26 responses.
1. Mr. Roger Cartwright (Individual) : 26 Nov 2018 12:44:00
Please make your comments in the box below. When referring to the schedule, please include the appropriate reference number e.g. MM1_AONB.
The main and minor modifications all seem to be sensible changes.
I hope that implementation and enforcement of existing transgressions (specifically expansion of caravan sites and adverising) will be given a high priority to provide a level playing field for everyone.
2. Mr & Mrs Edward Craker (Individual) : 29 Nov 2018 11:56:00
I refer to the AONB DPD Policies Map- Inset Map Book. In particular Inset 4: Storth.
I am pleased to see that the Key Settlement Landscape Area B79 has been extended eastwards by the addition of area B77A.
The southern end of B77A extends eastwards to abut the wood. North of this however, extending as far as B81 there remains an area of undesignated white land. This seems anomalous, and I can see no reason for not including this area of white land as Key Settlement Landscape.
I therefore propose, as a modification, that the area of white land north of B77A and south of B81 be designated as Key Settlement Landscape.
3. Mrs Patricia Dracup (Individual) : 19 Nov 2018 14:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
4. Mr Geoffrey Dracup (Individual) : 21 Nov 2018 09:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
5. Mr Mark Hallam (Individual) : 31 Oct 2018 09:58:00
I would like to object to the change to AS06 4.3.11
I own land within the AONB that has been included in the DPD as a KSL without my knowledge and therefore with no consultation.
The land is listed under MM6_AONB at S258 - namely Land at Hawthorn Bank, Cove Road, Silverdale. This land is clearly boundaries on 3 sides by residential developments which consist mainly of 1960s bungalows. This land has historically been garden curtilage for my house and was used as a vegetable and fruit garden, it has recently been used as a horse turn out.
Other parcels of land whose owners have presumably been consulted have had their land excluded from the KSL designation - this is despite them having more bearing to the statement I quote below.
The protection of Key Settlement Landscapes is important for their visual and amenity value but also for the wider role that these areas perform, contributing to the distinctive characters of the AONB’s settlements, to the wider AONB landscape and to the Special Qualities of the AONB.
This is an opportunity for me to question why my land was included without consultion with myself. It is obvious that this parcel of land adds no importance to visual or amenity and its character is completly different to land owned by the National Trust that is to the west of it.
I would ask that my land designated S258 be removed from the MM6_AONB KSL designation as it clearly does not comply with the description and also as I was never consulted on its inclusion.
6. Mrs Shirley Pyzniuk (Individual) : 3 Dec 2018 20:10:00
MM14_AONB
Amount of development: Maximum of 6 dwellings
Reason- The current landowner originally wanted to build 32 houses on the field, unless a maximum is specified the number of properties developed may increase significantly purely in pursuit of profit.
Point IV states “widening of Hollins Lane and the provision of a footway alongside it” this would mean the complete removal of the hedgerow. It is not clear how much of Hollins Lane would be affected, it would be difficult to widen the whole of the lane. Would widening the lane turn it into a road thus changing the character completely. Should the lane be widened along its length several residents would inevitably need to park on the road thus negating any safety aspect of widening the lane.
There is a need to protect and enhance public views across, through and out of the site particularly towards the north east this view would almost certainly be blocked by a new hedgerow and trees of appropriate species and species mix planted to form a new, robust and defensible boundary to the north! Each statement contradicts the other! If there is a genuine desire to maintain the views perhaps the development should be sited at the north end of the field which is much lower and will consequently detract little from the current view.
7. Mr Tim Pyzniuk (Individual) : 5 Dec 2018 10:54:00
MM14_AONB
Amount of development: Should be a maximum of 6 dwellings
The land on Hollins Lane is designated as an important open space, even building 6 house will spoil the tapestry of the AONB. The original plan was to build 32 houses on the field, unless a maximum is specified the number of properties developed may increase significantly purely in pursuit of profit.
Point IV states “widening of Hollins Lane and the provision of a footway alongside it” this would mean the complete removal of the hedgerow. It is not clear how much of Hollins Lane would be affected, it would be difficult to widen the whole of the lane. Should the lane be widened along its length several residents would inevitably need to park on the road thus negating any safety aspect gained by widening the lane. Widening the lane would turn it into a road thus changing the character completely and may cause an increase in the number of vehicles and the speed they travel at.
There is a need to protect and enhance public views across, through and out of the site particularly towards the north east, this view would almost certainly be blocked by a new hedgerow and trees of appropriate species and species mix planted to form a new, robust and defensible boundary to the north! Each statement contradicts the other! Building houses along the length of the hedgerow will completely deprive residents and visitors to the area of the views that have been recognised as important. It is highly unlikely that anyone will stand in the lane to look down peoples driveways to take in the vista.
8. Mr Keith Reed (Individual) : 28 Nov 2018 19:51:00
I am making my comments on the Minor Modifications, rather than the Main Modifications, here because there does not appear to be anywhere else to do so.
I wish to object to Proposed Minor Modification MIN43_AONB in relation to ‘Inset 3: Silverdale – Part of Key Settlement Landscape S260 removed’. I do not object to the deletion proposed but object on the basis that it fails to delete enough of S260 from the area defined. I propose that the Minor Modification be extended to delete all of S260, with the exception of the two fields to the south of S258 and west of S261 (south of Bradshawgate Farm) and the single field at the southern end of S260 (known as ‘The Lots’).
In summary the reason for this is that this land does not meet the criteria for the definition of a Key Settlement Landscape and that the inconsistency thereby introduced threatens to devalue the protection provided by KSLs, potentially leading to an implication that other areas of private open space adjoining Silverdale are of less value than the bulk of S260.
The nature and function of Key Settlement Landscapes is set out in modified text 4.3.2. It states that KSLs are areas within the settlements, that they bring the countryside into the settlements and that they all form an important part of the distinctive character of the settlements within which they lie.
KSL 260 is a significant tract of land in the ownership of the National Trust but does not for the most part lie within the settlement of Silverdale. Apart from at its northern and southern end, it does not bring the countryside into the settlement of Silverdale. It is significantly larger than the largest area of KSL in Arnside (A18/19 together with A22-24 and A12) and differs from it in that it is not surrounded an all sides by built development.
I am very familiar with views of this land and it is more remote than the other KSLs proposed for Silverdale (including the adjoining KSLs S258, S261 and S54) and than those in Arnside. When viewed from Cove Lane, Cove Road, and Birch Drive as well as from the footpath across the Lots, it appears as open countryside, no different in character from land east of St. Johns Avenue or west of Lindeth Road. Moreover the area is not under threat from development since it is National Trust ownership and so allocation as a KSL is unnecessary.
9. Ms Lucy Barron, Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership : 6 Dec 2018 16:16:00
Thank you for consulting the Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership on the Main Modifications for the AONB Development Plan Document.
I confirm that the AONB Partnership is in overall support of the main modifications.
We consider the robust and detailed policy approach taken in the Document to be essential to its soundness and fully justified because of the area’s national landscape importance, many other significances and high sensitivity. We consider the approach to be consistent with national policy, the statutory purpose of AONB designation and the AONB Management Plan.
Yours sincerely
Lucy Barron
Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership Manager
10. Mr John Copestake, Bourne Leisure, C/o Lichfields : 6 Dec 2018 11:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
11. Holgate Caravan Parks , C/o Steven Abbott Associates : 6 Dec 2018 09:50:00
Arnside & Silverdale AONB / AONB DPD Main Modifications Consultation - MM8_AONB
These representations are submitted on behalf of Holgates Caravan Parks.
They primarily relate to MM8_AONB which in turn relates to draft policy Policy AS11 – Camping, Caravan and Visitor Accommodation.
It was our understanding from discussions at the hearing sessions that the LPA were to discuss the amendments to this policy with us before the main modifications were published. This did not occur and the modifications that are currently proposed to the policy do not address the concerns that have been raised on behalf of our client.
The previous comments raised on behalf of our client during the examination process are not addressed by the proposed main modifications. Our view remains that in its present form policy AS11 cannot be considered sound due to its overly restrictive nature.
In terms of MM8_AONB, the first change is to replace the word ‘screened’ with ‘developed’. Notwithstanding our issues with the principle of policy AS11, this change is welcomed because it accepts that parts of sites which are not currently screened could potentially be redeveloped.
The modification also introduces a requirement for any redevelopment within existing caravan parks to be submitted as part of master-planned improvements for the whole site and introduces a number of criteria that any masterplan should cover. We have significant concerns about this modification because it places an onerous burden on operators looking at any, even minor, redevelopment of an existing site, or part of a site.
The modifications proposed do not address our client’s concerns about the overly restrictive nature of the policy. As set out previously, our client is one of the largest employers within the AONB and to ensure the future sustainability of the operations, it is vital that there is scope for their sites to adapt to changing markets and requirements. The concern is that the policy as currently proposed could impact on our client’s ability to do this and therefore threaten the long term future of their interests.
12. Russell Armer , c/o Steven Abbott Associates LLP : 6 Dec 2018 13:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
13. Mr Tim Bettany-Simmons, Canal & River Trust : 6 Dec 2018 10:07:00
Thank you for your consultation on Arnside & Silverdale AONB DPD - Main Modifications.
The Lancaster canal passes to the east and outside of the area covered by the DPD. Having reviewed the main modifications the Trust have no comments to make.
Kind regards
Tim Bettany-Simmons BA (HONS), MSc, MRTPI
Area Planner / Cynlluniwr Ardal
14. Sir / Madam , Cumbria County Council - Infrastructure Planning Team : 6 Dec 2018 12:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
15. Mr Jeremy Pickup, Environment Agency : 22 Nov 2018 15:34:00
Our ref: NO/2017/109701/OT-03/PO1-L01
Thank you for your consultation request which was received on 25 October 2018.
The Environment Agency has no comments to make on the Main Modifications to the AONB Development Plan Document and associated Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Pickup
Planning Advisor - Sustainable Places
16. Mrs Lindsay Alder, Highways England : 6 Dec 2018 10:19:00
Thanks you for consulting Highways England on the Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Development Plan Document.
I have reviewed the modifications in relation to this consultation and can confirm that Highways England have no comments to make on the documents.
Kind regards,
Ryan Billinge
Assistant Asset Manager
17. Ms Barbara Hooper, Historic England : 10 Dec 2018 12:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
18. Mrs Joanne Harding, Home Builders Federation (HBF) : 4 Dec 2018 09:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
19. Mr Andrew Curtis, Lancashire County Council : 31 Oct 2018 10:13:00
The school Planning Team received notification from SLDC informing all those concerned of the council's combined consultation with Lancaster City Council Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Development Plan Document (AONB DPD) – Consultation on Main Modifications. After reviewing the documents presented conclude there is no requirement of comment from Lancashire County Council School Planning Team.
We would like to thank the councils for the opportunity to respond, the level of potential development in the area does not impact the education provision the area, and will continue to monitor the situation.
Regards
School Planning Team
20. Mr Joseph Smithyman , Marine Management Organisation : 4 Dec 2018 11:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
21. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 29 Nov 2018 15:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
22. Sir / Madam , Network Rail : 4 Dec 2018 10:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Thank you for the opportunity for Network Rail to comment on the ‘Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Development Plan Document (AONB DPD) – Consultation on Main Modifications’ consultation (MM5.3.7).
Allocation AS23 (A26/A27) - Station Yard, Arnside – includes land which Network Rail has an interest in. It is understood that this land was previously subject to a licence being granted to the council, which was requested to Network Rail last year to be put on a more permanent lease. However, it is my understanding that the council did not pursue the lease. A plan is attached with the leased area marked in hatched pink.
In light of the above it may be the case that Network Rail has a shred value interest in any development on the site.
In addition to the above, Network Rail wished to communicate general comments from an Asset Protection perspective in relation to this site:
Asset Protection general comment
1. Prior to commencement Network Rail will need to be in receipt of a signed Basic Asset Protection Agreement (BAPA) in place. This is to cover costs of reviews of Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) and any associated on-site supervision by Network Rail. The RAMS would need to be accepted by Network Rail prior to commencement of works on site.
a) Risk and Method Statements to be accepted by Network Rail:-
b) Works to install new fencing.
c) Excavation works
d) Footpath construction
I would be happy to discuss the above in further detail if needed.
Kind regards,
Michael Gradwell
Town Planner | Property
Network Rail
23. Mr Carl Bunnage, North Yorkshire County Council : 21 Nov 2018 09:38:00
Thank you for consulting North Yorkshire County Council on the Main Modifications of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty DPD.
Having reviewed the documentation, as an officer response, there would not appear to be a matters which impact upon North Yorkshire County Council and therefore I have no comments to make.
Yours sincerely,
Michelle Saunders
Senior Policy Officer
24. Miss Rachael A Bust, The Coal Authority : 29 Nov 2018 15:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
(4) Arnside and Silverdale AONB Development Plan Document - Main Modifications Consultation
Following the policy consultation on 25 October 2018, please find attached our comments relating to the above policy. [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised, please contact us.
Regards
Planning and Local Authority Liaison team
25. Miss Rachael A Bust, The Coal Authority : 10 Dec 2018 12:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
(4a) Arnside and Silverdale AONB Development Plan Document - Main Modifications (Sustainability Appraisal) Consultation
Following the policy consultation on 25 October 2018, please find attached our comments relating to the above policy. [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised, please contact us.
Regards
Planning and Local Authority Liaison team
26. Ms Jenny Hope, United Utilities Limited : 6 Dec 2018 15:48:00
Thank you for consulting United Utilities on the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD - Consultation on Main Modifications (October 2018). I can advise that United Utilities has reviewed the document and we are pleased to see incorporation into the document of the encouragement to contact United Utilities to discussion water supply needs and/or drainage proposals at the earliest opportunity, prior to submitting a planning application.
We have no further comments to make on the proposed modifications to the AONB DPD, however we would like to take the opportunity to request GIS layers of the allocations proposed in this plan, together with an attributes table that shows proposed dwelling numbers for each site, and a housing trajectory/expected date of delivery (if you have this information). This is very useful for our investment planning, to ensure that we have adequate water and wastewater infrastructure to meet development aspirations.
I would be grateful if you could continue to contact United Utilities on any future consultations or updates on the AONB DPD. Don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any enquiries for United Utilities.
Kind regards
Gemma
Gemma Gaskell
Town Planner
Developer Services & Metering
Network Delivery
United Utilities