key objections to the conformity of the sldc land

1

Key Objections to the conformity of the

SLDC Land Allocation Development Plan

Document (LADPD) with the National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

July 2012

July 2012

Email

[email protected]

Web

www.gadag.org.uk

http://www.gadag.org.uk/

2

GADAG Overview

Grange and District Action Group (GADAG) is a community-based resident’s organisation. Our

objective is to promote sustainable community-led development in Grange over Sands and across

the wider Cartmel Peninsular in South Cumbria.

GADAG seeks to provide objective public scrutiny of local development plans to ensure that they

deliver a sustainable framework for economic growth in our communities.

GADAG was formed by members of the public specifically in response to concerns that despite

numerous consultation exercises, South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) have largely ignored the

representations of individuals, groups, parish and town councils where they were critical as to the

viability and soundness of plans that comprise the current local development framework.

We work hard to combat the usual prejudices which have been used to marginalise the views of

respondents who have been critical of SLDC planning proposals.

GADAG is affiliated to a regional coalition of resident groups across South Lakeland, The Green

Spaces Group who campaign to promote better consultation between the Local Planning Authority

and communities where this has been deemed to be so far ineffective.

GADAG / Green Spaces Group consult with Town and Parish Councils representing Principal and Key

Service Centres who are concerned about the existing land allocation plan. In addition, consultation

is made with district councillors at SLDC who support neighbourhoods in their opposition to the

soundness of the current DPD, and county councillors who are now concerned about the

concentration of development on the Cartmel peninsular.

As a resident group we broadly endorse the new guidelines set out in the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) and the Localism Act which empowers communities to own, shape and facilitate

the economic success of their communities.

We look forward to working hand in hand with developers to provide the best outcomes for where

we live. However we feel SLDC have developed a framework that does not have residents support, it

has alienated communities and has made people resentful and suspicious of the planning process at

the very time they should be more engaged in community led planning.

3

Contents Page

1. Summary of Findings 4-5

2. Analysis 6-15

3. Appendix 16-33

4

1. Summary of findings

We would find that the land allocation plan document (LADPD) together with the

evidence base and polices which underpin it, do not conform to the requirements of

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for the reasons outlined below:

1. Housing targets are unrealistic and unsustainable over the lifetime of the plan. Regional

strategy targets no longer describe the scale of housing need in South Lakeland and are not

consistent with more up-to-date ONS population projections which are significantly lower

than those used in the core strategy 2010. The practice of incorporating annual delivery

shortfalls into the remaining plan years has already led to actual annual targets being far in

excess of those perceived as being sustainable in local communities by the inspector at the

core strategy public inquiry (2010). We expect annual shortfalls will continue to mean actual

annual targets will increase significantly from 2012 to 2025.

2. The setting of excessive housing development targets has led to the over-allocation of green

field sites where sustainability criteria has been badly assessed, relaxed, or at best

overlooked by SLDC in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) where

they have sought to demonstrate a sufficient five year (and beyond) supply of sites to

accommodate inappropriate targets. This will lead to the widespread and unsustainable use

of green field sites where they are selected in preference to previously developed land, with

the opportunity for lower relative start-up costs and higher financial returns on undeveloped

land in commercially attractive locations. We would expect SLDC to invite and endorse any

such development proposals where they are heavily reliant on early successes so that

planning policy appears credible. In demonstrating the five year land supply for example,

SLDC have excluded the Berners strategic brown field sites (M378M / R381 / R383 owned by

SLDC) in the centre of Grange over Sands, in preference to developing green field sites such

as R89, R672M and MN25M on the western outskirts of Grange. This is in direct

contravention to core strategy policy on sequential development and NPPF guidance that

town centre brown field sites are developed before edge of town green field

(environmentally sensitive) locations.

3. SLDC have failed to take a considered and holistic approach to infrastructure planning. We

are concerned that their approach is on a reactive, site by site basis rather than proactively

planning for the cumulative effect of development, particularly at Grange over Sands and on

the wider Cartmel Peninsular. Up-to-date surveys and assessments have not been carried

out to inform the plan making process.

4. Even though affordability ratios are generally improving in the current economic climate, we

fully acknowledge that the delivery of affordable housing remains a key consideration for

strategic planning policy. However we would question that the results of the Strategic

Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) has delivered an accurate assessment of need in South

Lakeland, where recommendations are based on the interpretation of results from an

unrepresentative sample of secondary data. The results also appear to be inconsistent with

evidence supporting the scale of need across the wider spectrum of social housing. For

5

instance, SLDC homeless numbers in 2009/10 show 34 applicants were accepted from 135

homeless presentations. In addition, an analysis of waiting lists for affordable rented housing

suggests that actual waiting times are quite favourable. 74 applicants were re-housed in

Grange over Sands with an average waiting time of 1.9 years (source: South Lakes Housing).

As such we would consider it necessary to undertake a more detailed and independent

assessment of affordable housing need to substantiate the findings of the SHMA carried out

by ARC4 consultants. We would also state that whilst private sector development gain

undoubtedly has a large part to play in the delivery of affordable housing, SLDC have failed

to adequately or creatively explore alternative means of meeting properly assessed needs,

such as alternative funding schemes or the re-commissioning of empty homes back into

general usage.

5. Residents of rural communities do not have the right to an ‘unencumbered view’ and should

fully support positive economic growth which includes planning for development in their

areas. However they do have the right to expect objective and apolitical decision making by

the local planning authority with respect to strategic planning policy. We feel this has not

been the case at SLDC where dominant political interest has led to the dogmatic and

misguided perusal of inflated house building targets. Lack of objectivity in this regard has

made it difficult for planners to adopt a more flexible and responsive approach which would

otherwise allow them to revise downwards predictions of need, in line with up-to-date

evidence. SLDC have stated that they have no intention of revisiting the core strategy. This

underlines that their approach to plan making is inflexible and not responsive to local need

or changing circumstances.

6. Communities are being empowered by government legislation to lead development

strategies in their area. However, SLDC have failed to embrace these changes to national

planning policy where they have ignored the varied and many objective concerns submitted

by individuals, groups and councils to the various rounds of consultation. In this regard,

communities have been marginalised and excluded from contributing to the local plan in any

meaningful way. This may give rise to what could be described as prematurity conflicts, for

example where a neighbourhood plan would seek to designate an open space where land

has already been allocated in the local plan for development. Where SLDC have refused to

engage with community concerns, it is likely that SLDC will face sustained and long term

resistance from communities to the implementation of unpopular plans as and when

development proposals arise. This is not what communities would wish for where we would

expect to participate positively in local plans so as to promote widespread acceptance of the

planning process. Instead, SLDC have promoted cynicism of and detachment from the local

plan making process.

7. The implementation of strategies outlined in the core strategy and land allocations DPD will

have a detrimental impact on the tourism industry in Grange over Sands and on the Cartmel

peninsular.

8. The community continues to reach out to SLDC to invite collaboration on a revised and more

realistic local plan, based on actual and current needs where population projections are

much lower than those that were set out in the core strategy. We would expect the local

plan to continue to evolve to ensure the core strategy / land allocation DPD remains relevant

to local need and is compliant with evolving national policy.

6

2. Analysis

The following evidence is presented in the context of specific sections and paragraphs of

the NPPF:

The Presumption in favour of sustainable development and core planning principles (Para

6-17)

Delivering a wide choice of Quality Homes (Para 47-55)

Local Plans (Para 150-157)

Using a proportionate evidence base (Para 158-177)

The local plan continues to be unsustainable in terms of the scale of development proposed in the

remaining thirteen years of the plan. The SLDC target of 400 dwellings per annum currently

translates to 536 per annum up to 2025 where cumulative shortfalls are incorporated (source SLDC -

Annual Report on Residential Monitoring for Period 1 April 2011 to 31st March 2012). Inspector P.A.

Goodman’s report into the core strategy 2010 comments in relation to a specific elevated target of

497 per annum that “in my opinion, having regard to recent delivery levels, this rate would be

unsustainable by placing too great a burden on local communities and infrastructure even if the

market conditions and building capacities were favourably inclined to deliver at this rate. In a period

of national economic downturn the latter is highly questionable..”.

We would agree with SLDC that it has set it a “highly demanding target” of 400 per annum, but

conclude based on prevailing market conditions and past delivery rates that this is unachievable and

therefore unsound. It is also incongruous that subsequent to the inspector’s findings above, that

SLDC would find it appropriate to factor into their delivery plan expected completions from 2012-13

to 2016/17 of 561 per annum and 790 per annum from 2022/23 (source SLDC AMR 2011 – published

May 2012).

Graph One illustrates that actual (purple) and average (light blue) completion rates continue to

trend below the RSS / 2010 local plan target (red) of 400 completions per annum. The shortfall

target (green) incorporates the cumulative shortfall and represents the actual annual target set by

SLDC. The completions forecast (orange) is the future rate of build predicted by SLDC in the latest

Annual Monitoring Report (published March 2012). We would contest that even with an exceptional

turnaround in economic conditions the completions rate forecast by SLDC would be unattainable

and we would echo Inspector Goodman’s findings that this rate of build would place undue burden

on communities and infrastructure. This reinforces our assertions that the setting of more realistic

targets is necessary in order to make the plan credible, sustainable and sound

7

Graph Two illustrates that in order to deliver the 8,800 dwellings as required by the plan, build rates

would have to be consistently in excess of 500 per annum until 2025. To put this into perspective,

actual completions since the plan commenced in 2003 have averaged 204 per annum. In relation to

the graph this is illustrated by the lowest scenario (200 p/a). If by way of example we were to

assume that this level of completions was to continue, it would represent an under-delivery of 4,362

dwellings by 2025 against the 8,800 target. Again, it would not seem credible or sustainable for the

average annual build rate to be more than two and a half times that of 2003-2011.

Graph One

Graph Two

8

Graph Three further highlights the issue of setting an unrealistic target of 400 dwellings per annum

in relation to the credibility of future targets where shortfalls are incorporated into the remainder of

the plan. Up to 2011/12, the plan has delivered 1,838 dwellings (Source SLDC AMR published March

2012). This leaves a shortfall of 6,962 to be completed by 2025 which sets a current actual target for

2012/13 to 2024/25 of 536 completions per annum. This position is illustrated by the baseline in the

graph. Even if we were to assume a very optimistic average build rate of around 400 per annum, in

order to keep to 8,800 by the end of the plan, target build rates would need to be around 600 per

annum by 2016/17 and around 700 per annum by 2019/20. By 2023/24, annual build rates would

need to be around 1300 dwellings per annum, or over six times the current average level of

completions.

In an attempt to meet the “highly demanding” dwelling targets SLDC has set itself, it is evident that

an oversupply of green field sites has been offered up by landowners and accepted by SLDC in

response to their initial request for potential sites. LDF planners continue to misrepresent the

sustainability of these sites in the Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) where they score

highly on availability but not on other key criteria which determine their actual sustainability. It is

wholly likely that site selection could easily be contested as being unsound against NPPF criteria. The

over allocation of green field sites will lead to the selective and preferential development of any site

where start-up costs are minimal and where it’s location ensures development margins are at their

highest (e.g. green field instead of brown field).

SLDC could reconsider contentious sites or the scale of proposed developments thereon and still

evidence an initial 5 year supply of housing land based on more realistic assessment of need and the

selection of more suitable sites. This would allow communities to adequately consider the merits of

development on sites which are considered to be of high intrinsic value to the community.

Plans do not take local circumstances into account, and therefore fail to respond to the different

opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas. When considering the

Graph Three

9

soundness of the core strategy (particularly with reference to Grange over Sands) the inspector

qualified his deliberation in stating that “(unless) proper and balanced consideration of local needs

and constraints at the Allocation of Land DPD stage (is) allowed for then the core strategy could

potentially be misleading and found unsound”.

We would assert and can provide evidence to show that by adopting the RSS target of 400 dwellings

per annum, SLDC have failed to take into account current / local evidence on population trends and

dwelling requirements. As such we would find that the over-inflated population projections

presented in the evidence base for the core strategy 2010 was misleading where it contributed to

the plan being found sound. With particular reference to population projections used in the Core

Strategy 2010 to justify the level of housing need, SLDC estimated the population of South Lakes

would grow from 105,000 to 117,000 in 2026 (including national parks). However, in more recent

reports, it makes reference to a more credible projection of 108,000 by the ONS (SLDC- AMR 2011 –

published May 2012). Where this suggests an increase of 3,000 residents (South Lakes LDF area

including National Parks), we would point to an inconsistency where the core strategy and land

allocation plans allow for an increase of (507 X 14) 7,110 dwellings (South Lakes LDF area excluding

National Parks over the period (source SLDC AMR 2011). We would not anticipate that the disparity

between the level of population growth and the number of planned dwellings could be explained by

evidence suggesting a substantial decline in household size up to 2025. SLDC show this to be 2.19 in

2010 (SLDC AMR 2011), national predictions would estimate this to be 2.16 by 2026 (Source

Household Projections to 2031, England – ONS / Communities and Local Government, Mar 2009).

Based on the population projection of 108,000 by 2025, this would provide and alternative scenario

based on household size of 2.16 by 2025 of 3000/2.16 = 1,389 dwellings required to 2025.

The planning inspectorate recommends that DPD’s should be based on what may be regarded as

normal conditions (Examining Development Plan Documents Key Points: Learning from Experience).

SLDC cannot demonstrate that normal conditions would support the production of 400 completions

per annum, let alone the current requirement of 536 completions per annum which is required to

meet the target of 8,800 by 2025.

In relation to the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2010, we would draw

attention to the fact that the level of affordable housing need identified in South Lakeland appears

inconsistent with those identified by district need surveys in adjacent planning areas. For example,

South Lakeland identifies a need for 640 per annum, compared to Allerdale: 245, Eden: 227, Carlisle:

222, Copeland: 168, and Barrow: 20. In per capita terms, South Lakeland identifies a need 1.5-3

times greater than all other areas, with the exception of Barrow, where the need per head in South

Lakes is 22 times higher. (Source: Cumbria Housing Strategy and Investment Plan 2011-15).

We believe it is fundamentally important for planning authorities to positively engage with

community groups such as ours to ensure local development plans enjoy widespread support. The

development of land allocation plans need not be controversial if consultation exercises are suitable

executed by the local planning authority. However evidence shows that despite an outward

impression of a robust consultation process, this has been nothing more than a ‘tick the box’

exercise. Respondents who have raised valid concerns have been told by SLDC that plans will be

delivered ‘regardless of any objections’.

10

SLDC have conducted a one-way presentational approach of the plans as opposed to options for

consideration by communities.

It cannot be stated either that a wide section of the community has been proactively engaged so

that the local plans so far as possible reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the

sustainable development of an area.

Despite the emphasis now placed on neighbourhood planning through localism legislation and the

NPPF, communities have been excluded from having any meaningful input into shaping local plans

which will provide the strategic framework for neighbourhood planning.

SLDC have ignored responses to consultation exercises from town and parish councils representing

principal and key service centres such as Kendal, Ulverston and Grange over Sands where they

have continued to express concerns regarding the sustainability of plans for their communities.

None of these councils found the Land Allocations DPD to be sound in the last round of

consultation conducted in spring 2012. SLDC have therefore provided misleading information in

the NPPF self-assessment checklist in order to justify an overprovision.

SLDC have failed to comply with sequential development requirements in the core strategy and

NPPF which provide for and encourages the use of land which is of lesser environmental value being

developed first. In Grange over Sands the Berners (brownfield) site has been excluded from

allocations to illustrate the five year supply. This is the only site the community fully supports and is

seen as a crucial element in the regeneration of the seafront area of Grange town centre.

SLDC fail to recognise the utility of open space which provide for the mitigation of flooding from

surface water run-off which continues to be a major issue in and around Grange.

There are insufficient strategies to meet housing need by identifying and bringing back into

residential use empty houses and buildings. According to District Council Tax Records, April 2011,

there are 1,143 properties in South Lakeland that have been unoccupied and unfurnished for over

six months (source: Cumbria Housing Strategy and Investment Plan 2011-15).

SLDC have failed to give adequate consideration for provision of infrastructure. Given the lead time

of the plan, it is surprising that so little attention has been given to this crucial element of the

exercise. Where Infrastructure plans exist, they lack substantive detail and remain broadly

aspirational and dependent on future determination. Insufficient consideration has been given to

strategic aspects of infrastructure planning with little or no regard to the cumulative effect on

settlements and pockets of development across the Cartmel Peninsular or the region as a whole.

There is a lack of detailed knowledge in SHLAA studies in relation to environmental considerations at

potential development sites. Limestone pavement protection areas, wildlife corridors and protected

species have not been rigorously investigated. This includes climate change mitigation and

adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including

landscape.

11

Building a strong, competitive economy (Para 18-22)

SLDC plans fail to support existing tourism business in South Lakes which remain the staple revenue

provider for towns such as Grange over Sands.

The plan also fails to recognise regeneration needs in Barrow (cross boundary need)

Promoting Sustainable Transport (Para 29-41)

No consideration has been given to developing credible pedestrian and cycle routes between

proposed development sites to the west of Grange over Sands and the town centre.

No details of provisions for recharging points for plug in and other ultra-low emission vehicles.

In Grange over Sands, no traffic assessment has been carried out on the cumulative effects of the

proposed developments in the area on the town centre. This is despite the clear and unambiguous

warning in the cores strategy (CS5.32) that “given the problem of town centre congestion in Grange

at peak times, significantly higher traffic could well threaten the core economic activity of the town,

namely tourism”.

In a statement published in June 2012, Cumbria County Council has expressed concern relating to

the ability to meet infrastructure provision given the scale of development in the local plan.

SLDC have excluded from the five year housing supply the Berners strategic brown field sites

(M378M / R381 / R383 owned by SLDC) in the centre of Grange over Sands, in preference to

developing green field sites such as R89, R672M and MN25M on the western outskirts of Grange.

This is in direct contravention to core strategy policy on sequential development and NPPF guidance

that town centre brown field sites are developed before edge of town green field (environmentally

sensitive and less sustainable) locations.

Promoting Healthy Communities (Para 69-78)

Plans fail to consider the lack of planning for school places. Current assessments show near to or full

capacity. There is no secondary school or further education provision in Grange over Sands.

Local communities have not been given the right to identify for special protection green areas of

particular importance to them (Local Green Space designation). For instance in relation to site R89 in

Grange over Sands, SLDC previously recognised the community request to designate this site as an

important open space (Local plan 2006). This was subsequently acknowledged in two planning

assessments for Grange over Sands produced by Douglas Wheeler Associates and Gillespies.

However SLDC now classify the land as available to meet the assessment of five year housing supply.

Protecting Green Belt Land (Para 79-92)

The lack of greenbelt designations in Cumbria should not mean that separate consideration is not

given to prevent urban sprawl between existing settlements such as to replicate the protection

afforded by greenbelts as outlined in the NPPF. SLDC policy on this matter is represented by the

designation of areas known as green gaps.

12

Where there is a green gap designation between the village of Allithwaite and Kent’s Bank / Grange

over Sands, additional emphasis should be placed on its importance to prevent further coalescence

between the settlements and to maintain wherever possible what remains of their separate

identities and the high quality and locally valued environment that is beneficial to the well-being of

residents.

Lessons should be learnt in respect to the previously unconstrained coalescence which has occurred

between Grange Over Sands and Kent’s Bank, with a view to ensure Allithwaite is not subsumed

through the application of insensitive planning policy. However, the allocations of land either side of

the green gap to the east of Allithwaite and to the West of Kent’s Bank / Grange over Sands causes

the green gap designation to be untenable. We would contend that this would not be within the

spirit of the NPPF where similar policy relates to green belts which perform the same function and

are different by name only.

SLDC should recognise that “green gaps” serve the same purpose as green belts in performing the

following functions:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.

To prevent neighbouring towns and villages merging into one another.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and villages.

To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict urban land

(brown field sites such as Berners in Grange over Sands).

Where the application of the land allocations DPD allows for the significant deterioration of green

gaps in the absence of green belt designations, it should be interpreted as having failed to meet the

criteria of green belt protection as set out in the NPPF.

Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, flooding and coastal change (Para 93-108)

Development in peripheral locations in relation to their proximity to essential services and

infrastructure will increase reliance on motor vehicle use and detract from the plans ability to

support the move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the transition to a low carbon future. It

can be demonstrated that in relation to the split and balance of housing between the key service

centres of Grange, Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale, that Grange is less well suited in terms of its

location to essential services such as a secondary school (at Cartmel where there is an unavoidable

reliance on motor transport to allow children from Grange and district to attend) and also in relation

to its proximity to the trunk roads and motorways which facilitate access to extensive shopping,

healthcare, further education and cultural activities. The local plan allows for significant expansion of

Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale as employment centres and this is consistent with their ability to

support this in terms of road and service centre infrastructure. However, their allocation of housing

is lower relative to Grange over Sands which is not consistent with policy to provide homes close to

centres of employment.

13

SLDC have no substantive plans in place to ensure flood risk from surface water run-off is mitigated

in areas of high risk around the Grange over Sands area. United Utilities will not accommodate

surface water run-off into the foul sewer system, each site will have to provide rigorous surface

water management systems. However this has not been considered sufficiently in a district where

flooding from surface water run-off poses a constant and year-round risk. For example sites R89 and

MN25M are already prone to yield significant water run-off in their localities during periods of heavy

rain. Due to the limestone sub strata close to the surface and between areas of limestone pavement

this will prove extremely challenging to remedy. Documentary evidence of flooding already exists in

the areas immediately adjacent to these development sites. In fact residents of Kent’s Bank have

already suffered flooding in June/July 2012 as a result of surface water from new infill developments

which has been poorly mitigated.

Soakaways in this area with the proposed scale of development south of Allithwaite Road (MN25M)

are not sustainable over the long term, providing only temporary relief from the risk of serious

flooding at lower elevations (up to their point of capacity).

SLDC recognise that steep topography leads to high run off rates during periods of high rainfall and

short term flooding. However they have presented no realistic or detailed plans to mitigate the risk

in areas of new development where the majority of sites are on high elevations above existing areas

of settlement.

Conserving and enhancing the natural environment (Para 109-125)

No consideration has been given to wildlife corridors that exist across allocated sites such as R89 and

MN25M (migratory deer for example and other species that may traverse between northern fell

land and the coast, and between areas of Wartbarrow SSSI and adjacent protected areas of

limestone pavement.

The plan provides no detail to consider how net gains in biodiversity may be achieved in sensitive

locations, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity.

Current plans fail to show sequential consideration which requires the development of land with the

least environmental or amenity value. Agricultural land has been selected for use before brownfield.

It can be demonstrated that in respect to the five year plan for housing supply, development sites in

Grange over Sands are not sequential in terms of brown field to green field as required by the SLDC

core strategy. This is due to the wholesale exclusion of the Berners brownfield strategic site within

the five year land supply, even though as mentioned, the development of this site is seen as key to

the regeneration of the town.

There is no strategic approach for Grange or the Cartmel peninsular to show positive planning for

the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of Biodiversity and green

infrastructure.

14

The plan does not promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats,

ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to

national and local targets and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan.

The plan should aim to prevent harm to geological interests. However this is not the case for

limestone pavement orders or adjacent Wartbarrow SSSI whose status is currently classed by

Natural England as “unfavourable, declining” (not being conserved and will not reach favourable

condition unless there are changes to site management or external pressures. The site condition is

becoming progressively worse).

Land allocations which propose development immediately adjacent to Wartbarrow SSSI are likely to

have an adverse impact (individually and in combination with other developments) and should not

normally be permitted under the terms of NPPF.

Planning strategically across local boundaries (Para 178-181)

SLDC has not adequately discharged their duty to co-operate on planning issues that cross

administrative boundaries in working adequately with neighbouring authorities. We do not see that

joint working on areas of common interest to have been undertaken diligently for the mutual benefit

of neighbouring authorities.

We do not see adequate collaboration and agreement between county and district councils as

evidenced by the objections to soundness in relation to the Land allocations DPD lodged by Kendal

Town Council, Ulverston Town Council, and Grange Town Council in April 2012. Cumbria County

Council also issued a statement in June 2012 expressing their concerns in relation to the scale of

development proposed by the local plan.

We do not see evidence that local planning authorities have demonstrated having effectively

cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts. The balance of housing need between

South Lakeland, Barrow, Lake District National Park and Yorkshire Dales National Park has been

poorly considered where the over-provision of housing land by SLDC creates a regional imbalance in

the housing market to the relative disadvantage of the surrounding districts.

Where regional development is not centred on areas of need, the relative over provision of housing

in South Lakes could further exaggerate travel to work patterns between South Lakes and

surrounding employment centres.

The importance of Barrow as a strategic centre for economic growth in South Cumbria has not been

given sufficient consideration. The 2007 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation rank Barrow as the

29th most deprived local authority area out of 354 in England (based on the rank of average score).

Barrow is the only district in Cumbria ranked as one of the 50 most deprived authority districts in

England, and is the 2nd most deprived shire district authority area in England. Given the fact it is well

placed to accept expansion and would disproportionately benefit from increased inward investment,

we would expect to see greater emphasis placed on meeting the needs of Barrow as a regional

15

planning priority. We are aware that Barrow planners have previously requested that SLDC should

allow for above average allocations in Barrow to facilitate regeneration. However, other than making

some minor concessions, these requests have been broadly declined. If housing needs were

reassessed in South Lakes in line with up-to-date evidence of population growth, the regional

balance of housing provision could be restored to favour regeneration of deprived areas and

economic growth in the Barrow planning area.

Examining local plans (Para 182)

The plan fails to meet a range of criteria which enables it to be found sound. Namely it is not

justified, effective or consistent with national policy (fails to deliver against criteria set down in the

localism Act or the NPPF). See Appendix below for the submission made by Grange and District

Action Group in to the soundness of the Land Allocations DPD (April 2012).

Neighbourhood plans (Para 183-185)

We acknowledge that the NPPF states neighbourhood plans must have general conformity with the

strategic policies of the local plan and should not promote less development than set out in the local

plan. However we believe there could be issues of prematurity where the SLDC land allocations DPD

and the corresponding assessment of the required five year supply of housing is dependent on

potential sites for development which may not be considered or endorsed by neighbourhood plans

and where alternative sites may be considered to be more suitable, popular or sustainable by the

community.

16

3. Appendix

Previous GADAG submission April 2012

Key Objections to the soundness of the SLDC Land Allocation Development Plan Document

(LADPD).

17

Key Objections to the soundness of the SLDC Land

Allocation Development Plan Document (LADPD).

April 2012.

18

Submission Overview

This statement has been prepared on behalf of Grange and District Action Group (GADAG),

representing members who are residents of Grange over Sands and of the Cartmel Peninsular in

Cumbria.

The objective of GADAG is to promote sustainable community-led planning in response to Land

Allocation proposals by the Local Planning Authority (LPA), South Lakeland District Council (SLDC)

which we believe to be unsound and unsustainable in its current format.

GADAG is affiliated to a regional coalition of resident groups across South Lakeland, The Green

Spaces Group, who campaign to promote better consultation between the LPA and the communities

it represents, where this has been deemed to be so far ineffective.

GADAG / Green Spaces Group consult with Town and Parish Councils representing Principal and Key

Service Centres who are opposed to the existing land allocation plan. In addition, consultation is

made with district councillors at SLDC who support neighbourhoods in their opposition to the

soundness of the current DPD and who are in favour of neighbourhood-led planning to promote

inclusion, acceptance and ownership by the community.

There are sufficient areas of doubt across a range of criteria used to assess the soundness of the

DPD. GADAG considers the Land Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD) to be unsound for

the reasons outlined below.

If adopted, the Land allocation DPD would over-prescribe for the inclusion of green-field sites

throughout South Lakeland within revised development boundaries for settlements over the lifetime

of the plan.

This would provide ‘tacit’ planning approval for such sites which have on the whole been

speculatively offered-up for disposal by landowners under the ‘land allocation’ process.

We are concerned that SLDC policy to adopt over-inflated targets for house building continues to be

informed by the misconception that increasing the supply of new houses improves the level of

affordability across all housing stock. We would assert that the stated aim of the current portfolio

holder for housing and development at SLDC to reduce house prices across South Lakeland by

around 20% through the implementation of an aggressive house building strategy (per the current

local plan) to be wholly misinformed and contrary to the findings of national case studies. In fact

where evidence shows the converse to be true, the delivery of the local plan is likely to increase

affordability issues across the private sector housing market which accounts for the majority of

housing stock. This will have the unintended consequence of increasing the perceived need for

affordable housing, thereby perpetuating the requirement rather than addressing it.

19

It is not at all evident that SLDC have meaningfully cooperated with neighbouring authorities in the

preparation of their local plan. Over prescribed for house building targets in South Lakeland create

regional instabilities and imbalance where they undermine efforts to attract private funding to

regenerate depressed areas or allow other districts to maintain viable rural communities where

planning restrictions are greater. Consequently, no net gain would be derived from the planning

process to the greater benefit of the regional community.

We would consider these objections, together with those submitted by others could form the basis

of a community-led legal challenge by resident groups to the soundness of the DPD.

We welcome Lord Justice Keene’s ruling that there can be no assumption that a local authority plan

is sound, even in the absence of evidence from objectors.

In registering our objections we confirm that Grange and District Action Group would like to

participate in the oral public examination by the Inspector into the soundness of the Land Allocation

DPD presented for consideration by SLDC.

Richard Davies for and behalf of Grange and District Action Group.

April 2012.

20

Summary of objections to soundness

1. The Land Allocation DPD is based on the highest estimates for population and household

growth, where no consideration has been given to the numerous and credible alternatives.

2. Public consultation has failed to deliver appropriate, sufficient and effective methods of

engagement.

3. The plan has not adequately explored alternative options for the appropriate and suitable

delivery of affordable housing other than by private sector development ‘gains’.

4. The plan fails to consider adequately the balance between settlements or the sustainability of site options across key service centres.

5. The plan fails to conduct adequate sustainability analysis for preferred site options at Grange

over Sands and allocations are not in accordance with stated policy.

6. The plan does not consider the impact to the tourism-based economy of Grange over Sands.

7. The plan fails to show adequate coherence and collaboration with the plans and strategies of

neighbouring authorities.

21

1.0 The Land Allocation DPD is based on the highest estimates for population and household

growth, where no consideration has been given to numerous and credible alternatives.

1.2 The Land Allocation DPD is based purely upon growth targets from the revoked Regional Spatial Strategy

(RSS) as per the core strategy e.g. CS6 (p75). Even though SLDC acknowledges that RSS targets no longer form

part of the development plan, it fails to reference credible and up-to-date sources or provide a clear audit

trail to inform why it believes the RSS targets are still the most appropriate in informing the level of dwellings

scoped for in the Land allocation DPD where alternative and more current projections form part of the

evidence base. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2011) suggests a variety of average annualised

dwelling requirements using 2011 POPGROUP modelling ranging between 205 and 367 units per year up to

2029 (forecasts provided by the Cumbria Intelligence Observatory). Where the Land Allocation DPD plans to

deliver 444 dwellings per annum up to 2025, it can be seen that this would over-prescribe for the number of

dwellings in comparison to POPGROUP forecasts by between 1001 and 3107 dwellings between 2012 and

2025. We would conclude that SLDC have placed undue weight to the targets set in the RSS and have failed to

give sufficient consideration to a more up-to-date evidence base. At such time that the RSS is abolished by

order we would assert that both the Core Strategy and the Land Allocation document could be considered to

be unsound on this basis.

1.3 There are further issues in relation to using RSS targets in relation to the Land allocation DPD. The RSS

spans from 2003 to 2021. SLDC have further extended this to 2025 to ensure plans adopted since 2010 accord

to a 15 year time span. The result is that the Land Allocation plan is based on targets set over a much longer

and un-prescribed for plan period of 22 years. It could be reasonably expected that had the RSS not been

revoked, it would have been subject to at least one review up to 2012. Given this fact and in light of prevailing

economic conditions it is surprising SLDC have not sought to act more realistically in setting lower dwelling

targets which would be more achievable instead of wholly aspirational.

1.4 We would propose that provision should not be made for housing shortfalls between 2003 and 2009 in the

Land Allocation DPD where this is beyond the scope of a 15 year plan to 2025. There is no requirement for this

in national policy and there are examples locally where LPA’s such as Allerdale Borough Council explicitly

exclude shortfalls since 2003 where this would be deemed to set unrealistic targets, especially in the context

of prevailing economic conditions. It would be more realistic for dwelling requirements in the land allocation

DPD to commence at a date more consistent with the prescribed maximum time span of 15 years. Given the

plan runs to 2025, this would suggest 2010 as a more appropriate baseline.

1.5 The Land allocation DPD is inconsistent and misleading where Para 1.2 states “the ambition is to deliver

400 dwellings...each year until 2025”. This fails to make clear that housing shortfalls will be rolled forward

from 2003 until the end of the plan so that the actual target for each year will be significantly higher than 400.

1.1 Tests of Soundness failed:

Justified

Research / fact finding – The choices made in the plan are not backed by up-to-

date facts / credible evidence base.

Assumptions are not reasonable and justified.

The LPA’s chosen approach is not the most appropriate given the reasonable

alternatives. There is no clear audit trail to show how the preferred

strategy/approach was arrived at.

22

1.6 The land allocation DPD is informed by a core strategy for which fundamental planning assumptions

relating to population growth are inconsistent and irreconcilable with up-to-date and localised data. SLDC core

strategy 2010 Para CS 1.4 states “The total population of the area of South Lakeland District is around

105,000...The population (of South Lakeland) is projected to grow to around 117,000 by 2026”. However,

three POPGROUP scenarios by the Cumbria Intelligence Observatory (2011 refresh) quoted as part of the

evidence base for the land allocation DPD (SHMA 2011) estimate the population by 2029 to be between

99,500 and 106,003.

23

2.0 Public consultation has failed to deliver appropriate, sufficient and effective methods of engagement.

2.2 SLDC has failed to deliver against the criteria set out in its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and

has not complied with the wider requirements for public participation set out in:

PPS12 (and the National Planning Policy Framework which replaces it)

UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to

Justice in Environmental Matters.

Community involvement in planning: The Government’s objectives.

2.3 Specifically, SLDC has failed to deliver appropriate, sufficient and effective methods of engagement in

response to the needs of our community, not least for the under-represented or vulnerable elements of the

community such as the young, the disabled and the elderly.

2.4 The presentation of the Land Allocation DPD and the supporting evidence base has not been made in such

a way as to allow scrutiny by all groups in the community. The public have been asked to submit to the

soundness of a DPD comprising approximately 460 technical documents covering 14,500 pages (visually, this

would represent a stack of A4 paper approx. 1.5 metres tall). SLDC chose only to allow for the minimally

prescribed consultation period of six weeks.

2.5 Residents who are less inclined or able to read through a complex set of documents containing thousands

of pages of text, tables, maps and appendices (either in paper form or via the SLDC website) have therefore

been broadly excluded from making any substantial comments or submissions which are deemed to be ‘viable’

by SLDC.

2.6 Any critical study into the quality, depth and range of public responses to the consultations will evidence

that the poor presentation of data by SLDC has been a significant barrier to effective democratic scrutiny and a

broad-based consultation.

2.7 The thematic presentation of evidence by SLDC across documents and archives has severely limited the

efficient study of the DPD on a settlement by settlement basis. In general this has meant members of the

public have had to ‘sift’ through a far greater volume of documents in order to assess the whole DPD from the

perspective of their own community. This could have been remedied by the creation of complimentary,

‘settlement-based’ presentations.

2.8 As it has failed to be creative in the way it reaches out to all parts of the community, participation has

been limited to the usual ‘informed and active minority’.

2.9 Crucially, the disenfranchisement of the older generation from the consultation process has meant that a

significant percentage of the population has been under-represented (where currently 29% of the population

of South Lakeland is over 60).


Justified

Participation. The consultation process has not allowed for effective

engagement of all interested parties.

24

2.10 There is little or no evidence that the council has taken advantage of innovative and relevant channels of

participation for younger members of the community such as through the use of social media sites like

Facebook or Twitter, or through short message service (SMS) alerts and updates.

2.11 Where SLDC have engaged with the public in face to face meetings in the community, it has been with a

“presentational style” of plans to be delivered, rather than of options for consultation. Witnesses attest that in

response to challenges, SLDC have been overtly confrontational at public meetings. For example at the

Milnthorpe Parish Council consultation on 14th

March 2011, senior SLDC representatives advised that the plans

will be delivered ‘regardless of opposition’. Similar responses have been noted elsewhere such as at Ulverston.

Therefore, despite an outward impression of a robust consultation process, it could be said this has simply

been a ‘tick-the-box’ exercise.

2.12 There is no evidence that public submissions to the earlier consultations have been taken into

consideration in any meaningful way when preparing the final land allocation document. To the contrary,

there are instances where additional sites have been added or numbers of dwellings increased in areas where

submissions were made opposing original plans.

2.13 It is clear from analysis into the replies provided by SLDC to the submissions made to previous land

allocation consultations that responses have been on the whole formulaic and could in no way be deemed to

be considered or have sufficient depth to render them objective or useful.

2.14 The SCI also outlines the use of real-time 3D computer modelling to assist communities with visualising

the potential impact of SLDC proposals. However, there is no evidence that this has been effectively delivered

at any part of the process.

2.15 The SLDC have failed to provide appropriate and relevant supporting information in conjunction with the

DPD for respondents to consider its soundness in the context of wider regional and sub-regional groups,

strategies, policies and initiatives such as the Cumbria Economic Strategy, Cumbria Local Investment Plan, the

Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, the Eden and South Lakeland Forward Delivery Plan, Cumbria Sub

Regional Housing Group or the Third Local Transport Plan for Cumbria (LPT3).

2.16 The delivery of the consultation by SLDC has resulted in a sense of detachment from the planning

process as many residents feel marginalised by an ‘indifferent approach’ to their opinions and aspirations for

their neighbourhoods. Communities have not been treated as stake-holders in the future success of their

towns and villages. This is contrary to current and evolving national policy regarding localism and ‘big society’.

25

3.0 The plan has not adequately explored alternative options for the appropriate and suitable

delivery of affordable housing other than by private sector development ‘gains’.

3.2 It is not clear from the SHMA how it derives a recommended percentage split between affordable and

open market dwellings of 35% / 65%.

3.3 It is highly questionable whether the SHMA household survey of housing need which forms part of the

evidence base could be found to be robust or legally defensible. The survey which helps to inform the level of

affordable need returned a response rate of 4363 which represents less than 10% of the total number of

dwellings in the survey area. Given the margin of error which could be applied to the utilised technique of

‘weighted and grossed responses’, any adopted policy based on this survey could be found to be ‘unsound’.

3.4 It would seem incongruous that Milnthorpe as a designated key service centre only has an identified need

for 2 affordable dwellings per annum in comparison to other KSC’s and settlements. This would cast further

doubt on the accuracy of the SHMA.

3.5 The evidence base supporting the land allocation DPD fails to make explicit or compare and contrast

alternative mechanisms for the delivery of affordable housing other than by private sector development

‘gains’. Therefore we would find that assumptions which are used to justify the ‘scale’ of proposed private

sector development in the land allocation DPD as the preferred or only method of delivering affordable

housing not to be reasonable or justified. In fact housing market studies would suggest that this approach

could further exacerbate the need for affordable dwellings where an influx of development schemes leads to a

generalised increase in private sector house prices.

3.7 We would not consider that the over-reliance on private sector development ‘gains’ for the provision of

affordable housing could be deemed to be effective, in that the economic outlook in the short to medium term

would render this policy undeliverable within a realistic timeframe.


Justified

Research / fact finding – The choices made in the plan are not backed by facts /

credible evidence base.



alternatives.

Effective

Not Deliverable – Evidence does not show how policies will meet the objectives.

Timescales are not realistic with regard to the delivery of affordable housing.

26

4.0 The plan fails to consider adequately the balance between settlements or the sustainability of site options across key service centres.

4.2 We would firstly highlight that there are unexplained inconsistencies between data sets utilised in DPD’s

and supporting documentation for existing housing stock in key service centres. This is important where they

are used to pro-rata allocations between the key service centres of Grange over Sands, Milnthorpe and Kirkby

Lonsdale. For example, the Land Allocation DPD advises there are 738 dwellings in Kirkby Lonsdale (Land

Allocation DPD p16). However, the SHMA uses a figure of 1268 (SHMA Oct 2011 Appendix A Table A2). Similar

discrepancies have been recorded for Milnthorpe. Where these anomalies have not been explained it is not

clear that any policies in the land allocation DPD based on analysis of settlement size are credible.

4.3 The plan does not provide for the adequate or relative comparison of sustainability criteria between or

across key service centres (KSC’s) and therefore it is not clear that sustainability considerations have informed

the content of the DPD. Where some sites and KSC characteristics mean some are inherently more sustainable

than others, strategy has not allowed for an objective appraisal of sustainability in a localised context across

this settlement grouping.

4.4 In the Inspector’s report of the core strategy, it is stated that “more detailed work at balancing local

needs and environmental capacities outside the principal service centres can properly be conducted as part of

the Allocation of Land DPD process”. Also that in respect to Grange and the Cartmel peninsular, that “further

detail will be necessary to firm up specific plans but in my mind the level of further detail necessary is more

appropriate to the forthcoming allocation of land DPD”. It is clear that the land allocation DPD or supporting

documentation fails to adequately provide for the level of required analysis in this regard and as such does not

adequately reflect local issues and objectives.

4.5 It can be seen that relative to Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale, Grange over Sands is less favourably

positioned to accept significant and sustainable development due to current infrastructure and environmental

constraints peculiar to its situation on the Cartmel peninsular. It also fails to meet all the criteria of a key

service centre which further detracts from its ability to accommodate large scale expansion. Where SLDC refer


Justified





alternatives.

The sustainability appraisal does not show how the different options perform and

is it not clear that sustainability considerations informed the content of the DPD

from the start.

The strategy does not take forward the regional context reflecting local issues

and objectives.

The plan does not adequately reflect the concept of spatial planning.

27

to development proposals at Grange over Sands as “moderate” this is clearly not the case where this

represents an approximate 25% increase in the number of dwellings.

4.6 The town is less well serviced in relation to its proximity and ease of access to a trunk road or the

motorway network. This is especially the case for the west of Grange where the majority of proposed sites are

located. It can also be evidenced that the bulk of traffic accessing services to the east of Grange via the major

road network would pass through the narrow thoroughfare of the town centre (Main Street). The core

strategy which is used to inform the land allocation DPD recognises that “access to the peninsular is poor,

limited to the B5277/8 looping off the A590 to run through Grange, Allithwaite and Cark, the B6271 (sic -

should read B5271) from Lindale and minor roads north of Cartmel” (CS5.12). Road infrastructure in Grange

cannot be easily improved due to the restrictions imposed across the town by the built environment and other

constraints. Contrary to requirements of the core strategy (CS10.2 Transport impact of new development)

SLDC have confirmed (March 2012) that no traffic surveys have been carried out by Cumbria County Council to

inform the land allocations process in Grange, and that they (Cumbria County Council) advise that significant

development in Grange may increase parking and traffic pressures. Conversely, the core strategy notes that

the East (including Kirkby Lonsdale and Milnthorpe) “benefits from excellent strategic transport links. The M6

passes directly through the area” and “are easy accessible by road, Milnthorpe being situated on the junction

of the A6...and Kirkby Lonsdale being situated on the A65.” (CS6.11). Where the land allocation DPD fails to

provide for the level of analysis per Para 4.4 above, we would request that the inspector calls upon SLDC to

ensure traffic surveys are carried out prior to adopting the proposals of the Land Allocation DPD for Grange

and the Cartmel Peninsular so that the cumulative impacts of all proposed development sites on the road

network can be been properly assessed and planned for.

4.7 Grange over Sands is further away from the principal service centre at Kendal relative to the other KSC’s,

and it has poor access to Ulverston (using the B5278 to reach the A590 north of Haverthwaite). It is also

further away from the nearest city of Lancaster.

4.8 Unlike Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale, Grange over Sands does not have a Secondary School, which is one

of the key criterions for a KSC. The nearest secondary school is in the village of Cartmel. This is two miles from

Grange and cannot be practically accessed by foot or by bicycle. It therefore creates a dependency on motor

vehicles for pupils from Grange. School transport is provided free of charge as an exception to the LEA ‘3-mile’

policy in recognition of this fact. Children do not enjoy easy and fair access to after school activities where

school transport is not provided for.

4.9 Both Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale also benefit from further education facilities which are not available

to pupils in Grange. Students from Grange have to travel to Milnthorpe, Ulverston, Lancaster, Kirkby Lonsdale,

Kendal or Barrow which inevitably means an increased dependency on car travel as well as a requirement for

adequate public transport links which cannot be assured where service providers are under increased pressure

to ensure services are economically viable.

28

5.0 The plan fails to conduct adequate sustainability analysis for preferred site options at Grange

over Sands and allocations are not in accordance with stated policy.

5.2 A holistic approach with respect to the selection of sustainable site options could not take place where

the process of land allocation was driven by the initial invitation to landowners by SLDC to submit plots for

development. This may ensure sites are deliverable but the process has necessarily precluded some options

which may have scored more highly in terms of sustainability. It could be asserted that the process has been

‘reverse-engineered’ where sustainability analysis has been used to justify the inclusion of sites offered up for

development, rather than to consider the merits of all sites against a set of objective criteria. We would

question for instance whether the process has identified eminently sustainable sites which would need to be

secured by negotiation or compulsory purchase. To this end we would ask the inspector to seek clarification

from SLDC regarding the availability of all sites considered since the start of the process, and compare this to

the availability of sites within the final allocation.

5.3 It is questionable whether “Accession” computer modelling techniques or other studies have correctly

informed analysis of topographical and infrastructure constraints relating to proposed development sites on

the western side of Grange over Sands. Doubts are raised whether it has factored features such as the gradient

at Risedale Hill which provides the main link to access services in the centre of town. These considerations

severely question the viability of providing pedestrian or cycle links in to town which is contrary to core

strategy and national policy in promoting a reduced reliance on car use and climate change. Similarly, that the

nearest secondary school is at Cartmel, which is only accessible by car or bus due to the rural nature of the

road network. Both of these examples detract considerably from the sustainability of sites such as MN25M,

R672M, R89 and R350M but appear not to have been factored suitably into the sustainability assessment.


Justified





alternatives.

The sustainability appraisal does not show how the different options perform

and is it not clear that sustainability considerations informed the content of the

DPD from the start.

Effective

The plan is not holistic.

Implications for infrastructure have not been clearly identified.

There is insufficient detail to evidence that plans are deliverable.

It is not clear that there is the necessary commitment from external agencies to

the local planning authority.

29

5.4 SLDC has only identified one ‘key’ brown field site in Grange over Sands at Berners Pool in their final

assessment of allocations. Core strategy policy CS1.1 states that development should accord to a sequential

approach, first using “previously developed land within settlements”. However the land allocation DPD (4.11)

states that Berners will be developed in two phases, which indicates that development across Grange will not

be in accordance with the sequential policy in the CS where green field sites are developed ahead of the final

phase at M378M / R381 / R383.

5.5 It is not entirely clear that sustainability criteria informed the decision to remove emerging site RN34 (land

North of Grange Fell Road) from the final land allocations process. This is also supported by the fact that SLDC

did not highlight any successful objections in response to the allocations consultation which forms part of the

evidence base. Therefore it cannot be shown that the exclusion of this site has demonstrated a uniform and

consistent approach with respect to the consideration of site allocations in Grange. Further concerns relating

to the objectivity of this decision were raised when the cabinet member responsible for housing and

development intimated that site RN34 could be reconsidered for inclusion in response to opposition requests

to reconsider the extent of all allocations at the full council meeting on 18th

January 2012. Without prejudice

to the decision to remove it from consideration, we would request that the inspector investigates this matter

to ensure procedures and policy were followed correctly and that this process was “sound”.

5.6 We would question whether existing planning policy has been applied consistently by SLDC with respect to

the final allocations at Grange over Sands. With respect to site R672M, respondents to the allocations

consultation process raised the point that development here would effectively create a precedent for

continued development westwards along the north side of Allithwaite Road and towards the village of

Allithwaite. It is quite clear from the SLDC map (Grange South) that in conjunction with MN25M, that neither

site could be considered to be either infill or rounding off where they are extensions into open countryside. It

can be seen that the existing boundary either side of Allithwaite Road currently provides for a distinct edge to

the settlement of Grange along Allithwaite Road. In fact the two proposed sites would inevitably make it more

difficult for SLDC to resist future development westwards on green gap sites adjacent to R672M, up to and

including the new boundary described by MN25M on the south of Allithwaite Road.

5.7 It can be seen that current development plans on the western edge of Grange over Sands and on the

eastern edge of Allithwaite will lead to the significant and critical erosion of an existing green gap where this

currently serves the purpose of preventing further coalescence between the two settlements. This is contrary

to SLDC core strategy CS8.2 regarding the protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character

and to Land Allocation DPD 4.22 which describes the need to avoid coalescence between Allithwaite and

Kent’s Bank / Grange. The development of sites RN79# - mod (Allithwaite) and MN25M / R672M (Grange over

Sands) will erode the green gap along Allithwaite Road to approximately 220 metres which will increase

perceived and visual coalescence between the two. Critically, It will also cause an incursion of Kent’s Bank /

Grange over Sands westwards between the limits of the Allithwaite parish boundary which is described to the

North of Allithwaite Road and to the south of Kirkhead Road, either side of MN25M. Given the importance of

maintaining the integrity of this green gap in avoiding further coalescence between Grange and Allithwaite, we

would request that SLDC remove MN25M and R672M from the land allocation DPD.

5.8 Where the majority of development sites in Grange over Sands lie to the West of town (MN25M / R672M /

R89 / R350M) the land allocation DPD fails to describe how safe, convenient and attractive access to the town

centre by foot or cycle is provided for. The main route into town is along the B5277 where footpath provision

is restricted to one narrow path along the steep and twisting incline of Risedale Hill. When describing the

perceived sustainability of site MN25M, the land allocation DPD document 4.12 states that “The promenade

footpath offers the opportunity to provide improved pedestrian and cycle access to the town centre.”

However it fails to describe the limitations imposed on this route by the adjacent railway line which creates a

30

significant barrier to free and unimpeded travel by foot or by cycle. Where this route is restricted by steep and

narrow access points and pathways, and where it necessarily crosses under or over the railway line before

reaching the town centre by underpass, a single bridge or unmanned level crossings, this route can hardly be

seen to be one that would give encouragement to non-vehicular journeys between the western outskirts and

the centre of town. A crucial underpass is also too low with no line of site on either side to allow for safe use

by cyclists, especially in conjunction with pedestrians. We would consider there to be parallels with the

planning inspectorate’s recommendation to dismiss the appeal by Harbour Castle Limited against Wycombe

District Council, 14 February 2012 in relation to inadequate (unsustainable) provision of non-vehicular travel

between proposed developments and the town centre. This decision was subsequently upheld by the

secretary of state.

5.9 SLDC recognises that the pedestrian environment in Grange over Sands is already poor. The core strategy

states “…it suffers from problems associated with the impact of the private car on the built environment. For

pedestrians, the Grange over Sands environment is noticeably poor. In general terms, footpaths are narrow

and there is a strong sense that the car is the dominant feature on Kents Bank Road and Main Street.

Improving linkages, infrastructure and the quality of the pedestrian environment are key priorities”. However

the land allocation DPD fails to make clear any coherent or detailed strategy to improve the situation in

conjunction with the estimated 25% increase in the size of the town.

5.10 With regard to site R89, it can be seen that as well as being subject to the sustainability constraints

already outlined for sites to the west of Grange over Sands, it is not clear that other sustainability criteria have

been applied consistently or objectively. SHLAA 2009 describes the site as a “category three” site, performing

least well against assessment criteria with regard to its suitability for development. However it has since been

described as having met all necessary requirements and is now deemed to be eminently suitable for

development. In addition, SLDC have chosen to exclude from their evidence base previous independent

development studies for Grange over Sands where they do not support the findings proposed by the current

land allocation DPD. With regard to site R89 both the Gillespies and Douglas Wheeler reports exclude this site

from consideration for development, not least in recognition of the fact that it provides for an important open

space in an otherwise built-up and now suburban landscape. The local community would look to consider this

land as a ‘local green space’ under provisions afforded by the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore

we would request that R89 is not included in the land allocation DPD whilst consideration is given to this.

5.11 Site R110 is one of the last open spaces in the Grange over Sands conservation area. It has high amenity

value where it provides for views across the bay and has enjoyed protection from development for this reason.

Planning permission has been refused previously by SLDC who cited road infrastructure issues where there

were concerns over traffic (application No. 5/91/2372). It would not therefore be consistent to allow

development on this site where the only material change since refusal would have been an increase in general

traffic volumes across the district. As per Para 4.6 above, no traffic surveys have been carried out to inform the

land allocation process and so SLDC cannot have said to have objectively reconsidered their previous decision

to refuse permission. We would request that SLDC consider the results of a detailed traffic survey before

proceeding with consideration of this and other sites in the town.

5.12 Given the proximity of sites R74 and R449 to R110, it would seem logical to extend the comments made in

Para 5.10 to these sites also.

5.13 We would have concern that lack of adequate environmental surveys across all sites in Grange over Sands

and district have not allowed for the site selection process to be compliant with CS8.4. We are particularly

concerned that protected species and those included in the Cumbria Biodiversity Action Plan have not been

afforded sufficient consideration. Furthermore, detailed assessment at the site selection stage is required to

determine the potential impact of proposed development on the west side of Grange at sites which are

31

adjacent to or between internationally rare and nationally protected areas of limestone pavement. It would

not be appropriate to carry out this work once a site has been ‘allocated’ as it makes it less likely that sufficient

objectivity and weight would be given to findings where they recommend a site to be ‘de-allocated’.

5.14 Where it should be recognised that the development of site options in Grange over Sands pose significant

issues with respect to managing surface water runoff (a good example being R89) it is clear that insufficient

consideration has been given to how this significant issue would be addressed at each of the locations. We

would highlight the fact that United Utilities will not make provision for accepting surface water runoff into the

sewerage network and that no credible alternatives have been detailed by SLDC in the land allocation DPD

where it simply expresses the need to provide remediation for the issue.

5.15 It is not evident that there is sufficient existing capacity or the financial commitment from the LEA to

expand the provision of primary and secondary school places within the Grange over Sands catchment in line

with the projected requirements of the land allocation DPD.

5.16 It is not evident that Cumbria County Council or the Highways Authority have given sufficient

consideration to or have sufficient funds to mitigate the collective impact of development proposals across the

minor and major road networks.

32

6. The plan does not consider the impact to the tourism-based economy of Grange over Sands

6.2 The core strategy widely refers to the importance of the tourism sector and the role it plays in maintaining

the viability and vitality of towns and villages in South Lakeland. SLDC estimate that nearly a million visitors per

year are attracted to the area outside the national parks, providing revenue in excess of £130 million to local

businesses (2008). The Core Strategy warns that “given the problem of town centre congestion in Grange at

peak times...Significantly higher traffic levels could well threaten the core economic activity of the town,

namely tourism” (CS5.32).

6.3 We would not see the promotion and growth of tourism in Grange and the Cartmel Peninsular as being

consistent with the scale of development plans currently described by the land allocation DPD. We would

expect particular conflict to occur where continual, prolonged and intensive levels of construction activity are

required to deliver the unrealistic levels of development contained in the plan. This would be particularly

apparent if SLDC continue to revise upwards their annual dwelling targets to make up for previous shortfalls

against already unrealistic requirements.

6.4 We would expect a gradual but long term decline in the tourist offering at Grange over sands and the

surrounding district. This would inevitably have a detrimental impact on businesses and jobs as the area loses

its appeal to tourists seeking respite from the traditional and busy tourist centres within the National park, or

for those just seeking the elegant and quiet charm of a traditional Victorian/Edwardian seaside resort. We

would assert that further, significant urbanisation of Grange would take the town beyond its environmental

capacity for sustainable development and its innate charm and attractiveness as a tourist destination outside

the national parks would suffer irreversible damage. This is in contravention to SLDC Policy which states the

ambition of “promoting the vitality of Grange Town Centre and promoting tourism” (LADPD 4.2).

6.5 We would draw parallels to consideration given by the Planning Inspectorate when refusing planning

permission at Princes Risborough (February 2012). Para 130 states “Tourism relies much on the attractiveness

of the town and its setting and the development risks adversely affecting both”.


Effective

Policies are not internally consistent.

33

7. The plan fails to show adequate coherence and collaboration with the plans and strategies of

neighbouring authorities.

7.2 It is not apparent that SLDC have properly consulted with neighbouring authorities to ensure coherence

and collaboration since the revocation of regional spatial strategies (RSS). This is in direct contravention to the

requirements of national policy for a duty to cooperate on strategic priorities.

7.3 Where for instance there is a particular need for sustained private sector investment inflows into the

Borough of Barrow to facilitate regeneration requirements, it is not at all clear that SLDC policy complements

this requirement. In fact the setting of aggressive, unfounded and unrealistic housing targets in South Lakeland

fails to show a balanced regional approach and is likely to undermine neighbouring areas particularly where it

could be said that South Lakeland has an advantage in relation to its environmental setting and economic

vitality derived from tourism.

7.4 Furthermore, it could be said that SLDC planning targets have taken advantage of traditional restrictions

and reluctances to perpetuate a lower housing provision in the adjacent National Parks. It could be seen that

this policy is in detriment to the vitality and continued viability of settlements in these areas and would ensure

this situation is entrenched where they do not attract private investment or a fair proportion of the new

homes bonus.


Effective

The plan does not show coherence and collaboration with the plans and

strategies of neighbouring authorities.

National Policy

The DPD contains proposals which are not consistent with national policy.