6 responses from Mr John Copestake, Bourne Leisure, C/o Lichfields
1. Mr John Copestake, Bourne Leisure, C/o Lichfields : 19 Dec 2017 12:52:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes.
Policy Reference
DM1 - General Requirements for all development
1.1 Do you consider the DM DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the DM DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO, please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound.
The DPD is not positively prepared
The DPD is not justified
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
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.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording on any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
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”
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
2.2 If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to full state our case.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, when recommendations are published and when the document is adopted.
Please notify me.
2. Mr John Copestake, Bourne Leisure, C/o Lichfields : 19 Dec 2017 12:55:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes.
Policy Reference
DM4 - Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping
1.1 Do you consider the DM DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the DM DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO, please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound.
The DPD is not positively prepared
The DPD is not justified
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
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.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording on any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
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.”
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
2.2 If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to fully state our case.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, when recommendations are published and when the document is adopted.
Please notify me.
3. Mr John Copestake, Bourne Leisure, C/o Lichfields : 19 Dec 2017 12:58:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes.
Policy Reference
DM8 - High Speed Broadband for New Developments
1.1 Do you consider the DM DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the DM DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO, please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound.
The DPD is not justified
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
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.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording on any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
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.”
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
2.2 If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to fully state our case.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, when recommendations are published and when the document is adopted.
Please notify me.
4. Mr John Copestake, Bourne Leisure, C/o Lichfields : 19 Dec 2017 13:01:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes.
Policy Reference
DM18 - Tourist accomodation
1.1 Do you consider the DM DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the DM DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO, please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound.
The DPD is not positively prepared
The DPD is not justified
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
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.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording on any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
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,”
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
2.2 If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to full state our case.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, when recommendations are published and when the document is adopted.
Please notify me.
5. Mr John Copestake, Bourne Leisure, C/o Lichfields : 19 Dec 2017 13:02:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes.
Policy Reference
DM21 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Development
1.1 Do you consider the DM DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the DM DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO, please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound.
The DPD is not positively prepared
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
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.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording on any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
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.”
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
2.2 If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to fully state our case.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, when recommendations are published and when the document is adopted.
Please notify me.
6. Mr John Copestake, Bourne Leisure, C/o Lichfields : 19 Dec 2017 13:05:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes.
Policy Reference
DM26 - Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
1.1 Do you consider the DM DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the DM DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO, please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound.
The DPD is not justified
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
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.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording on any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
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”
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
2.2 If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to fully state our case.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, when recommendations are published and when the document is adopted.
Please notify me.
