22 responses.
1. Mr David John Prescott (Individual) : 6 Dec 2018 16:08:00
Please make your comments in the box below. When referring to the schedule, please include the appropriate reference number e.g. MM1.
Please find the following observation on the DPD Minor Modifications document ref: MIN05
OBJECTION TO MIN05
Inclusion of the Core Strategies, Saved Local Plans and unamended Land Allocations DPD dated Dec 2013 for use within the National Parks until replaced by new Local Plans.
This paragraph should be reviewed or amended for the following reasons:
Under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)(England) Regulations, Regulation 10A, Local Plans must be reviewed every 5 years.
There is no evidence that any robust, in-depth, review has been undertaken for land allocations that are now included in the extended National Parks.
HM Inspector when reviewing the Land Allocation DPD made specific reference to National Parks - Inspector’s Matters (Ex005B) Par 2.1 “Does it take proper account of circumstances and strategies beyond the district’s planning boundaries, and the possibility of the National Parks expanding within the district?”
The 2012 edition of the NPPF Par 115 states: “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in national Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in National Parks and the Broads”.
The Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs’ decision letter concerning the National Park extensions was issued on 23 October 2015. Within it she used the phraseology (Par 14b) “The Order should take effect from 1st August 2016 to permit local arrangements to be made to transfer the planning role and address the make-up of the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA).”
Determination by Natural England that at least one of the sites in the SLDC Land Allocation Plan is a “Priority Habitat” - as described in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland. This contravenes SLDC’s own extant Core Policy CS8.4: “Development proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally, sub-regional, regional and local designated site and non-protected sites that are considered to have geological and biodiversity value, will not be permitted unless: They cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm”
The Lake District National Park has received UNESCO status as a World Heritage Site: this is a material consideration in LDNPA planning decisions.
The LDNPA Local Plan has been delayed and is unlikely to have completed its review and inspection before October 2019 – some 4 years after the Secretary of States’ Order and almost 6 years after the publication of the land allocation DPD. In the context of a statutory 5-year review period, this delay is unacceptable.
It is suggested that, in order to protect the Lake District National Park and to comply with extant and proposed policies in addition to the National Policy Planning Framework, the paragraph should read: “Within the areas of the National Parks, the relevant extant National Park Local Plans and Policies will be applied until such time as they are revised”.
David Prescott
2. Mr John Copestake, Bourne Leisure, C/o Lichfields : 6 Dec 2018 11:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
3. Mr Tom Whitehead, Brookhouse Group : 6 Dec 2018 16:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
We write in relation to the above-referenced consultation. We acknowledge that some of the comments relate to matters outside of the track-changes, we believe them to be of sufficient implication to the DPD that they should be carefully considered prior to adoption of the policy. The representation comprises this email as well as the attached draft amendments [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT].
In relation to the track changes:
• Policy DM11 itself: the changes to text set out in the attached Word document are requested, to place the correct emphasis on the balanced judgement the LPA will make between according with Policy DM11, and ensuring schemes remain deliverable
Matters outside of the track-changes:
In relation to paragraph 4.1.4, we are concerned that the LPA may be placing themselves in an untenable (and perhaps unlawful) positon:
• The application of M4(2) and M4(3) Building Control standards under planning Policy DM11 may mean that modifications are necessary to the development applied for: modifications which may be material for the LPA (and its consultees) to pay regard to: matters such as levels, for example. There are instances, such as in an area of flood risk, where these judgements may go to the heart of the planning judgement. There may be instances therefore where the correct application (or otherwise) of DM11 can not be lawfully dealt with by matter of a condition. Given this, it would be necessary for a Development Management officer of the LPA to establish beyond doubt, prior to determination of an application, whether a scheme accords with of M4(2) and M4(3) Building Control standards under Policy DM11, or not.
• At present, paragraph 4.1.4 proposes that a planning officer will be tasked with determining whether the dwelling designs submitted ‘accord with the optional standards’. It is our contention that a Development Management officer of the LPA is not qualified to form this judgement. Normally, in order to ensure compliance with Building Regulations M4(2) and M4(3), a Building Control officer would be commissioned to undertake a “Plans Check”. A Plans Check process is time-consuming and expensive: a large scheme would cost in the order of tens of thousands of pounds. It follows therefore that, in the absence of a Plans Check undertaken by a professional Building Control officer, the Development Management officer can not lawfully come to a judgement of compliance, or otherwise.
• In the even the Development Management officer forms a judgement without the opinon of a Building Control officer, it would appear that the Development Management officer would be acting Ultra-Vires.
• In the event the LPA grants planning permission, it is our contention that the LPA is effectively granting Building Regulations approval for matters pertaining to M4(2) and M4(3); it is hard to see how any other interpretation could be arrived at. This would relate to legislation outside of the Planning Acts, and would be Ultra-Vires.
• Further: in the event a planning permission is granted with M4(2) and M4(3) related conditions applied, it is not clear from the policy or supporting text how a judgment will be made towards discharge of those conditions. The obvious consultee would be the Building Control officer, but in the event that the Building Control officer is acting unreasonably, who makes the judgement towards ‘reasonableness’?
Yours sincerely,
Tom Whitehead MRTPI MCIPR
Brookhouse Group
4. Russell Armer , c/o Steven Abbott Associates LLP : 6 Dec 2018 13:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
5. Mr Tim Bettany-Simmons, Canal & River Trust : 6 Dec 2018 10:08:00
Thank you for your consultation on the Main Modifications to the Development Management Policies DPD.
Having reviewed the schedule of modifications the Canal & River Trust have no comments to make.
Kind regards
Tim Bettany-Simmons BA (HONS), MSc, MRTPI
Area Planner / Cynlluniwr Ardal
6. 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]
7. Mr Jeremy Pickup, Environment Agency : 22 Nov 2018 10:48:00
Our ref: NO/2017/109701/OT-02/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 schedule of Main Modifications to the Development Management Development Plan documents, addendum to the Sustainability Appraisal and updated Habitats Regulations Assessment.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Pickup
Planning Advisor - Sustainable Places
8. Mrs Lorayne Woodend Wall, Friends of the Lake District : 21 Nov 2018 12:15:00
MM1
Friends of the Lake District welcomes the inclusion of the requirement for it to be demonstrated through proportionate landscape assessments that developments will not have adverse effects upon the landscape character and visual amenity of the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks and the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, at DM1 point 9, we suggest that the relevant landscape character evidence for the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks is also referred to along with those for the Arnside & Silverdale AONB and the rest of Cumbria. This is because views into and out of these areas must be taken into account as stated in the policy, but also because the character areas identified in the Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment in particular straddle the boundary of the Park in places and re therefore relevant to areas covered by the DM DPD. This will also better reflect new para. 2.1.8, which specifically refers to the setting of both National Parks.
MM4
Friends of the Lake District welcomes the inclusion of references to specifically include biodiversity and habitats as part of this Main Modification but has concerns about the removal from DM4 of reference to qualitative gains. It is unclear why this reference has been dropped.
- Increasing the quantity of GI is of much less value if the existing and/or the new GI is of poor quality
- There will be cases where a qualitative net gain can be achieved (by improving the quality of an existing GI feature) on a site where a quantitative gain is not possible due to space etc. Referring only to quantitative gains only rules out this option and so creates a loop-hole allowing no gains at all.
- Dropping the reference to qualitative gains at the top of the second section of DM4 is also confusing because references to ‘the enhancement/increased functionality of existing assets’ and ‘improved management or restoration of existing habitat’ (both of which are qualitative gains – an improvement in quality rather than extent) have been added in to the policy, suggesting that qualitative gains are still sought. As such, it is not clear what value there is in making the amendment to remove reference to qualitative gains and we suggest reinstating the reference for clarity and to ensure a comprehensive policy.
9. Mr Christopher Garner, Garner Planning : 6 Dec 2018 11:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
10. Mrs Lindsay Alder, Highways England : 6 Dec 2018 10:20:00
Thanks you for consulting Highways England on the main modifications of the Development Management Policies 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
11. Ms Barbara Hooper, Historic England : 4 Dec 2018 16:08:00
Thank you for consulting Historic England on the South Lakeland Local Plan: Development Management Policies DPD Main Modifications, and the Addendum to the Sustainability Appraisal. As the Government’s statutory adviser on all matters relating to the historic environment in England, 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.
Historic England has reviewed the consultation document, and supports the proposed amendments to the Local Plan. We are also satisfied with the conclusions on the updated Sustainability Appraisal.
We hope that these comments are helpful, but please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further information.
Yours sincerely
Barbara Hooper
Principal, Historic Places Team
12. Mrs Joanne Harding, Home Builders Federation (HBF) : 4 Dec 2018 09:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
13. Ms Elizabeth Richardson, Kendal Town Council : 6 Dec 2018 11:47:00
Kendal Town Council Planning Committee note their general approval of the modification made to the DPD and sees them as being in line with both recommendations and practicalities. They also seek to address out-of-date discrepancies. The Committee notes with approval the specifics of the controls put in place.
Kendal Town Council
14. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 5 Nov 2018 11:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
15. Mr Carl Bunnage, North Yorkshire County Council : 21 Nov 2018 09:52:00
Thank you for consulting North Yorkshire County Council on the proposed Main Modifications to the South Lakeland Development Management Policies DPD.
Officers have reviewed the documentation, and do not consider that the proposed Modifications raise any strategic cross boundary issues for North Yorkshire.
Yours sincerely,
Michelle Saunders
Senior Policy Officer
16. Mr Peter Hopkins, Pegasus Group : 6 Dec 2018 15:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
17. Mr Jonathan Petrie, Petrie Design Ltd : 6 Dec 2018 16:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
18. Mrs Maggie Mason, South Lakes Flood Partnership : 6 Dec 2018 14:48:00
Policy DM6: The policy as now amended is both more understandable, and
more effective in preventing flooding, and therefore responding to climate change .
I therefore consider this policy to be sound. Many thanks for the consideration of our previous comments
19. Miss Rachael A Bust, The Coal Authority : 6 Dec 2018 10:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
20. A R Yarwood, The National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups : 5 Dec 2018 09:24:00
Main changes to Management Policies DPD
I write to offer comment on the above. We stand by our previous comments, which were that, whilst we welcome the introduction of the new policy DM26 to deal with proposed Traveller sites we question the limitation that this should only apply to persons meeting the strict definition as set out in PPTS. To do so will mean that the needs of elderly Travellers who are no longer in a position to gain employment, will not be met.
We also question the need to include “other community facilities in criterion 3. This introduces unnecessary vagueness. No other community facilities are needed.
The phrase “large vehicles” in criterion 6 is also too vague. Most Travellers only use relatively small pick-up trucks which cannot be described as large vehicles.
Without these changes we do not consider the plan to be sound as it will not be effective in meeting the needs of the Travelling community.
Yours sincerely,
A. R. Yarwood
21. Mr. Christopher Rowley, Westmorland & Lonsdale Green Party : 5 Dec 2018 21:01:00
Overall Comment Whilst we support most of the modifications we wish to express concern that the urgency of climate change is not adequately mentioned overall. In the last 5 years it has become evident that there will be significant impacts in our area. Given that, we feel the planning system needs to recognise that some developments (particularly those which are energy related) have significantly negative effects on the atmosphere whilst others have significantly positive effects. Planners need to ability to recognise this distinction in making decisions and the DPD does not always offer the structure required to do so.
MM1-4, pages 27-35.
We recognise that the DPD excludes the two national parks but landscape character doesn't recognise man-made boundaries and the two national park assessments are, in our opinion, still relevant.
MM1 and MM4 – We welcome and support the inclusion and strengthening of the of net gain principles for biodiversity and green and blue infrastructure.
MM1 – Policy DM1, point 9: We recommend the addition to the bullet point list of landscape assessments to be taken account of: Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines (2008) or its successor documents and the Yorkshire Dales National Park Landscape Assessment. These needs to be included to ensure that the Landscape assessments of the National Parks are taken account of as well as the Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment and Toolkit. Taking account of the National Park Landscape Assessments will ensure that the special qualities, settings and views in and out are fully understood and addressed in a development proposal.
DM6 Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage Systems page 36
It is noted that this section aligns with the National Planning and Policy Framework and its purpose is to ensure that existing and new development is not exposed to flood risk and to prioritise the promotion of Sustainable Drainage Systems .
It is noted that the policy requires drainage solutions to comply with DEFRA non statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems .
The amendments to this policy are supported, as they appear to support the reduction of flood risk by better management and treatment of surface and foul water and consideration of watercourses and flood defences .
We note the addition of new policy requirements relating to master drainage systems:
Master Drainage Strategy (page 37)
Proposed modification : "Applications for developments on sites which are part of a wider development proposal, especially wider development plan allocations, will be expected to demonstrate how the drainage proposal for the site relates to a wider master drainage strategy for the entire site. Any drainage in early phases of development should have regard to future interconnecting development phases."
Our comment : While this addition is welcome, we would propose this could be extended to requiring developments which are in close proximity to each other in order to show how the drainage infrastructure interconnects.
Habitats Regulating Assessment of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies.
Modifications to the Policy Document
DM1
P.109
Our main comment is that they appear to be strengthening of protection and conservation of habitats and diversity, but retain the ability to use caveats in certain cases by “a competent authority” We are not sure who that would be in this instance – a Minister?
There is no mention of climate change in the modifications and barely in the main report. The whole piece is written as if it’s “business as usual” whereas there will be significant changes to habitats resulting from climate change in the coming years.
22. Ms Lucy Bartley, Wood Plc on behalf of National Grid : 29 Nov 2018 15:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]