites at this stage of the process should be given or these impacts should continue to determination of LSE. The table should be reviewed to ensure that no other impacts which should have proceeded to determination of LSE have been screened out incorrectly.

Natural England has two comments on the way that likely significant effect (LSE) has been screened within the HRA document:

1) The authority has not consistently followed up on the recommendations contained within ‘Table 6 LSE Screening’ of the HRA. For example under DM6 the HRA clearly states ‘recommendation not incorporated’.

Recommendation: HRA recommendations should be incorporated within the DPD or taken to Appropriate Assessment, otherwise the DPD will not be Habitat Regulations compliant.

2) There are several references within Table 6 which suggest that text has been amended from the draft document and/or additional wording inserted into the final version of the DPD document to enable the authority to determine no LSE. However, it is not clear upon reading the HRA or on reviewing the changes between the draft and final versions which sections have been amended in this way, for this specific purpose and what the changes are. This makes it very difficult to adequately assess the changes made.

Recommendation: The paragraphs and text changes made which enable an assessment of no LSE should be referenced in the HRA as part of table 6.

Please notify me.

DM5 - Rights of Way and other routes providing pedestrian and cycle access

No

TownPlanningLNW@networkrail.co.uk

Network Rail has the following comments to make on the DMP.

(1) Level Crossings
Policy DM5 – Rights of Way and other routes providing pedestrian and cycle access
Purpose: To maintain and protect the character of rights of way and provide a framework for protection, creation and enhancement of all forms of pedestrian and cycle routes in a safe, attractive and connected manner as part of the wider access and green infrastructure framework
2.5.1 Public rights of way, and other routes providing for safe, attractive pedestrian and cycle access, facilitate sustainable patterns of movement between and within the open countryside and urban areas of the district. They are key to the promotion of active travel and contribute to the district’s access and green infrastructure network. It is therefore important such routes are maintained and protected and where possible opportunities for their enhancement and additional links to them are realised.

Proposals for development opportunities (employment, residential etc) should consider the potential for impacts upon level crossings, including those that carry over the railway public footpaths. The council is requested to include a policy in regards to the potential of proposals to increase the risk at level crossings.

A Transport Statement or Transport Assessment should be undertaken to ensure that the impact of proposed new developments at existing level crossings is assessed by developers, and suitable mitigation incorporated within the development proposals and funded by the developer(s). Mitigation measures to be agreed with Network Rail.

Councils are urged to take the view that level crossings can be impacted in a variety of ways by planning proposals:
• By a proposal being directly next to a level crossing
• By the cumulative effect of developments added over time in the vicinity of a level crossing
• By the type of level crossing involved e.g. where pedestrians only are allowed to use the level crossing, but a proposal involves allowing cyclists to use the route
• By the construction of large developments (commercial and residential) where road access to and from the site includes a level crossing or the level / type of use of a level crossing increases as a result of diverted traffic or of a new highway
• By developments that might impede pedestrians ability to hear approaching trains at a level crossing, e.g. new airports or new runways / highways / roads
• By proposals that may interfere with pedestrian and vehicle users’ ability to see level crossing warning signs
• By any developments for schools, colleges or nurseries where minors in numbers may be using the level crossing
• By any proposal that may cause blocking back across the level crossing
• By any proposal which may see a level crossing impacted by the proposed introduction of cycling or walking routes

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

Other - misc

Yes

Yes

Thank you for consulting North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) on the Publication draft of the South Lakeland Development Management DPD.

Officers have reviewed the consultation documentation and do not consider that this raises any strategic cross boundary issues with North Yorkshire.

We consider that South Lakeland District Council has co-operated with North Yorkshire County Council under the Duty to Co-operate in the preparation of the DPD and, in so far as NYCC’s interests are concerned, we consider the DPD to be sound and legally compliant.

NYCC does not intend to be represented at the Hearing.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Rushworth
Senior Policy Officer

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM1 - General Requirements for all development

No

Policy DM1 - General Requirements for all Development

Policy DM1 considers the general requirements that need to be met in order for the development to be considered sustainable. Although Persimmon in general support each point, there needs to be consideration that some points are more relevant than other dependent on the site that is being delivered. It is critical that each site will be considered on its own merits and this should be reflected in this policy.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM2 - Achieving Sustainable High Quality Design

No

Policy DM2 - Achieving High Quality Design

Persimmon supports the achievement of high quality design which compliments the sites surroundings. However, the introduction of new design features should not necessarily be rejected on this basis. Ensuring that design is forward looking is important and allows for modern building standards to be used; this should be incorporated into this policy.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM8 - High Speed Broadband for New Developments

No

Policy DM8 - High Speed Broadband

This policy is totally dependent upon service infrastructure providers and their timescales. It is not a responsibility of the development industry to ensure there is high speed broadband is installed into every site pre occupation. As we are currently doing, the development industry and service providers should be encouraged to work together to bring forward high speed broadband on new housing sites.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM9 - Parking Provision, new and loss of car parks

No

Policy DM9 - Parking Provision

Persimmon supports the flexible application of the case by case basis in consultation with the Highways Authority, Cumbria County Council. The need for every development to comply with the Cumbria County Council guidelines may be too strict as in many cases applying the guidelines recommendations will lead to an unattractive streetscene that is dominated by parking. The list of determining factors Is supported and will ensure that each scheme is considered on its merits. Other sustainable transport options are an important consideration here and should influence on the parking provision that is required on a site.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM11 - Accessible and Adaptable Homes

No

Policy DM11 - Accessible and Adaptable Homes

Persimmon in general is supportive of delivering a wide range of houses that can be adapted in the future if necessary. However, Policy DM11 is not supported by Persimmon due to its impact of deliverability and the generic application to all development. There is a lack of consideration to individual circumstances with some sites likely to be inappropriately located. Further, the type of housing has not been considered as some are much easier to adapt than others and that the desirability of such properties to the specific purchasers that may require these adaptations is not known. Consideration needs to be given over to cost and by enhancing the specification of the build for future adaption (as well as size of the property which often needs to be larger), there is a corollary in an increase in selling price; thereby reducing affordability. The Council took the decision not to implement National Space Standards for reasons of costs to developers and purchasers. The same arguments apply for adaptable homes too which the policy and supporting evidence does not explore.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM22 - Hot Food Takeaways

No

The DPD is not positively prepared

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

Response to Policy DM22
1. Introduction

1.1 We have considered the above policy and its supporting text with regard to the principles set out within the Framework. Local Plans should “plan” positively for development; be justified; effective; and consistent with the Framework.

1.2 We consider that limiting the location and concentration would be unsound.

1.3 The policy is overly vague and provides no set parameters for decision makers.

2. Such an approach is not positive, justified, effective or consistent with the Framework.

2.1 Restricting the concentration and location of new A5 proposals within the borough, is not a positive approach to planning. The Framework “foreword” sustainable development is about positive growth, making economic; environmental; and social progress, for this and future generations.

2.2 The suggested restrictions apply an over-generic approach to restrict development with little sound planning reasoning or planning justification. This is contrary to Para 14 of the Framework which advises authorities to positively seek opportunities to meet development needs of their area.

2.3 Thus it is inconsistent with Para 19 and 21 of the Framework. Para 19 states:
Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

2.4 Para 21 states:

Investment in business should not be over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations.

2.5 No consideration has been given to other A class uses and their contribution or impact on daily diet or wellbeing. The suggest approach is therefore not holistic and will not achieve the principle aim.

2.6 There is lack of evidence to demonstrate that purchases in fast food outlets are any more or less healthy than purchases in other A Class premises. Evidence confirming this is set out in Appendix C.

2.7 The Framework cannot be interpreted to provide generic restrictions on a particular use class. Moreover, the evidence does not support such restrictions. The need for evidence is emphasised in para 158 of the Framework which states that each local plan should be based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence. Compliance with the soundness test is still required.

2.8 The proposal does not accord with the “golden thread” running through the Framework which seeks to build a strong competitive economy. Such a policy could potentially stifle economic development and is not consistent with the Framework.

3. Soundness - summary

3.1 We consider that restricting the location and concentration would be unsound and fails to meet the four tests of the Framework. It is not a positively approach to planning; justified; effective; or consistent with national planning policy. Such a policy should therefore not be taken forward to the next stage of the plan making process.

3.2 Many restaurant operators have made major steps to expand the range of healthy options and work with the communities within which they are / will be part of.

4. McDonald’s has made major steps in recent years to expand the range of healthy offerings

4.1 As a responsible business, McDonald’s recognises it has a role to play to support its staff, customers, and the communities in which it operates to live healthier lifestyles. For this reason, McDonald’s has invested significantly to evolve its menu over the last 10 years – both to extend the range of choice, and to reformulate our products. For example, McDonald’s has:

- Added porridge, salads, grilled chicken wraps, carrot sticks, fruit bags, orange juice, mineral water, and organic milk to its menu
- Completely removed hydrogenated trans-fats from its menu
- Reduced salt in our Chicken McNuggets by 36%, and our fries by a quarter since 2003
- Reduced fat in its milkshakes by 34% per serving since 2010
- Reduced fat in its deli rolls by 42% since 2011

4.2 McDonald’s has also led the way displaying nutritional information to help its customers make informed choices. Since 2011, McDonald’s has provided calorie information on every one of its 1,200+ menu boards in restaurants across the UK.

4.3 This is in addition to the nutritional information that is already available on its website, on its tray liners, on its packaging, and via McDonald’s mobile phone app. In 2012 alone, McDonald’s received 2.2 million visits to its nutrition web page.

4.4 Furthermore, McDonald’s is committed to responsible advertising, and advertise to children only food items that are not classified by the Government’s nutrient scoring criteria as High in Fat, Salt or Sugar “non-HFSS”. All of McDonald’s advertising to children features at least one portion of fruit or vegetables, and a no added sugar beverage such as milk.

4.5 As a significant customer of British farming, McDonald’s buys quality ingredients from 17,500 UK and Irish farmers. It now spends more than £390 million every year on British and Irish produce, compared to £269 million in 2009.

4.6 All of McDonald’s burgers are made with 100% British and Irish beef. We use whole cuts of forequarter and flank, with nothing added or taken away in the process.

4.7 In addition, McDonald’s only uses 100% British RSPCA Freedom Food Pork across its entire menu. As a result, all pork suppliers are required to meet strict animal welfare standards.

4.8 McDonald’s was also one of the first retailers to switch to using free range eggs – which it did back in 1998. Free range eggs are now used in its entire menu – including its sauces, muffins and the coating on chicken nuggets. Every year McDonald’s use over 100 million free range eggs, sourced from more than 200 UK producers, and for its work in this area they have been awarded ‘Food Business of the Year’ by the British Free Range Egg Producers Association.

4.9 The strength of McDonald’s supply chain – which was clear of any horsemeat – has also been confirmed by Professor Chris Elliott, who said in light of the horsemeat scandal: “McDonald’s invited us to look at farms and abattoirs – it was a very simple supply chain. The other thing I was very impressed about was the length of contract McDonald’s had with its suppliers.”1*

*1 Evidence at Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Select Committee Inquiry, January 2014

5. McDonald’s also contributes to the community

5.1 As the Community Partner of the Football Association, McDonald’s has helped to train and recruit more than 25,000 coaches. These coaches in turn have provided more than 2 million hours of free quality coaching, to one million young players.

5.2 Over 1,000 McDonald’s restaurants across the UK are ‘twinned’ with a local team to provide free kit, equipment, advice and expertise.

5.3 Each of McDonald’s restaurants also conduct a minimum of three litter patrols on a daily basis, and conduct larger Love Where You Live ‘clean up’ events. McDonald’s is also the primary sponsor of the Mayor of London’s Capital Clean Up campaign, to tackle litter across London.

5.4 Last year, McDonald’s restaurants in Greater London organised over 50 community clean-up events, with over 1,400 volunteers taking part.

6. McDonald’s is a major employer of young people

6.1 McDonald’s is a major employer of young people under the age of 25, and for many it provides a first step on the career ladder. McDonald’s offers all staff the opportunity to gain qualifications which include Adult Certificates in English and Maths, a Level 2 Apprenticeship, and a Foundation Degree in Managing Business Operations.

6.2 McDonald’s invest £43 million annually in staff training and development.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Consideration needs to be given to the impact that restricting opening hours could have on the viability of schemes.

7.2 It is unsound to introduce such a widespread land use policy to protect the amenity of such uses, which could be dealt with on a case by case basis via conditions. Further to this, the supporting text itself outlines that there is no direct link between the location of hot food takeaways and such land uses, therefore such an approach is unjustifiable.

7.3 The proposed approach in direct conflict with the Framework. The policy attempts to introduce a widespread land use restriction on a specific use class without providing a single map to outline the specific limitations it would have. Without a map it is impossible to indicate the extent of the policies implications on the borough.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM6 - Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

South Lakeland Flood Partnership (SLFP) is a coalition of Flood Action Groups in South Lakeland formed to represent the views of flooded communities to official agencies and decision makers in both Cumbria and wider national context. We have secured representation on the Cumbria Strategic Flood Partnership and South Cumbria River Catchment Board and work with the Environment Agency on flood protection plans for the area.
SLFP is fully supportive of the first aim of Policy DM6, to ensure existing and new development is not exposed to flood risk. However we consider that the second aim, to prioritise the promotion of Sustainable Drainage Systems, and the policy as currently worded, is not likely to be effective. In particular, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the policy will:
a) achieve a reduction in overall flood risk in the district, or
b) ensure existing and new development is not exposed to flood risk as stated in the policy purpose, or
c) implement the stated aims, objectives or policies of the South Lakeland Local Development Framework Core Strategy (1), or
d) ensure that development in areas at risk of flooding (from all sources), including areas with critical drainage problems will be safe in its lifetime and not cause flooding elsewhere as required by National Planning Policy (2),
e) secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to adaptation to climate change, in particular to address flooding which is identified by the Committee on Climate Change as the key climate risk facing the UK (3) and by the South Lakeland Development Framework Core Strategy (October 2010) as a specific threat to South Lakeland.(4)

Policy DM6, and therefore the DPD as a whole, is considered not to be sound,,justified, effective or consistent with national policy , and also to not be compliant with Section 19A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

1. South Lakeland Local Development Framework Core Strategy (October 2010)CS1.1, CS1.2, CS2, CS3.2
2. NPPF paras 100, 102, 103 or PPG Paragraph: 037 Reference ID: 7-037-20140306
3. UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 Synthesis report: priorities for the next five years: Committee on Climate Change: July 2016
4. Paragraph 1.23 South Lakeland Local Development Framework Core Strategy : October 2010.

The assumption of the draft policy is that prioritising the promotion of Sustainable Drainage Schemes will contribute to reducing overall flood risk in the district, and also (by inference) that this reduction will be sufficient to protect the people and economy of South Lakeland from flooding.

Neither the text nor the policy demonstrate an adequate understanding of the scale and nature of flooding in the district, and are not supported by evidence that Sustainable Drainage Systems based on national and county level design guidance and rainfall intensity (with climate change allowances*) parameters based on national averages, can, for all proposals, reduce the causes and impacts of flooding within its area, or ensure that the development will be safe for its lifetime and prevent flooding elsewhere.



Nor is it supported by any analysis of the performance of Sustainable Drainage Systems implemented in new development in recent years, which might indicate whether the national guidance on rainfall intensity, climate change allowances, and the criteria within the non-Statutory Technical Guidance for Sustainable Drainage Systems are appropriate and safe standards for local climatic or hydro-geological conditions.

National guidance currently gives a climate allowance for increasing rainfall intensity of 20-40% over a 1961 – 1990 baseline. However this is a national average, and frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is predicted to increase further under the impact of climate change in Cumbria than elsewhere in England.

This response makes the case that, although the Publication Draft Development Management Policies DPD has a policy on Managing Flood Risk, with the prime purpose as “to ensure existing and new development is not exposed to flood risk” and refers many times to “taking account of climate change” the wording of the first three sections of the policy is such that it fails to achieve its aim, or to comply with National Planning Policy on either flooding or climate change (see Appendix B). The policy would therefore, in our opinion, fail to protect people and businesses in flood prone areas of South Lakeland from unacceptable flood risk both in the short term, and the longer term when the impacts of climate change develop further.

This response refers only to the first three parts of policy DM6, Location of Development –Avoiding Areas of Flood Risk, Surface Water Disposal, and Designing Sustainable Drainage Measures. SLFP has no objection to the other two sections.

The policy section headed “Location of Development –Avoiding Areas of Flood Risk” contains a selection of the many phrases in National Planning Policy (NPPF) and in Practice Guidance (including referring to withdrawn Technical Guidance to the NPPF), which could be said to be unnecessary, but also fails to provide the precision and clarity that would enable the local planning authority to insist on improvements to a development or ultimately to refuse it as national policy and guidance makes clear. By conflating several different PPG phrases without PPG’s clarification and definitions it would appear to create loopholes which would be less strong that national policy. It does include a few phrases that might relate to the risks of flooding specific to the Plan area, but these are not worded clearly and precisely, nor justified by locally relevant evidence or explanation in the text.

The use of the words “avoiding areas of flood risk” or “development should be avoided” are more suitable for a Core Strategy or Site Allocation DPD than a Development Management Policies DPD where the only issue at stake is the consent or otherwise for a single planning application on a specific site. Our experience as FLAG members in speaking to LLFA, EA and SLDC employees (past and present) about developments that have flooded or caused off site flooding is that we are told “we didn’t have the power to refuse”.

This section of the policy is considered to be unsound because it will not support strong regulation of planning applications that might exacerbate flooding, and if necessary refusal of, inappropriate development in areas subject to flood risk (from all sources) that: fails the Exception Test, will not be safe from flooding, and/or will cause flooding elsewhere. It is therefore not in conformity with NPPF paras 100, 102, 103 or PPG Paragraph: 037 Reference ID: 7-037-20140306 and also would not be effective over the Plan period.

SLPF suggest an initial statement of intent about “Location of Development”, followed by simple set of criteria and issues that need to be demonstrated by developers, but do not conflate or unintentionally undermine the stronger aspects of national planning policy and guidance on flooding.

Regarding “Surface Water Disposal” and “Designing Sustainable Drainage System measures”

The policy section headed “Surface Water Disposal” requires all development proposals to include the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems, possibly attempting to conform to the Ministerial Statement by Eric Pickles in December 2014. This is not completely in accordance with PPG Para 079 which says such systems should be considered when there are concerns about flooding.
SLFP welcomes the statement that they should be of the right proportion and type reflecting local circumstances, but considers that a genuine analysis of sources and causes of flooding in South Lakeland would have enabled a clearer understanding of the differences between genuine surface water, arising from rainfall on impermeable areas of the site, and other sources of flooding including run off from hillsides, and fluvial flooding from small watercourses which is a problem in the district. These affect the potential for, and problems with, infiltration and provision of a surface water body for attenuation purposes. (SLFP’s understanding based on local knowledge, research and contact with the Environment Agency since Storm Desmond is attached as Appendix A)

PPG para 079makes it clear that sustainable drainage should be provided unless shown to be inappropriate, and PPG Para 82 makes it clear that this is a matter of judgement for the local planning authority, whilst seeking advice from the relevant flood risk management bodies.
The draft policy then paraphrases a section of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), but inaccurately, saying that the hierarchy in para 80 of PPG must be adhered to, whereas PPG says “the aim should be to discharge surface water runoff as high up the hierarchy as reasonably practicable, and encourages lpas to provide some guidance on when sustainable drainage systems may not be appropriate.

Our next problem with the policy is in the section headed “Designing Sustainable Drainage System measures” that states that sustainable drainage must reflect the non statutory technical standards and the Cumbria design guide, neither of which reflect local climatic conditions or the higher than average vulnerability to climate change in South Lakeland, or the possibility of a different approach in areas defined as areas with critical drainage problems. As such the policy fails to address either the scale and nature of flood risk to people and property within the Plan area, or local climatic and geo-hydrological conditions.

The policy here wrongly limits the LPA to standards which are currently under review , Table 2 of PPG on Rainfall Intensity and Climate allowances in small and urban catchments, and implies that the local planning authority has no statutory obligation to use its own judgement, as well as taking advice, in cases where it is apparent that the standards being applied or the analysis of the site specific causes and sources of flooding might not be accurate. No research or evidence is presented to assess local conditions, and therefore the policy has not been justified.

We consider that the two sections “Surface Water Disposal” and “Designing Sustainable Drainage System measures” should be replaced by a simple list of criteria and matters which the developer will have to demonstrate, that does not undermine Planning Practice Guidance where it gives the LPA some flexibility and ensures that development will not flood or cause flooding eslewhere.

In summary SLFO consider that this policy, and the plan, is not effective because it fails to ensure that new development will neither flood nor cause flooding elsewhere.

FOOTNOTE: About our organisation
SLFP grew out of individual flood action groups (FLAGs) in South Lakeland and their links with similar groups elsewhere in Cumbria. While FLAGS were working on recovery and resilience following Storm Desmond in December 2015, there was also a need to share information held by the communities with the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority, and seek to develop lasting solutions in terms of flood protection investment and actions. SLFP was formed at a meeting to all FLAGs in South Lakeland and a Committee was elected to help the collective voice of all flooded communities to be heard. The principles in this response to the Publication Draft were agreed at a meeting of the SLFP Committee on 11 December 2017 and the detailed response has been compiled by Mrs Maggie Mason, B A (Arch) Diploma in Town and Regional Planning , a recently retired Town Planner whose most recent professional experience was 10 years with Cumbria County Council working on both Development Management for Minerals and Waste and County Council Developments of many types, and also Planning Policy development, specifically the Minerals and Waste Development Framework. It attempts to represent flooded communities and their anger about the flood risk impacts from new development on existing homes and businesses, together with a considered constructive critique of the proposed Development Management policy on Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage.

APPENDIX A Sources, Severity and Causes of Flooding in South Lakeland

Unfortunately this DPD has come to its Publication stage before either the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment or the Environment Agency revised modelling of the main river catchments in the plan area have been completed. Flooding understanding had, we believe, already advanced since the 2007 SFRA, which was used to support the 2010 Core Strategy, but Storm Desmond on the 5th/6th December 2015 has significantly increased the areas and properties at risk of flooding in the District.

The Core Strategy in 2010 estimated 325 homes to be at 1% risk of flooding in Kendal, plus areas in Ulverston and Furness (5), based on the 2007 SFRA. Since then, the number of homes known to be at risk has increased significantly. Storm Desmond, on 5/6th December 2015 flooded approximately 1500 homes in Kendal, and many homes flooded again in South Lakeland on the 22 November 2017, including two that were recently built under the most up to date flood criteria. Recent extreme weather events has been shown (6) to be made much more likely (best estimate 59% increase in likelihood) by anthropogenic climate change of approximately 1 degree C, and the Committee on Climate Change’s best estimate (7) of warming this century is 2.7 degrees C. They estimate that the number of homes, and the cost of flood damage is likely to double by the 2050’s.
The 2010 Core Strategy identified flood risk as serious and linked to climate change “Climate change is a threat to South Lakeland. There are significant areas of flood risk, particularly in Kendal, where the Rivers Kent and Mint flow through the town.”(8) Its Sustainable Community Strategy, Strategic Objectives and area specific policies for Kendal and Ulverston all stated an aim of minimising flood risk. SLFP argue that this risk is now more significant, and urgent, and better understood as a key health and wellbeing, and economic issue for the district. If the policy is not as effective and enforceable as possible, it is failing to address or adapt to climate change. Policy DM6 should also address the locally specific sources and causes of flooding, which South Lakeland has IN ADDITION to the general national sources such as fluvial flooding near large rivers and in coastal areas.

Most urban areas in the district have 19th century drainage in their centres, with networks of historic tributaries from upland areas constrained in undersized culverts under successive urban extensions from the 1960’s to the present day. Some of these water courses flow underground through the limestone geology above the town, and emerge to form areas of natural winter flood storage on hillsides, held between drumlins, in old mineral workings, and on level areas beneath steep concave hillsides. Many such areas have been drained and developed during this period, both to build houses but also to develop and protect infrastructure such as water supply and rail networks above the town. Natural attenuation has not been acknowledged or quantified and has therefore been lost, eliminating historically important delays in peak flows to downstream areas. These tributaries are now key elements of the surface water drainage network, and excess fluvial flows escaping from historic watercourses on hillsides, or preventing genuine surface water from impermeable areas within developments entering the culverts, find their easiest pathways through housing areas and down highways. Following a relatively dry period from 1960 to 1990, which Friederike E.L. Otto’s analysis already quoted shows increased after 2000 mainly as a result of natural variability, have probably now also increased under the influence of climate change. Flow rates in the becks have increased further and the loss of natural winter storage has brought peak flows forward causing flash floods. Not surprisingly, such excess flows cannot be accommodated in highway drains and residents tend to blame highway drain blockages for all such flooding, both when justified or not!

National policy and guidance, and Environment Agency flood mapping assumes fluvial flooding is all near large rivers, and confuses out of river flows from small becks above and within the town with surface water flooding, which technically should only refer in planning situations to water that falls on impermeable sections within a development and needs to be either allowed to infiltrate into the ground, accommodated temporarily on the site, or discharged to some form of water course or pipe.

Reality, in this and some other areas, is much more complex. Development sites have underground streams which emerge and disappear, temporary streams that escape from upland infrastructure such as railway lines and utilities infrastructure, or from changes on agricultural holdings. Local residents have knowledge of significant increases in such flows which far exceed theoretical estimates, and have resulted in step changes in flood frequency and depth.

5 Paragraphs 3.24, 4.19 South Lakeland Local Development Core Strategy; October2010
6 Friederike E.L. Otto et al 2017 Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9663
7 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 Synthesis report: priorities for the next five years: Committee on Climate Change: July 2016
8 Paragraph 1.23 South Lakeland Local Development Core Strategy; October2010

APPENDIX B

Summary of National Planning Policy and Guidance Relating To Flood Risk And Climate Change

Three simple summaries in National Planning Practice Guidance summarise the national planning policy and other statutory duties which relate to consideration of flood risk and climate change in Local Plans.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets strict tests to protect people and property from flooding which all local planning authorities are expected to follow. Where these tests are not met, national policy is clear that new development should not be allowed.
Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 7-001-20140306

“Addressing climate change is one of the core land use planning principles which the National Planning Policy Framework expects to underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. To be found sound, Local Plans will need to reflect this principle and enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework. These include the requirements for local authorities to adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change in line with the provisions and objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008, and co-operate to deliver strategic priorities which include climate change.
In addition to the statutory requirement to take the Framework into account in the preparation of Local Plans, there is a statutory duty on local planning authorities to include policies in their Local Plan designed to tackle climate change and its impacts. This complements the sustainable development duty on plan-makers and the expectation that neighbourhood plans will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises that responding to climate change is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”
Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 6-001-20140306

Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning authorities to include in their Local Plans “policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”. This will be a consideration when a Local Plan is examined.
Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 6-002-20140306

(1) Paragraphs 3.24, 4.19 South Lakeland Local Development Core Strategy, October 2010
(2) Friederike E.L. Otto et al 2017 Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9663
(3) UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 Synthesis report: priorities for the next five years: Committee on Climate Change: July 2016
(4) Paragraph 1.23 South Lakeland Local Development Core Strategy; October2010

[Regarding Location of Development – Avoiding areas of Flood Risk] SLPF suggest an initial statement of intent, followed by simple set of criteria and issues that need to be demonstrated by developers, but do not conflate or unintentionally undermine the stronger aspects of national planning policy and guidance on flooding.
[Regarding Surface Water Disposal and Designing Sustainable Drainage System measures] We consider that these two sections should be replaced by a simple list of criteria and matters which the developer will have to demonstrate, that does not undermine Planning Practice Guidance where it gives the LPA some flexibility and ensures that development will not flood or cause flooding eslewhere.
Policy DM6 should also address the locally specific sources and causes of flooding, which South Lakeland has IN ADDITION to the general national sources such as fluvial flooding near large rivers and in coastal areas.

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

In order to explain and present the views of flooded communities of South Lakeland.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

2.6.1

Yes

No

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

this response is to be viewed together with the South Lakeland Flood Partnership response to Policy DM6, which SLFP considers is not sound or and also to not be compliant with Section 19A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

This is because because it will not secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to adaptation to climate change, in particular to address flooding which is identified by the Committee on Climate Change as the key climate risk facing the UK(1) and by the South Lakeland Local Development Framework Core Strategy (October 2010) as a specific threat to South Lakeland.

( 1) UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 Synthesis report: priorities for the next five years: Committee on Climate Change: July 2016)
2 Paragraph 1.23 South Lakeland Local Development Framework Core Strategy : October 2010

We consider that while para 2.6,1 is sound in itself an further paragraph should be added explaining the sources, nature and urgency of local flood risk in South Lakeland, and the reason why strong action is required to protect lives, homes, businesses and the economy.
Unfortunately the SFRA is not yet complete, but there is enough knowledge to make a suitable statement and enable stronger regulation for the next 15 years.

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

So that the views of local flooded residents can be properly heard and understood.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM4 - Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping

Yes

No

The DPD is not positively prepared

The DPD is not justified

The DPD is not effective

The DPD is not consistent with national policy

Policy DM4 is not based on a robust and up to date evidence base as required by paragraph 73 of the NPPF. For this reason Sport England consider the policy is not positively prepared, justified, effective and is not consistent with national policy. The Open Space Sport and Recreation Study is from 2008, so almost 10 years out of date. In terms of the sport element, an assessment of need is considered to be out of date if the baseline data has not been update for more than 3 years. This is because the supply and demand for outdoor sports facilities is dependent on seasonal changes in the number and types of teams playing a particular sport. For example on just one site there might be 2 senior football pitches in season one with 4 senior football teams and in season 2 this changes to 1 senior football team with 2 junior pitches accommodating 2 senior teams and 4 junior teams. It is important to ensure there are sufficient pitches/outdoor courts of the right type and size to meet current and future demand. The 2008 evidence base has not been updated so it impossible to say whether there is a surplus of deficit of pitches, which type and where.

The Open Space Requirements element of policy DM4 only relates to new or improved provision but given there is no up to date evidence base that sets out what the needs for the different types of open space it is not clear how this policy can be implemented. In addition there is a requirement to obtain a commuted sum of £200 per bedroom for worthwhile improvements. There is no indication of what those worthwhile improvements are and what document provides the evidence to help inform what those improvements should be.

Policy DM4 has no protection element to it which means where the loss of open space is proposed there is no direction given that sets out how the LPA will apply the requirements of paragraph 74 of the NPPF and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy - Sport England is a statutory consultee on any planning application that affects a playing field.

In order to make this DPD sound Sport England suggests the following modifications are made:

1. Council commit to working with Sport England to prepare a Playing Pitch Strategy within an agreed timescale. Sport England has guidance for preparation of a Playing Pitch Strategy and other sports facilities but other types of open space fall outside of our remit. However, Sport England would suggest the whole open space assessment of need is updated. This is to comply with paragraph 73 of the NPPF.

2. Amend the policy to include a protection element that sets out how a planning application that results in the loss of open space will be determined . This is to comply with paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

3. Insert wording to make it clear that the provision of new/improved open space and the commuted sum of £200 will be informed by an up to date and robust assessment of needs.

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

Other - misc

Yes

Thank you for your notification of the 2 November 2017 in respect of the above consultation.

I have reviewed the documents and can confirm that the Coal Authority has no specific comments to make.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

I have read the guidance notes.

DM17 - Retention of Community Facilities

Yes

Yes

The Theatres Trust supports Policy DM17 as it seeks to promote and protect community and
cultural facilities, reflecting para 70 of the NPPF.

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.

DM6 - Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems

No

Thank you for seeking the views of United Utilities as part of the Local Plan preparation.

In accordance with national planning policy (specifically paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework and its predecessor PPS12), as well as the status of United Utilities Water Limited as a statutory consultee in the preparation of Development Plan Documents, we would like to continue engagement with South Lakeland District Council throughout the preparation of your planning documents.

United Utilities Limited is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker for the North West of England. This includes working with Planning Authorities on the creation of appropriate planning policies and developers on detailed proposals to most appropriately manage the impact on infrastructure.

In the full spirit of the plan-making process and in accordance with paragraph 162 of the NPPF, United Utilities remains engaged in meaningful discussions with South Lakeland District Council regarding their aspirations for future development.

United Utilities wishes to build a strong partnership with all Planning Authorities to aid sustainable development and growth within its area of operation.

We aim to proactively identify future development needs and share our information. This helps:
- ensure a strong connection between development and infrastructure planning;
- deliver sound planning strategies; and
- inform our future infrastructure investment submissions for determination by our regulator.

When preparing the Development Plan and future policies, we can most appropriately manage the impact of development on our infrastructure if development is identified in locations where infrastructure is available with existing capacity. It may be necessary to co-ordinate the delivery of development with the delivery of infrastructure in some circumstances.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
We wish to highlight to the Council and any other interested parties, the following information which should be taken into consideration and included in the final version of the document.

Summary
Moving forward, we respectfully request that South Lakeland District Council continues to consult with United Utilities during the ongoing preparation of all their planning policies and documents. We are keen to continue working in partnership with the Council to ensure that all new growth can be delivered sustainably, and with the necessary infrastructure available, in line with delivery targets.

Draft Policy DM6 –Flood Risk Management and Sustainable Drainage Systems

We request the inclusion of the following additional text within the draft policy:
On previously developed land, applicants should target a reduction of surface water discharge in accordance with the non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage produced by DEFRA. In demonstrating a reduction, applicants should include clear evidence of existing positive connections from the site with associated calculations on rates of discharge.
Whilst we note the inclusion of paragraph 2.6.3 relating to wider drainage strategies for larger development sites within the text, our preference would be for this to be included as part of the draft Policy wording.

Please notify me.

2.6.4

No

Thank you for seeking the views of United Utilities as part of the Local Plan preparation.

In accordance with national planning policy (specifically paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework and its predecessor PPS12), as well as the status of United Utilities Water Limited as a statutory consultee in the preparation of Development Plan Documents, we would like to continue engagement with South Lakeland District Council throughout the preparation of your planning documents.

United Utilities Limited is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker for the North West of England. This includes working with Planning Authorities on the creation of appropriate planning policies and developers on detailed proposals to most appropriately manage the impact on infrastructure.

In the full spirit of the plan-making process and in accordance with paragraph 162 of the NPPF, United Utilities remains engaged in meaningful discussions with South Lakeland District Council regarding their aspirations for future development.

United Utilities wishes to build a strong partnership with all Planning Authorities to aid sustainable development and growth within its area of operation.

We aim to proactively identify future development needs and share our information. This helps:
- ensure a strong connection between development and infrastructure planning;
- deliver sound planning strategies; and
- inform our future infrastructure investment submissions for determination by our regulator.

When preparing the Development Plan and future policies, we can most appropriately manage the impact of development on our infrastructure if development is identified in locations where infrastructure is available with existing capacity. It may be necessary to co-ordinate the delivery of development with the delivery of infrastructure in some circumstances.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
We wish to highlight to the Council and any other interested parties, the following information which should be taken into consideration and included in the final version of the document.

Summary
Moving forward, we respectfully request that South Lakeland District Council continues to consult with United Utilities during the ongoing preparation of all their planning policies and documents. We are keen to continue working in partnership with the Council to ensure that all new growth can be delivered sustainably, and with the necessary infrastructure available, in line with delivery targets.

Also within the accompanying text, we suggest the following additional text, possibly included as part of paragraph 2.6.4:
When preparing the detailed layout for new development sites, the applicant should consider whether they wish to offer the site for adoption by the public sewerage undertaker. The detailed layout should be prepared with consideration of what is necessary to secure a development to an adoptable standard. This is important as drainage design can be a key determining factor of site levels and layout. When discharging to a watercourse, the detail of the design of a development should ensure that it is possible to achieve a discharge to watercourse having regard to the level of the outfall necessary to meet the requirements of the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Environment Agency and the public sewerage undertaker.

Please notify me.

DM7 - Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality

No

Thank you for seeking the views of United Utilities as part of the Local Plan preparation.

In accordance with national planning policy (specifically paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework and its predecessor PPS12), as well as the status of United Utilities Water Limited as a statutory consultee in the preparation of Development Plan Documents, we would like to continue engagement with South Lakeland District Council throughout the preparation of your planning documents.

United Utilities Limited is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker for the North West of England. This includes working with Planning Authorities on the creation of appropriate planning policies and developers on detailed proposals to most appropriately manage the impact on infrastructure.

In the full spirit of the plan-making process and in accordance with paragraph 162 of the NPPF, United Utilities remains engaged in meaningful discussions with South Lakeland District Council regarding their aspirations for future development.

United Utilities wishes to build a strong partnership with all Planning Authorities to aid sustainable development and growth within its area of operation.

We aim to proactively identify future development needs and share our information. This helps:
- ensure a strong connection between development and infrastructure planning;
- deliver sound planning strategies; and
- inform our future infrastructure investment submissions for determination by our regulator.

When preparing the Development Plan and future policies, we can most appropriately manage the impact of development on our infrastructure if development is identified in locations where infrastructure is available with existing capacity. It may be necessary to co-ordinate the delivery of development with the delivery of infrastructure in some circumstances.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
We wish to highlight to the Council and any other interested parties, the following information which should be taken into consideration and included in the final version of the document.

Summary
Moving forward, we respectfully request that South Lakeland District Council continues to consult with United Utilities during the ongoing preparation of all their planning policies and documents. We are keen to continue working in partnership with the Council to ensure that all new growth can be delivered sustainably, and with the necessary infrastructure available, in line with delivery targets.

Draft Policy DM7 – Addressing Pollution, Contamination Impact, and Water Quality

United Utilities’ strong preference is for development to take place outside of any Environment Agency designated Groundwater Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1). Accordingly, we recommend the following specific policy is included within the emerging Local Plan Part 3 in regards to groundwater protection:

New development sites are more appropriately located away from locations which are identified as Groundwater Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1). Groundwater is a vital resource, supplying around one third of mains drinking water in England, however groundwater supplies are under pressure from development associated with an increasing population. The details of groundwater protection zones can be viewed on the website of the Environment Agency.

Any proposals for new development within Groundwater Source Protection Zones must accord with Environment Agency guidance set out in its document titled ‘Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3) August 2013’, or any subsequent iteration of the guidance.

New development within Groundwater Source Protection Zones will be expected to conform to the following:

MASTERPLANNING – careful masterplanning is required to mitigate the risk of pollution to public water supply and the water environment. For example, open space should be designed so it is closest to the boreholes so as to minimise the potential impact on groundwater. In addition, an appropriate management regime will be secured for open space features in the groundwater protection zone.

RISK ASSESSMENT - a quantitative and qualitative risk assessment and mitigation strategy with respect to groundwater protection will be required to manage the risk of pollution to public water supply and the water environment. The risk assessment should be based on the source-pathway-receptor methodology. It shall identify all possible contaminant sources and pathways for the life of the development and provide details of measures required to mitigate any risks to groundwater and public water supply during all phases of the development. The mitigation measures shall include the highest specification design for the new foul and surface water sewerage systems (pipework, trenches, manholes, pumping stations and attenuation features).

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN - Construction Management Plans will be required to identify the potential impacts from all construction activities on both groundwater, public water supply and surface water and identify the appropriate mitigation measures necessary to protect and prevent pollution of these waters.

Within Source Protection Zone 1, pipework and site design will be required to adhere to a high specification to ensure that leakage from sewerage systems is avoided.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

Other - misc

Yes

National Grid has appointed Amec Foster Wheeler to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf.

We have reviewed the above consultation document and can confirm that National Grid has no comments to make in response to this consultation.

Please notify me.

I have read the guidance notes.

2.1.7

Yes

Yes

The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority welcomes the policy protections afforded to the special qualities and setting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park (Policy DM1, Criterion 8). Paragraph 2.1.7 could however be broadened in scope, since it only refers to the visual and landscape quality implications of the policy. Since the policy makes reference to both setting and 'special qualities', para 2.1.7 should reflect this. 'Special qualities' is short hand for a range of important characteristics, including the historic/cultural environment, wildlife, and less tangible qualities such as tranquillity, all of which could be affected by development taking place outside the National Park boundary. The special qualities are defined in Appendix 2 of the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2015-30).

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me.