Page 1

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report March 2013


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan

Contents Introduction ............................................................. 1 Consultation report.................................................. 2 Index of consultees ............................................. 298

Introduction Consultation took place on the Draft Preferred Options documents, including a Development Management DPD, Land Allocations DPD and Morecambe Area Action Plan, between October and December 2012. This report sets out a summary of the responses received as part of the consultation on the Land Allocations DPD and includes an officer response to each representation and relevant action – a change to policy, change considered or no change to the document. Where it has been agreed that a change is required to policy these amendments will be made to the next version of the Land Allocations DPD. To help with finding your comments on the Land Allocations DPD at the rear of this document is an alphabetical index of all individuals who have commented on the document and, where appropriate which organisation has been represented. A separate consultation report will be prepared for the Development Management DPD.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

1


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan

Consultation report ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

1 2

NOT USED Ruth Bishop

Local Resident

POLICY REF Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Objection to development of Greenfield sites, priority should be given to the delivery of Brownfield sites in the District.

NO CHANGE  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. No evidence to suggest that brownfield sites will remain derelict and un-used through the life of the Local Plan (15 years) as a consequence of allocating Greenfield sites.  Throughout the preparation of the Land Allocations DPD the council has been in dialogue with Lancashire County Council – the local highways authority for the area – over the requirements for improvements to the local highway network. This has been included within emerging policy. Dialogue will continue through the remainder of this process.  The economic downturn has led to a collapse in the development of flats and apartments. No evidence has been submitted to suggest why Whinney Carr would not be suitable for smaller houses. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. Throughout the preparation of the Land Allocations DPD the council has been in

 New development in the South of Lancaster would create significant congestion on local roads.

 Research indications that the type of accommodation required is smaller houses and flats – Whinney Carr is not appropriate for this type of development. 3

Imogen Webb

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

 Objection to development of Greenfield sites in South Lancaster, this would ruin the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

2


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

4

5

NAME

Imogen Webb

Imogen Webb

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy EAST 1

Policy CWL 1 (Canal Corridor)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

local countryside and create significant traffic congestion in the local area.

 It will reduce the value of property in the area.

 East Lancaster: the Brownfield land should be renovated and made friendly to wild life not built on.

 The Green field land should be preserved not built on.

 Why is there no consideration to renovating the historical buildings in Central Lancaster for residential uses?

 Current plans for the City Centre are not sustainable and do not seek to preserve the historic

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

dialogue with Lancashire County Council – the local highways authority for the area – over the requirements for improvements to the local highway network. This has been included within emerging policy. Dialogue will continue through the remainder of this process. The reduction in property values is not a material consideration in determining the most sustainable location for future development. Objection noted. The emerging Land Allocations DPD anticipates that the majority of housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. There is no evidence to suggest that brownfield sites will remain derelict and un-used through the life of the Local Plan (15 years) as a consequence of allocating Greenfield sites. The Local Plan encourages the positive re-use of buildings within the District, provided that such proposals are sympathetic to the historic character. These policies are found within the Development Management DPD. The plans put forward within the Land Allocations DPD represent the most sustainable, suitable and

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

3


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

6

NAME

Ray Thomas

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF Policy GR4

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS character of the town.  The DPD seems reasonable and could make a huge difference to the way we live.  Further emphasis should be given to improvements to Morecambe Bay – particularly in relation to dredging of the bay.

7

Malcolm Taylor

Local Resident

Policy TR1

 Greater emphasis should have been provided on the Heysham / M6 link road given its potential impact on the district. Should consideration have been given to alternatives should the road not be developed?

8

Malcolm Taylor

Local Resident

Policy CWL 1 (Canal Corridor)

 Questions the deliverability of the Lancaster Canal Corridor Scheme. Consideration should be given to alternative uses of the site should this scheme not be delivered.

9

Joanne McMahon

Local Resident

Policy EL1  Support regeneration of (Grab brownfield sites to meet housing Lane) needs.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

realistic way of dealing with future development needs.  Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 City Council is not the Marine Authority for Morecambe Bay and so cannot authorise dredging. Dredging the bay may also not be compatible with environmental aspirations.  The Heysham /M6 Link is safeguarded in the Land Allocations DPD and this document also includes a specific policy (TR1). There are strong indications that the link road will be built and the draft plan has been prepared under that assumption. Should the link not be granted consent in 2013 then consideration will be given to alternatives in the next stages of the Local Plan.  No evidence provided to question the viability and deliverability of the Lancaster Canal Corridor Scheme. The Council will continue to work with relevant partners to ensure that an appropriate and suitable regeneration scheme is prepared for the Canal Corridor site.  Support noted for the regeneration of brownfield sites. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that the majority of housing needs will be

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

CHANGE CONSIDERED

4


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 However concern over the suitability of Grab Lane for future development given its close proximity to the M6, potential damage to important wildlife habitats and historical setting and local flooding problems.

10

Melonie Makinson

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

 Objection to the development of Greenfield sites in South Lancaster for residential purposes. There are enough houses for sale in Lancaster area and priority should be given to brownfield sites first.  Any further development in the South of Lancaster will exacerbate existing traffic problems on local roads, in

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  Land identified as part of the Grab Lane proposal will be set aside as a landscape buffer between any housing and the M6. Whilst the site has landscape significance there is no evidence to suggest that this site has significant ecological importance. Council will continue to liaise with the Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality through new development. Further work will be undertaken to assess the landscape and historical setting impacts of development on the Grab Lane site, the conclusions to this work and the mitigation measures required will be incorporated within the forthcoming development brief for the site.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 Council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road 5


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

11

P Leeson

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

12

Isobel Staniland

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

particular Ashford Road.  Objection to the development of Greenfield sites in South Lancaster for residential purposes. Proposals show a complete disinterest in the local environment and new development should be directed towards brownfield sites as a priority.

network through new development. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.  There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes.  Objection noted. Any sites allocated NO CHANGE for development need to be achievable (i.e. interest has been shown in developing the site by developers / landowners). Without such interest sites should not be

 Objection to the development of Greenfield sites in the South of Lancaster for residential purposes, new development should be directed towards the regeneration of brownfield sites.  Development on these Greenfield sites will result in increased traffic on local roads and loss of important green spaces.  Whilst affordable housing is required such needs will not be met by this type of development.

13

George Balmer

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

 Concern about evidence behind the need for development in South Lancaster in light of the current economic climate and demographic shifts. Strongly against any development in the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

6


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS South of Lancaster without data to support its need.

 Any development would also need a complete rethink of the traffic flow in and out of the area at peak times. 14

15

George Balmer

Muhammad Akhtar

Local Resident

Local Resident

RESPONSE

Policy EL1  Objection to the development of (Grab Grab Lane, it does not offer the Lane) infrastructure required and is not a suitable location for development, regeneration of brownfield sites in the East of Lancaster should be a priority.  Questions the need for further growth in Lancaster in the future, where is the evidence for future growth?

Policy SOUTH 1

 Concern about the development of Greenfield sites in the South of Lancaster for residential purposes. Priority should be given to developing brownfield sites first.  Concern over increases in traffic levels which will create further

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

allocated. Evidence in the District’s Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. Objection noted. The delivery of new and necessary infrastructure will be a key component of future development to the East of Lancaster, which is clearly suggested in Policy EL1 criterion (xi). Evidence in the District’s Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

7


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS problems on local roads and impact on local residents through any construction phase.  The type of housing likely to be provided on these sites will not meet the local needs of the area.

16

17

Muhammad Akhtar

Phil Howden

Local Resident

Local Resident

RESPONSE

Policy EL1  Concern about the development (Grab of Grab Lane for residential Lane) purposes. Priority should be given to developing brownfield sites first.

 Concern over increases in traffic levels which will create further problems on local roads and impact on local residents through any construction phase.

 The type of housing likely to be provided on these sites will not meet the local needs of the area.

Policy EL1  Supports the provision of (Grab affordable housing in the District. Lane)  However, objects to proposals which involve the development of Greenfield sites. Priority should be given to the regeneration of brownfield sites.

 Proposed site at Grab Lane is in Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.. There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE Support to the provision of affordable housing noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this in itself will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The purposes of a Local Plan are 8


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

18

19

NAME

Rosemary Morgan

Alison Bird

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

a particularly unsustainable and inaccessible location.  Opposed to the development of Greenfield sites in the South of Lancaster for residential purposes. Regeneration should be given priority with improvements to the City Centre.  Traffic problems will be exacerbated by any further growth in the South of Lancaster.

 Lancaster is still surrounded by beautiful countryside and this should not be lost.

Policy EL1  Concern raised over the potential (Grab development of Greenfield site at Lane) Grab Lane, priority should be given to the regeneration of Lancaster Moor Hospital and other brownfield sites.  There are no community facilities in the local area, including shops of community centres.

 Further development will increase existing traffic problems in the East of Lancaster.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most of housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The delivery of new infrastructure will be a key component of future development to the East of Lancaster that is clearly suggested in Policy EL1 criterion (xi). The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

9


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

20 21

NOT USED Janet Moffatt

22

Shantha Narasimhan

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Concern over whether the right type of properties will be built.

improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.  Policy EL1 provides a clear indication of the type of housing required (criterion x). There is no evidence to suggest that the wrong type of properties will be built.

Local Resident

Policy EL1  The proposals to build on land to (Grab the South of Lancaster are noted; Lane) whilst no objection is raised to the plans sufficient consideration should be given to improvements to the local roads and amenities.

Local Resident

Policy EL1  Objects to the residential (Grab development proposed for the Lane) Grab Lane site, priority should be given to developing on Brownfield sites.  Land at Grab Lane is liable to flooding, and there will be significant impacts on the local road network to the detriment of local highway safety and increasing traffic congestion.  The sort of housing likely to be built on out-of-town sites is not the sort required - we need

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

NO CHANGE  Comment noted. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. Policy EAST1 specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the surrounding area. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policy EAST1.  There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, 10


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

23

Robin Dodgson

Local Resident

Policy EAST 1

24

Wayne Nisbet

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

25

Bob Dewhirst

Local Resident

26

Ann Gegg

Local Resident

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

affordable housing for first time buyers and to rent.  Objection to the potential development on Greenfield site at Grab Lane. This site, combined with the regeneration of existing brownfield sites in the East of Lancaster will have significant impacts on the local road network, increasing congestion on local roads.

particularly through the provision of affordable homes.  Objection noted. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. Policy EAST1 of the Land Allocations DPD specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the East of Lancaster.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

 Concern over further growth in the South of Lancaster detracting from the overall perception of Lancaster as a ‘Gateway to the Lakes”. Development should be directed towards the regeneration of brownfield sites.  Further growth in the South will damage the University’s reputation as a campus university which could damage it economically.

Policy SOUTH 1

 Development in the South of Lancaster should not be directed through Lancaster University. Policy  Concern over future development RES1 at Silverdale. (Silverdale  What consideration has been ) given to the issues relating to flooding and drainage in the locality? We would urge a

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

 No evidence has been presented showing any detrimental economic impact to Lancaster University as a consequence of growth in the South of Lancaster. No representations received on this plan from Lancaster University.  Comment noted.  Objection noted.  Further investigation will be undertaken on potential flood risks to development sites by liaising with the Environment Agency and

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE CHANGE CONSIDERED

11


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

27

NAME

Rebecca Lambert

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

thorough geological survey and risk assessment is undertaken before any decisions are made which jeopardise the fragile underground system here. Policy EL1  Object to the residential (Grab development proposed for the Lane) Grab Lane site, priority should be given to developing on Brownfield sites.  Development of this site will damage local wildlife and exacerbate existing problems on local roads, both in terms of capacity and highway safety.

28

Ian Voyle

Local Resident

Policy EL2  Object to the regeneration of the (Lancaster Brownfield site at Lancaster Moor Moor) Hospital.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Lancashire County Council.

 Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policy EAST1. Whilst the site has landscape significances there is no evidence to suggest that this site has ecological importance. The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible.  Objection noted. The re-use of brownfield sites for appropriate purposes has been and will continue to be a priority for the Council, simply leaving the site (particularly one which contains an important Listed Building) derelict is not an option.

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

12


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

29

NAME

Patrick Joleys

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

30

Dr Robert Lynch

Local Resident

31

G.A. Turnbull

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 There is no suitable infrastructure in the local area (public transport, shops and schools). Lack of adequate supermarket provision in the local area. Policy EL1  Priority should be given to the (Grab regeneration of brownfield sites Lane) as per the original policy of ‘Urban Concentration’ advocated in the 2008 Core Strategy document.

 Unnecessary to destroy greenfield sites given the abundance of brownfield opportunities and will lead to significant damage to the natural environment. Policy SL2  Questions the feasibility of (Bailrigg development at Bailrigg Lane, Lane) South Lancaster. Further development will exacerbate existing congestion problems on the main A6.

Policy  Concern over development in RES1 Silverdale, the village is part of (Silverdale the AONB with only limited ) infrastructure (narrow roads, drainage). New development will

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE  Policy EAST1 of the Land Allocations DPD sets out the need for new development to contribute towards infrastructure improvements in the locality.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst this is a departure from Core Strategy policy the reasons for this are made clear in the emerging documents.  The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible.  Comment noted. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the South of Lancaster.  Concern noted. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

13


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS bring more traffic into the village exacerbating current traffic issues.

 Past housing development have detracted from the visual character of the area. More housing is not required in Silverdale and increasing the size of the village further will destroy its character.

32

Hannah Fleet

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

 Objection to the development of Greenfield sites to the South of Lancaster for residential purposes. Priority should be given to the regeneration of brownfield sites which could create affordable housing and infrastructure.  Further development in this area will damage the natural environment and the rural qualities of Lancaster – which in turn may have economic implications for the town.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE through new development. However, there is no evidence to suggest that small-scale housing growth within village will ‘exacerbate’ traffic issues. There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale has significant traffic issues on a frequent basis.  There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale does not require further housing over the forthcoming 15 years. To maintain a healthy and sustainable community the creation of appropriate housing to meet the needs of current and future generations of Silverdale will be critical to the village’s long term viability.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 Whilst the development of Greenfield sites will have some negative implications on the environment, the Local Plan needs to balance the protection of the environment assets in the District against the development needs of current and future generations as sustainably as possible. 14


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

33

Louise Hodgson

Local Resident

POLICY REF Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Objection to the development of the Greenfield site at Bailrigg Lane, South Lancaster. Priority should be given to the regeneration of brownfield sites in the District.  Development of this will be detrimental to residential amenity and the loss of views from neighbouring properties.

 Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs  The loss of a personal view from a residential property is not a material consideration in determining the most sustainable location for future development.  Policy SOUTH1 refers to the requirements for infrastructure provision to be delivered through new development.  The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible.  Comments noted. Agreed that further infrastructure is required through new development, this requirement is set out within Policy SOUTH1.

NO CHANGE

 Concern noted. The council will continue to liaise with key

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Concerned about infrastructure required for new development, such as education and health provision.  Further development, particularly on Greenfield sites, will be damaging to the natural environment. 34

Revd. Michael Gisbourne

St Pauls Parish Church, Scotforth

35

Alison Page

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

 Acknowledged need for more housing although concern about the future for the community in South Lancaster. Consideration should be given through the development process for the creation of new community facilities, particularly in relation to health care and education provision and places of worship. Other issues to consider should include the provision of play spaces and traffic issues. Policy EL1  Drainage is a key issue for the (Grab Grab Lane with much of the land

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

NO CHANGE

15


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

36

37

NAME

Alison Page

Kirstine Bond

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF Lane)

Policy EAST 1

Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

in this area under standing water after periods of prolonged rainfall. Proposals should also consider its implications on the public transport network and provision of key services such as shops.  Any development of this site will have significant implications on the setting and landscape character of the area.

 The regeneration of brownfield sites must be prioritised over the development of Greenfield sites.

 Housing needs for the District may have now dropped in light of reductions in student numbers.

 Objection to the development of the Greenfield sites in the South of Lancaster for residential purposes. Priority should be given to the development of brownfield sites in the town rather than destroying the green southern gateway into the town.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policy EAST1. Further work will be undertaken to assess the landscape impacts of development on the Grab Lane site, the conclusions to this work and the mitigation measures required will be incorporated within the forthcoming development brief for the Grab Lane site. Comments noted. The emerging Land Allocations DPD anticipates that the majority of housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. No evidence current exists over future trends in student numbers and how any changes in student numbers will affect the local housing market. This issue will be monitored by the Council in future. Objection noted. The emerging Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

16


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Further development in the South of Lancaster will exacerbate existing traffic problems.

 The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the South of Lancaster.  There is no evidence to suggest that the available homes in the Lancaster area are appropriate to meet all local needs for size, location and affordability. Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District.  Objection noted. Parish Partnership working is designed to help deliver appropriate needs based development.

 There are sufficient homes for sale in the area and other more suitable areas for development.

38

Mark Eccles

Local Resident

Policy OPP5

39

Mark Eccles

Local Resident

40

Mark Eccles

Local Resident

Policy OPP2 Policy RES3 (Keer Br.)

 Opposed to Policy OPP5 which suggests that opportunities for additional development in certain villages will be explored via Parish Partnership working. This policy framework will not allow for appropriate or needs based development. It could lead to opportunistic and inappropriate development which is not genuinely required within the local community.  Support for the regeneration of the Former TDG site  Support for the regeneration of the Keer Bridge site

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 Support noted

NO CHANGE

 Support noted

NO CHANGE

17


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

41

Valerie Smith

Local Resident

POLICY REF Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Priority should be given to the regeneration of brownfield sites and retain the policy of ‘Urban Concentration’ adopted in the Core Strategy of 2008.

NO CHANGE  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that the majority of housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst this is a departure from Core Strategy policy the reasons for this are made clear in the emerging documents.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD.  There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst this is a departure from Core Strategy policy the reasons for this are made clear in the emerging documents.  The council will continue to liaise

 Further development in South and East Lancaster will exacerbate existing traffic and flooding issues.

 Development in area will not lead to the provision of affordable housing which is what is genuinely needed. 42

Valerie Smith

Local Resident

Policy EL1  Priority should be given to the (Grab regeneration of brownfield sites Lane) and retain the policy of ‘Urban Concentration’ adopted in the Core Strategy of 2008.

 Further development in South Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

18


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

43

NAME

Dorothy Williams

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

and East Lancaster will exacerbate existing traffic and flooding issues.

 Development in area will not lead to the provision of affordable housing which is what is genuinely needed.

 Objection to the development of Greenfield sites in the South of Lancaster for residential purposes. Priority should be given to the regeneration of brownfield sites and retain the policy of ‘Urban Concentration’ adopted in the Core Strategy of 2008.  Further development in the South of Lancaster will only exacerbate existing traffic problems.

 The sort of housing likely to be built is not the type of housing

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD. There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst this is a departure from Core Strategy policy the reasons for this are made clear in the emerging documents. The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD. There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites 19


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

44

45

NAME

Amber – Skye Williams

Roger Kemp

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

that Lancaster needs and will not be affordable. Damaging the natural environment in the South of Lancaster will reduce house prices. Policy SL2  Objection to the Greenfield (Bailrigg development at Bailrigg Lane. Lane) Priority should be given to the regeneration of brownfield sites which can provide for Lancaster’s housing needs, seeking to retain the policy of ‘Urban Concentration’ adopted in the Core Strategy of 2008.  The Council should take greater effort in creating more Council housing to meet local needs; these should be provided close to the town centre. Policy SOUTH 1

RESPONSE

 Support Core Strategy Policies SC1 and SC2 which advocate ‘Urban Concentration’ and sustainable development. Strong reservations over how the Council have interpreted these policies within the Land Allocations DPD.

 Concern about the validity and soundness of the evidence base which underpins the Housing Needs assessment. Consequently objections are raised to any housing growth

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes, or that such development will reduce house prices. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst this is a departure from Core Strategy policy the reasons for this are made clear in the emerging documents. The Council has limited resources and finances to create new ‘Council’ housing. The Council do work closely in the delivery of affordable accommodation via Registered Social Landlords (RSL). Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst this is a departure from Core Strategy policy the reasons for this are made clear in the emerging documents. The evidence base work undertaken to understand the Districts housing needs, via the Housing Needs Survey, is based on a national Methodology which is considered to be sound and robust.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

20


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

46

NAME

Keith Blackburn

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS identified in the South of Lancaster.

Policy  Objection to proposed residential RES1 development at Whinney Fold, (Silverdale Silverdale for 7 dwellings. The ) proposed site is greenfield and will have significant impacts on the local area, to the local landscape and local roads.

 Concern about the ownership of potential access point.

47

Meisoon Jumah

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

 The need for further housing in the village is doubtful as housing opportunities already exist in the village which have not been taken up. Doubts about affordability of any new development.  Opposed to Greenfield development in the South of Lancaster for residential purposes due to the impacts on local schools, increased traffic and lack of public transport.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

It suggests that the housing need in the District is significant and cannot be wholly met through the regeneration of brownfield sites. CHANGE  Objection noted. There is no CONSIDERED evidence to suggest that Silverdale does not require further housing over the forthcoming 15 years. To maintain a healthy and sustainable community the creation of appropriate housing to meet the needs of current and future generations of Silverdale will be critical to the village’s long term viability.  Further investigation work will be undertaken to clarify the position of landownership and highways issues.  There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes.  Objection noted. The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land

NO CHANGE

21


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

48

Meisoon Jumah

Local Resident

Policy EL1  Opposition to Greenfield (Grab development in the East of Lane) Lancaster for residential purposes due to the impacts on local schools, increased traffic and lack of public transport.

49

Catherine Hird

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

 Opposed to the development of Greenfield sites in the South of Lancaster for residential purposes. Building on Greenfield sites will detract from the quality of life from existing residents and damage the natural environment. Priority should be given to the regeneration of existing brownfield sites, such as Lancaster Moor Hospital before any consideration is given to greenfield sites.  Consideration should be given to the re-use of empty properties.

 There is a lack of infrastructure and further development will exacerbate existing problems, particularly local traffic.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE Allocations DPD.  Objection noted. The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

ACTION NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

 The Council is considering whether resources could be used to bring forward empty properties for re-use. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future housing needs.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate 22


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 The sort of housing likely to be built is not needed and is unlikely to be affordable for local needs. 50

Catherine Hird

Local Resident

Policy EL1  Opposed to the development of (Grab Greenfield sites in the South of Lane) Lancaster for residential purposes. Building on Greenfield sites will detract from the quality of life from existing residents and damage the natural environment. Priority should be given to the regeneration of existing brownfield sites, such as Lancaster Moor Hospital before any consideration is given to greenfield sites.  Consideration should be given to the re-use of empty properties.

 There is a lack of infrastructure and further development will exacerbate existing problems, particularly local traffic.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD.  There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

 The Council is considering whether resources could be used to bring forward empty properties for re-use. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future housing needs.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is 23


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 The sort of housing likely to be built is not needed and is unlikely to be affordable for local needs. 51

Sean Bolton

Local Resident

Policy EL1  Opposed to development of the (Grab Grab Lane site for residential Lane) purposes. Priority should be given to the regeneration of brownfield sites. Building on greenfield sites will have a negative impact on the natural environment and property values in the local area.  Local Traffic will be increased and there is a lack of suitable infrastructure being proposed, including public transport facilities, local shops and schooling provision.

 The economic case for the development is not proven; the development is wholly unacceptable in its impact on the local environment and people and does not represent sustainable development.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD.  There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

 The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD.  The evidence base work undertaken to understand the District’s housing needs, via the Housing Needs Survey, is based on a national methodology which is considered to be sound and robust. It suggests that the housing need in the District is significant and cannot 24


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

52

NAME

Rachael Faulkner

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Opposed to further development in Lancaster, particularly on Greenfield sites, which will detract from people’s quality of life and property values. Priority should be given to the regeneration of Brownfield sites.

 There is no infrastructure in terms of bus routes and school places. Local roads will not be able to take any further traffic from further development.

 The sort of housing that is likely to be build on these sites is not required and will not be Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

be wholly met through the regeneration of brownfield sites. This is a situation that is being reflected nationally. The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to seek protection of the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. There is no evidence to suggest that the land allocations proposed will have any detriment to people’s quality of life. A reduction in property values is not a material consideration in determining the most sustainable location for future development. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet all future development needs.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD.  There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, 25


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

53

54

NAME

Rachael Faulkner

David Herbert

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS affordable.

Policy EL1  Opposed to further development (Grab in Lancaster, particularly on Lane) Greenfield sites, which will detract from people’s quality of life and property values. Priority should be given to the regeneration of Brownfield sites.

Policy SOUTH 1

RESPONSE

 There is no infrastructure in terms of bus routes and school places. Local roads will not be able to take any further traffic from further development.

 The sort of housing that is likely to be build on these sites is not required and will not be affordable.

 Objection to the Greenfield development in the South of Lancaster for residential purposes. Priority should be given to the regeneration of

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE Objection noted. There is no evidence to suggest that the land allocations proposed will have any detriment to people’s quality of life. A reduction in property values is not a material consideration in determining the most sustainable location for future development. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD. There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE Objection noted. The emerging Land Allocations DPD anticipates that the majority of housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient 26


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

55

Kath Mom

Local Resident

POLICY REF Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

brownfield sites within the town.  Opposed to further development in Lancaster, particularly on Greenfield sites, which will detract from people’s quality of life and property values. Priority should be given to the regeneration of Brownfield sites.

to meet future development needs. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. There is no evidence to suggest that the land allocations proposed will have any detriment to people’s quality of life. A reduction in property values is not a material consideration in determining the most sustainable location for future development. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD.  There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE  Objection noted. There is no evidence to suggest that the land allocations proposed will have any detriment to people’s quality of life. A reduction in property values is not a material consideration in

 There is no infrastructure in terms of bus routes and school places. Local roads will not be able to take any further traffic from further development.

 The sort of housing that is likely to be build on these sites is not required and will not be affordable. 56

Kath Mom

Local Resident

Policy EL1  Opposed to further development (Grab in Lancaster, particularly on Lane) Greenfield sites, which will detract from people’s quality of life and property values. Priority should be given to the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

27


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

57

NAME

Jo Troughton

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

regeneration of Brownfield sites.

 There is no infrastructure in terms of bus routes and school places. Local roads will not be able to take any further traffic from further development.

 The sort of housing that is likely to be build on these sites is not required and will not be affordable.

Policy EL1  Objection to the development of (Grab the Greenfield site at Grab Lane Lane) for residential purposes. Any new development should be located on Luneside which is located centrally.  New development will exacerbate existing traffic problems on local roads.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

determining the most sustainable location for future development. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD. There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. NO CHANGE Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the highways infrastructure in the locality. 28


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

58

NAME

Jo Troughton

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 The development of affordable housing will lead to a rise in antisocial behaviour in the area and a degrading of the appearance of the local area.

 There is no evidence to suggest that the provision of affordable housing, which is mainly aimed at first-time buyers and key workers, will attract anti-social behaviour or crime.  Objection noted. The re-use of brownfield sites for appropriate purposes will continue to be a priority for the Council, simply leaving the site (particularly one which contains an important Listed Building) derelict is not an option. The Land Allocations DPD also allocates the brownfield site at Luneside for development.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the highways infrastructure in the locality.  There is no evidence to suggest that the provision of affordable housing, which is mainly aimed at first-time buyers and key workers, will attract anti-social behaviour or crime.  Comment noted. The council will continue, to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate

Policy EL2  Objection to the regeneration of (Lancaster Lancaster Moor Hospital for Moor) residential purposes. Any new development should be located on Luneside which is located centrally.

 New development will exacerbate existing traffic problems on local roads.

 The development of affordable housing will lead to a rise in antisocial behaviour in the area and a degrading of the appearance of the local area. 59

Sandra Burr

Local Resident

Areas of Strategic Growth

 Before any new development takes place priority must be given to improvement in local infrastructure, such as better roads, new schools and local shops. Development cannot

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

29


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

60

61

NAME

Dr Wallace Park

Andrew Keogh

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

continue unless these issues are addressed.

Policy  Objection to the development RES1 proposals for 7 dwellings at (Silverdale Whinney Fold, Silverdale. Priority ) should be given to the regeneration of Brownfield sites.

 Reasons for the objection include issues with the access to the site, questions over whether further housing is needed locally, lack of key services in Silverdale and the isolation of the village to the rest of the District.

Policy  Objection to the development RES1 proposals at Cove Drive, (Silverdale Silverdale. Existing brownfield ) sites should be considered to meet local housing needs.

 Objections relate to significant drainage issues and traffic.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policies EAST1 and SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale does not require further housing over the forthcoming 15 years. There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes. To maintain a healthy and sustainable community the creation of appropriate housing to meet the needs of current and future generations of Silverdale will be critical to the village’s long term viability. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Further investigation will be undertaken to clarify the position of landownership and highways

ACTION

NO CHANGE

CHANGE CONSIDERED

30


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

62

NAME

John Threlfall

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy  Objection to the development RES1 proposals for 7 dwellings at (Silverdale Whinney Fold, Silverdale. ) Regeneration of brownfield sites should be a priority with the adaptation of larger properties also providing opportunities to meet future development needs.  There are enough houses are for sale in Silverdale, why is there a need to build more?

 Whilst is it accepted that affordable housing would benefit the local community there is no guarantee that any new housing will be truly affordable.  Whinney Fold cannot cope with further traffic and development of the site will be detrimental to the natural environment. 63

Robert Birchall

Local Resident

Areas of Strategic

 Lancaster is in desperate need of new houses. I fully approve of the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE issues, and over the potential flood risks to the site via liaison with the Environment Agency and Lancashire County Council.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale does not require further housing over the forthcoming 15 years. To maintain a healthy and sustainable community the creation of appropriate housing to meet the needs of current and future generations of Silverdale will be critical to the village’s long term viability.  There is no evidence to suggest that development of Greenfield sites will not meet local housing needs, particularly through the provision of affordable homes.  Further investigation work will be undertaken to clarify the position of landownership and highways issues however the scale and size of such a proposal is considered to be limited. NO CHANGE  Support noted. 31


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

64

Dr Stephen Thackeray

Local Resident

POLICY SUMMARY OF COMMENTS REF Growth housing development proposed. Policy EL1  Object to the proposed (Grab development of the Greenfield Lane) site at Grab Lane for residential development. Priority should be given to the regeneration of brownfield site in the locality.  Further development of this site will exacerbate existing problems relating to local traffic and flooding issues.

 Development of this greenfield site will have impacts on the natural environment.

65

Ted Eden

Local Resident

Policy SL1  No particular reservations with (Whinney the Whinney Carr proposal apart Carr) from extra traffic and increased pressure on local facilities.

66

Ted Eden

Local Resident

Policy SL2  Concern raised over the (Bailrigg proposals for residential

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  Throughout the preparation of the Land Allocations DPD the council has liaised with Lancashire County Council – the local highways authority for the area – over the requirements for improvements to the local highway network. This has been included within emerging policy. Dialogue will continue.  Further work will be undertaken to assess the landscape impacts of development on the Grab Lane site, the conclusions to this work and the mitigation measures required will be incorporated within the development brief for the site.  Comments noted. The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the highways infrastructure in the locality. Policy SL1 sets out proposals for local facilities to be provided as part of the development of this site.  Comment noted. The council will continue to liaise with key

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE 32


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

67

NAME

Vijay Kamath

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF Lane)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS development on the Bailrigg Lane site, access to local roads will be problematical and there will be significant impacts on the local road network. Consideration also need to be given

Policy EL1  Concern about proposals for the (Grab development of the Greenfield Lane) site at Grab Lane for residential purposes. Development should be directed towards Lancaster Moor Hospital.  Proposed development in this local will cause significant traffic issues with local road capacity.

 The rural landscape of the area will be eroded by any development as will the setting of the Ashton Memorial.

68

Jayne Ennis

Local Resident

RESPONSE

Policy EL1  Concern about proposals for the (Grab development of the Greenfield Lane) site at Grab Lane for residential purposes. Priority should be given to the regeneration of

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policy SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policy EAST1 within the Land Allocations DPD. Further work will be undertaken to assess the landscape impacts of development on the Grab Lane site, the conclusions to this work and the mitigation measures required will be incorporated within the development brief for the site. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

NO CHANGE

33


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

69

NAME

Mary Keogh

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

Lancaster Moor Hospital.  Grab Lane is already has significant traffic issues, further increases in traffic would be detriment for both the local environment. There is a lack of amenities in the local area and this development would be to the detriment of existing residents of the area.  Development of this site would result in the loss of important farmland which is more valuable than providing poor quality housing. The close proximity of the M6 will create amenity issue for any new housing developed.

development needs.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policy EAST1 within the Land Allocations DPD.  There is no evidence to suggest that the housing which is to be provided at the Grab Lane site will be of a ‘poor’ quality. Whilst the loss of farmland is a consideration this needs to be balanced against the need to deliver housing to meet current and future generations. CHANGE  Objection noted. There is no CONSIDERED evidence to suggest that the scale of development proposed in Silverdale would have significant impacts on the rural character of the village. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team, United Utilities and the Environment Agency to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure through new development. However, Council acknowledges access difficulties to Cove Road site and further investigations will be undertaken in relation to flood risk.  Whilst there are limited brownfield

Policy  Object to proposed development RES1 off Cove Drive, Silverdale as it (Silverdale will lead to the loss of Silverdale’s ) green character, loss of agricultural land, loss of flora and fauna, poor drainage and potential flood risk and increased traffic will have impacts on local roads.

 Other options on brownfield sites Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

34


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Support all the development plans outlined in the document particularly in relation to plans to develop Heysham Port and Power Station which will bring more jobs to the area. Further regeneration is required in both Lancaster and Carnforth to encourage economic growth.  Object to the proposed development on land at Halton Army Camp as it would remove the Green Belt between Lancaster and Halton.

70

Ann-Marie Palmer

Local Resident

Areas of Strategic Growth

71

Joyce Beasley

Halton with Aughton PC

Policy RES1 (Halton)

should be explored first over greenfield sites.

 Significant development has already taken place in the village over recent years; new development would increase levels of traffic and increase pressure on local school places.  New development would affect and alter the population make-up of the village and be detrimental to the desirability of the village Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

opportunities in the Silverdale area, many of the sites that have been suggested are in active economic use which is important to the local economy.  Support/comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Objection noted. The Halton Training Camp site has been put forward by the landowners of the site as it no longer required and would be suitable for redevelopment. This is an opportunity to regenerate a brownfield site in a highly accessible area between Lancaster and Halton. This site is not within the Green Belt.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways and education teams to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required.  There is no evidence to suggest that the regeneration of the site for housing will limit the opportunities for specific sectors of the

NO CHANGE

35


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

72

NAME

Brian Jones

ORGANISATION

Ramblers Association

73

Brian Jones

Ramblers Association

74

Jacqui Thompson

North Lancashire PCT

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS and would restrict the opportunities for elderly residents who wish to move properties.

Land Allocation s DPD

 Request that recognition is given to the ‘English Coastal Route’ (ECR) within the document. It could be referred to within the existing policy framework or a new policy created.  Recognise that some coastal development is inevitable. However where it is required then provision should be made for the best possible alternative route for the ECR. Where there are important environmental issues that mitigate against development then the Ramblers Association would like to see policies that are sufficiently robust to resist such developments. Policy SL1  The land between the A6 and (Whinney West Coast Mainline should be Carr) protected as green space and filled with trees. Policy GR3

 Supports the document’s references to preserving and developing green space, cycle and pedestrian ways and recreational facilities as an alternative ways of getting about the District. The reference to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE community, on the contrary the provision of housing will provide greater opportunities for housing choice in the Halton area.  Comments noted. Consideration will be given to the inclusion of reference to the English Coastal Route (ECR).

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Policy EC6.2 of the Development Management DPD provides sufficient protection of public rights of ways (PROWs).

 Comment noted. Whilst green space will be a key component of the wider Whinney Carr scheme the precise location of such space will be defined through the Development Brief for the site.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

36


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

75

Jacqui Thompson

North Lancashire PCT

Policy RPA1

76

Jacqui Thompson

North Lancashire PCT

Areas of Strategic Growth

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS preserving and identifying allotment space is also supported.  The focus on regeneration of deprived areas is welcomed and the Council should continue consultation with communities in those areas. Good design is recognised to promote health and also reduces crime and the fear of crime. Regeneration will also have potential to encourage investment into the area.  A substantial development will impact on particular areas of the district, increasing demand on some services and service access in these areas. Due to changes in population and demographics in the district the PCT wish the Council to be mindful of the types of properties identified within these housing areas.

 Recommend that the council request any developer to commission a Health Needs Assessment for any development over a pre-determined number of dwellings and for the council to Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE  Comment noted. Acknowledged that the development of new housing will place requirements on the capacity of health services within the locality. Work is continuing with the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to ensure that where extra health care capacity is required (eg through new or expanded premises, or other extra resources), that it is provided via contributions from new development. This work will continue as the Local Plan documents are prepared.  Comment noted. Council is already committed to undertake a Health Impact Assessment as part of the Local Plan, in order to determine health needs arising out of new development, and the need for 37


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

77

Dr Alex Gaw

Lancashire North Clinical Commissioning Group

Land Allocation s DPD

78

Gillian Whitworth

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

consider a requirement for the developer to fund appropriate community developments.  New development should ensure that it caters for an ageing population through the design and mix of housing types, consideration should also be given to an increase of residential and nursing care home places to ensure that care provision is available to local people. Discussions have taken place over the future provision of GP services and it has been noted that some of the developments are of sufficient scale to warrant the appointment of a further GP – further consultation is recommended with the CCG to ensure that future requirements for GP provision is delivered in a suitable and appropriate way.  Objection to the proposed Greenfield development in the South of Lancaster for Residential purposes.

developer contributions. Council will continue to liaise with PCT/CCGs as appropriate. NO CHANGE  Comment noted. Acknowledged that the development of new housing will place requirements on the capacity of health services within the locality. Work is continuing with the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to ensure that where extra health care capacity is required (eg through new or expanded premises, or other extra resources), that it is provided via contributions from new development. This work will continue as the Local Plan documents are prepared.

 New development in this area will exacerbate existing traffic issues on local roads and any sustainable transport measures will be ignored in favour of private car use. Emphasis should be on Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

 Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways and education teams to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the

ACTION

NO CHANGE

38


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

79

Colin Hartley

Local Resident

80

Kevin Spencer

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy CWL5

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

providing the infrastructure first before development takes place.  Priority should be give to the reuse of empty properties within the District.

locality if it is required. This is highlighted within Policy SOUTH1.  The Council is considering whether resources could be used to bring forward empty properties for re-use. However, this alone will not be sufficient to meet future housing needs.  Objection noted. Policy CWL5 identified the land at Willow Lane / Coronation Field and the land at Freemans Wood as an area for recreation. However, the site is of a poor quality and is in need of work to improve the recreational value of the area. Whilst there are a number of opportunities of deliver improvements, such as community purchase or lottery funding, there is flexibility built into Policy CWL5 to deliver recreational improvements to the wider area via enabling development on a small portion of the site.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst there are limited brownfield opportunities in the Silverdale area, many of the sites that have been suggested are in active economic use which is important to the local economy.

 Objection to a policy which allows for any type of development to take place in the Willow Lane / Coronation Fields / Freemans Wood area.

Policy  Objection to all proposed RES1 development sites in Silverdale (Silverdale (Whinney Fold and Cove Drive), ) priority should always be given to the re-use of brownfield sites over greenfield areas.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

39


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Silverdale does not have sufficient services for any further development, particularly in relation to the sewers; there are also significant traffic issues in the village. Impact on local caravan sites should be taken into account when considering allocating sites in the Silverdale area. Do not accept that Silverdale requires any further housing.

 The level of service provision in Silverdale is very good in comparison to other villages in the District with a library, school, GP, Post Office and grocery store. To maintain such facilities in the long term a sustainable community is required. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. However, there is no evidence to suggest that small-scale housing growth within village will ‘exacerbate’ traffic issues. There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale has significant traffic issues on a frequent basis.  Concern noted. The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. This is highlighted within Policy SOUTH1.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst this is a departure from Core Strategy policy

81

Gisela Renolds

Local Resident

Policy SL1  Strong concerns raised over the (Whinney proposed residential development Carr) at Whinney Carr, such development will exacerbate existing traffic issues on local roads, both in terms of capacity and highway safety.

82

Andrew Boit

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH 1

 Object to the proposed development of Greenfield sites in South Lancaster for Residential purposes. Priority should be given to the regeneration of Brownfield sites and retain the policy of ‘Urban Concentration’

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

40


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

adopted in the Core Strategy of 2008.  Any further development in this area will exacerbate existing traffic issues on local roads.

the reasons for this are made clear in the emerging documents.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. This is highlighted within Policy SOUTH1.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst this is a departure from Core Strategy policy the reasons for this are made clear in the emerging documents.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. This is highlighted within Policy SOUTH1.

83

Andrew Boit

Local Resident

Policy EL1  Object to the proposed (Grab development of Greenfield sites Lane) in East of Lancaster for Residential purposes. Priority should be given to the regeneration of Brownfield sites and retain the policy of ‘Urban Concentration’ adopted in the Core Strategy of 2008.  Any further development in this area will exacerbate existing traffic issues on local roads.

84 85 86

NOT USED NOT USED D Sharples

Local Resident

Policy  Object to proposed development RES1 at Cove Drive in Silverdale. (Silverdale  Given the number of unsold ) properties there is insufficient demand.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

 Objection noted.  The Housing Needs Survey of 2011 states that there is a housing need to be addressed in Silverdale, particularly certain sectors of the

ACTION

NO CHANGE

CHANGE CONSIDERED

41


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Land appears boggy and I would argue there is a flood risk and drainage issue.

 Destruction of a habitat and harm to the environment is inconsistent with the conservation of natural beauty. Local authorities have a duty of regard for the purposes of AONB's to conserve natural beauty, have regard to the needs of agriculture and have regard to the social needs of local communities.  LCC leases the fields to Bank House Farm [NT Farm]. This is how it should stay.  Issue is socially divisive. One opinion is that here will be provision for affordable housing whilst LCC itself merely 'hopes' for a mix. This is not good enough.  Opposed to noise, dirt and general disruption during construction. According to the European Convention of Human Rights Protocol 1 Article 1 provides for the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

community. These needs to be addressed in the most sustainable way possible.  No evidence provided of drainage problems or flood risk. However, Council acknowledges access difficulties to Cove Road site and further investigations will be undertaken in relation to flood risk.  The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible. This also applies within the AONB. No nature conservation significances affected by the proposal.  Comment noted.  Affordable Housing Policy is set out in the Council’s Development Management DPD which is part of the Local Plan (Policy CSC4.2), and sets clear standards.  If the Act applied in this way, then no development would ever take place. Any noise or disruption caused through development would be carefully controlled by planning conditions.

42


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS possessions, including my home. Human Rights Act 1998 gives further effect in UK law to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention.  Site would lead to an increased volume of traffic on an unsuitable road configuration with inadequate access. Size of amenities such as the school could not cope with sudden rise in population.

 Response to enquiries with LCC regarding land for allotments was that LCC could not provide land. Now it seems there was always land.  If LCC need to raise money then it should either put up council tax or cut services or wages.  Council should work in the interests of council tax payers; therefore if there are objectors outweigh those in favour then the proposed development should Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 There is no evidence to suggest that small-scale housing growth within village will ‘exacerbate’ traffic issues. There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale has significant traffic issues on a frequent basis. No evidence that the school would not be able to offer places to primary school-age children from a development of just 20 houses.  The council does promote the development of allotments, but cannot always identify land on demand.  The need to identify housing is in the interests of the Council’s legal obligations and to plan sustainably to meet housing needs in all communities.  The Council always listens to representations and balances them against its wider obligations.

43


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

87

Colin Weaver

Local Resident

Policy HEY3 (Former Pontins Site)

88

Angela Atkinson

Marine Management Organisation

Policy CWL2 (Castle & Quay)

89

Angela Atkinson

Marine Management Organisation

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS not go ahead.  Object to threat that if people object to 20 houses we will get 100 instead.  Building should only be on brownfield sites such as the the derelict Royal Hotel.

 Suggest it be truly affordable for young people in the village wishing to live here and that the work is done by local tradesmen. Property should have local occupancy clauses.  Wish to see the completion of the Middleton Towers Site for residential / commercial purposes within the gated village. Concern over the use of the remainder of the site for low cost housing which would not be good for the area.

 Recommend that this policy includes reference to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and / or Marine Planning Policy Statement. Policy  Recommend that this policy CWL3 includes reference to the Marine (Luneside) Management Organisation

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted. The Council would not do this.  Whilst there are limited brownfield opportunities in the Silverdale area, many of the sites that have been suggested are in active economic use which is important to the local economy.  Affordable Housing Policy CSC4.2 sets out to do this, but the Council could not require the work to be undertaken by local tradesmen.  Comments noted. The Council would prefer to see the extant planning permission for the site be fully implemented however future flexibility is required in the type of uses that could go on the Middleton Towers site to allow long term sustainability for the locality. Any proposed uses would have to be compatible to existing uses in the area.  Comments noted. Consideration will be given to how the MMO and Marine Planning Policy Guidance will be incorporated into the Local Plan documents.  Comments noted. Consideration will be given to how the MMO and Marine Planning Policy Guidance

NO CHANGE

CHANGE REQUIRED

CHANGE REQUIRED 44


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

90

Angela Atkinson

Marine Management Organisation

Policy HEY1 (Energy Coast)

91

Angela Atkinson

Marine Management Organisation

Policy HEY3

92

Sally Thornton

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH1

(MMO) and / or Marine Planning Policy Statement. Recommend that this policy includes reference to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and / or Marine Planning Policy Statement. Recommend that this policy includes reference to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and / or Marine Planning Policy Statement. Object to the development of Greenfield sites in the South of Lancaster for residential purposes. Priority should be towards the regeneration of brownfield sites over Greenfield. There are sufficient properties on the market which will increase further as more purpose built student accommodation is developed. More resources should be placed in re-using empty properties in the District. Further development will exacerbate existing problems in the local road network.

 There is no industry to justify further housing. Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

will be incorporated into the Local Plan documents. Comments noted. Consideration will be given to how the MMO and Marine Planning Policy Guidance will be incorporated into the Local Plan documents. Comments noted. Consideration will be given to how the MMO and Marine Planning Policy Guidance will be incorporated into the Local Plan documents. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The Council is considering whether resources could be used to bring forward empty properties for re-use. However, as with brownfield sites, this alone will not be sufficient to meet future housing needs.

ACTION

CHANGE REQUIRED

CHANGE REQUIRED

NO CHANGE

 The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. This is highlighted within Policy SOUTH1.  The Local Plan seeks not only to identifiy opportunities for further 45


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 The site at Bailrigg Lane appears to be earmarked for the growth of the university only and therefore will not benefit local people – it the University wishes to expand it should pay for a new slip-road onto the M6. 93

Sheila Spencer

Local Resident

Policy  Object to the proposed RES1 development in Silverdale, at (Silverdale both Whinney Fold and Cove ) Drive. Objection is raised as both sites are greenfield and will involve the loss of green fields. More opportunities should be taken to develop brownfield sites within the village. These proposals do nothing to protect either the beauty or wildlife of the area. Do we continually intend to develop our green fields until there is nothing left?  Silverdale does not have sufficient infrastructure for further

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

housing growth but also plans for future economic growth in the District, this includes Lancaster University Science Park, Growth at Heysham Port and Power Station and proposals for town centre expansion at Lancaster Canal Corridor.  The proposals at the Bailrigg Lane site are not purely to meet the future needs of the university, although opportunities for future growth of the university will be considered in order to restrict future growth to the south of the Campus. This is set out in the first paras of Policy SL2.  Objection noted. The development proposed in the Silverdale area is not of a sufficient scale or size to lead to the conclusion that this will detrimentally damage the environment of the area. Whilst Silverdale is located within the AONB it is a living / working community which needs to cater for its current and future housing needs. Whilst there are limited brownfield opportunities in the Silverdale area, many of the sites that have been suggested are in active economic use which is important to the local economy.  The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team

NO CHANGE

46


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS development, particularly in terms of the sewerage system and the local road network, the latter is exacerbated by local tourism uses.

 There are already houses for sale in Silverdale and therefore more housing is not required. Has the need for more local housing been proven?

94

David Scholey

Moor Platt Neighbours Group

Policy RES1 (Caton)

95

Kathleen Siddall

Local Resident

Policy RES1 (Caton)

 Support the proposal for residential development at Moor Platt, Caton. Would not wish to see the site identified and re-used for recreational purposes.  Support the proposal for residential development at Moor Platt, Caton. Would not wish to see the site identified and re-used

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. However, there is no evidence to suggest that smallscale housing growth within village will ‘exacerbate’ traffic issues. There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale has significant traffic issues on a frequent basis. The Council has liaised with United Utilities over drainage provision in the Silverdale area; the Council has been advised that development of such a small scale can be adequately provided for through the use of new septic tank systems.  The housing which is for sale in the village is of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the Silverdale area, in particularly younger people. The Council have undertaken a Housing Needs Survey in 2011 which is available on the Council website.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

47


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

96

Dorothea Pilling

Local Resident

97

Marian O’Neill

Local Resident

98

Shirley Mason

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

for recreational purposes.  Support the proposal for residential development at Moor Platt, Caton. Would not wish to see the site identified and re-used for recreational purposes. Policy  Support the proposal for RES1 residential development at Moor (Caton) Platt, Caton. Would not wish to see the site identified and re-used for recreational purposes. Policy  Object to the proposed RES1 development in Silverdale, at (Silverdale both Whinney Fold and Cove ) Drive. There is no further need for development in Silverdale with a number of large properties for sale in the Village. Policy RES1 (Caton)

 If further development must be required then this should be for affordable housing for local younger people. 99

P. Cakebread

Local Resident

Policy CWL5

 Oppose all development on the Freemans Wood site.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Objection noted. There is significant evidence through the Housing Needs Survey of 2011 that there is a pressing need for new housing across the District including Silverdale. Whilst Silverdale is located within the AONB it is a living / working community which needs to cater for its current and future housing needs.  The housing which is for sale in the village is of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the Silverdale area, in particularly younger people.  Objection noted. Policy CWL5 identified the land at Willow Lane / Coronation Field and the land at Freemans Wood as an area for recreation. However, the site is of a poor quality and is in need of work to improve the recreational value of the area. Whilst there are a number

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

48


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

100

NAME

Hugh Roberts

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Areas of Strategic Growth

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 The fencing around the site should be removed.

 Concern over the requirement for future housing needs. The evidence behind such figures should be re-visited and published.

 Priority should be given to the regeneration of brownfield sites and the re-use of empty properties before any consideration is given to the use of greenfield sites.

 The high infrastructure costs relating to bring forward the Whinney Carr site will make affordable housing difficult to achieve.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

of opportunities of deliver such improvements, such as community purchase or lottery funding, there is flexibility built into Policy CWL5 to deliver recreational improvements to the wider area via enabling development on a small portion of the site. The land which has been fenced off at the Freemans Wood site is privately owned and it within the right of the owners to erect fencing if they so choose to. Objection noted. The Council prepared a Housing Needs Survey in 2011 which evidenced the District housing needs; this is relevant and up-to-date and suggests that the housing need across the District is significant. This assessment has been published and is available on the Council’s website. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites, including those sites suggested at Luneside and Lancaster Moor Hospital. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. There will be significant costs associated with the delivery of a link road across the Whinney Carr site, however these costs will be expected to be shared within the

ACTION

NO CHANGE

49


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

101

NAME

Dr Nadia Mazza

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy SL1  Object to the construction of (Whinney housing (or any other Carr) development) on land at Whinney Carr. This area should remain as farmland because it is vital to the local ecosystem.

 Further development to the South of Lancaster would exacerbate existing traffic problems, particularly on the A6.

102

Dr Nadia Mazza

Local Resident

Policy SL2  Object to the construction of (Bailrigg housing (or any other Lane) development) on land at Bailrigg Lane. This area of Lancaster should be kept as green as possible.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE residential development at both Whinney Carr and Bailrigg and this should not affect either site’s ability to deliver affordable housing.  Objection noted. The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible. The Council’s view is that the delivery of development on a range of brownfield and greenfield sites represents the most sustainable approach to meeting the needs of this generation and future generations.  The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. This is reflected in Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD  Objection noted. The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible. The Council’s view is that the delivery of development on a range of brownfield and greenfield sites represents the most sustainable approach to meeting the needs of this generation and

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

50


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

103

Dr Nadia Mazza

Local Resident

Policy HEY2 (Heysham Nuclear Power Station)

104

Dr Nadia Mazza

Local Resident

Policy REC2

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  There are significant traffic issues in the local area which will be exacerbated by further development, particularly Bailrigg Lane which is now very dangerous. Further development will exacerbate these problems and create further residential amenity issues for Bailrigg Village.  Whatever decision is to be made, no pylons should be erected above ground. They should be buried instead so preserve the natural beauty of the entire region.

 Further improvements to the Cork Road allotments are required to improve access in and around the site. In general, instead of increasing the number of plots available more should be done to improve the quality of the existing plots and promote more efficient methods of use. Schools should be encouraged to make better

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

future generations.  The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.. This is reflected in Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD  Comments noted. The delivery of upgrades to the National Grid System will be brought forward nationally by the National Grid. The council will have only limited powers to input into what is brought forward and will not determine any future planning applications for such a proposal, whether it is over ground or underground. However, Policy EC5.2 sets out the Council’s approach to preparing any future responses to any future proposals made by the National Grid.  Comment noted. The Council seeks to deliver an efficient allotment service, which is predominantly done outside of the Local Plan process although opportunities for further growth in allotment provision (if required) in areas of need could be explored through new development proposals.

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

51


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

105

Dr Nadia Mazza

Local Resident

Policy RET1

106

Dr Nadia Mazza

Local Resident

Policy TR2

107

Brian Godding

Local Resident

Policy RES1 (Galgate)

108

John Illingworth

Local Resident

Policy SL1  (Whinney Carr)

use of allotments as part of the curriculum. There needs to be a reduction to litter and noise pollution in the town centre, possibly through the introduction of fines. Retailers should clearly indicate what can or cannot be recycled. The proposed Park and Ride scheme should include a Park and Cycle scheme. Concern about the proposal for resident development at Ashley House, Galgate. Whilst no objection is raised in principle to development objection would be raised should access to the development be taken from Stoney Lane. There are significant traffic issues on this lane already and further traffic would exacerbate these issues. Should development take place then access should not be made off Stoney Lane. Concern about the potential impact of traffic arising from the Whinney Carr site, particularly traffic capacity on Ashton Road. Further traffic from new developments in the South of Lancaster would exacerbate existing traffic problems along Ashton Road. If any development is agreed for

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted. The Council is working to improve the public realm in the town centre through its Square Routes scheme.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. This will be discussed with Lancashire County Council.  Concern noted. At this point no decision has been made over the most appropriate way of creating access to the site, although as the limitations to the developable area show, that traffic issues in this location are of concern to Lancashire County Council. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.  Concern noted. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. This is reflected in Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD.

NO CHANGE NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

 The need for community facilities is 52


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

109

NAME

Janet Dearden

110

Deborah Smith

112

Valerie Smith

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

The Trustees of the Bugle Inn Retirement Benefit Scheme Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy RES1 (Hornby)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS this area, developers should provide for a multi-purpose centre which should provide for a range of community uses.  Concern about development proposals for Hornby. Concern raised over proposals at Melling Road, development of this site would pose significant traffic issues on the main road which would need to be addressed.

 The site at Priory Lane has access issues as this is a private road. Development of this site may also affect surface water drainage and new development should not create problems for the existing community. Policy  Support the residential proposal RES1 for land at Wheatfield Street, (Lancaster Lancaster. ) Policy EL2  Object to the development (Lancaster proposal for the Lancaster Moor Moor) site. Whilst it is a brownfield site the locality cannot support 440 additional households.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

recognised in Policy SOUTH1 Criterion IV and Policy SL1 criterion (xii).  Concern noted. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. The Council does not consider that traffic problems will be created by the Melling Road proposal.  Comments over accessibility issues are noted, further investigation will be made into the viability of this proposal.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Objection noted. The delivery of residential development on Brownfield sites provided a very sustainable opportunities to assist in meeting the significant housing needs within this district and provides the opportunity to retain a historic Listed Building which will be in danger of loss if no viable regeneration proposals of put forward.

NO CHANGE

53


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

113

NAME

Valerie Smith

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Concern about plans to remove some of the historic buildings on the site.

 The Listed Structures at Lancaster Moor Hospital will be retained as part of any development of the site. The only demolition will be of nonlisted contemporary structures. All proposals will be brought forward with the assistance and advice of English Heritage and the Council’s Conservation Team.  There is no evidence that the Lancaster Moor Hospital site could be regenerated for tourism purposes. No viable proposals have been put forward for tourism uses.

 Lancaster has great potential to be developed as a historic centre for tourism, and it is important that we retain and find new uses for the buildings on the outskirts of Lancaster which can never be replaced. Policy EL1  Opposed to development of open (Grab green fields. Preferable to direct Lane) developers towards brownfield sites.  Transport infrastructure cannot accommodate development. Bus service frequency is every two hours.  No shops or schools within easy walking distance. History of severe flooding on Grab Lane. Air pollution problems will be made worse by this development.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

 Comments noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  The council will continue to liaise with the County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are made to the local highways network, and public transport infrastructure.  Policies EAST1 and EL1 identify infrastructure constraints which must be dealt with in developing this site, including mitigating any flood risk associated with surface water flooding, and making improvements to education and

ACTION

NO CHANGE

54


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Developers will fail to sell houses because of economic crisis. Houses built will not be suitable for Lancaster’s needs which should be for social houses and starter homes.

114

Valerie Smith

Local Resident

115

Valerie Smith

Local Resident

116

Valerie Smith

Local Resident

Policy EL3  Comment that enhancing the (Night’gal heritage offer in the locality does e Hall not seem to be appropriate for Farm) this site as no historic assets are listed here. Proposals for residential development on this site seem to lack any flair or thought. If the only potential for this site is residential we risk ensuring that the East of Lancaster becomes blocked by traffic. Policy EL4  Concern over the loss of a much (Ridge needed service provided at Ridge Lea) Lea. There is great potential for the premises to be used for improved health facilities in the locality, particularly with its close location to Lancaster Farms.

Policy EL5  Object to only housing being (Leisure considered for the Wyresdale Park) Road site. More emphasis should

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE health care facilities.  There is significant evidence in the Housing Needs Survey of 2011 of a need for new housing across the district. Policy EL1 requires that approximately 40% of the residential units provided on Grab Lane be “affordable” in perpetuity.  Comment noted. The site at Nightingale Hall Farm, whilst not containing any Listed Structure is located in a historic setting. Therefore it will be expected that development proposals for the site should respect the historic setting of the locality.

 Concern noted. The site at Ridge Lea has been put forward by the owners as an opportunity for future residential development. The site is soon to be vacated and there is no evidence to suggest that other proposals for healthcare uses will be submitted, so the conversion of the building for residential is an appropriate alternative and one that assists in addressing the district’s significant housing needs.  Objection noted. No evidence has been submitted to the Council to suggest that this site can be viably

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

55


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

117

Ron Milston

Local Resident

Policy RES1 (Caton)

118

Gilbert Park

Local Resident

Policy RES1 (Caton)

119

Denise Challenor

Silverdale Parish Council

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS be given to developing the area to bring in visitors, particularly due to the close proximity to Williamsons Park. If all the housing proposed for East Lancaster is built then who will buy them? A fixation on purely developing housing will destroy all our potential for making Lancaster a visitor centre and boosting the economy,  There is a great need for truly affordable housing in the Caton area. The Moor Platt site would be ideally situated to fulfil at least part of that need and still leave enough space to provide some public space. Encroachments into greenfield sites should only be made as a last resort.  Object to the proposals for residential development at Moor Platt, Caton. This should be a village green space with the building converted into retirement 2-bed flats, there is a significant need for such residential properties in the Caton area.

Policy  Objection to the residential RES1 allocations in Silverdale. (Silverdale  The land at Cove Drive is ) greenfield and a sloping site which suffers from considerable

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

developed for visitor facilities. The development of visitor facilities in this location may detract from proposals for improvements to Lancaster City Centre. The development of this brownfield site for residential purposes provides an opportunity to meet and address the districts housing needs.  Support and Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

 Objection noted. The site at Moor Platt has been put forward to the Council for future residential development which will help meet local housing needs. The site is owned by Lancashire County Council and there is no evidence suggesting that it could be purchased and delivered as a community green space.  Objection noted.

NO CHANGE

 Further investigation work will be undertaken relating to the flooding issues and the implications of future

CHANGE CONSIDERED

56


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS run-off leading to flooding and land slippage. The other site at Whinney Fold is also greenfield.

 The Parish Council note that other sites within the village have planning permission which could deliver approximately 14 units. Allied to this there are a number of properties that are currently on the housing market.  Other sites have also been suggested to the Council for their potential further investigation. The Parish Council affirm that there is a need for housing within the village of Silverdale. However the housing requirements should be of an appropriate nature.  There is a need for social and affordable housing for the younger residents. Smaller units are also needed for those who wish to downsize from the large houses. The council’s current proposals do not allow for such specific needs and mean that restrictions could not be placed on large housing developments.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

development on flooding in the Silverdale area. However, as recognised in the Parish Council response there are housing needs for Silverdale, and these need to be met in the most sustainable way. This should not rule out development on greenfield sites.  Whilst there are properties for sale in the Silverdale area, many of these properties are of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the area, in particularly younger people.  Sites suggested to the Council will be investigated for their future feasibility, but it should be noted that the loss of active employment uses within the village will have a detrimental economic impact with the loss of jobs and employment space within the village.  The Council accepts that housing requirements should be of an appropriate nature, both in type of housing provided and the scale of development. The proposals for 27 dwellings over a 15 year period seem entirely reasonable and in proportion with the scale of Silverdale. In terms of the type of house required, there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that the housing which will be 57


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Emphasis required on the importance of environmental, social, landscape and amenity impact in relation to planning proposals for the Heysham Energy Coast. The Parish Council believe that it is particularly important that the Heysham South Nature Reserve should be protected.  The Parish Council agrees that developments on the White Lund Employment Site should be restricted to Business Uses B1, B2 and B8.  The Parish Council agrees strongly that significant developments at the Lancaster and Morecambe College should use “a master-planned approach, prepared in conjunction with the local community”  For the sake of clarity suggest that reference is made within the Glossary for the description of ‘town centre uses’ to reflect guidance in the NPPF.

120

Bob Bailey

Heaton-withOxcliffe Parish Council

Policy HEY1 (Energy Coast)

121

Bob Bailey

Heaton-withOxcliffe Parish Council

Policy EMP2

122

Bob Bailey

Heaton-withOxcliffe Parish Council

Policy EDC2

123

Rose Freeman

The Theatres Trust

Policy RET1

124

Alayne Robin

Local Resident

Policy RES1 (Hornby)

 More information is required on the housing needs for Hornby as the last survey was carried out 5 yrs ago and had a low response. Additional housing at Strands

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE provided will not be appropriate for Silverdale’s needs.  Comments noted. The environmental importance of the South Heysham Nature Reserve is recognised for its importance in the Land Allocations DPD.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. Para 1.1 of the DM DPD makes clear that the Glossary in the plan will not seek to replicate the glossary provided within the NPPF and that they should be read concurrently.  Objection noted. The most recent housing needs survey for Hornby took place in 2011, the response rate was 20% and considered to be statistically valid. Its conclusions

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

58


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

125

126

NAME

Dr C. Finnerty

Dr C. Finnerty

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Section 3

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

Farm has been built since then.  Object to the development proposals at Melling Road which has significant traffic and access issues, is some distance from the centre of the village.

 The land at Melling Road is understood to be Green Belt – development should be restricted within such designations.

 Recommend that the Council should offer greater incentives for the use of brownfield land and the redevelopment of existing buildings.

 There should be a statement of intention relating to the charging of CIL from new development.

Policy SL1  Consideration should be given to (Whinney the flood risk both on the site and Carr) to flooding in the immediate vicinity.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

were that there are significant housing needs across the District, including Hornby. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. No significant traffic problems will be created by the Melling Road proposal. The land at Melling Road is not within the Green Belt. The only area of Green Belt in the district is located on land between North Lancaster and Carnforth. Comments noted. Agree that it is often beneficial for the public sector to incentivise the regeneration of problem brownfield sites, but cuts to public spending have made this more difficult. The Council will continue to offer financial incentives in the future where possible and appropriate. The Council has investigated the viability of charging CIL and its decision will be incorporated into the future versions of the DPD. Comment noted. Criterion (x) of Policy SL1 states that any proposals for development at Whinney Carr will have to be accompanied by appropriate Flood Risk Studies and measures.

ACTION

CHANGE REQUIRED

NO CHANGE

59


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF Policy HEY1 (Energy Coast)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

127

Dr C. Finnerty

Local resident

 Concern over the removal of the bathing water designation for Half Moon Bay – will this mean that there is no monitoring of water contamination in this area? This is particularly concerning given the level of industrial activity in the area; Policy HEY1 should encourage greater monitoring of water quality along the Heysham coast.  Dislike the idea of another nuclear reactor, but if required it makes sense to build where one already exists. Is it necessary that the building is such an eyesore. Surely it must be possible to build something that looks better than a grey block?

 Bathing water monitoring is not a spatial planning matter and so its inclusion in Policy HEY1 would not be appropriate. Water quality is however referenced in the DM DPD in Policy EM5.3.

NO CHANGE

128

Dr C. Finnerty

Local Resident

Policy HEY2 (Heysham Nuclear Power Station)

 Comment noted. De-commissioning after the closure of Heysham 1 Power Station will be a lengthy process. It will not be feasible to reuse the existing Heysham 1 site for the new Heysham 3 reactors. Matters connected with design will be considered as part of the Development Consent Order submission to the Planning Inspectorate.  Objections noted. Whilst the proposals involve the development of a greenfield sites there is no evidence to suggest that the proposals will lead to the loss of protected trees, high grade farmland or important flora and fauna.  The Housing Needs Survey of 2011 states that there is a housing need to be addressed in Silverdale, particularly certain sectors of the community. These needs to be

NO CHANGE

129

Ray Lee

Local Resident

Policy  Object to the residential RES1 proposals in Silverdale at (Silverdale Whinney Fold and Cove Drive. ) Development proposals would lead to a loss of tree cover, quality farmland and have a negative impact on biodiversity.  Questions also raised over where the occupants of new housing will work locally. If they work outside of the village this will not be sustainable and increase carbon

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

NO CHANGE

60


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Questions whether urban extensions still required given the recent news over Luneside and Lancaster Moor Hospital which have opened up opportunities for brownfield development.

emissions.

130

Colin Hartley

Local Resident

Section 3

131

Colin Hartley

Local Resident

Policy SL1  Welcome the building of a bridge (Whinney over the West Coast Mainline Carr) between the A6 and A588. However, not clear how this will provide relief at the Pointer Roundabout in Central Lancaster, existing congestion at this location will be exacerbated by further development in the South of Lancaster.

132

Colin Hartley

Local Resident

Policy SL4  The plan should include a requirement that any expansion at Lancaster University must have regard to the accommodation needs of a growing number of students that will attend the University as a result. Student accommodation

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE addressed in the most sustainable way possible.  Comment noted. Whilst the progress on brownfield sites at Lancaster Moor Hospital and Luneside are welcome news, this does not alter the position that there are significant housing needs to be addressed over the Local Plan period. To address such needs will require the allocation of both brownfield and greenfield sites.  Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the South of Lancaster, with aspects of the requirements developed in Policy SL1. Further investigation will be undertaken by the City and County Councils to produce and deliver a Highways and Transport Masterplan which will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to deal with all aspects of travel and traffic, including congestion at the Pointer Roundabout.  There are benefits from having student accommodation in appropriate locations in the City Centre. The approach of the council is to encourage purpose-built student accommodation in sustainable locations, thus freeing up conventional housing, including

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

61


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

should not be provided in outlying residential areas. Policy EL5  Suggest that given the existing uses around the Wyresdale Road site consideration should be given to more commercial uses rather than residential uses are current proposed.

133

Colin Hartley

Local Resident

134

Colin Hartley

Local Resident

Policy RES1

135

Colin Hartley

Local Resident

Policy EDC1

136

Colin Hartley

Local Resident

Policy EDC2

137 138

NOT USED Stuart Imm

Local Resident

Policy

 In relation to proposals for residential development on Royal Albert Fields, Lancaster. This area is well used for recreational purposes and any further development here would adversely affect its current use. It should be withdrawn from the residential plan.  Recommend a wording change to make clear that parking problems caused by students and staff parking in nearby residential streets. Any development at St Martins should actively reduce the need for off-site parking.  This Policy should recognise that any expansion of the site will be restricted by the proposed route of the Heysham Link Road that will join to the existing Heysham by pass road. Is this policy in conflict with 58 - Policy TR1 Heysham Link Road?  Objection to the residential

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

in outlying residential areas. NO CHANGE  Comment noted. The Council considers that this site is best suited to a housing redevelopment. Commercial demand in this location is low because the site is away from the city centre and the key road network. NO CHANGE  Site RES1.5 is currently in agricultural use. It is required to meet the housing needs of the district.

 Comment noted. Surplus land within the university campus will be redeveloped with the assistance of a masterplanning exercise. The DPD has no control over on-street parking.

NO CHANGE

 Should not be necessary to make any change as the route of the Link Road is plotted on the Policies Map, and is therefore already accommodated by the Council and the College.

NO CHANGE

 Objection noted. Further

CHANGE 62


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY SUMMARY OF COMMENTS REF RES1 proposals for Cove Drive, (Silverdale Silverdale. There are significant ) risks of flooding which currently occurs in the locality, this will be exacerbated by any development of this site.  There are significant access issues in getting to the site from Cove Drive involving a sharp turn.

 There are currently plenty of houses available already in the Silverdale area.

 Where are any new residents going to work in Silverdale? Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE investigation will be made of the potential flooding issues relating to the Cove Drive site.

ACTION CONSIDERED

 The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development. To date no objections have been made by Lancashire County Council to this proposal.  Much of the housing which is for sale in the village is of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the Silverdale area, in particularly younger people. The Council accepts that housing provided should be appropriate in type and in the scale of development. The proposals for 27 dwellings over a 15 year period seem reasonable and in proportion with the scale of Silverdale. In terms of the type of house required, there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that the housing which will be provided will not be appropriate for Silverdale’s needs.  Employment opportunities already exist in and around the Silverdale 63


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

Further development in the Silverdale area will detract from its value in the AONB.

139

Helen Watson

Local Resident

Policy RES1 (Caton)

 Objection to the development of the Moor Platt site for market / affordable housing. There are many properties in the village available to buy or let which have not been occupied. There is a greater priority to deliver sheltered housing for elderly people in this area and should be considered for the Moor Platt site.

140

Val McCann

Local Resident

Policy RES1 (Halton)

 Objection to the residential proposals for Halton Training Camp. Re-use of this site will inevitably lead to further housing development in the area, particularly if the Link Road goes ahead. Halton needs to maintain a separate identity and avoid merging into Lancaster.

141

Dorothy Fielding

Local Resident

Policy  Object to the proposals for RES1 residential development at Cove (Silverdale Drive, Silverdale. )  Objections are raised on the grounds that there are flooding issues in the locality and that gaining access to the site is a

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

area; affordable housing in the village may well assist people who currently work in the area to also live in the area. Objection noted. The designation at Moor Platt has been made on the basis of Lancashire County Council’s invention to regenerate the site for housing purposes. This will help the delivery of much needed housing for local needs. However, if a proposal for sheltered accommodation is made for the site then it would be determined on its merits, including the demonstration that such provision is needed in the Caton area. Objection noted. The Local Plan seeks to ensure that housing needs are met where possible through the use of brownfield sites. This brownfield site has been identified to the Council by the MoD as no longer required for the existing purpose and that housing is the most appropriate future use for the site. Objection noted. Further investigation will be made of the potential flooding issues relating to the Cove Drive site. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

CHANGE CONSIDERED

64


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

142

Mrs K Whitehead

Local Resident

Policy CWL2

143

Jann Landles

Local Resident

Policy RES1 (Halton)

144

Mark Toogood

Local Resident

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS significant constraint.

 Support regeneration of Lancaster Castle. Interest/involvement from young people is vital, at last we have got our castle back - it makes Lancaster unique and the future of the site (including the Priory/Court Service and Duchy administration) must consolidate that position.  Support development for a museum and hotel, and a settled home for the TIC.  Objection to the proposed development at Halton Training Camp for residential purposes. This is not a sustainable location for development and is isolated from the centres of both Halton and Lancaster.

Policy EL1  Concern over the wording within (Grab the Policy. Better definitions are Lane) required over the terms ‘Unacceptable Impact’ (Criteria ii), ‘Sense of Place’ (Criteria iii), ‘Green Corridor Network’ (Criteria iv). Further guidance and information is required over the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

local road network through new development. To date no objections have been made by Lancashire County Council to this proposal.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Objection noted. The Local Plan seeks to ensure that housing needs are met where possible through the use of brownfield sites. This brownfield site has been identified to the Council by the MoD as being no longer required for the existing purpose and that housing is the most appropriate future use for the site.  Consider revising: - refine “unacceptable impact“ in the planning brief, informed by a specialist landscape study, published soon. - add definition of “Sense of Place” to glossary (Places said to have a strong "sense of place" have a

NO CHANGE

CHANGE CONSIDERED

65


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

145

Mark Toogood

Local Resident

146

Mark Toogood

Local Resident

147

Mark

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS creation of habitats on the site.

Policy EL2  Policy is now out of date in (Lancaster relation to recent planning Moor) application. Lack of reference to protected BHS sites. The entire cricket pitch should be retained between Campbell House and the Pavilion. Areas of  The DPD does not adequately Strategic take into account cumulative Growth increases in traffic proposed by new development. Minimal attention is given to such issues and there is an unwillingness to plan for such impacts. There is little realistic discussion of specific negative impacts and there needs to be much clearer commitment in the documents to control the impact of traffic. If the East Lancaster development go ahead this will increase cumulative impacts on local traffic significantly. The documents must be clear on how such specific issues will be controlled. Policy  There is a need to look at the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE particular identity and character that is deeply felt by local inhabitants and by many visitors). - Substitute “Green Space Network” for “Green Network Corridor” and cross refer to Policy GR3. - “creation of habitat” to be informed by the planning brief.  Comment noted. Future drafts of this document will ensure that it takes into account any updates in planning application process. Comment noted in relation to the retention of the cricket pitch.

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 The Areas of Strategic Growth section of the DPD sets up more detailed policies which specifically identify the need for highway improvements, especially in South and East of Lancaster, with aspects of the requirements developed set out in Policies SOUTH1 and EAST1. Further investigation will be undertaken by the City and County Councils to produce and deliver a Highways and Transport Masterplan for the whole district which will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to deal with all aspects of travel and traffic.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 This will be considered through

NO CHANGE 66


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

Toogood

POLICY REF RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Support for the specific and generic references to BHS protection and net biodiversity gain for identified sites.  Welcome reference to European Site protection and recognition of the in-combination effects of development both in the specific HEY policies and throughout the document  Welcome reference to the recognition of this biodiversity resource and the need to protect / enhance these sites in the future. Dialogue should take place between the Wildlife Trust and potential developers of windfarm cabling to minimise environmental damage and maximise biodiversity gain through future proposals.

148

Kim Wisdom

Lancashire Wildlife Trust

Areas of Strategic Growth

149

Kim Wisdom

Lancashire Wildlife Trust

Heysham Energy Coast

150

Kim Wisdom

Lancashire Wildlife Trust

Policy HEY5

overall total of housing on its cumulative effects on the built environment, heritage and community. These will be negatively impacted upon by the scale of what is envisaged. The number of options and the issues of scale need to be addressed. Specific requirements should be built into the DPDs to define specific housing numbers and housing density.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

development briefs where appropriate, planning applications and the application of the policies of the Local Plan, including several specific policies in the Development Management section of the Local Plan under the heading: “Protecting and Enhancing Lancaster District’s Natural and Built Environment”. The overall effects on the environment are also addressed through supplementary documents including the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted. The council welcome the opportunity to maintain a constructive and positive dialogue with the Wildlife Trust.

NO CHANGE

67


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

151

Kim Wisdom

Lancashire Wildlife Trust

POLICY REF Policy RES2 (Lundsfiel d Quarry)

152

Kim Wisdom

Lancashire Wildlife Trust

Policy DES1

153

Kim Wisdom

Lancashire Wildlife Trust

Policy GR3

154

Kim Wisdom

Lancashire Wildlife Trust

Policy GR4

155

Patricia Clarke

Dynamo Cycling Organisation

Policy TR3

156

Patricia Clarke

Dynamo Cycling Organisation

Policy CWL3 (Canal

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 When this site is brought forward for development, it is vitally important that the points raised in criteria (vi) of the policy are addressed  Support and welcome the inclusion of Leck Fell within the Yorkshire Dales National Park revised boundary.  Expects the Lune Corridor to extend much further upstream than Marsh Point. Whilst the map on page 120 of the document is illustrative, it is important to recognise that the north-south linkages are particularly important for species dispersal in relation to Climate Change.  Support this Policy in compliance with NPPF paragraphs 157 and 178-180.  The council must take all opportunities to expand the district’s cycling network with all development seeking to enhance the network. Request that the Council amend the policy wording in TR3 so that environmentally sustainable travel of all kinds is a non-negotiable condition in any new development.

 Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. Further investigation will be made over the scale and scope of the diagrams mentioned. This will be discussed further with the Wildlife Trust.

CHANGE REQUIRED

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. The Council will encourage and promote the integration of good cycling and walking links within new development. These requirements must be proportionate and will not always be appropriate on every development. Priority for such improvements must be given to proposals which will generate significant footfall and visits.  Concern noted. City Centre currently lacks opportunities to deliver a retail offer which will

NO CHANGE

 Concerned over the requirements of the Canal Corridor site for retail purposes. There are already

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

NO CHANGE

68


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF Corridor)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 The definition of ‘sustainable’ needs to be redefined within the plan so that greater weight is given to the future environmental challenges and costs. Dynamo would favour the development of housing sites which are close to existing centres and reduce the need for people to travel, particularly via unsustainable transport methods.  To address the unmet housing needs within the district land at Quernmore Lane, Caton should be allocated for housing purposes.  To address the unmet housing needs within the district land on land to the South of Hornby should be allocated for housing purposes.  Objection to development at Whinney Carr, South Lancaster.  It will exacerbate existing traffic problems on the A6 and A588.

157

Patricia Clarke

Dynamo Cycling Organisation

Land Allocation s DPD

158

Alistair Skelton

Steven Abbott Assoc/ Oakmere Homes

Policy RES1 (Caton)

159

Mr & Mrs Beardswort h

Local Residents

Policy RES1 (Hornby)

160

Nick Harrison

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH1

significant numbers of empty shops. This should be reviewed with the option of using the site for housing.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

improve the local economy. In particular there is a lack of retail units which are fit for modern retail purposes. The Canal Corridor Scheme will provide modern retail accommodation and will benefit the town’s economy through investment and job creation.  The definition of sustainable is something that would be extremely difficult to alter locally, given the definition which is within the NPPF. Altering the definitions of what we define as sustainable, particularly placing a specific emphasis on environmental issues would be clearly unsound and challengeable.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. Consideration will be given to the suitability, achievability and deliverability of the site submitted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Comment noted. Consideration will be given to the suitability, achievability and deliverability of the site submitted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Objection noted.

NO CHANGE

 The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate 69


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Development of this greenfield site will damage sensitive habitats for protected species, such as bats. It will also irreplicably damage the local landscape.

161

Mrs K Whitehead

Local Resident

Policy OPP5

 Concern about road safety and traffic in the vicinity of the proposed housing sites in Silverdale.

 Silverdale has an elderly demographic - if new housing caters for this population, extra services will be required. Family houses may be desirable but Silverdale has high house prices a proportion of 'affordable housing' would be required.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. This is highlighted within Policy SOUTH1.  There is no evidence to suggest that this site accommodates any habitats and species which would prevent development taking place. However, as part of any proposal of this type further ecological work will be undertaken to assess biodiversity on the site and mitigation and positive enhancement measures could be set out in the Development Brief for the site.  (response more relevant to Policy RES1). There is no evidence to suggest that small-scale housing growth within village will ‘exacerbate’ traffic issues. There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale has significant traffic issues on a frequent basis.  The Housing Needs Survey of 2011 states that there is a housing need to be addressed in Silverdale, particularly certain sectors of the community. These needs to be addressed in the most sustainable way possible, including the creation of appropriate housing to meet the needs of current and future generations of Silverdale will be critical to the village’s long term

ACTION

NO CHANGE

70


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Silverdale is generally a fair distance from jobs - travel costs for working people?  What about the sewage issue?

162

Nick Harrison

Local Resident

 Consideration should be given to what plans Cumbria has for Arnside and Milnthorpe - these could affect plans for Silverdale. Policy SL1  Objection to development at (Whinney Whinney Carr, South Lancaster. Carr) We should be developing on brownfield sites over greenfield.  Further traffic creation will exacerbate existing traffic issues, not enough detail is provided on how new infrastructure will be provided and how such infrastructure will be funded.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE viability.  And there are jobs in Silverdale that people need to travel in to get to work because they cannot afford to live there.  The council will continue to liaise with the Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key drainage infrastructure in Silverdale through new development.  The Council is in frequent contact with colleagues working on Local Plan documents in South Lakeland, through the Duty to Co-operate.  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as the County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. This is highlighted within Policy SOUTH1. The requirements for infrastructure are set out within Policies SOUTH1 and SL1. Further information on how these infrastructure requirements will be delivery will come through the

ACTION

NO CHANGE

71


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 The development of this greenfield site will damage the local landscape, wildlife habitats and protected species.

163

Kerstin Nagel

Local Resident

Policy  Objection to building of any RES1 housing in Silverdale. The (Silverdale development of 27 houses will ) have a huge impact on the character of the village.

RESPONSE

 Further development will lead to more traffic in the village where roads are already congested, further cars will cause highway safety issues.

 Greenfield sites around Silverdale should be protected for agricultural purposes. There are currently 40 houses for sale in the village, we should be converting

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

preparation of the Development Brief for the sites. There is no evidence to suggest that this site accommodates any habitats and species which would prevent development taking place. However, as part of any proposal of this type further ecological work will be undertaken to assess biodiversity on the site and mitigation and positive enhancement measures could be set out in the Development Brief for the site. Comment noted. There is no evidence to suggest that the scale of development proposed in Silverdale (circa 27 dwellings) would have significant impacts on the rural character of the village. The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. To date no objections have been raised by the County Council to the proposed developments in Silverdale. Much of the housing which is for sale in the village is of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the

ACTION

NO CHANGE

72


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy RES1 (Galgate)

 Supports the allocation of land at Ashley House, Galgate for residential purposes. Recommended that the housing expectation for the site is raised from 30 to 60 dwellings.  Object to the wording of the policy on the Halton Mills site. The draft policy is overly restrictive in relation to types of uses acceptable for the remainder of the site. Should this policy approach be taken it is likely to blight the completion of the site.  Support the allocation of land at Royal Oak Meadow, Melling Road, Hornby for residential purposes.  Support the allocation of land at

164

Colin Hetheringto n

Applethwaite Homes

165

David Hall

Local Resident

166

Colin Hetheringto n

Applethwaite Homes

Policy RES1 (Hornby)

167

Colin

Applethwaite

Policy

Policy OPP4 (Halton Mills)

and renovating existing empty buildings rather than developing on Greenfield sites.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Silverdale area, in particularly younger people. The Council accepts that housing requirements should be of an appropriate nature, both in type of housing provided and the scale of development. The proposals for 27 dwellings over a 15 year period seem reasonable and in proportion with the scale of Silverdale. In terms of the type of house required, there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that the housing which will be provided will not be appropriate for Silverdale’s needs. CHANGE  Support noted. Consideration will CONSIDERED be given to the increase is housing expectation for the site subject to the potential impacts on local roads.  This is one of the Development Opportunity policies, with flexibly drawn wording deliberately designed to encourage collaboration with owners and developers.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE 73


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

Hetheringto n

Homes

168

Colin Hetheringto n

Applethwaite Homes

169

Alistair Skelton

C/o Oakmere Homes

170

Colin Hetheringto n Emma Prideaux

Applethwaite Homes

172

Janthia Pacula

Local Resident

173

P. Gorton

Local Resident

171

Lancashire Economic Partnership

POLICY REF RES1 (Bolton-leSands) Policy RES1 (Silverdale ) Policy RES1 (Bolton-leSands) Policy RES1 (Slyne) Area of Strategic Growth

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support the allocation of land at Whinney Fold, Silverdale for residential purposes.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support the allocation of land at Coastal Road, Bolton-le-Sands for residential purposes.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Land lies within the Green Belt and for this reason has not been identified for development.  Support noted. The council welcomes the opportunity for constructive dialogue with Lancashire Economic Partnership to ensure that economic issues are satisfactorily addressed through future drafts of the Local Plan documents.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. The council has, and will continue, to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. This is highlighted within Policy SOUTH1.  Objection noted. Further investigation will be made of the potential flooding issues relating to the Cove Drive site.

NO CHANGE

St Michaels Lane, Bolton-leSands for residential purposes.

 Land at land in Slyne-with-Hest (SHLAA 321) should be allocated for housing purposes.  Principles of identifying Areas of Strategic Growth are supported. With regard to South Lancaster, recognised that transport issues in this area will need to be addressed. Important to ensure that development enables transport infrastructure to be put in place in a managed way. Policy SL1  Whilst no objection is raised to (Whinney the Whinney Carr proposal it Carr) should be ensured that appropriate highways works are undertaken prior to development of the site. Policy  Objection to development RES1 proposals at Cove Drive, (Silverdale Silverdale, there are significant ) issues exist with drainage and the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

NO CHANGE

CHANGE CONSIDERED

74


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS flooding on the site.  Access on Cove Drive is difficult due to the width of the road and visibility; recent increases in traffic have exacerbated this problem.

 Silverdale is part of the AONB and greenfield development will detract from its character. This is farmland which is either owned or used by the National Trust. 174

P. Gorton

Local Resident

Policy RES1

 Concern about the increased emphasis of housing delivery, there are a significant number of empty properties in the Silverdale area which are over-price and beyond the sectors of the community most in need.  New development proposals cannot be guaranteed to be affordable and therefore can meet local need.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. To date no objections have been raised by the County Council to the proposed developments in Silverdale.  The proposed site at Cove Drive is owned by Lancashire County Council, not the National Trust. Land directly adjacent to the east and west is owned by the National Trust. NO CHANGE  Concern noted. Much of the housing which is for sale in the village is of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the Silverdale area, in particularly younger people.  Accepted that housing requirements should be of an appropriate nature, both in type of housing provided and the scale of development. The proposals for 27 dwellings over a 15 year period is reasonable and in proportion with the scale of Silverdale. There is no evidence at this stage to suggest that the housing which will be provided will not be appropriate for Silverdale’s 75


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

175

Kristian Marsh

Highways Agency

Policy SOUTH1

176

David Parker

Local Resident

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Noted that there are significant developments proposed for the District, particularly in the South of Lancaster, which may lead to potential congestion issue on the M6. However recognised that as part of the Land Allocations DPD infrastructure works are proposed which will help ease problems that may occur. That, together with safeguards put in place through the Development Management DPD. This offers sufficient comfort for us to be able to not raise any objection to the proposals set out within this document. Policy  Objection to development of RES1 housing sites in Silverdale. The (Silverdale site at Cove Drive is extremely ) unsuitable for development purposes due to flooding and drainage issues.  The development of this site will damage sensitive habitats and wildlife species.

 Traffic is also a major concern to Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

needs.  Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

 Objection noted. Further investigation will be made of the potential flooding issues relating to the Cove Drive site.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. To date no objections have been raised by the County Council to the proposed developments in Silverdale.  The development proposed in the 76


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS local residents, further development in the village will exacerbate existing traffic problems in the village.

 Significant concern raised over whether further housing is needed in the village, there are no major employers in the village and a number of properties on the market for sale.

177

Mike Fisher

Fisher Wrathall

Policy EL1  Extra land at Fenham Carr Lane (Grab should be included within the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Silverdale area is not of a sufficient scale or size to say that this will detrimentally damage the environment of the area. Whilst Silverdale is located within the AONB it is a living / working community which needs to cater for its current and future housing needs.  Much of the housing which is for sale in the village is of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the Silverdale area, in particularly younger people. Accepted that housing requirements should be of an appropriate nature, both in type of housing provided and the scale of development. The proposals for 27 dwellings over a 15 year period is reasonable and in proportion with the scale of Silverdale. There is no evidence to suggest that the housing which will be provided will not be appropriate for Silverdale’s needs.  Employment opportunities already exist in and around the Silverdale area; affordable housing in the village may well assist people who currently work in the area to also live in the area.  Comment noted. Consideration will be given to the suitability,

CHANGE CONSIDERED 77


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

178

NAME

Sam Riches

ORGANISATION

North Lancashire Green Party

POLICY REF Lane)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy EAST1

 Concerns over the scale of proposals for housing at East Lancaster, which will place great strain on the existing infrastructure, especially the road network. Development will require significant investment in sustainable transport.  The economic case for Greenfield release in east Lancaster is not proven, taking into account demand for housing, employment trends and wage levels in the area. Infrastructure requirements must be included in the calculations.

allocation at Grab Lane.

 Council should maintain a strategy of urban concentration with further development targeted on brownfield re-use. Need to apply a “sequential test” so that greenfield sites are [not] developed first, with a significant proportion of genuinely affordable homes.  Need for new community facilities, including shops and school places.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE achievability and deliverability of the site submitted.  The council will continue to liaise with the County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are made to the local highways network, and public transport infrastructure.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. There is significant evidence in the Housing Needs Survey of 2011 that there is a pressing need for new housing across the district. The Local Plan also draws on the evidence behind the Regional Spatial Strategy, which linked the demand for housing with employment growth throughout the north-west region.  The emerging Land Allocations DPD anticipates that the majority of housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. There is no requirement in planning law or policy for the sequential test to be applied to housing developments.  Comments noted. Policies EAST1 and EL1 identify infrastructure constraints which must be dealt with in developing this site, including making improvements to education and health care facilities. 78


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

179

NAME

Sam Riches

ORGANISATION

North Lancashire Green Party

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Concern about the type of  Policy EL1 requires that houses to be built: social housing approximately 40% of the and starter homes are unlikely to residential units provided on Grab be considered because there is Lane be “affordable” in perpetuity. already a stock of such homes at Standen Park and Standen Gate. Policy EL1  Opposed to development at  The Land Allocations DPD (Grab Grab Lane. Brownfield sites must anticipates that the majority of Lane) be used first. housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  Development will have a  Policy EL1 requires developers to negative impact on the quality of investigate recreation and leisure life of people who use the area uses on the site, which already for recreational pursuits. adjoins Williamson Park and the Concern about flood risk and open countryside. Policy also loss of habitats and feeding for requires that developers including wading birds. mitigate any flood risk associated with surface water flooding, and investigate opportunities for enhancing biodiversity.  Concern about additional traffic  The council will continue to liaise and the need to invest in with the County Council highways sustainable transport. Commuter team to ensure that appropriate trips by car will worsen air quality improvements are made to the local problems. highways network, and public transport infrastructure.  Housing types will draw  Housing types yet to be determined commuters from other cities that for this site: this will be done will have little beneficial impact through the guidance of a on Lancaster but will add to development brief, masterplanning infrastructure demands in the and a planning application. Housing city. development on this site is required for the identified needs of local

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

NO CHANGE

79


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

180

181

NAME

Sam Riches

Sam Riches

ORGANISATION

North Lancashire Green Party

North Lancashire Green Party

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy EL2  In principle do not object to this development, especially if development here means that greenfield sites in the locality can be protected.  Very important that infrastructure issues addressed, including sustainable transport, retail (especially a food shop) and school places. Expect a mix of housing on this site, including affordable housing, and support the reuse of historic buildings for residential and related purposes. Policy EL5  Site would be better retained for retail and light industrial purposes.

 Very important that infrastructure issues addressed, including sustainable transport, retail (especially a food shop) and Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

people. There is significant evidence in the Housing Needs Survey of 2011 that there is a pressing need for new housing across the district. The Local Plan also draws on the evidence behind the Regional Spatial Strategy, which linked the demand for housing with employment growth throughout the north-west region.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team and education team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the key infrastructure in the locality through new development. NO CHANGE  Comment noted. The Council considers that this site is best suited to a housing redevelopment. Commercial demand in this location is low because the site is away from the city centre and the key road network.  The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team and education team to ensure that appropriate improvements are 80


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

182

183

184

NAME

Sam Riches

Sam Riches

Andrew Hewitson

ORGANISATION

North Lancashire Green Party

North Lancashire Green Party

Lancashire County Council

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

school places. Expect affordable housing included in any scheme.

Policy EL3  Residential use would be a change in terms of the use of this site and we would prefer to see it used for food production or another use which would have the potential to create employment.  Very important that the infrastructure issues are addressed, including sustainable transport, retail (especially a food shop) and school places. Expect affordable housing included in any scheme. Policy EL4  Prefer to see a range of options considered for the site – which could include some residential provision. Support reuse of historic buildings for residential and related purposes.

 Very important that the infrastructure issues are addressed, including sustainable transport, retail (especially a food shop) and school places. Expect affordable housing included in any scheme.  Support the principle of identifying Areas of Strategic Growth at South Lancaster, East Lancaster, Central and West

Areas of Strategic Growth

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

delivered to the key infrastructure in the locality through new development. NO CHANGE Comment noted. The Council considers that this site is best suited to a housing redevelopment. Commercial demand in this location is low because the site is away from the city centre and the key road network. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team and education team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the key infrastructure in the locality through new development. NO CHANGE Comment noted. The Council considers that this site is best suited to a housing redevelopment. Commercial demand in this location is low because the site is away from the city centre and the key road network. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team and education team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the key infrastructure in the locality through new development. NO CHANGE Support noted.

81


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

185

Andrew Hewitson

Lancashire County Council

186

Andrew Hewitson

Lancashire County Council

187

Andrew Hewitson

Lancashire County Council

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Lancaster and South Heysham. Policy EL1  Grab Lane traffic modelling (Grab indicates that existing Lane) infrastructure may have the capacity to accommodate the proposed level of development. However, other development sites at Moor Hospital and Nightingale Farm will increase impact on the local highway network which will need to be considered as part of the masterplanning process. Central  Proposed developments in and West Central Lancaster are a Lancaster significant opportunity to Introductio transform the city centre. n Introduction to Central and West Lancashire should emphasise the once in a generation opportunity the proposed developments represent collectively, rather than discrete individual projects. Policy  Location of Lancaster Business EMP1 Park (EMP1.6), Caton Road Industrial Estate (EMP1.3) and White Lund Employment Area (EMP1.13 and EMP2) will be enhanced by the Heysham – M6 link road, which will improve access to strategic road network. Potential of these employment areas could therefore be enhanced. Policies allocating these sites for employment uses

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Qualified support noted

NO CHANGE

 Collective aspects are recognised in CHANGE CONSIDERED para 21.2 (“Together…”) and 21.3 (…such cumulative issues…”) but it may be possible to improve this emphasis.

 Support noted. Insert change of emphasis in next version of the plan, if the Link Road is approved by the Secretary of State.

CHANGE REQUIRED

82


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

188

Andrew Hewitson

189 190

NOT USED Sam Riches

ORGANISATION

Lancashire County Council

North Lancashire Green Party

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

are supported, but their future potential should be further highlighted. Future work should be undertaken to improve their role and quality. Policy SL1  Sites SL1, SL2, EL1, EL2, EL3 (Whinney and EL4 are in Mineral Carr) Safeguarding Areas. Meeting required with LCC prior to submission to review whether sites should go forward, and ensure that developers are aware of the requirement/ implication of the MSA, including the need for prior extraction. Policy CWL1

 Concern about the allocation of the Canal Corridor North site to retail development which excludes other uses. Site should have mixed use, with small employment units (like the ones there now) plus public green space associated with any housing development. Site should include significant housing provision, especially affordable housing and social housing.  Council should maintain a policy of urban concentration, with all its benefits, including allowing residents easy access to city centre facilities and public transport. Prefer site used for housing to meet local needs than

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted. Meeting required.

NO CHANGE

 Policy CWL1 makes clear that the allocation of the Canal Corridor is for a retail-led scheme, with scope for other complementary uses, not a retail-only scheme.

NO CHANGE

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

83


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

191

Ms A Truman

Canal and River Trust

192

Ms A Truman

Canal and River Trust

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS that greenfield sites such as Grab Lane and Whinney Carr.  Emphasis on retail is misplaced empty shops in Lancaster at present.

 Lancaster Castle will play a significant role in the future of the city. Historic buildings in the Canal Corridor North site should be retained and reused to form part of the heritage draw. If new retail jobs are created in Lancaster at the expense of retail jobs in Kendal, Preston and other nearby towns, then are we really any better off? Shift to internet shopping has had a significant impact on retails trends. Policy SL1  Essential that the relationship (Whinney and impacts of the Whinney Carr Carr) site with the Lancaster Canal are fully assessed/ mitigated (ref to TCPA Policy Advice Note: Inland Waterways 2009). Policy  Essential that the relationship and CWL1 impacts of the Canal Corridor site with the Lancaster Canal are fully

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Concern noted. City Centre currently lacks opportunities to deliver a retail offer which will improve the local economy. In particular there is a lack of retail units which are fit for modern retail purposes. The Canal Corridor Scheme will provide modern retail accommodation and will benefit the town’s economy through investment and job creation.  The Council’s retail evidence supports the need for additional retail floorspace in Lancaster, to serve the present and future needs of Lancaster’s shoppers. Scope exists to incorporate historic buildings. There is no evidence or intention to invest in Lancaster at the expense of neighbouring centres. Need to update retail evidence prior to publication stage, including reference to impact of internet shopping.  Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

84


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

193

NAME

Fiona Pudge

ORGANISATION

Sport England

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

1 Glossary

  

194

Ms A Truman

Canal and River Trust

Policy RES1

195

Ms A Truman

Canal and River Trust

Policy RES2

assessed/ mitigated (ref to TCPA Policy Advice Note: Inland Waterways 2009). Greenfield includes urban and suburban open space not just agricultural and open countryside. NPPF - this needs to be updated as it refers to it currently being prepared. Suggest including Open Space Assessment and Playing Pitch Strategy as these provide the Needs Assessment that underpins Local Plan policy and sets local standards. RES1.16 Coastal Road, Boltonle-Sands is adjacent to the Lancaster Canal embankment. Essential that impacts of development on the waterway infrastructure are fully assessed and mitigated, in accordance with the PPS25 Development and flood risk practice guide. (Also ref to TCPA Policy Advice Note: Inland Waterways 2009). Lundsfield Quarry site is adjacent to the Lancaster Canal. Essential that impacts of the development on the waterway are fully assessed and mitigated (ref to TCPA Policy Advice Note: Inland Waterways 2009). Offer re-visit the potential options for the construction of a new

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Minor change.

CHANGE REQUIRED

 Minor change.  Minor change.

 Comment noted. Scope for a short para on each of the housing development sites in the justification text, to set out some of the key development parameters.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted and welcomed. 85


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

196

Ms A Truman

Canal and River Trust

Policy GR3

197

Mrs K Whitehead

Local Resident

Policy RET1

198

Mr Michael Gilbert

Roger Tym & Partners

Policy CWL4

   

bridge crossing over the Lancaster Canal if this remains a priority in respect of this site. Policy GR3 makes reference to "the Lancaster Canal through both Lancaster and Carnforth". This wording is unclear as the Illustrative Map and the Local Plan Policies Map in fact identify the whole of the Lancaster Canal throughout the district. No reason to refer only to the canal through Lancaster and Carnforth as the waterway forms a continuous green corridor throughout the district. Suggest that the reference to Lancaster and Carnforth in the wording of the policy should be deleted. Empty shops in the city host could school pupils’ artwork? High rents of some shops should be remedied. TIC needs a better, settled home. Guerilla gardeners needed. Representation on behalf of Hurstwood Holdings Ltd, to support the allocation of the Lune Industrial Estate for residential redevelopment in the DPD. Policy CWL4 is unsound and needs to be redrafted. Site should not be retained for employment uses but brought forward for alternative: more than half the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted. This policy applies to any part of the canal: consider minor amendment to clarify.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 None of these suggestions are within the scope of the DPD.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted. Detailed evidence and submissions under consideration.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

86


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

buildings are in an acute state of disrepair or are completely derelict. No response to marketing of site for employment uses – employment not viable.  Core Strategy Policy ER2 supports the mixed use regeneration of Luneside, which includes the Lune Industrial Estate. Allocation of site for residential redevelopment would be in accordance with Core Strategy.  NPPF para 22 says that plans should ‘avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose’, and expects planning authorities to regularly review land allocations. NPPF says that where there is no prospect of a site being used for its allocated employment use, alternative uses should be treated on their merits. NPPF Para 47 advises that LPAs should ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing.  Questions accuracy of Council’s most recent Housing Land Monitoring Report (June 2012). Realistic housing supply position

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

87


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

is likely to be less than five years.  Support Council’s recognition in Policy EMP1 that site is not a long term prospect for employment use. But concern that Policy EMP4 neither allocates the site for employment in perpetuity, nor advocates its immediate release. Short-term retention of employment uses at the site is confusing and unsound.  References in CWL4 to ‘mixed use development’ including employment, and ‘commercial (including visitor facilities)’ should be removed as residential use is clearly the most appropriate option, particularly given the residential scheme that will shortly be underway at Luneside West. Reference to ‘visitor facilities’ should instead be made in Policy CWL3 (‘Luneside’).  Redeveloping site for residential use will improve the setting of the Willow Lane/Coronation Field Opportunity Area, and provide opportunity to enhance pedestrian/cycle links and general connectivity to the area. At present site is a bad neighbour to new residential area to be developed at Luneside West.  Site is within the proposed Local

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

88


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

199

Mr Hamish Gledhill

Compass Planning

Policy EDC3

200 201

NOT USED Mr Hamish

Compass

Policy

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Regeneration Priority Area under Policy RPA1. Retaining Lune Industrial Estate for employment uses will prejudice the objectives of the Regeneration Priority Area, as this would not enable the major benefits of regeneration to be unlocked. Direct conflict between the objectives of proposed Policy RPA1 which seeks regeneration at Luneside, and the implications of proposed Policy CWL4 which would prevent any redevelopment in the short term.  Recommend Policy CWL4 redrafted to remove the M6Heysham link road ‘trigger’, and allow immediate redevelopment of the site. Remove reference to commercial and visitor facilities.  Detailed analysis contained in attached confidential employment land report.  The site extends to nearly 8 hectares and would be large enough to accommodate mixed use development, with commercial, leisure or retail facilities alongside the education provision. This flexibility could help facilitate the development of a new school.  Support comprehensive

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 There is no evidence to suggest that this site is required to deliver retail development.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE 89


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

Gledhill

Planning

202

Mr Hamish Gledhill

Compass Planning

203

Tracey Hirst

Wyre Borough Council

POLICY REF CWL1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

regeneration of Canal Corridor site for retail-led development in keeping with Policy CWL1.  To ensure that the development of this area complies with Core Strategy Policy ER4, which states that Lancaster City Centre will be a sub-regional City Centre and the main comparison goods destination for Lancaster District, a new policy should be added to ensure that retail development at Canal Corridor is predominantly for comparison goods. Policy EL2  This site provides such a development opportunity for commercial development and should be identified for Commercial, Leisure, Retail or Mixed-use development. Policy SOUTH1

 Concern about impact of additional traffic generated by the 4 key areas of growth in the district, and impact on the local highway network. The managed and phased release of sites having regard to the required infrastructure to support the site is welcomed.  Noted that the Highways and Transport Master Plan led by Lancashire County Council has not yet been completed as

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 No, the Council wants to retain flexibility in the current policy wording. Any such restrictions could damage the viability of a redevelopment scheme.

 Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need, including this important site.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Comments noted. These matters will be carefully investigated with Wyre through “Duty to Co-operate” engagement. 90


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

204 205

NAME

NOT USED Tracey Hirst

ORGANISATION

Wyre Borough Council

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

206

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy SOUTH1

207

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Key Diagram

208

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted and welcomed.

CHANGE REQUIRED

anticipated. Imperative that district councils work together with Lancashire County Council and the Highways Agency to plan for the cumulative effects of proposed developments, including the area south of Lancaster and around the Garstang/Catterall area of Wyre.  Prudent for Lancaster and Wyre Council’s to have further discussions to determine if housing need in the rural area/A6 corridor is being met effectively under the duty to cooperate.  Policy RES1 Table 34.2. Figure given for housing completions in 2011/12 in this table is different to the one in the Meeting Housing Needs DPD.  Proposals in this area will need to consider potential for significant impacts on the Morecambe Bay SAC/SPA/Ramsar site which is located a few kilometres to the west of this area.  Key Diagram and Areas of Strategic Growth, shows five strategic growth areas, while only 4 are listed in para 7.3.

Policy SL1  Support the following criteria for (Whinney this site: iv, vi, vii, and ix, which Carr) are of particular interest to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

 Check figures and correct.

 Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Remove one red dot from the Key Diagram, and rename “South Heysham” in para 7.3 as “Heysham Energy Coast, consistent with chapter headings of the document.  Support noted.

CHANGE REQUIRED

NO CHANGE

91


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

209

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

210

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

211

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

212

Ms Janet Baguley Ms Janet Baguley Ms Janet Baguley Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy SL2 (Bailrigg Lane) Policy SL3 (Science Park) Policy EL1 (Grab Lane) Policy EL2

216

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

217

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

213 214 215

Natural England Natural England Natural England

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

Natural England.  Support the following criteria for this site: vi, vii, viii, ix, x and xii.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support the following criteria for this site: i, iii, iv, vi, viii and xi.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support the following criteria for this site: ii, iii, iv, v, vii, and viii.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support/comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support/comments noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Support/comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support the following criteria for this site: ii, iii, and vii. Policy EL3  Support the following criteria for this site: ii, iii and iv. Policy EL4  Support the following criteria for this site: ii, iv, v, and vi. Policy  Support the following criteria for CWL1 this site: iii and vii. It will also be necessary for consideration to be given to potential impacts of proposals on the canal, i.e. in terms of its ecological value. Policy  Support the aim to maintain New CWL2 Quay Meadows and Vicarage Field as a flagship area of greenspace in the city. We would however welcome policy wording included to ‘enhance’ as well as ‘maintain’. Policy  Support the criteria for this site CWL3 that aims for high quality design and use of materials which respect the character and setting of the site. Welcome consideration to the potential

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

92


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

218

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy CWL4

219

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy CWL5

220

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy HEY1

impacts of proposals on the River Lune and the Morecambe Bay SAC/SPA/ Ramsar Site . For Luneside East and for Luneside West we support the criterion for the provision of onsite open space with linkages to the River Lune Green Corridor. We would welcome consideration being given to the potential impacts of proposals on the River Lune and the Morecambe Bay SAC/SPA/Ramsar Site. Welcome this allocation and would support enhancements to biodiversity and landscape value in this area. Welcome the statement that “Future proposals will need to demonstrate that no European designation sites would be adversely affected by development either alone or in combination with other proposals”. Suggest plan should include reference to the provision of suitable mitigation, where relevant. Plan should recognise that there will be a limit to development in this area, and as each development comes forward it will need to be assessed against the new environmental baseline. The Council should work with developers to deliver a

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Information is being gathered by the Council to inform this matter. The Council anticipates that there will be significant mitigation measures agreed at the time a planning application (or Development Consent Order) is submitted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

93


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

221

NAME

Ms Janet Baguley

ORGANISATION

Natural England

POLICY REF

Policy HEY2

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS more strategic approach to mitigation if a number of proposals come forward in this area that have the potential to affect Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site. Natural England could work with the Council and provide advice on this.  Para 28.6 (impacts on European sites) compensation could only be provided in situations where a case has been made that there are no alternative solutions and the development is necessary for reasons of overriding public interest; as required by Regulation 62.  Para 28.6 states that where proposals relate to the Biological Heritage Sites the council will seek to secure no net loss of the BHS, requiring evidence of how the BHS will be protected and enhanced as part of the future proposal. Suggest this wording should be included in policy HEY1.  Nuclear New Build. Support the policy wording that future proposals will need to demonstrate that no European designated sites would be adversely affected by development either alone or in combination with other proposals.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Minor amendment.

 Include in policy.

 Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

94


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

222

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy HEY3

223

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy HEY4

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Also support the criterion that requires the mitigation of environmental effects.  Note that the proposed location of a new reactor will result in the loss of a Biological Heritage Site. Appropriate off-site compensation should be provided if this site be lost to development.  Strongly support the policy wording that future proposals will need to demonstrate that no European designated sites would be adversely affected by development either alone or in combination with other proposals.  Para 30.4: need to determine the environmental importance of the areas that these businesses will be de-canted to (not just Habitat Regulations issues, but the environment in general). Recommend that wording be added to this policy to clarify that there will be a limit to the amount of development in this area.  Strongly support the policy wording that future proposals will need to demonstrate that no European designated sites would be adversely affected by development either alone or in combination with other proposals.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted. The policy refers to the council’s approach as a consultee to a NSIP project which has been identified by a third party. Council acknowledges the need to consider the cumulative impacts of third party NSIP schemes and those allocated in the DPD. NO CHANGE  Support /comments noted.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

95


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

224

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

225

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

POLICY REF Policy HEY5

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 We strongly support this policy and are pleased to see that proposals that will enhance wildlife and recreation opportunities will be supported.  Para 32.6 states that where proposals relate to the Biological Heritage Sites the council will seek to secure no net loss of the BHS, requiring evidence of how the BHS will be protected and enhanced as part of the future proposal. Suggest that this wording should be included as part of policy HEY1.  RES1.5 Land at Royal Albert Fields, Ashton Road. The biodiversity value of this greenfield site will need to be considered.  RES 1.9 Riverview Hostel and Day Centre. This site is adjacent to the canal and it will be necessary to consider the potential impacts of proposals on the canal against its ecological value.  RES1.10 Wheatfield Street. This site is alongside the railway and it will therefore be necessary to consider the potential impacts of the proposals on the biodiversity that may have become established along this corridor.  RES1.12 Heysham Road Depot.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

 Comment noted.

 Comment noted.

 Comment noted. 96


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Proposals at this site will need to demonstrate that no European designated sites would be adversely affected by development either alone or in combination with other proposals. RES1.13 Regents Road Bridge, Westgate, Morecambe. The biodiversity value of this greenfield site will need to be considered. RES1.15 Trumacar Lane. The biodiversity value of this greenfield site will need to be considered. RES1.16 Coastal Road. This site is adjacent to the canal and it will be necessary to consider the potential impacts of proposals on the canal, against its ecological value. RES1.21 Ellel House. The biodiversity value of this site will need to be considered, as much of the site appears to be a garden of an existing property. RES1.22 Halton Army Training Camp. The biodiversity value of this site will need to be considered, as although it is considered brownfield, some of the site appears to be greenfield, with established trees. RES1.25 Cove Drive. This site is located within an AONB, with

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted.

 Comment noted.

 Comment noted.

 Comment noted.

 Comment noted.

 Comment noted.

97


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

226

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy RES2

227

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy RES3

228

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy EMP1

numerous established trees. These issues will need to be taken into account should this site be developed. RES1.26 Cove House. This site is located within an AONB and this will need to be taken into account should this site be developed. Support the following criteria for this site: vi, vii and viii. Site is adjacent to the canal and it will be necessary to consider the potential impacts of proposals on the canal against its ecological value. Support the following criteria for this site: i, v, viii and ix. Site is adjacent to the River Keer and it will be necessary to consider the potential impacts of proposals on the river against its ecological value. Carnforth Business Park. The biodiversity value of this greenfield site will need to be considered. Lancaster West Business Park. This site’s location adjacent to a Local Nature Reserve will need to be considered. Part of the site is also greenfield, and so its biodiversity value will need to assessed. Major Industrial Estate Heysham.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 In all of the above instances, development will be subject to the consideration of protection policies contained in the Local Plan, Core Strategy and NPPF.  Support/comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support/comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted.

 Comment noted. 98


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

229

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy OPP2

230

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy OPP3

This sites location adjacent to a Local Nature Reserve will need to be considered. Claughton Brickworks. This site is located within an AONB and this will need to be taken into account should this site be developed. In addition, the site is close to several Biological Heritage Sites and the impacts on these will also need to be considered. Glasson Industrial Area, Glasson Dock. Proposals at this site will need to demonstrate that no European designated sites would be adversely affected by development either alone or in combination with other proposals. Support the policy wording which will require future proposals to demonstrate a high standard and quality of design respecting the character and setting of the site and its location as a gateway to the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. Suggest that impacts on the Biological Heritage Site adjacent to the site should also be considered as part of proposals. Support the policy wording which will require proposals to take account of the site’s rural location. Support the following criteria for

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted.

 In all of the above instances, development will be subject to the consideration of protection policies contained in the Local Plan, Core Strategy and NPPF.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Development will be subject to the consideration of protection policies contained in the Local Plan, Core Strategy and NPPF.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

99


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

231

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy OPP4

232

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy OPP5

233

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy EDC3

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS this site: iii, and ix.  Support the following criteria for this site: vi, vii, viii, and ix. The site’s location on the bank of River Lune means that it will be necessary to consider the potential impacts of proposals on the river against its ecological value.  Issues will need to be considered when developing at these locations: - Middleton – This village is located close to the South Heysham Local Nature Reserve. - Nether Kellet – A Biological Heritage Site and a Geological Heritage Site are located to east/south-east of the village. - Over Kellet - A Biological Heritage Site is located to south east of the village. - Overton – The Morecambe Bay SAC/SPA/Ramsar site is located just to the west of the village. - Warton – The Warton Crag and Warton Quarry Local Nature Reserves are located close by, plus the village is within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB.  Development at this site would result in the loss of greenspace.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support/comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Development on any of the sites will be subject to the consideration of protection policies contained in the Local Plan, Core Strategy and NPPF.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. Development on any of the sites will be subject to the consideration of protection policies contained in the Local Plan, Core Strategy and NPPF.

NO CHANGE

100


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID 234 235

NAME

ORGANISATION

Ms Janet Natural England Baguley Cllr Mr Chris Lancaster council Coates

POLICY REF Policy REC1 Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Natural England strongly supports this policy.  Allocation of these areas is against Core Strategy Policies SC1 and SC2: current policy of urban concentration should be maintained until all Brownfield sites have been brought back into use.  Roads in the area, in particular the A6 and the A588 are already at capacity at peak times.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

NO CHANGE

 Allocation will lead to continued dereliction of brownfield sites within the City Centre.  Figures used to predict the housing numbers required were based on out of date information and should be revised downwards taking into account recent figures on actual population growth in the area.

236

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy REC2

 Support this policy and would like to see new allotments provided within the District.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

 The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.  There is no evidence to suggest that brownfield sites will remain derelict and un-used through the life of the Local Plan as a consequence of allocating Greenfield sites.  Housing numbers included in the consultation version are derived from RSS, which is the universally accepted method of calculating requirements. Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

101


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID 237

238

NAME

ORGANISATION

Ms Louise Tripp

Local Resident

Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

POLICY SUMMARY OF COMMENTS REF Policy EL1  Object to greenfield sites being (Grab used for residential development Lane) when there are suitable brownfield sites that could be used instead. Support the development of the Moor Hospital, providing it is sympathetic to the area, but not the Grab Lane area.  I've often seen wildlife (herons, pheasants, deer) and this habitat shouldn't be disrupted.

Policy DES1

 The wording ‘developments within or adjacent to these locations’ should be broadened to include development proposals which may affect these areas, not just those adjacent to them.  Policy needs to include reference to sites identified as European designations.  Policy and EN2.1 incorrectly states the test of the Habitat Regulations as “developments will not be permitted where there is likely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of a site”. The

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

NO CHANGE

 The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible. The plans put forward within the Land Allocations DPD represent the most sustainable, suitable and realistic way of dealing with future development needs.  Minor change.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Minor change with a cross reference between the first paragraph of the policy and para 49.1.  Minor change to acknowledge HRA wording.

102


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

239 240

NOT USED Mr David Alexander

241

Ms Janet Baguley Mr David Alexander

Natural England

Mr David Alexander

Local Resident

242

243

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Minor change to ensure glossaries are consistent.

CHANGE REQUIRED

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The Council does not have a formal policy for incentives, but will work in partnership with developers and grant-awarding bodies on

NO CHANGE

actual test is more precautionary than this; Regulation 61 (5) states “the competent authority may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site”. i.e. the development can only be permitted once the LPA are certain that there are no adverse effects. If there is any uncertainty about the effects, the development cannot be permitted. This policy should be amended to reflect these comments.

Glossary

 This should be in line with that produced for the Development Management DPD. Policy  Natural England strongly GR3 supports this policy. Introductio  Support for the purpose of the n DPD, vision and objectives (paras.2.9/10) and there is scope for revision (para. 2.11). Relationsh  There is a significant challenge ip with posed by the large number of other important brownfield sites which document must be given appropriate s incentives for development before the Council releases a large number of greenfield sites for residential development.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

103


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

244

Mr David Alexander

Local Resident

Areas of Strategic Growth

245

Mr David Alexander

Local Resident

Policy EAST1

246

Ms Janet Baguley Ms Janet Baguley Ms Janet Baguley

Natural England

Policy GR4 Policy GR5 Policy TR2

247 248

Natural England Natural England

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Potential for greenfield sites in south and east Lancaster in particular to be developed earlier than initially intended, whilst brownfield sites, principally in central Lancaster, remain empty and unsightly, providing a poor impression and image for the District and acting as a potential deterrent for future developers.  Mismatch between the large number of greenfield site developments, and the strategic road network that might be expected to serve them. This mismatch will act as a significant constraint on the proposed growth area.  Importance of both landscape and heritage assets is supported in the case of the proposed residential development within east Lancaster, particularly over the brownfield sites at Moor Hospital and Ridge Lea Hospital(para. 14.4)  Natural England strongly supports this policy.  Natural England strongly supports this policy.  The development of this park and ride would result in loss of Greenfield land, with potential

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

brownfield sites to ensure that they are developed as planned.  There is no evidence to suggest that brownfield sites will remain derelict and un-used through the life of the Local Plan (15 years) as a consequence of allocating Greenfield sites.

 The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

104


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

249 250

NAME

NOT USED Mr David Alexander

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Central & West Lancaster

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Mr David Alexander

Local Resident

Policy HEY1

ACTION

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The Council does not have a formal policy for incentives, but will work in partnership with developers and grant-awarding bodies on brownfield sites to ensure that they are developed as planned.  The plans put forward within the Land Allocations DPD represent the most sustainable, suitable and realistic way of dealing with future development needs.  Comment noted. The Policy is designed to help facilitate the growth of the port, but cannot influence operational matters.  The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team and rail operators to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local transportation network through new development. However, there are infrastructure constraints which could limit the viability for freight traffic on the line to Heysham.  Support noted. This is part of the vision for the Heysham Energy

NO CHANGE

impacts on biodiversity and landscape.  Absolute priority should be given to the redevelopment of brownfield sites in central and west Lancaster, notably the Lancaster Canal Corridor (para.22) and Luneside (para.24). Vital for the Council to provide suitable incentives that will encourage developers to provide quality development.  Concern about local employment moving away from Lune Industrial Estate to Heysham area.

251

RESPONSE

 Important to give priority to using the harbour to transport of as much energy related building materials as possible.  Important to upgrade existing rail link to increase passenger and freight capacity from Heysham and the surrounding area.

 Support for the South Heysham Nature Reserve and particularly Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

CHANGE CONSIDERED

105


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

252

253

NAME

Mr David Alexander

Mr David Alexander

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

Policy EMP1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS the importance of requiring developers in the area to contribute to its future upkeep and development, as their contribution to the local environment (para. 32).  Council should be more proactive about the proposed rail station to serve Mossgate in particular and Heysham as a whole (para. 34ii).  Concern about high number of dwellings proposed at Bolton-leSands (102). Is there evidence to support the need for such a figure?  Support for regeneration priorities which must not be compromised by encouragement of greenfield sites coming first (para.34.10).The exclusion of 3 large greenfield sites in south Lancaster is contrary to a brownfield first approach (para. 34.21).The DPD is providing mixed messages for developers, since the sequential approach rightfully suggests priority will be given to PDL (para.34.13).

 Is there any scope at all considering the site for rail linked activities, before confirming a mixed use development?

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Coast where mitigation and improvement to nature conservation follows development.

 This was once an aspiration but there is no requirement attached to the current residential consents for a new railway station at Mossgate.  These sites are in sustainable locations, close to local services and facilities.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The sequential approach referred to in para.34.13 does not suggest a brownfield first approach: minor change to this para to clarify. NO CHANGE  There is scope for this in the wording of Policy OPP2.

106


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

254

255

NAME

Mr David Alexander

Mr David Alexander

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy REC1

Policy DES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (para.40).  Support for the prominent heritage site at Galgate Mill (para.41).  University of Cumbria could help regenerate other parts of the District, particularly the regeneration priority areas of central Lancaster and Morecambe (para.44).  Important to protect the Lancaster& Morecambe College site from the potential impact of the proposed M6 Link.  Support for paras. 47.2/3/7,stressing their importance for sustainable communities.  Support for allotment provision (para. 48.1 and 48.3).  Support for the importance of the natural and historic environment, but the newly designated Morecambe Bay Nature Improvement Area should be added to the list (para.49).  Support for the North Lancashire Green Belt. It is important to be aware of its vulnerability to small scale incursions.  Support no need for substantial development in open countryside (para.51.2) and for Green Spaces Network (para.52.1).  Support Council’s plans to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.  No evidence to suggest that the University of Cumbria would regenerate sites outside their ownership and interests.  Comments noted.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.  Support noted (see also policies relating to the natural and historic environment in the DM DPD). Add MBNIA.

CHANGE REQUIRED

 Support noted.

 Support noted.

 Support noted. 107


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 256

Mr David Alexander Mr David Alexander

Local Resident

258

Mr David Alexander

259

Mr Simon Hones

257

Policy RET1 Policy RPA1

Local Resident

Policy TR1

Local Resident

Policy RES1

Local Resident

address Open Space Deficiency Areas before conflict with housing proposals brings about the loss of valuable open space (para.52.6). Support Morecambe Bay Nature Improvement Area, but it needs to be mentioned elsewhere within the DPD and the Development Management DPD. Coverage from approximately Ulverston to Garstang needs to be illustrated on the supportive map coverage (para. 53.3). Support key urban landscapes (paras.54.1/2/3/4). Support sequential test for town centres (paras. 55.3). Support Morecambe West End as a regeneration priority area (para.57). Incentives must be provided to give real priority to Morecambe centre, Lancaster centre and Luneside(paras. 56.6/8/11). Evidence is required to show that M6 link creates benefits to the District (para.58.2). Support further development of cycle network (para.60.2). Object to proposed development of 20 dwellings at Cove Drive, Silverdale. Council owned land could only be made available for affordable homes. 45 plus properties of various sizes

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Not always necessary to repeat or cross-reference policies. These could be included as constraints layers on the Council’s interactive maps.

 Support noted.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted. The Council does not have a formal policy for incentives, but will work in partnership with developers and grant-awarding bodies on brownfield sites to ensure that they are developed as planned.  Support noted. The benefits of this road were publicly debated at the Planning Inspectorate examination.

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. The housing which CHANGE CONSIDERED is for sale in the village is of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the Silverdale area, in particularly 108


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

already for sale within the village.  Upper approximate third is used as soak-away area of the Bleasdale House septic tank. Any dwellings built in remaining area will be downhill from the septic tank and its soak-away area. Should the council allow construction of additional dwellings at Cove Road, it will need to resolve the current problem of flooding which through the natural lay of the land will allow rain and surface water to flow towards №22 Cove Drive, thus compounding an issue which it has failed to resolve in the past. The entire area around Townsfield and Cove/Birch Drive has Septic Tank issues.  Access from Cove Drive will be extremely difficult. Major issue of road congestion that arises on Cove Road.  Site requires full wildlife survey to ensure that there is nothing on the land or local area that is classed as an endangered species; animal, plant, amphibian or other.  Concern that housing is proposed in an area of only modest employment opportunities and low levels of public transport.

younger people.  This would need full and careful investigation before any planning consents granted.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

 Unlikely to be resolved through cooperation of the owners of no.22 or the National Trust (as owners of Townsfield).  Development on any of the sites will be subject to the consideration of protection policies contained in the Local Plan, Core Strategy and NPPF, which may require surveys to be undertaken.  Employment opportunities already exist in and around the Silverdale area; affordable housing in the village may well assist people who currently work in the area to also 109


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID 260

261 262

NAME

ORGANISATION

Ms Susan Charles

Local Resident

Ms Janet Baguley Mrs Kate Grimshaw

Natural England Lancashire County Council (Property Group)

POLICY REF Policy RES1

Policy TR3 Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Support housing site RES1.20 – Ashley House, Stoney Lane, Galgate.  Site is located in a sustainable location within centre of Galgate. It is fully accessible to essential community facilities and the main access road (A6) linking the motorway (Junction 33) to Lancaster. 59% of the site’s perimeter directly abuts previously developed land. Site is a single Legal interest and can be delivered for development immediately. Site has no highway constraints, no servicing constraints and is not contaminated.  Site is immediately (not post 2022) able to accommodate a deliverable housing scheme of at least 60 residential dwellings (not 30), including an element of affordable housing and public open space.  Natural England supports this policy.  RES1.9 Riverview, Lancaster and RES1.19 Moor Platt, Caton – both these sites have been marketed and interest generated has been mainly for residential development but also been some interest in a mixed use scheme

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE live in the area.  Support noted.

ACTION CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Comments noted.

 Consider amendments to RES1.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted. Retain the sites as housing allocations, but consider residential and care home developments on their merits.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

110


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

263

Mrs Kate Grimshaw

264

Mrs Kate Grimshaw

265

Mr Nick Pilkington

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

Lancashire County Council (Property Group) Lancashire County Council (Property Group)

Policy EDC3

Local Resident

Policy EMP1

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS including residential and care home development.  RES1.25 Cove Drive, Silverdale – from a purely property perspective, St John's Church of England Primary School will require some of this land in the future to enable it to meet its statutory requirement for playing field provision. Unknown how much land will be required and furthermore sufficient funds would need to be made available to enable the field to be improved to a suitable standard. Indicative phasing for this site - 2017/18 to 2021/22 - should provide sufficient time for these factors to be resolved.  This site is still required for education purposes

RESPONSE

 Availability matters raise doubts over the deliverability of this site.

 Support noted.

 SHLAA SITE 1263, Land off  Allocate site. Quernmore Road, Caton. Positive meetings about land swap. School happy in principle with the proposal as it will result in a larger, better located and improved playing field provision for the school.  Concerned about potential re The Local Plan seeks to identify allocation of a number of long opportunities for future economic established sizeable employment growth in the District, this includes sites within the district, including Lancaster University Science Park, the Port of Heysham Industrial Growth at Heysham Port and Power

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

NO CHANGE CHANGE REQUIRED

NO CHANGE

111


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

266

NAME

Mr John Braithwaite

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Estate, Lune Industrial Estate, Lancaster, Lodge Quarry, Carnforth, Keer Bridge, Carnforth and Warton Road (ex TDG) Carnforth. Sites are a significant proportion of the available land for employment related uses in the district, particularly within the Carnforth area, which not only serves North Lancashire but also potentially South Cumbria, where there are significant land supply issues, particularly for employment related uses due to topography. Local Plan makes little or no new provision for employment sites, particularly for larger type space uses, say B2 and B8 uses. Too much emphasis is being placed on B1 style business uses within emerging residential locations, for which there may be some demand, but clearly there is a wide spectrum of employment related uses which do not sit well within residential locations and which require large spaces and excellent access.  Concern about assessment of SHLAA 379 – Land off Brookhouse Road, Caton. Site is surrounded on three sides by parts of Brookhouse, and will not lead to a coalition of settlements.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Station and proposals for town centre expansion at Lancaster Canal Corridor. Many of the sites re-allocated in the plan have been removed from employment use because there has been no interest in redeveloping them during the period of the previous local plan.

 There is no evidence that this site could be deliverable within the next 15 years. However, the availability of the site may be re-assessed at any time in the SHLAA.

NO CHANGE

112


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy SOUTH1

267

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

268

Ms A Chapman

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH1

269

Ms Sandra Manson

Local Resident

Policy CWL5

The site is not part of the area of open space between the villages, either visually or in built form terms. Site requires removal of one dwelling on Sycamore Road, which will be possible only after the death of the current occupant. Site could be proposed to meet long-term housing needs. Welcome references to the importance of the University to the local economy and the role it can play in boosting local growth. Futher development in this area should be required to make provision for a step-change in public transport, such as a guided bus or tram from Heysham, via Morecambe and Lancaster, or a new train station at the site. Support approach to identification of areas of strategic growth within Section 7 of the DPD especially identification of Central and West Lancaster as an area of growth. Satnam has a legal interest in part of the Regeneration Priority Area shown on p62 of the DPD and forms part of the Willow Lane / Coronation Field Opportunity Area. Brownfield Study confirmed this land as being 'vacant and brownfield', having previously been used for storage and distribution. Whilst some private

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways and transport team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 The designation is based on land allocations, not ownership. Recreation provision must form part of any proposal to develop this site.

113


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS sport / recreational use was formerly undertaken on the site, this was a considerable period of time ago and is not a predominant are of the site. Contextual description in paras 26.1 to 26.5 does not truly reflect the land within our clients interest. Acknowledge reference in para 26.5 to the opportuinity to secure enhancements to existing recreation resources by supporting an element of enabling development on this site on land presently not identified as being in active recreation use. However neither the policy, supporting text, or illustrative allocations plan differentiate between the area that is used as active recreation / open space activities (land owned by the Council) or wider areas of land which are not currently used for such purposes. For clarity there needs to be a distinction between the different areas.  Client has promoted site on the basis that it offers significant opportunity for the community and the authority to address shortfalls of recreation and open space provision by utilisation of the site to secure enabling funds

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The designation is based on land allocations, not ownership. Recreation provision must form part of any proposal to develop this site.

114


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

and has previously submitted a Masterplan to that effect. References to this in para 26.5 are generally supported, but policy text needs to be amended. The second para sets out the policy apporach to an exceptional circumstance for enabling development within part of the site identified as a Regeneration Priority Area (i.e. the land that lies within Satnam's control). The policy then goes on to state that this would only be where proposals support quantitative and qualitative improvements to the recreation and open space use and 'these remain the main use on this site'. The policy has previously discussed the potential for enabling proposals on the area of land within the Regeneration Priority Area, the inference by the final words in this para is that recreation and open space use must remain the predominant use of that land even on the land within the Regeneration Priority Area, however the predominant use of the land currently is not for recreational or open space use. Object to this element of the policy and text '...and these remain the main use of this site'

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

115


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

270

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

272

Ms A Chapman

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

should be deleted. Policy SL1  Expect residents on and adjacent (Whinney to the site to be consulted/ Carr) involved in development process. Welcome stress on design, need to link canal to development, and need to address flood risk.  Welcome the 40% affordable housing figure as approximate, in order to avoid damaging overall development opportunity.  Council is right to look at this development in conjunction with other nearby sites and to assess what the cumulative effects of these may be. Infrastructure and service provision will need to be adequate in supporting any new development.  Welcome the mention of an ‘appropriate buffer zone’ in para 10.5, to protect the nature of current properties already on the site as well as the surrounding countryside. Policy SL2  Bailrigg Lane development (Bailrigg should not come forward before Lane) the major brownfield sites which already have outline consent – such as Luneside East or the Moor hospital site.

 Council should consider having Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The Council does not require the development of brownfield sites prior to the release or development of Bailrigg Lane.  Consider minor amendment to

CHANGE CONSIDERED

116


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

273

NAME

Ms A Chapman

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

new developments on microgrids. It means that the electricity generated from the solar PV panels feed into the microgrid, not into individual houses, which are supplied from the micro-grid. This enables all the houses to benefit (not just the ones with solar PV panels on their roof). It also means that most of the electricity generated will be used on-site (because demand is averaged over the whole development), which increases the financial viability of the system. Policy EL1  Grab Lane development should (Grab not come forward before the Lane) major brownfield sites which already have outline consent – such as Luneside East or the Moor hospital site.

 Council should consider having new developments on microgrids. It means that the electricity generated from the solar PV panels feed into the microgrid, not into individual houses, which are supplied from the micro-grid. This enables all the houses to benefit (not just the ones with solar PV panels on their roof). It Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Policy SOUTH1 (V to add microgrids to wording).

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The Council does not require the development of brownfield sites prior to the release or development of Grab Lane.  Consider minor amendment to Policy SOUTH1 (V to add microgrids to wording).

CHANGE CONSIDERED

117


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

274

NAME

Ms A Chapman

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy EAST1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS also means that most of the electricity generated will be used on-site (because demand is averaged over the whole development), which increases the financial viability of the system.  Sustainable transport package should include segregated cycle and pedestrian links through and between the development sites and to Christchurch primary school, Ridge Primary school, Central High, Williamson Park, and the Lancaster Leisure park. Important to provide direct pedestrian/cycle routes to the schools (the current route via Derwent Road is very circuitous), which should reduce the journey times for residents of new and existing housing (at Standen Park and Standen Gate) to the schools. Policy EL3 on Nightingale Hall farm should mention the need for through routes for pedestrians and cyclists.  Need for some sort of centre in East Lancaster, to include a shop, cafe and community facilities. Existing shops at Lancaster Leisure park could provide some facilities, but a better location would be adjacent

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways and transport team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development, to inform the preparation of a planning brief and masterplan.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Consider additional reference to community facilities in EAST1 (bullet point (i)).

118


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

275

276

NAME

Ms A Chapman

Ms A

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy CWL1

Policy

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS to Quernmore Road as part of the development of the Moor hospital Annex. Large hall in the Annex should be retained as a multi-use community venue (it could perform the function of the Cohouse, and the Cohousing development). It should not have town houses built inside it, as currently planned.  Object to the development of the canal corridor site being ‘retail led’. Increases in the use of the internet for shopping and the recession should mean an evaluation of the need for new retail space in Lancaster.

 Policy should mention the importance of maintaining a North-South cycle route across the area (from Moorgate to Phoenix St), and the current pedestrian/cycle route from Alfred St to St Leonard Gate in the vicinity of Phoenix St.  Policy should mention the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The Council’s retail evidence supports the need for additional retail floorspace in Lancaster, to serve the present and future needs of Lancaster’s shoppers. City Centre currently lacks opportunities to deliver a retail offer which will improve the local economy. In particular there is a lack of retail units which are fit for modern retail purposes. The Canal Corridor Scheme will provide modern, viable and deliverable retail accommodation and will benefit the town’s economy through investment and job creation.  Cycling and pedestrian links will be considered as part of the development proposals.

NO CHANGE

 The chimney is not listed nor within

NO CHANGE 119


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

Chapman 277

Ms A Chapman

278

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

Local Resident

POLICY REF CWL4 Policy CWL5

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy SL2  (Bailrigg Lane)  

279 280

NOT USED Ms Teresa Abramson

Local Resident

importance of retaining the chimney of the former power station. Support policy to retain this area for recreation and open space. It could mention the need for better management to improve the wildlife value of the area. Proper liaison with local residents will be imperative. Welcome reference to dealing with traffic/access to this area. Ref to (iii), needs to be a buffer between old and new development at Bailrigg village to protect the unique nature of the area. This might be covered by (xii) but the key is the protection of the village. Welcome the 40% affordable housing figure as approximate, in order to avoid damaging overall development opportunity.

Policy SL2  Object to development at Bailrigg (Bailrigg Lane: scale is too large, and that Lane) this will impact adversely on the entire south Lancaster area. Lancaster would be better suited to a number of smaller developments to the east and the west of the City, preferably with pedestrian access to the city centre, and I urge the Council to think more creatively about more

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE a conservation area. Its retention will depend on the scheme put forward.  Support noted. The policy is not prescriptive about recreation types or management.  Support/comments noted.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

 The detail of the buffer between old and new will be developed through the planning brief, masterplanning and planning application process.

 Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need. The housing sites identified in the DPD have been subject to sustainability appraisal testing and are designed to best meet the needs for

NO CHANGE

120


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

281

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

Policy SL3  (Science Park) 

282

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

Policy SL4  (University )

urban housing to fit with its geography and future heritage business intentions, before going down a route that will cause more problems than it will solve in the long run. Road/ traffic infrastructure cannot sustain the impact of 1600+ road users travelling into town. A6 is operating at maximum capacity. The development close to Ashton Rd will create a similar clogged effect on that route. City centre parking is a significant problem. The proposed developments may be attempting to solve a housing problem, but they will creating major traffic, parking and residential problems for existing residents of S Lancaster. Support Science Park policy as a way of enhancing university and community. Support recognition of buffers between the Park and Baillrigg Village in the policy. Suggest that the potential to bring high tech employment to the City could be boosted by designating the Science Park a Local Enterprise Zone. Council should recognise the importance of self-contained amenities and services on campus (eg banking). Council should work with the University to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

development over the next 15 years.

 Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the South of Lancaster, with aspects of the requirements developed in Policy SL1 and SL2. Further investigation will be undertaken by the City and County Councils to produce and deliver a Highways and Transport Masterplan which will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to deal with all aspects of travel and traffic.  Support/comment noted.

NO CHANGE

 No current arrangements for the declaration of further Enterprise Zones.  Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

121


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

283

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

284

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

285

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

286

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

support services on campus.  Support plans to secure contributions from developers to maintain sites like the Ashton Memorial. Policy EL1  Support policy wording to protect (Grab Ashton Memorial and Williamson Lane) Park.  Welcome the 40% affordable housing figure as approximate, in order to avoid damaging overall development opportunity.  Support policy wording for infrastructure provision, including para 16.9. Policy EL2  Welcome point (ii) in this policy specifying the need for high quality design, and the commitment to reuse existing materials and natural stone. Support flexible approach to development to overcome deliverability problems set out in para 17.7.  Policy should put more emphasis on local infrastructure, including retail, as part of a sustainable community outlook. Policy  Support policy and of developing CWL1 this land to regenerate the City centre. Council should continue to seek a balanced development.  Support focus in para 22.5 on accessibility and transport issues, to achieve development and also Policy EAST1

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Consider minor amendment to reference to retail and community facilities in EAST1 or EL2.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

122


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

287

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

288

Ms Rosemary Hindley

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

deal with traffic bottlenecks.  Support change of use to the castle to bring it back into an accessible use for local residents and visitors.  Support need to balance protecting heritage and coming up with a solution that allows the building to be used.  Support the initial ideas put forward by the Duchy. Policy SL2  Object to proposal for 970 houses (Bailrigg on land at Bailrigg. Development Lane) of the Bailrigg site is unnecessary. The ‘significant housing need’ and ‘longer term housing shortfall’ referred to in the current planning documents have not been demonstrated and the predictions for population growth are, according to some sources, over-estimated. One of the stated justifications of the proposal to build on the Bailrigg site is the requirement to provide some ‘affordable housing’, but this could be subsequently lifted as in other recent local developments (e.g. Moor Hospital), leading to even more empty and/or unsellable homes.  Proposed transformation of beautiful green fields into a huge housing estate would destroy the visual amenity of the area and Policy CWL2

Local Resident

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need.

NO CHANGE

 The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as 123


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS impact on the hamlet of Bailrigg. Development would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity for existing property owners in Scotforth. Not clear whether there would be houses built along the very narrow strip of land in the north east tip of the site, or whether this would form part of the designated ‘Open Land of Key Townscape Importance’ along the eastern edge. Parts of the site are on steep sloping ground and it is crossed by high voltage overhead cables which would restrict residential development.  The site is bordered by the M6 on the east side, requiring a ‘buffer zone’ for noise reduction, and also has serious access issues. Development will increase traffic, as well as CO2 emissions, with thousands of additional journeys being made each day on already congested roads (particularly the A6 which is now at full capacity). If the Science Park is developed as well as the housing estate, the local road infrastructure will be unable to cope and traffic will be gridlocked at peak times.  Council should build housing in the centre of Lancaster not out in the countryside, away from

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

sustainably as possible. Development will be subject to the consideration of protection policies contained in the Local Plan, Core Strategy and NPPF.

 Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the South of Lancaster, with aspects of the requirements developed in Policy SL1 and SL2. Further investigation will be undertaken by the City and County Councils to produce and deliver a Highways and Transport Masterplan which will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to deal with all aspects of travel and traffic.  The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. 124


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

289

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

Policy CWL4

290

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

Policy CWL5 Policy HEY2

291

292

Mr Neil Anderton

R&B Properties

Policy OPP2

293

Mrs Helena Derbyshire

Local Resident

Policy OPP5

facilities. Preferable to create smaller and more appropriate developments in existing communities. council should maintain its original strategy of urban concentration and development of derelict brownfield sites (e.g. the Quay) before considering building on greenfield sites like Bailrigg. Support measures to improve infrastructure and accessibility to the site but recognise that diversification of the site might be needed if bottlenecks cannot be improved. Support the retention of this land for recreational purposes. Support principle for a new nuclear power station at the Heysham site, which is an important part of the local economy. R&B Properties own Ironworks House in Carnforth, adjacent to the former TDG site and within the Development Opportunity site - OPP2. Support development should be form part of a comprehensive masterplan for the whole site. Object to proposed 'Land Allocations DPD' for the Lune Valley which will spoil the natural beauty of the lovely village of

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.

 Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning 125


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

294

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

Policy HEY3

295

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

Housing Intro

296

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Hornby. I live in Royal Oak Meadow, Hornby which we understood was the 'natural end' to the village.  Concern about proposed access: not only is the road extremely narrow, the access from Royal Oak Meadow onto Melling Road is quite difficult.  Support expansion and development of the Port as important for the wider District economy. Council should ensure that the potential boost to the local economy from the expansion of the port is not lost or watered down by transport bottlenecks across the wider Lancaster area.  Previously commented on housing policy in response to the SPD consultation and the consultation on Part A of the Local Plan and I hope those comments will again be taken into consideration in dealing with these two sections.  Previously commented on housing policy in response to the SPD consultation and the consultation on Part A of the Local Plan and I hope those comments will again be taken into consideration in dealing with

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need.  The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.  Support/comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

126


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

297

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

298

Mr Mark Flaherty

299

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

300

Mr Mark Flaherty

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF Policy EDC3

Peel Energy Limited

Policy HEY1

Policy REC1 Peel Energy Limited

Policy HEY3

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS these two sections.  Support retention of site for educational use given demographic projections and the amount of development planned for.  Peel supports the allocation of the Heysham Energy Coast. The objectives of the allocation, such as energy security and economic growth, are in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and other government strategies, including the Renewable Energy Road Map (2011). The area proposed to be allocated is considered appropriate for energy related development because of the existing infrastructure and natural resources available. This includes grid, road and harbour infrastructure, and high wind speeds.  Support the Council’s plans to protect open spaces and recreation facilities.  Reference to second paragraph of the policy, Peel welcomes the Council’s support of diversification of uses on the port site, and acknowledgement of the opportunity for the port to support the delivery of renewable energy capacity.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

127


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

301

Mr Eric Ollerenshaw

302

Mr Les Williams

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

Policy TR1 BNP Paribas Real Estate/ SCOPE

Policy GR1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Request that the policy is widened to recognise potential other opportunities for diversification into the low carbon sector. Significant opportunity to support the onshore wind sector through, for example, receiving delivery of wind turbines from overseas, and accommodating the installation of turbines on port land which would contribute to the objectives of the Heysham Energy Coast while providing an income for the port, therefore strengthening the local economy. Suggest revision to the paragraph be made: ‘The council will support the diversification of uses on the Port site, supporting the Port in becoming a base for energy projects, particularly the wind sector.’  Support the plans to finally build this link road. Council should do all it can to ensure this road is built as soon as practicable.  Beaumont College is located within the North Lancashire Green Belt. Boundary is drawn tight to the northern boundary of the built-up area of Lancaster but washes over built-up area to the west of the A6 which comprises Beaumont College, St John’s

 Policy is already worded to encourage flexibility. No change.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Council has indicated in principle that this site is capable of redevelopment of the buildings on the existing footprint, subject to the submission of a satisfactory scheme.

NO CHANGE

128


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

Hospice and the Slynedales Cancer Care facility. Buildings at Beaumont College are now outdated for modern specialist education requirements and are restricting Scope’s ability to expand and improve the facilities. Scope objects to the inclusion of Beaumont College and the adjacent St John’s Hospice and the Slynedales Cancer Care facility within the Green Belt and request that this land should be removed from the Green Belt and the Green Belt boundary amended to pass along northern and western boundaries of the College site, St John’s Hospice and the Slynedales Cancer Care facility.  Object to allocating Beaumont College as part of the Rural Area, as this would restrict development options for the College. Given site’s built-up nature, it is closer in character to built-up areas of North Lancaster rather that countryside to north. Beaumont College should be included within settlement boundary of Lancaster, rather than Rural Area.  Object to the proposed allocation of the undeveloped areas of Beaumont College as Amenity

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

129


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

303

Mrs W Clark

Lancaster Civic Society

Areas of Strategic Growth

304

Mrs W Clark

Lancaster Civic Society

Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Areas. The site is private and therefore access to these areas is not available to members of the public. These areas also provide little to no opportunities for play or informal activities and little amenity value. Proposed allocation of these areas as Amenity Areas is not appropriate.  Request that document also includes a policy which provides support for the improvement of the College’s facilities, either through redevelopment of college or an increase in the built footprint at the site through infill development or extensions to the existing buildings.  Concern over apparent prioritisation of Greenfield over Brownfield sites for development, especially in south and east Lancaster, both important and currently attractive, gateway sites into Lancaster.  Document acknowledges the constraints of these sites, especially transport on the A6 corridor. Concern that one new road will not sufficiently alleviate the problems of the A6, especially given the number of new dwellings proposed (1650) and the remaining bottlenecks of Hala to the north and Galgate to the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the South of Lancaster, with aspects of the requirements developed in Policy SL1. Further investigation will be undertaken by the City and County Councils to produce and deliver a Highways and Transport

NO CHANGE

130


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

305

Mrs W Clark

Lancaster Civic Society

306

Mrs W Clark

Lancaster Civic Society

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

south of that transport corridor. The A588 itself would also need upgrading. In addition, the proposed Science Park and the development of one (possibly two) supermarkets on this stretch of road will also add to the traffic.  If these sites do become available for development, then we trust Council will uphold its commitments to require a masterplan for each site to prevent piecemeal development; produce a detailed Development Brief; ensure that any development is sensitive towards these important gateway sites, with good quality design using good quality materials; ensure that 40% of the houses are affordable and remain so in perpetuity. Policy SL3  Support development of the (Science Science Park at Bailrigg and Park) welcome the proposed safeguards of a masterplan, good integration with the surrounding landscape, high quality design and materials, an attractive entrance point from the A6, screening of carparks and landscape buffer. Policy EL1  Regret the loss of this Greenfield (Grab site to development, but if it is Lane) made available we trust Council

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Masterplan which will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to deal with all aspects of travel and traffic, including congestion at the Pointer Roundabout.  Comments noted.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

131


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

307

Mrs W Clark

308

Mrs W Clark

309

Mrs W Clark

310

ORGANISATION

Lancaster Civic Society Lancaster Civic Society

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy EL2 

will rigorously uphold its commitment to require a masterplan for the whole site; produce a detailed Development Brief to ensure high quality design and materials and sensitive treatment. Welcome the conservation-led approach to this prominent site. Support residential development on the sites at Nightingale Hall Farm, Ridge Lea Hospital and Land off Wyresdale Road, subject to acceptable transport/access arrangements, sensitive treatment of heritage assets where relevant and high quality design and materials. Support the re-development and regeneration of this large Brownfield site. Support the re-development and regeneration of this large Brownfield site. Support and welcome the proposals for the conservationled regeneration of the Castle and development of the surrounding area. Support and welcome the proposal for park and ride.

Policy EAST1

Lancaster Civic Society

Policy CWL1

Mrs W Clark

Lancaster Civic Society

Policy CWL3

311

Mrs W Clark

Lancaster Civic Society

Policy CWL2

312

Mrs W Clark NOT USED Mr Chris Kynch

Policy TR2

313 314

Lancaster Civic Society Local Resident

Policy RES1

 Moor Platt should be removed from the designation on the Local Plan as residential development.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the

NO CHANGE

132


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

315

Mr Antony Ingham

Network Rail

Policy SOUTH1

316

Mr Matt Gilbert

The Planning Consultancy

Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Grounds should be protected from development. Survey of local residents revealed that people wished Moor Platt grounds to be kept as a green space / village green.  Acknowledge and support Council’s references within DPD to the South Lancaster sites (namely; Whinney Carr, Bailrigg, and Lancaster University Science Park) being reliant upon the delivery of a new road over the West Coast Mainline connecting the A6 and the A588. Network Rail confirms that a bridge over the railway line in the broad location shown in the developers’ Concept Diagram is supported subject to the necessary Network Rail engineering and related approvals. Network Rail & CEP have entered into a formal agreement setting out an agreed approach to joint working and which recognises Network Rail’s Asset Protection requirements relating to the operational railway. Network Rail & CEP aim to enter into similar arrangements with other parties whose co-operation is required to deliver proposed new road link.  Act on behalf of owner of the Old Filter House, Scotforth Road.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need.  Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED 133


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Support principle of development in this locality, and agree that the delivery of the individual development areas (SL1, 2, & 3) should be undertaken in a comprehensive manner. Also support application of SOUTH 1 greenfield land development.  Concern about proposal to allocate this land as part of the Lancaster University Science Park (SL3) which is on the opposite side of Scotforth Road. Concerns relate to impact of proposals on a brownfield site (existing established use rights) which should have different planning considerations associated with it as compared to the neighbouring greenfield land. No logic in land being included within and tied by the policies envisaged for adjoining greenfield land. Should be clear distinction between the two types of land.  Object to the application of ‘comprehensive planning principles’ in SOUTH1 to adjoining brownfield site which might preclude its development in isolation. Object to the need for this site to contribute towards, amongst other things, a new road, a sustainable transport package, and infrastructure for

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Policy SOUTH1 or its reasoned justification should identify that the Filter House could be treated separately but that any redevelopment should be restricted to B1 employment uses only, in keeping with previous policy advice to the owners and appeal decisions (subject to any possible needs for road widening of the A6).

 Need to clarify in the policy what this site will be required to contribute towards the development of South Lancaster (see previous point). Not reasonable to complain about existing use rights when the roof of the building has recently been removed.

134


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

317

NAME

Ms Kate McGill

ORGANISATION

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

POLICY REF

Introductio n

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS the wider development area. This goes beyond what can reasonably be sought from a site enjoying existing use rights. Council’s approach is unreasonable and would frustrate its reuse/ redevelopment.  Agree with need for the early release of greenfield land to meet Lancaster’s housing needs through sustainable urban extensions. Support release of an urban extension in South Lancaster, including residential development and associated infrastructure including a District Centre.  Phased approach to delivering the South Lancaster Urban Extension will be required to overcome infrastructure restrictions and satisfy housing and retail need.  Early delivery of the District Centre, which CEP, Countryside Properties and Peel agree should be located on CEP’s land, should be a priority to serve existing needs and provide an initial length of the Whinney Carr Link Road (WCLR) between Scotforth Road and the WCML. This stage of the development can proceed utilising the existing road capacity. Following the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted, although the Land Allocation document does not include any reference to a District Centre.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted. No change.

 There is no justification for the CEP site as a District Centre: the Council has concerns about the location, scale and content of this proposal. The Council anticipates development taking place at the Bailrigg Lane site, and at on the Science Park site at the same time as on Whinney Carr. There is no evidence that requires these sites to be developed sequentially as suggested here. 135


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

318

NAME

Mr Matt Gilbert

ORGANISATION

The Planning Consultancy

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

development of the District Centre, the next phase of development will comprise the development of the link road and commencement of development on Whinney Carr. Only when the link road has been completed should development commence on Bailrigg, which is likely to be after 2017.  Core Strategy Policy SC2’s requirement to locate 98% of retail floorspace within urban areas should be reviewed to reflect actual demand and particularly the need for shops and services to serve South Lancaster. Agree that land within the City Centre should be the focus for regeneration and the delivery of retail floorspace, but that this should not be at the expense of making provisions for a District Centre to serve South Lancaster and thus meet a recognised deficiency. Policy SL3  Object to the Old Filter House site (Science being included as part of the Park) University Science Park from which it is physically divorced, for the reasons set out in relation to SOUTH 1 and SL1 above. Requirement to set back development by approximately 30 metres from the A6 frontage

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Proposed site is within the urban area and therefore covered by the 98% figure. Council response is subject to retail floorspace needs and the application of sequential testing to determine the amount of retail development required at Whinney Carr. Council is continuing to investigate.

 Policy SOUTH1 or its reasoned justification should identify that the Filter House could be treated separately but that any redevelopment should be restricted to B1 employment uses only, in keeping with previous policy advice to the owners and appeal decisions (subject to any possible needs for

CHANGE CONSIDERED

136


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

319

NAME

Mr John Francis

ORGANISATION

DPP/GHL

POLICY REF

Policy HEY4

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

would clearly sterilise the Old Filter House site almost entirely; this only emphasises why this site should not be viewed as part of the proposed SL3 allocation; for the reasons described, it is more appropriate as part of SL1, but not with any significant constraint to its reuse/redevelopment.  GHL is pleased to see that Middleton Towers has been covered in the Land Allocations DPD (LADPD). Site has an extant planning permission for a retirement village (626 dwellings) which was granted planning permission in 2002. Permission was granted by the Secretary of State following his recovery of the planning application following the council’s decision to grant it subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement in 2001 (covered at paragraph 31.2).  Whilst the policy as drafted seeks the completion of the extant planning permission, current market conditions are very different than existed when the planning permission was granted. Recommend the Council to alter the policy so that market residential will be supported if the residual elements of the retirement village are shown to be

road widening of the A6). Need to clarify in the policy what this site will be required to contribute towards the development of South Lancaster (see no.316). Not reasonable to complain about existing use rights when the roof of the building has recently been removed.  Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

 The policy already states that the Council supports housing along with other options, allowing flexibility for other uses/proposals.

137


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

320

Mr John Francis

DPP/GHL

Policy EMP1

321

Mr Les Williams

BNP Paribas Real Estate/ SCOPE

Policy REC1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS non-viable, subject to the provision of satisfactory access. Approximately 12 ha, as shown on the plan below, should be identified for this form of development on the proposals plan and introduced through a revised version of Policy HEY4. Accept that not all of the land could be developed for housing given other allocations but this land could be used for recreation, access or public open space. Revised allocation and alternative wording is suggested as part of this representation.  Amend policy to confirm that whilst development proposals for B1, B2 and B8 uses will be considered acceptable in principle, this is subject to consideration of the impact of such uses on the local area. This is particularly relevant consideration where sites, like EMP1.4, are located close to existing, planned or consented areas of residential. Alternative wording is suggested.  The DPD Inset Map shows the undeveloped areas of Beaumont College to be allocated as an Amenity Area. As such, Policy REC1 “Protection and Enhancement of Open Space,

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The relationship between uses on neighbouring sites will be dealt with by the application of Development Management policies and the use of planning conditions and agreements.

NO CHANGE

 council has indicated in principle that this site is capable of redevelopment of the buildings on the existing footprint, subject to the submission of a satisfactory scheme.

NO CHANGE

138


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

322

NAME

Ms Claire Morison

ORGANISATION

GL Hearn

POLICY REF

Policy RET1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Sports and Recreation Spaces” will apply. Allocation of the undeveloped areas of Beaumont College as Amenity Areas will restrict Scope’s ability to improve its facilities on the site through redevelopment, additional infill development or extensions to some of the existing buildings. Scope objects to the allocation of the undeveloped areas of the site as Amenity Areas and considers that these areas of the site are not appropriate for such allocation.  Policy RET1 should be amended to make positive reference to the identified Lancaster primary shopping area and to the identified town centre boundary, make specific reference to the allocation of the Canal Corridor site as providing the key retail development opportunity in Central Lancaster to fully meet identified retail and leisure needs, make reference to the proposed extension to the primary shopping area to include the Canal Corridor site. Suggested amendments to the Policy are as follows:  Town Centres and Retailing As part of the Local Plan Policies Map, the council has identified town centre, primary shopping

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted. Detailed evidence and submissions under consideration.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

139


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

areas, primary retail frontage and secondary retail frontage boundaries for both Lancaster and Carnforth. Issues relating the town centre boundary for Morecambe will be addressed through the Morecambe Area Action Plan. The Canal Corridor site is identified as the key development opportunity within the designated town centre of Lancaster to meet identified retail needs and it is intended that once developed this site will form an extension to the Lancaster primary shopping area. In accordance with Policy EC1.1 of the Development Management DPD, the council will support the development of town centre uses within this defined town centre area, including for retail, leisure and other commercial purposes. The council's support will be subject to compliance with all other relevant policies within the Development Management DPD and any other relevant plans, policies or strategies. Proposals which seek to develop town centre uses outside of these defined town centre locations will be expected to demonstrate that a sequential approach has been taken to site selection in

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

140


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

323

NAME

Ms Kate McGill

ORGANISATION

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

accordance with the provisions of national policy, and in accordance with Policy EC1.1 of the Development Management DPD. Proposals which seek to develop retail use outside the identified primary shopping area will need to demonstrate that a sequential approach has been taken to site selection in accordance with the provisions of national policy, and in accordance with Policy EC1.1 of the Development Management DPD. Out of town retailing development will therefore be strongly resisted, particularly where this may prejudice the delivery of the City Centre and its planned regeneration. Policies relating to Primary Retail Frontages and Secondary Retail Frontages will be determined in accordance with Policy EC1.2 of the Development Management DPD. Associated changes will be required to the supporting text to Policy RET1. Relationsh  Paras 3.8-3.12 of DPD refer to ip Core the requirement to re-visit the Strategy following three elements of the and other Core Strategy to address DPDs changes in the economy and the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted. There is no justification for the CEP site as a District Centre: the Council has concerns about the location, scale and content of this proposal. The

NO CHANGE

141


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS associated challenges that it brings. CEP supports the release of an urban extension in South Lancaster, including residential development and associated infrastructure including a District Centre. Due to infrastructure restrictions and housing and retail need, a phased approach to delivering the South Lancaster Urban Extension will be required. The early delivery of the District Centre, which CEP, Countryside Properties and Peel agree should be located on CEP’s land, should be a priority to serve existing needs and provide an initial length of the Whinney Carr Link Road (WCLR) between Scotforth Road and the WCML. This stage of the development can proceed utilising the existing road capacity. Following the development of the District Centre, the next phase of development will comprise the development of the link road and commencement of development on Whinney Carr. Only when the link road has been completed should development commence on Bailrigg, which is likely to be after 2017.  In relation to the urban concentration policy, CEP

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Council anticipates development taking place at the Bailrigg Lane site, and at on the Science Park site at the same time as on Whinney Carr. There is no evidence that requires these sites to be developed sequentially as suggested here.

 Proposed site is within the urban area and therefore covered by the 142


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

324

NAME

Ms Claire Morison

ORGANISATION

GL Hearn

POLICY REF

Policy CWL1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS considers that Core Strategy Policy SC2’s requirement to locate 98% of retail floorspace within urban areas should also be reviewed to reflect actual demand and particularly the need for shops and services to serve South Lancaster. CEP agree that land within the City Centre should be the focus for regeneration and the delivery of retail floorspace, but that this should not be at the expense of making provisions for a District Centre to serve South Lancaster and thus meet a recognised existing deficiency – a deficiency which will only worsen following the proposed development of the South Lancaster urban extension.  Policy CW1 provides the basis for the allocation of the Canal Corridor site for retail led regeneration. Support the thrust of the policy. However we set out below several suggested changes to the policy to reflect the overall approach adopted in these representations and to specific issues we have with the proposed detailed text of the policy and supporting text:  Lancaster Canal Corridor North, Central Lancaster Land at Lancaster Canal Corridor

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

98% figure. Council response is subject to retail floorspace needs and the application of sequential testing to determine the amount of retail development required at Whinney Carr. Council is continuing to investigate.

 Comments noted. Detailed evidence and submissions under consideration.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

143


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

North has been identified within the Land Allocations DPD for its opportunity to provide comprehensive regeneration of a central location and significantly improve the retail offer of Lancaster. The delivery of a retail-led regeneration scheme will assist in maintaining Lancaster's role as a sub-regional city centre, as established in Policy ER4 of the Lancaster Core Strategy, meeting the retail needs of the city and also communities in both North Lancashire and Southern Cumbria. Any proposals should be brought forward through a comprehensive masterplan for the area and, whilst primarily retail led, should consider could include an appropriate range of other town centre uses which will compleiment the existing city centre and form part of a sustainable extension to Lancaster’s city centre primary shopping area. Any piecemeal development within the defined Canal Corridor that prejudices the comprehensive development of this key regeneration area will be refused. Any proposals outside the primary shopping area and

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

144


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

the designated town centres which prejudice the delivery of the Canal Corridor North development will be refused. Development proposals for the Lancaster Canal Corridor North site should have due regard to the following considerations: i. To provide a seamless for improved integration between the proposal development area and the existing city centre primary shopping area, including a safe and suitable pedestrian crossing across the A6; ii. To ensure sensitive integration incorporation of new buildings, incorporating with elements of the existing historic fabric and retaining buildings which are of historic value and importance, where possible; iii. Development proposals should be of a high standard of design, which is sympathetic and appropriate to the local area, making appropriate use of local design styles, local materials and where possible re-use of stone and architectural features from cleared buildings. The implications of the roofscape should also be considered having regard to its potential impact on key views;

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

145


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

iv. Sufficient and acceptable provision is made for car and cycle parking; v. That the proposal incorporates appropriate linkages to the existing highways network and addresses the issues of potential traffic congestion on the city centre one-way system; vi. Utilisation of the site's frontage along the canal with innovative design and improved public realm incorporated into design proposals; vii. Future development will need to ensure that biodiversity resources on site are protected and where possible measures to deliver enhancement are secured enhanced, where possible; and viii. Connectivity between the site and the city centre with safe and suitable pedestrian crossing across the A6; and ix. The proposal seeks to encourage The proposal seeks to encourage the use of green travel through securing a sympathetic environment for cycling and walking. The Council has prepared a Development Brief for the Canal Corridor North area, which was formally adopted by the Council in 2004. This brief remains

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

146


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

relevant to any future proposal and remains a material consideration. To view the Local Plan Policies Map please follow this link www.lancaster.gov.uk/landallocati onsdpd. 22.1 The Council will continue to promote the land identified as 'Lancaster Canal Corridor North' for the potential expansion of the existing town centre primary shopping area in Lancaster, encouraging growth in the retail draw of the city and maintaining and enhancing Lancaster's role as a sub-regional city centre and the main comparison shopping centre within the District, as suggested in Policy ER4 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy, adopted in 2008. 22.2 The regeneration of this central location will expand the boundaries and size of Lancaster Town Centre the primary shopping area. To ensure the viability and vitality of the existing central primary shopping area of the town, including Penny Street, Market Street and Cheapside, the proposal should integrate the development through high standards of accessibility and

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

147


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

enhancements to public realm, both within the Canal Corridor north site and other key locations within the historic town centre core. 22.3 The Canal Corridor site involves the regeneration of land and buildings to the east of the town centre primary shopping area. This The site includes a number of historic local buildings which should be retained, where possible, through the regeneration process. Lancaster council has undertaken a heritage assessment of the historical assets found at the Canal Corridor North site. The assessment sets out the importance of individual buildings. The findings and recommendations of this assessment work will be a material consideration for any regeneration scheme proposed for the Canal Corridor North site. 22.4 Through dialogue with both the Council and English Heritage applicants are expected to retain the most important aspects of the historic environment within the scheme, enhancing the character and uniqueness of the proposal. Any development proposals should have due regard to the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

148


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

guidance and policy set out within Policy EN3 of the Development Management DPD. 22.5 Lancaster city centre is accessed through the one-way system which, particularly at peak times can be heavily congested creating poor accessibility to key services, increased levels of air pollution and barriers to movement by pedestrians and cyclists. The regeneration of the Canal Corridor north site provides an excellent opportunity to address some of these accessibility issues within the town centre. Regeneration proposals for the site should look to improve vehicular access to the site from the A683 Caton Road / Junction 34 of the M6 to the east via appropriate and suitable changes to the local highway network and the creation of interceptor car parking to help ease vehicular movements across the city centre. Proposals will also be required to improve linkages into the town from the east of the city for pedestrians and cyclists. 22.6 In 2004 the Council prepared a Development Brief for the Lancaster Canal Corridor north site which contains further

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

149


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

325

Mr Matthew Dawber

Peel Ports Group Ltd

Heysham Energy Coast Introductio n

326

Mr Matthew Dawber

Peel Ports Group Ltd

Policy HEY1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS guidance on this site. Whilst this was prepared under the previous planning period (within the Lancaster District Local Plan) much of this guidance remains valid and should be given due consideration within preparation of proposals for Canal Corridor north site. The Development Brief is available on the Council’s web pages at www.lancaster.gov.uk/planningpo licy.  Peel Ports Ltd supports the Heysham Port related land designations outlined within the DPD including the Council’s aspiration for sustainable economic growth in the locality and will seek to work with the Council in order to deliver mutual objectives. Consider land designations are well considered and fit in well with our own aspirations upto 2023/4.  Support the allocation of land as a priority site for investment in energy infrastructure. Given the existing facilities in the area, and the potential that has been identified, the Council’s encouragement for investment in energy projects is welcomed. Paragraph 28.4 is particularly welcomed.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

150


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

327

NAME

Mr Matthew Dawber

ORGANISATION

Peel Ports Group Ltd

POLICY REF

Policy HEY3

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Concerned that the Port of Heysham is not mentioned explicitly within Policy HEY1 or the associated guidance notes. Suggest include reference to the potential offshore wind capabilities of the Port as an operations and maintenance base or manufacturing facility. Given the Port’s proximity to the proposed Centrica Irish Sea Offshore Wind development, the Port will be seeking to engage with this sector in the coming years. Peel Ports is also in contact with the National Grid concerning their ambitions to create a grid connection in the area. The DPD should reflect this in policy HEY1 as it does in paragraph 30.5 of HEY3.  Welcome acknowledgement of the benefits that the Port of Heysham brings to the local economy. Identification of the Port of Heysham Industrial estate as future expansion land for the Port of Heysham is also welcomed.  Concern over the wording of para 30.4. Although it would be our intention to help relocate displaced companies within Lancaster District, it may not always be possible. In these

 Policy HEY1 relates to all aspects of the Energy Coast, including the port, power stations, industrical estates, substations and the settlement of Middleton. The port is a facilitator of some of these landuses, but is not in itself an energy related scheme.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

 Support noted.

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Minor amendment to end second sentence of para 30.4: “……at suitable alternative locations. …” Retain third sentence.

151


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

328

Mr Matthew Dawber

Peel Ports Group Ltd

Policy RPA1

329

Mr Matthew Dawber

Peel Ports Group Ltd

Policy TR1

330

Mr Matthew Dawber

Peel Ports Group Ltd

Policy DES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS cases Peel Ports may have to look further afield. Wording of this para should be altered in order to reflect this.  Welcome inclusion of Heysham Port and potential expansion land at the Heysham Port Industrial estate within the South Heysham Regeneration Priority Area. Para 56.17 confirms Council’s commitment to the potential expansion to the Port of Heysham into the adjacent industrial estate. A focus on attracting investment in energy related projects (para 56.16) is welcomed, but do not believe that this should be pursued to the detriment of opportunities to expand the traditional port operation when the opportunity arises.  Supports the safeguarding of land for the purpose of the construction of the M6 Heysham Link Road.  Peel Ports has a statutory obligation to consult with Natural England and/or the Marine Management Organisation (dependant on whether works are land or marine based). We will continue to do this in respect of developments at the Port of Heysham that may have direct or

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 No change: para 56.16 refers to the wider South Heysham area, as defined by the diagrammatic boundary on the Policies Map. No intent or implication in the paragraphs that the regeneration should all be energy related.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

152


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

331

NAME

Ms Kate McGill

ORGANISATION

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

POLICY REF Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS indirect impacts upon statutory designations.  Agree in principle that issues (I) to (IV) need to be taken into account when delivering the future proposals for growth in South Lancaster. However, the following points need to be clarified in relation to issues (I), (IV) and (V):  (I) Agree that to develop sites in South Lancaster a strategic solution is required to address highway capacity constraints involving delivery of a new road over the West Coast Mainline through CEP land. Support principle that all parties involved in the development of South Lancaster should contribute to the cost of this infrastructure. Agree to need to phase development in South Lancaster. Proposed first phase would be the development of a District Centre. This development could be accommodated on the existing highways network, without triggering the need for the link road. However, as part of this development, the first phase of the link road (on the eastern side of the West Coast Mainline) would proceed, allowing the next phase of development on the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Support noted. There is no justification for the CEP site as a District Centre: the Council has concerns about the location, scale and content of this proposal. Clause (I) makes no reference to phasing development, but does refer to a strategic transport solution and legal collaboration between the various parties. Development of any of the land covered by Policy SOUTH1 requires agreement and funding commitment of the provision of transport infrastructure before planning consents are granted. Policy needs to be amended to include more detail of the principles of funding transport infrastructure.

153


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS western side of the West Coast Mainline, including the completion of the link road, to commence.  (IV) Support principle of providing sufficient utility infrastructure to support development in South Lancaster, though the requirements for each land parcel in South Lancaster will need to be the subject of detailed discussions. CEP will work with the Council to agree the detailed requirements for the District Centre on the CEP portion of the Whinney Carr site.  (V) Last sentence should be amended as follows: "The feasibility and viability of district heating systems for this area should be investigated”. Additional wording needed to ensure that scheme is both technically feasible and financially viable. No clarification in policy as to who would investigate the feasibility and viability of such a heating system and the timescales for completing this work. In order to prevent a delay in the determination of planning applications to bring forward the Whinney Carr site, suggest that this issue is considered by CEP, Peel & Countryside Properties when preparing a Masterplan for

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted, although the Land Allocation document does not include any reference to a District Centre. There is no justification for the CEP site as a District Centre: the Council has concerns about the location, scale and content of this proposal. Policy needs to be amended to include more detail of the principles of funding utility infrastructure.  Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy. Technical and financial viability should be undertaken by the applicants, and will be considered in assessing any planning application on the Whinney Carr site. Minor change to supporting text to clarify this.

154


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

332

Ms Claire Morison

GL Hearn

333

Ms Claire Morison

GL Hearn

334

Ms Kate McGill

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

the Whinney Carr area.  Policy allocates land to the north of the Canal Corridor site for a commercial led regeneration of the site. It is important to ensure that proposals for this site do not compete with the Canal Corridor site and although reference is made in the policy to the relationship with the Canal Corridor site the policy should be further strengthened to enable the Council to resist in appropriate proposals. Second paragraph should read as follows: Proposed uses at the Bulk Road/Lawsons Quay site should not include uses which could be located on sequentially preferable sites within the designated town centre including the Canal Corridor North site. Policy  The criteria for identifying RPA1 Regeneration Priority Areas are set out in para 56.1. The criteria apply equally to the Canal Corridor North Site and as such the Site should be identified as a Sub-Regional Priority Area alongside Central Morecambe. Policy SL1  Support the general principle of (Whinney identifying Land at Whinney Carr Carr) for residential-led development. Allocation should be for 1,000 dwellings (rather than 900) and a Policy OPP1

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted. The Council will consider this matter as part of a careful review of development sites and retail policy in the NE segment of the city centre.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Consider minor amendment.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Consider minor change to show higher capacity figure?

CHANGE CONSIDERED

155


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS District Centre east of the WCML.  CEP is working with Peel and Countryside Properties as developers of the land to the west of our Client’s site to ensure that a comprehensive Masterplan for the whole of the Whinney Carr site is prepared.  Anticipate a joint application in 2013 for a residential led development, with a District Centre on the CEP’s portion of the Whinney Carr site. Application will include the proposed link road. This approach will ensure that the Council has control over the development of the site, including those areas where outline planning permission is sought.  Not necessary for the Council to prepare a Development Brief or for applicants to prepare a detailed design statement. Policy SL1 (ii) should be amended to form a development guideline relating to design, in accordance with paragraphs 69 and 60 of the NPPF. Amended wording: "Careful design of the site recognising the prominent and sensitive location of Whinney Carr as a gateway site on the southern entrance into Lancaster. Design and landscaping of the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted.

 Comment noted, although the Land Allocation document does not include any reference to a District Centre.

 The Council will lead on the preparation of a Development Brief for the South Lancaster sites, and will expect to work closely with the owners, agents and potential developers of the various parcels of land. Consider re-wording clause (ii).

156


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

site should be sympathetic to the locality and create a strong sense of place, providing a welldesigned and high quality environment for residents".  Amend text in Policy SL1 (x) to recognise that flooding associated with Burrow Beck also occurs in the south east of the Whinney Carr site (i.e CEP owned land).  Policy SL1 (xi) should be changed to refer to 30% of the residential units being affordable, subject to viability.

 Agree that important to be accurate. Consider wording changed to “….which exists along the southern boundary of the site in connection with Burrow Beck.”

 A district rather than local centre is required to address existing deficiencies and the needs of new residents and this district centre should be on the CEP site. Wording of Policy (xii) should be amended to refer to a sustainable district centre. Wording at paragraph 10.8, should be amended to state: “This district centre should include a range of community / commercial uses anchored by a foodstore”  The proposed preparation of a joint application between CEP, Peel and Countryside Properties will ensure that the Council’s Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

 Viability evidence from the Housing Needs Assessment undertaken in 2012 supports the policy wording to seek approximately 40% affordable housing on this site. Consider using the expression “up to” – as a target instead of “approximately”.  There is no justification for the CEP site as a District Centre: the Council has concerns about the location, scale and content of this proposal.

 Comment noted.

157


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

335

336

NAME

Michelle Norris

Mr Julian Austin

ORGANISATION

Hornby-withFarleton Parish Council

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited/ National Grid

POLICY REF Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS concerns at paragraph 10.4 are addressed.  Following a Parish Council meeting confirmed that the Parish Council in principle agrees with the two sites proposed within Hornby at Royal Oak Meadow (RES1.23) and land off Priory Lane (RES1.24).

 The Parish Council are however mindful of the engineering difficulties both sites would need to address in relation to highways and drainage and therefore would scrutinise any future planning application careful in relation to these issues. Policy SL2  Potential developers at Bailrigg (Bailrigg should be aware of National Grid Lane) policy to retain existing overhead lines in-situ. Advise developers and planning authorities to take into account the location and nature of existing 400kV electricity transmission equipment when planning developments.  National Grid prefers that buildings are not built directly beneath its overhead lines, for amenity/access reasons.  Statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground, and built structures must not be infringed.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support and comment noted. Acknowledged that any such issues should be addressed within any future planning applications although it should be noted that the allocation on land at Priory Lane is not accessible to the public highway network.  The council welcome the opportunity for further engagement work within the Parish Council via the ‘Parish Partnerships Process’ to identify sites to address local housing needs.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Comments noted. The Council will incorporate these matters into the Development Brief for the South Lancaster sites.

NO CHANGE

158


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

337

NAME

Mr Julian Austin

ORGANISATION

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited/ National Grid

POLICY REF

Policy EMP1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Land beneath and adjacent to the overhead line route can for example be used for nature conservation, open space, landscaping areas or used as a parking court.  National Grid, in association with David Lock Associates has produced ‘A Sense of Place’ guidelines, which look at how to create high quality development near overhead lines and offers practical solutions for land in the vicinity of high voltage overhead lines.  Potential developers at Lancaster West Business Park should be aware of National Grid policy to retain existing overhead lines insitu. Advise developers and planning authorities to take into account the location and nature of existing 400V electricity transmission equipment when planning developments.  National Grid prefers that buildings are not built directly beneath its overhead lines, for amenity/access reasons.  Statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground, and built structures must not be infringed.  Land beneath and adjacent to the overhead line route can for

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted. The Council will incorporate these matters into the consideration of any planning application for this site.

NO CHANGE

159


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

338

Mr Michael Bennett

Trilogie CRE

Policy EMP1

339

Mr Martin Pearce

EDF Energy

Policy HEY2

example be used for nature conservation, open space, landscaping areas or used as a parking court. National Grid, in association with David Lock Associates has produced ‘A Sense of Place’ guidelines, which look at how to create high quality development near overhead lines and offers practical solutions for land in the vicinity of high voltage overhead lines. Policy will limit potential use of brownfield employment land for alternative purposes. Policy designates land without scope for mixed use re-development potential and does not introduce the wider aims of sustianable development outlined in NPPF Core Principles. Welcome DPD, and the strategic recognition of the Heysham Energy Coast. Policy HEY2 highlights processes to protect the management of existing nuclear facilities and identifies the potential benefits that future nuclear new build development at Heysham may bring to the region. Site has potential for development in the future. Baseline studies have not identified anything to prevent the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted. The representation presents no evidence and makes no suggestion about which part of the policy, or which sites should be amended.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Comments noted.

160


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS progression of Heysham as a site for new nuclear development. When EDF reach the stage of defining project requirements it would look to address the criteria (i-vii) set out within Policy HEY2.  Welcome recognition that existing nuclear facilities and the nominated site must be protected from inappropriate development in close proximity to the existing facilities. Concern that inappropriate development outside the nominated site could prejudice and blight the effective planning and operation of a new nuclear power station at Heysham. A process of protection and safeguarding, similar to the one in place for the existing Heysham nuclear facilities, should be considered. EDF Energy would be happy to discuss an appropriate mechanism for safeguarding with the Local Planning Authority.  An important operational area has been omitted from the Policies Map under the designation of ‘Management of existing nuclear facilities’, principally the water cooling tanks to the east of the existing power stations. Details of EDF Energy’s

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted. The Council will discuss these matters with EDF.

 The Council will consider adding the boundaries onto its constraints map.

161


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

340

Mr Michael Bennett

Trilogie CRE

Policy RET1

land ownership will be provided under separate cover. Reference “to investigate opportunities for district heating” (page 70), within EN-1 (section 4.6), developers of energy infrastructure are required to consider combined heat and power opportunities as part of any application for planning consent. However, within EN-6, the Government has recognised that such opportunities for district heating associated with nuclear power stations is ”limited” (section 2.9.3) due to their proximity to major populations. There are no allocated sites within the defined centres under Policy RET1. The needs of retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses should not be compromised by limiting site availability in this manner. Para 55.3 will exclude B1 office development proposals from the majority of employment sites under Policy EMP1 as they are located away from defined centres. There appears to be a policy conflict here. Recommend Policy RET1 is removed so that the intentions of EMP1 are better fulfilled and EC1.1 and Appendix B to the DM

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted.

 Sites are allocated under other policies, including CWL1, DO3, DO4 and DO5.

 Town Centre uses are defined in the glossary of NPPF and it includes B1 uses. No conflict with EMP1.

NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE

 Policy is intended to define the town centre boundaries, so that there is a policy link with the Policies Map.

162


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID 341

NAME

ORGANISATION

Cllr Mrs S Fishwick

LCC County Councillor

POLICY REF RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS DPD adjusted accordingly.  Object to housing site at Cove Road, which would be very intrusive in what at present is part of the open aspect towards the sea from Eaves Wood and nearby footpaths. The right hand parcel joining 22 Cove Drive was is used as tertiary drainage for the new sewage system which must mean it is unsuitable for building development of any kind. The second parcel slopes down to the back of the properties on Cove Drive and Birch Drive. These properties experience serious surface water flooding which the County Council is currently working on to try to alleviate. Any building on this land would increase the drainage problems.  Access onto Cove Drive from these fields is through a very narrow gap which would not meet the criteria for a new housing development. Access from Cove Drive onto Cove Road has very poor visibility with no spare land to widen the access. Cove Road is very narrow at this junction and suffers from excessive amounts of traffic accessing Holgates Caravan Park, the Bowling Green, the children’s playground

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The council will continue to liaise with County Council, the Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the key infrastructure in the locality through new development.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 The council will continue to liaise with County Council, highways service to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the key infrastructure in the locality through new development. Consider access constraints for this site.

163


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

and will soon have the extra traffic generated by the new build at the Abbeyfield complex at Cove House. Object to the inclusion of the land identified on the Silverdale map behind Whinney Fold on Shore Road because it would make a deep intrusion into the farmland in that area, and would leave a narrow strip of grassland between this and the back of the properties on Lindeth Road. This land was the subject of months of dispute when the original owners wanted to develop it after the approval of building at Whinney Fold. Instead, brownfield sites at 12 Emesgate Lane; part of Kayes Nursery which adjoins Lindeth Road; and the site next to the railway near Silverdale Station should be included. Properties at Hazelwood Hall should be re-classified as first time homes instead of holiday properties. The one small parcel of land opposite the junction of Lindeth Road and Lindeth Close should be included as it adjoins the road, is on the bus route and has easy access to the village centre. Urgent need for an agreed policy

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Site is deliverable and in a sustainable location to meet development needs in Silverdale. No change.

 Council will investigate these suggestions.

 This matter is not within the scope of the DPD.  Council will investigate these suggestions.

 Comment noted. 164


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

342

Ms Lucy Barron

Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership

Glossary

343

Ms Lucy Barron

Arnside & Silverdale AONB

Policy GR4

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS for the future use of the former children’s home and associated buildings at Greywalls (Ridgway Park) on Gibraltar Road. If the freeze on any future caravan/chalet or other second homes development in the AONB is enforced an alternative use is needed for this site.  I would like to see a relaxation of the planning rules around dividing very large properties into two or more self contained properties, which would add to the diversity of housing stock that is needed in the village and lower the individual property prices to a more affordable price for local people.  The correct name of the designated area is Arnside and Silverdale AONB (or Arnside & Silverdale AONB), not Arnside / Silverdale AONB. This should be corrected throughout the document. Definition of an AONB should be amended to emphasise the national landscape and environmental importance of AONBs and that the statutory purpose of AONBs is referred to i.e. 'to conserve and enhance natural beauty'  Welcome the detailed reference to the Morecambe Bay

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted. Individual proposals will be considered on their merits.

 Minor change required.

CHANGE REQUIRED

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

165


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION Partnership

344

Ms Lucy Barron

Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership

345

Ms Lucy Barron

Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership

346

Mr Stuart Booth

JWPC Ltd

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Limestones & Wetlands Nature Improvement Area. Appendix  AONB Management Plan is 1 referenced incorrectly in the Appendix section Policy EN2. Please amend this to read: “Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Statutory Management Plan (Arnside & Silverdale AONB Executive Committee 2009). The Forest of Bowland AONB Management Plan should also be referenced here. Policy  Whilst the AONB Partnership RES1 remains committed to finding solutions to meeting local affordable housing needs, we have some concerns about the allocation of large greenfield sites within the AONB for housing development, although we welcome the modest scale of the current proposals. We understand that these proposals will be considered very carefully in partnership with the AONB Team, Parish Councils and other relevant representatives in the coming months and we look forward to participating in this process. Relationsh  Object to status of the existing ip Core Core Strategy document, which Strategy was adopted in 2008. Following

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Minor change required.

CHANGE REQUIRED

 Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted. The council is aware of the changes introduced by the NPPF.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

166


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

347

NAME

Mr Stuart Booth

ORGANISATION

JWPC Ltd

POLICY REF and other DPDs

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS adoption, the planning system has changed quite dramatically and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has replaced previous guidance and effectively proposes single Local Plans, rather than a framework of documents. Policy NPPF1 of the DMDPD introduces a policy with a presumption in favour of sustainable development, consistent with advice given by the Planning Inspectorate, but the Core Strategy contains no such policy, and NPPF makes it clear (at Para 215) that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Question whether the Core Strategy is compliant with NPPF, and also whether Policy NPPF1 of the DMDPD is consistent with the Core Strategy. Recommend that the single document ‘local plan’ approach is adopted by the Council, seeking to update the Core Strategy.  Core Strategy Policy SC4 sets a target of 400 new dwellings per annum to be delivered during the plan period. However, during the initial three year period of 20102012 there have been just 295

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

167


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS dwellings completed, less than 25% of the three year target. This represents a serious undersupply of housing, and is something that must be addressed through planning policy, particularly due to the increased prominence that NPPF gives to housing development as the driver of sustainable growth.  Policy RES1 details allocations for less than half of the total number of dwellings required during the Core Strategy plan period. Reference within the supporting text to this policy that other opportunities are recognised in four other locations; however nowhere within the DPD is there a detailed breakdown of development sites or windfall allowance to meet the total housing requirement. This is inconsistent with the Core Strategy. Supporting text to the policy suggests that previous undersupply cannot in fact be met during the plan period. This further implies that the Core Strategy should be revisited, to ensure that the Council’s proposed planning policies are consistent with the NPPF. DPD is unsound as it does not deliver the housing need identified in the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The council acknowledges the importance of allocating land to meet requirements/need.

168


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

348

NAME

Mr Stuart Booth

ORGANISATION

JWPC Ltd

POLICY REF Policy OPP5

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS evidence base and are inconsistent with national policy.  Core Strategy set a target that 10% of new dwellings would be delivered within rural settlements (Policy CS2). Paragraph 34.20 of the DPD states that there are additional opportunities for housing in a number of villages across the district. Policy OPP5 details five villages where opportunities for additional development will be explored, thus extending the list of villages proposed in the Core Strategy through similar Policy SE3, principally on the basis that since adoption in 2008, the villages have brought forward little development.  Policy does not go far enough in seeking development or proposing allocations for development at rural settlements. Development should be sought and permitted in appropriate locations within and adjacent to existing villages where it would be consistent with the sustainable principles of NPPF. The policy restriction to villages only identified in the DPDs and Core Strategy would effectively rule out potentially suitable sites consistent with NPPF. One such

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The proposed approach is insufficiently related to the provision and availability of services, and so is not consistent with the principles of the NPPF.

NO CHANGE

 No specific site identified at Aldcliffe, so not possible to consider at this stage.

169


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

349

Mr Stuart Booth

JWPC Ltd

350

John Francis

DPP

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

instance would be development at the village of Aldcliffe. Whilst this settlement includes few local services, its proximity to the centre of Lancaster means that development can be delivered sustainably within this location. Policy SL2  Housing allocation at Bailrigg (Bailrigg Lane effectively extends the Lane) urban boundary of Lancaster to include the University Campus, creating a continuous urban extension around Bailrigg. Support such a proposal due to the needs for housing development across Lancaster and the importance of the University to the development of the City. There are other small development parcels adjacent to the urban extension that will logically form part of the expanded urban settlement around Bailrigg. Policy  Support for the identification of OPP1 the site at Bulk Road / Kingsway within the Land Allocations DPD.  Concern that the policy as drafted does not reflect the sites overall potential, particularly in relation to potential for a foodstore on this site. Site has the best potential for retailing and leisure uses in the form of a City Centre extension along with the Canal

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 No site(s) identified by representor, so not possible to consider at this stage?

NO CHANGE

 Support for this allocation noted.

NO CHANGE

 The priority for regeneration in Lancaster City Centre is the delivery of the Canal Corridor North Site, which offers the potential for the delivery of a wide range of main town centre uses, as defined in NPPF, which will be of significant benefit to the vitality and viability of 170


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

351

NAME

John Francis

ORGANISATION

DPP

POLICY REF

Policy CWL1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

Corridor Site.

 Changes should also be made to Policy OPP1 to be more supportive toward the provision of an anchor foodstore at land on Bulk Road / Kingsway.

 Revised wording for Policy OPP1 is suggested.

 Too much emphasis has been placed on the Canal Corridor Site in terms of development potential, particularly in relation to the sites suitability to accommodate an anchor foodstore.

 Whilst it is acknowledged that a

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

the City Centre. The Council would not wish to see proposals come forward which jeopardise that viability on sites which are sequential less preferable. The current approach towards the site at Bulk Road / Kingsway provides sufficient flexibility towards appropriate future commercial uses, which could include convenience and comparison retail. The revised wording is rejected as specifying particular uses, such as an anchor foodstore, would conflict with the general thrust of the policy which suggests that proposed uses should compliment the Canal Corridor site. There is no evidence to suggest that an anchor foodstore in this location would be complimentary wider regeneration objectives of Lancaster City Centre. Comment noted. See comments to ID REF350 above. The Lancaster Canal Corridor proposal provides the greatest opportunity to deliver wide ranging regeneration benefits to the City Centre, including improvements to the wider retail offer of the City Centre, Cultural Offer, Public Realm and Historic Character. Therefore it is felt the emphasis placed on the Canal Corridor is relevant and justified. There is no evidence to justify a

ACTION

NO CHANGE

171


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

352

353

NAME

John Francis

Paul Entwistle

ORGANISATION

DPP

GL Hearn

POLICY REF

Policy RET1

Policy OPP1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS foodstore would be beneficial in a town centre location it is recommended that a more suitable site for this type of development in the Bulk Road / Kingsway site.  Revised wording for Policy CWL1 is suggested.

 The area identified as the town centre boundary is not large enough and ignores centrally located areas which clearly form part of the City Centre.  An area which should be incorporated is located to the north of the currently defined area around Bulk Road / Kingsway (the land identified in Policy OPP1 of the Land Allocations DPD).  Support for the identification of land at Bulk Road / Kingsway for commercial led regeneration.  Within the policy reference should be made to that residential uses could include more specialist uses such as student accommodation and shelter

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

preference for a foodstore on the Bulk Road / Kingsway site over the more sequentially preferable site at Lancaster Canal Corridor.  Flexibility exists over the future uses for this site and does not preclude convenience retailing; however any uses proposed would be expected to compliment the regeneration of the Lancaster Canal Corridor site.  Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken on the town centre boundaries and the identification of a Primary Shopping Area for Lancaster. This work will be included in future drafts of this document.  This does not mean that the site at Bulk Road / Kingsway site will be included within the town centre boundary as part of this further work.  Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

NO CHANGE

 The policy wording as currently draft provides a great deal of flexibility over future uses and would not wish to advance any specific uses over another. Any 172


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

354

Ms Kate McGill

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners /CEP Group

355

Ivor Farnworth

Workspace Properties

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS accommodation.

Policy SL3  Support development of the (Science Science Park in principle, but it is Park) unlikely to be delivered in the short to medium term in the current economic circumstances due to funding uncertainty. Policy  Support for the identification of OPP2 the land Warton Road as a Development Opportunity site, recommends that the Policy be re-titled to better reflect the characteristics of the site.

 The flexibility of proposed uses on the site is supported; however it is felt that a greater emphasis should be given to the development of the site for residential purposes. Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE uses will be considered provided that they meet the requirements of all relevant policies within the Local Plan and compliment the wider regeneration of Lancaster City Centre.  Comment noted, but no evidence provided to support assertion of delays to deliverability.

 Support noted. No alternative wording for the policy was supplied as part of this submission. Therefore for the purposes of local understanding and clarity it is felt the current title accurately reflect the characteristics of the site (i.e. the main body of the site comprises the former TDG distribution buildings and yard. The policy wording for OPP2 as currently drafted allows for a range of potential uses for the site, including residential. The only uses which are discouraged are those which will generate significant HGV movements.  To provide sufficient flexibility over the regeneration of the site it is not felt appropriate to over-emphasise one specific use over another.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

173


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

356

NAME

Alec Peet

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy OPP5

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 There is significant demand for housing; both in the District and more locally to Carnforth. With limited sites being identified for residential purposes in Carnforth the development of this site for such a purpose will assist in meeting demands for housing and wider regeneration objectives.  Objection raised over the need for further residential development in rural areas of the District, in particular Silverdale. This will increase urbanisation of rural areas.

 Whilst it is recognised that there are housing requirements within Carnforth, as within the District. However the Local Plan needs to deal with the delivery of a range of development, particularly economic development. The former TDG site provides an opportunity to deliver economic development on a centrally located site.  Objection noted. The Council prepared a Housing Needs Survey in 2011 which evidenced the District housing needs; this is relevant and up-to-date and suggests that the housing need across the District is significant. This assessment has been published and is available on the Council’s website. No evidence is supplied by this submission to question the studies validity.  The Council is considering whether resources could be used to bring forward empty properties for re-use. However, this alone will not be sufficient to meet future housing needs.  Comment noted.

 More emphasis should be given to bring empty properties back onto the market and the delivery of affordable homes via shared ownership. 357

Ms Kate McGill

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners /CEP Group

Policy CWL1

 Agree that allocation of the CCN site for retail-led regeneration is appropriate in principle, particularly in the context of the CCN site’s potential role in enhancing Lancaster’s subregional comparison shopping role. However, this allocation

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

174


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

358

Jenny Hope

United Utilities

Areas of Strategic Growth

359

MJ Watson

Over Kellet Parish Council

Document Introductio n

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS should not form the only element of the Council’s strategy to meet the retail needs of the District.  The Council recognises the need for new and additional convenience retail facilities in the South Lancaster area, and should, alongside Policy CWL1, allocate a District Centre on CEP’s land to meet the existing and future needs of South Lancaster. This district centre should be anchored by a major foodstore to meet the main food shopping needs and day to day service and shopping needs of South Lancaster residents.  Detailed infrastructure information relating to the development of major and strategic sites will be provided at a later dates as part of the ongoing information sharing initiative. United Utilities is keen to continue partnership working to ensure a co-ordinated approach to delivering sustainable growth.  Concern raised over any future use of Greenfield sites being used in and around the village of Over Kellet for residential development.  Concern raised over the level of housing need which has been set

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Currently there is no evidence to suggest that the land to the East of A6 at Whinney Carr represents the most suitable, feasible or sustainable location for a District Centre. Nor any evidence submitted to suggest what would comprise a ‘District Centre’ in this location other than the provision of a foodstore. The Council do not believe that the provision of a foodstore in isolation represents a ‘District Centre’.  Comment noted. The Council welcomes the opportunity to work in partnership with United Utilities to deliver sustainable development and growth.

NO CHANGE

 Objection noted. The emerging Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  The Council prepared a Housing Needs Survey in 2011 which

NO CHANGE

175


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS out for the District, it is not felt that demand for housing is as high as that which is being accommodated for.

 Village surveys suggest that there is no need for housing, largely because employment prospects in the village are non-existent. Where demand exists this should be channelled towards brownfield sites within urban areas where jobs and amenities are located.

360

MJ Watson

Over Kellet Parish Council

Areas of Strategic Growth

 If demands for housing do exist they should be met by the full use of brownfield sites. The reasons in the draft document for not using brownfield sites are not accepted. These sites should be prioritised for development and assistance given if necessary to incentivise such sites. Until all brownfield sites have been utilised greenfield sites should not be developed.  Object to adoption of rural land for housing development, it should be channelled into urban

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE evidenced the District housing needs; this is relevant and up-todate and suggests that the housing need across the District is significant. This assessment has been published and is available on the Council’s website. No evidence is supplied by this submission to question the studies validity.  Whilst it is acknowledged that a village survey may have been undertaken to understand local housing needs it needs to be demonstrated that a robust, appropriate and valid methodology has been used in undertaking the study before it can be given due consideration and that the study represents the needs of all sectors of the community.  Objection noted. See comment to IDREF 359 above.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 It would be wrong to suggest there are no rural housing needs within the district. Whilst the scale and 176


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS areas where jobs, transport links, education, health, leisure and retail facilities exist.

361

Ms Kate McGill

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners/ CEP Group

Policy RES1

 Support the allocation of residential led development at Whinney Carr. Considered that the site could deliver some housing in the first 5 year period and that more than 150 units could and should be delivered at Whinney Carr before 2022.

362

MJ Watson

Over Kellet Parish Council

Policy OPP5

 Objection to any proposed residential development within the village of Over Kellet due to the lack of amenities, highway safety, infrastructure constraints, lack of employment opportunities, lack of demand and that changes from new housing will have on the character, particularly the historic character, of the village.

363

Ms Kate McGill

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners / CEP Group

Policy RET1

 The only retail provision in South Lancaster shown on the draft Local Plan Policies Map is a Local/Neighbourhood Centre

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE location of development may be open to debate the need for housing, particularly affordable housing for key workers and first time buyers and the delivery of sustainable economic growth to create new jobs and investment is a core principle of both National and Local Planning Policy.  Support/comment noted. Further discussions will be required before specific details over phasing and delivery of the Whinney Carr site. Such details will be considered strategically within future drafts of the Land Allocations DPD and within the forthcoming Development Brief for South Lancaster.  Objection noted. The Council will continue to seek to address rural development needs through the Local Plan process, initially through the Parish Partnerships process. However, should Parish Council’s fail to address the housing needs of all sections of their community the Council will seek to address development needs in the most suitable and sustainable locations possible through the preparation of the Local Development Plan.  Comment noted. Also see response to ID REF 357.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

CHANGE REQUIRED

177


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS within the heart of the University Campus. This Centre is not shown on the Plan of Strategic Allocations for South Lancaster on page 24 of the LAPO, nor is such a centre referred to in Policy SL4. It is not clear therefore whether this is a mistake on the Proposals Maps. CEP acknowledge that there are smallscale facilities within the University Campus that meet the basic needs of students, however, these facilities are not of a sufficient scale to constitute a local/neighbourhood centre allocation. Suggested that this allocation is removed from the draft Local Plan Proposals Map, which will bring it in line with the text and plans shown in the LAPO.  A district centre, anchored by a large foodstore, rather than a local/neighbourhood centre is required in South Lancaster to meet the needs of existing and future residents. The CEP site is the most appropriate location for this district centre given that: • It is located adjacent to a main public transport corridor and is therefore easily accessible by public transport; • It is broadly located in the centre

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 It is agreed that there is a need to amend the Local Plan Policies Map to highlight existing local centre at Lancaster University, this will be updated for future drafts of the Land Allocations DPD.

178


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

364

NAME

Ben Terry

ORGANISATION

Lancashire County Council (Education)

POLICY REF

Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS of the South Lancaster strategic development sites and is accessible by sustainable modes of transport to serve the wider Whinney Carr site, Bailrigg, Lancaster University and the proposed Science Park. However, it is also located close to the existing built up area of South Lancaster where there exists a recognised need for new convenience goods floorspace; and • It is in a commercially viable location for a district centre, as it is visible from the A6, Scotforth Road.  CEP recommends that the Land Allocations DPD and the draft Local Plan Policies Map be amended to show a district centre boundary around the CEP land, which can then be referred to in Policy RET1.

 The proposed 1,650 new dwellings in this area could generate the need for an additional 578 primary places and 413 secondary places. In terms of both the Whinney Carr and Bailrigg developments there are 7

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

 As previously noted in ID REF 357 there is no evidence to suggest the most suitable location for a District Centre is to the east of the West Coast Mainline. Nor is there any evidence provide about what such a District Centre should comprise, apart from a anchor foodstore. The Council do not believe that the provision of a foodstore in isolation represents a ‘District Centre’.  Comments noted. The council will continue to work in partnership with all relevant stakeholders, in this case Lancashire County Council’s Education Department to ensure that necessary provision is made through new development

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

179


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

365

NAME

Ben Terry

ORGANISATION

Lancashire County Council (Education)

POLICY REF

Policies Central & West Lancaster

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS primary schools within 2 miles of the proposed development but there may not be surplus places in these schools. Therefore, the scale of the Bailrigg Lane site could require the county council to seek a school site for a 1 form entry school in connection with this development and the Whinney Carr site could require the county council to seek a school site for a 1.5 form entry school.  The forecasts indicate that there will be sufficient secondary places to accommodate the demand from the developments identified in the local plan. However, this situation could change as a result of rising primary school numbers and depending on the timescale that the developments come forward.  The forecasts for this area indicate that there will already be a shortfall of primary places within 5 years.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

proposals to accommodate further growth in education infrastructure, whether this be through financial commuted sums of physical infrastructure as part of a development proposal.

 The council will welcome the opportunity for ongoing dialogue with the County Council to ensure that these issues are appropriately addressed through the preparation of the Local Plan.

 Comments noted. The council will continue to work in partnership with all relevant stakeholders, in this case Lancashire County Council’s Education Department to ensure that necessary provision is made through new development proposals to accommodate further growth in education infrastructure, whether this be through financial commuted sums of physical infrastructure as part of a

CHANGE CONSIDERED

180


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

366

NAME

Ben Terry

ORGANISATION

Lancashire County Council (Education)

POLICY REF

Policy EAST1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  The forecasts indicate that there will be sufficient secondary places to accommodate the demand from the developments identified in the local plan. However, this situation could change as a result of rising primary school numbers and depending on the timescale that the developments come forward.  The proposed 1,200 new dwellings in this area could generate the need for an additional 420 primary places and 300 secondary places. The forecasts for this area indicate that there will already be a shortfall of primary places within 5 years. It is possible that the county council would seek an educational contribution for the full yield of 420 primary school places. We also do not know at this stage whether there is feasible capacity for expansion at any of the existing schools. Therefore, we would seek to secure a site suitable for the location of a 2FE primary school. As the yield is cumulative across the developments, we would look to work with Lancaster council to secure the relevant site. Alternatively, two separate one

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

development proposal.  The council will welcome the opportunity for ongoing dialogue with the County Council to ensure that these issues are appropriately addressed through the preparation of the Local Plan.

 Comments noted. The council will continue to work in partnership with all relevant stakeholders, in this case Lancashire County Council’s Education Department to ensure that necessary provision is made through new development proposals to accommodate further growth in education infrastructure, whether this be through financial commuted sums of physical infrastructure as part of a development proposal.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

181


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

367

Ben Terry

Lancashire County Council (Education)

Policy HEY4

368

Ben Terry

Lancashire County Council (Education)

Policy RES2

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS form entry sites linked to the 2 larger developments at Moor Hospital and Grab Lane.  The forecasts indicate that there will be sufficient secondary places to accommodate the demand from the developments identified in the local plan. However, this situation could change as a result of rising primary school numbers and depending on the timescale that the developments come forward.  The forecasts for this area indicate that there will already be a shortfall of primary places within 5 years. Although the specific number of new dwellings in this area is not identified it is possible that the county council would seek an educational contribution for the full primary school yield of any developments in this area. It is understood that the Pontins development is expected to provide a number of retirement properties. These properties would not be included in the education contribution assessment, as over 55 accommodations are exempt from the contribution process.  The proposed 200 new dwellings at Luneside Quarry could generate the need for an

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The council will welcome the opportunity for ongoing dialogue with the County Council to ensure that these issues are appropriately addressed through the preparation of the Local Plan.

 Comments noted. The council will continue to work in partnership with all relevant stakeholders, in this case Lancashire County Council’s Education Department to ensure that necessary provision is made through new development proposals to accommodate further growth in education infrastructure, whether this be through financial commuted sums of physical infrastructure as part of a development proposal. The council will welcome the opportunity for ongoing dialogue with the County Council to ensure that these issues are appropriately addressed through the preparation of the Local Plan.  Comments noted. The council will continue to work in partnership with all relevant stakeholders, in this

CHANGE CONSIDERED

CHANGE CONSIDERED

182


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

369

NAME

Jennifer Hadland

ORGANISATION

Smiths Gore/ Duchy of Lancaster

POLICY REF

Areas of Strategic Growth

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS additional 70 primary places and 50 secondary places. The forecasts for this area indicate that sufficient primary places to accommodate the demand from this development. However, this is subject to change and will need to be reassessed at the time of application.  The forecasts indicate that there will be sufficient secondary places to accommodate the demand from the developments identified in the local plan. However, this situation could change as a result of rising primary school numbers and depending on the timescale that the developments come forward.  Within the Plan, the Duchy of Lancaster would like to ensure that the Council does not disregard the role and importance of the rural areas within the District. Rural settlements play a vital and central role within Lancaster District, adding significant value to the local economy and the tourism industry. There is an identified significant level of demand for both market and affordable housing within the District. We suggest that 400 dwellings (in line

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

case Lancashire County Council’s Education Department to ensure that necessary provision is made through new development proposals to accommodate further growth in education infrastructure, whether this be through financial commuted sums of physical infrastructure as part of a development proposal.  The council will welcome the opportunity for ongoing dialogue with the County Council to ensure that these issues are appropriately addressed through the preparation of the Local Plan.

 Comment noted. The Council acknowledge the significant role that rural areas of the District have on shaping the economy and character of the area.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

183


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

370

NAME

Jennifer Hadland

ORGANISATION

Smiths Gore/ Duchy of Lancaster

POLICY REF

Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS with the strategy set out in the Core Strategy) would only partially meet the level of housing need and demand set out within the Housing Need and Demand Study 2011. On this basis, in addition to large scale urban expansions, the Council should also identify smaller parcels of land throughout the entire District to help meet the requirements of the district.  Dolphinholme is considered to be a suitable village which can accommodate small scale future housing needs and demand during this plan period without having a detrimental impact on the surrounding land uses and open countryside.  We consider that the Council should refocus growth through more small and medium sites. Small to medium sized allocations would enable the Council to meet their housing requirements but without the added pressure on the existing infrastructure which would be associated with large scale expansion sites.  Concern raised in relation to the delivery to the delivery of large scale urban extensions. Recommends that further,

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Further work will be undertaken to investigate potential for growth within rural villages via the Parish Partnerships Project. This will include consideration of future development opportunities in all areas of the District, including Dolphinholme.  The Local Plan should seek to ensure that development opportunities exist in a range of sites and locations and that sustainable development is achieved in accordance with the NPPF. It is envisaged that the future Local Plan should seek allocations for a range of site sizes, from large to small.  Comments noted. See responses to IDREF 369 above.  All sites, regardless of location and including those suggested by the

NO CHANGE

184


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

371

Jennifer Hadland

Smiths Gore/ Duchy of Lancaster

Policy SL1  (Whinney Carr)

smaller, sites be considered for allocation to residential purposes. Concern raised over the viability of the Whinney Carr and Bailrigg sites given the infrastructure improvements necessary. Recommends that the Local Plan approach should be to allocate a wider variety of sites throughout the District, providing greater housing choice to a variety of communities in urban and rural locations. The Council needs to ensure that rural settlements are provided with opportunities for sustainable, long term growth, supporting rural services and facilities. Concern over the allocation of this site as it provides an important strategic gap. In addition, the land also suffers from risks of flooding. In accordance with the NPPF the Council should undertake a sequential approach to ensure the most sustainable sites are allocated.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

responder, will to some degree require infrastructure improvement and there is no evidence to suggest that the levels of infrastructure required for both the Whinney Carr and Bailrigg scheme will result in these sites being unviable to develop.

 Objection noted. Disagree that in policy terms that Whinney Carr sie provides a strategic gap from the settlement of Lancaster and development to the South. The proposal does not seek to join up any built forms and therefore it is incorrect to describe the site as a ‘strategic gap’. Any allocation of this size will be given due consideration in policy terms, for example the allocation of any large sites for residential development in rural areas of the District.  Whilst there are flood risk issues to the southern extremities of the site this is does not form a substantial

NO CHANGE

185


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

372

373

NAME

Jennifer Hadland

Jennifer Hadland

ORGANISATION

Smiths Gore/ Duchy of Lancaster

Smiths Gore/ Duchy of Lancaster

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy SL2  Concern over the delivery of this (Bailrigg) site, the proposed allocation includes a Biological Heritage Site, development of this site will affect this wildlife habitat and therefore would contradict other parts of the emerging Local Plan. More suitable and deliverable sites are available address housing need without the need to adversely impact on BHS sites.  The site also provides a green buffer between Scotforth and the University; such buffers should be retained as they are key landscape areas in the urban environment. Policy EL4  Questions the deliverability of this site. Conversion of Ridge Lea will require sensitive design as the buildings are of architectural merit and historical significance to the local area. Whilst it is noted that the phasing of this site would not be until the latter part of the plan concerns are raised that the site

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE part of the site and it not suggested that all areas of the site will be developed. Flood risk work has already taken place as part of the Local Plan process; any further relevant work on flood risk will be undertaken as part of any planning application.  Objection noted. The site does include areas which have been protected for the environmental value. However, whilst the whole site is identified for development this is not to suggest the whole site will be fully developed. Areas of open space and amenity space will be required and development proposals will have to supplement and enhance existing important natural characteristics of the site.  The proposal at Bailrigg will retain significant green buffers between Lancaster University and the M6 motorway.  Comment noted. All sites, regardless of location and including those suggested by the responder, will to some degree require infrastructure improvement and there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed conversion of Ridge Lea will result in it being unviable to develop.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

186


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

374

Jennifer Hadland

Smiths Gore/ Duchy of Lancaster

Central and West Lancaster

375

Jennifer Hadland

Smiths Gore/ Duchy of Lancaster

Housing Introductio n

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS would actually be developed at all.  Significant focus on the regeneration of brownfield sites in this area. Given there are limited public resources available to deliver these sites there are concerns over the future viability and deliverability of these sites. Particularly as they have significant infrastructure requirements to overcome.

 The Council should not rely on housing commitments which have shown a lack of interest from developers, this will not ensure that the Council will meet the needs and demands – housing sites may remain undeveloped

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted. The land allocations in the emerging Local Plan should seek to identify development opportunities in both Brownfield and Greenfield locations. A significant departure from Core Strategy policy which suggested purely a reliance on Brownfield sites to deliver sustainable development; this reflects the changing circumstances and the need to encourage economic growth as per NPPF. However, it would be irresponsible of the Council to ignore the delivery of brownfield sites over the plan period and set out mechanisms for their regeneration. Progress at Luneside and Lancaster Moor Hospital suggest that development on brownfield sites is viable, even in the current economic climate and therefore the Council will continue to progress with a number of key regeneration sites across the District.  The NPPF suggests in footnote 11 that planning consents which are available for implementation immediately are considered to be deliverable. Developers may chose not to develop these sites but these will be non-planning reasons and

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

187


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

376

NAME

Jennifer Hadland

ORGANISATION

Smiths Gore/ Duchy of Lancaster

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS with requirements not met. It is essential that the Council ensures an adequate supply of deliverable housing sites to meet the long term housing needs of the District. The Land Allocations DPD needs to ensure that sufficient, deliverable sites, which are attractive to the market, are available to meet the housing needs of the District.  The Council need to ensure that they plan positively, in accordance with the NPPF and work towards significantly boosting housing development during the plan period. We therefore suggest that some additional smaller sites are identified to help address need and demands across the entire district. An amendment should be made to paragraph 34.13 of the consultation document to include deliverability when assessing sites for development to ensure that it is accordance with the NPPF (paragraph 47 of the NPPF).  The Duchy of Lancaster has significant landholdings within Lancaster, particularly centred upon the village of Dolphinholme which forms part of their Wyreside Estate. Four sites in

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

therefore it is unreasonable to suggest that valid planning consents should not be considered as deliverable and should not be included within the 5 year supply.

 Comments noted. Agreed that the Local Plan should seek to identify a range of sites across the District to ensure that development needs, whether they be housing, economic or other are met.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Further work will be undertaken to explore opportunities to deliver sustainable development within the District and further consideration will be given to the potential opportunities in the Dolphinholme 188


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

377

NAME

Jennifer Hadland

ORGANISATION

Smiths Gore/ Duchy of Lancaster

POLICY REF

Policy OPP5

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS particular are considered suitable for future residential development, which are suitable, available, achievable and deliverable. The sites are currently used for agriculture/ grazing and are in a sustainable location, which will be attractive to the market as a result of their close proximity to existing local services and facilities. High quality, sensitively designed units would not have an adverse impact on the existing settlement and would offer a greater housing choice to local residents and those wishing to move into the area. The development of these sites therefore provides an opportunity to meet housing need and demand (including local need development) in an existing sustainable community. Our client is seeking to work closely with the Council to assist in the delivery of the Council’s housing target, help meet the longer term housing deficit and deliver sustainable and viable future development at Dolphinholme.  Dolphinholme should be included as a village capable of accommodating additional development as set out in Policy OPP5. The Duchy of Lancaster

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

area, although this is not a suggestion that development in the Dolphinholme area will come forward as part of any future draft of the Land Allocations DPD.

 Comment noted. See response to ID REF376

CHANGE CONSIDERED

189


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

378

NAME

Andy Yuille

ORGANISATION

CPRE

POLICY REF

Areas of Strategic Growth

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS can provide high standards of design appropriate to the rural location of the development and the surrounding landscape.  Concern over the reliance of Greenfield sites for meeting future development needs. It is felt that that brownfield sites are dynamically changing and therefore the Council should be more positive over the re-use of brownfields which, whilst may not be currently available, may be available in the future. This should be given due consideration for the delivery of housing beyond the 5 year supply period.  In light of this opportunity the CPRE are unconvinced over the necessary release of land identified as urban extensions at this time. However, if sites must be allocated then they should be clearly phased as not to undermine urban regeneration.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments and concern noted. Acknowledged that paragraph 17 of NPPF says that Local Plan should make effective use of previously developed sites (Brownfield) ithe Council considers that all relevant, sustainable and deliverable brownfield sites have been identified and allocated through the Local Plan.

NO CHANGE

 NPPF also says in paragraph 154 that whilst plans should be aspirational they should also be realistic. Acknowledged that there will be inevitably churn in the levels and numbers of brownfield sites in the District, there is no evidence to suggest that such churn will be significant enough to meet the acute and significant housing needs faced in this District. To rely on such an approach as suggested would lead to a Local Plan being found un-sound at Public Inquiry as it has failed to be clear enough on how its housing needs would be met through the plan-period. 190


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 The current sites at Whinney Carr and Bailrigg currently deliver a number of important lad-use functions, both a main gateways into the City from the South, provide an important setting to Lancaster University and separate Lancaster from settlements to the South. Therefore should these sites be brought forward consideration should be given to the inclusion of green buffers and the designation of remaining land to the south as Green Belt. The site at Grab Lane also provides a strong setting for the City and most iconic building in terms of the Ashton Memorial. Therefore development should avoided where possible and where not possible strong policies should be prepared to ensure that nor further erosion of the local character takes place. If it is necessary to allocate large sites we support the need for comprehensive master plans such as Development Briefs, community engagement is essential to ensure community ownership of such Briefs.  Whilst the transport implications of developing in the South of Lancaster the solutions do not

 Whilst the sites at Grab Lane, Whinney Carr and Bailrigg represent gateway sites, this should not prohibit them from future development provided that they are designed to a high standard and create a new, attractive gateway into the City Centre. Agreed that issues such as the location of green buffers should be considered through the preparation of a Development Brief and Master plan for each site.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

 Also agreed that consultation with the local community will be important and therefore not only 191


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

379

NAME

Andy Yuille

ORGANISATION

CPRE

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS seem to have been put forward as part of the Land Allocations DPD. This needs to be resolved.

Policy SL3  In the case of the Lancaster University Science Park, there has been a failure to seriously consider the possibilities of enhancing the knowledge-based economy on brownfield sites within the urban envelope rather than on Greenfield site miles away. There are sufficient sites available and due to become available – indeed there is no shortage of employment land in Lancaster District.  There is no real need for an isolated science park, rather individual units could be developed throughout the city as demand arises – the Park itself will probably not be fully built until beyond the plan period.

 The choice of a Greenfield site at Bailrigg is an unsustainable landuse solution to what is essentially a marketing problem, and will only add to already very significant congestion problems. Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE with their be further consultation on the Land Allocations DPD but also with the future Development Briefs for South and East Lancaster.  There are only limited employment opportunities in the Lancaster area, in terms of opportunities for office based development White Cross (which has very low vacancy levels) and Lancaster Business Park which is an out of centre location. Much of the allocated employment land is outside of the Lancaster, North of the River and therefore an assumption that there is ‘no shortage of employment land’ is incorrect.  The location of the Science Park has always been intrinsically linked to its close proximity to Lancaster University and the benefits that knowledge based industries could have in being located so close to the University Campus. Locating a Science Park in a location in the Lancaster City Centre or elsewhere in the District would significantly reduce the economic benefits it would provide.  There are significant needs to provide a range of economic activity within the District, both to stimulate investment and create jobs. The Delivery of a Science Park will lead to the opportunities for greater

ACTION

NO CHANGE

192


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

380

381

NAME

Andy Yuille

Andy Yuille

ORGANISATION

CPRE

CPRE

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

Policy CWL1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 The general approach to allocating sites set out in paragraph 34.13 is supported. However, for the reasons given throughout this submission, in order to comply with the core strategy policy of urban concentration, broad locations of developable land should be identified for the later stages of the plan period and identifying large Greenfield sites for release now should be avoided. We are not convinced that these sites will need to be released.  Seeking an average density of 30 dph (para 34.14) adds unnecessarily to pressure to release greenfield sites. AS CPRE research demonstrates, high quality, desirable family homes with gardens and communal green areas can be provided in urban areas at medium densities over 50dph  The current plans for the Canal Corridor site are fundamentally inappropriate. The scale of retail provision envisaged would detract from, not reinforce the existing town centre. No satisfactory mechanisms to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE graduate retention in the locality and a significant boost to the local and sub-regional economy.  Support noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. Whilst this is a departure from Core Strategy policy the reasons for this are made clear in the emerging documents.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 Density development should be flexible and dependent on local character and circumstances and would not preclude development coming forward at either higher or lower densities.

 Objection noted. The Lancaster Canal Corridor Scheme will offer a mixed use development, comprising elements of retail and leisure uses and may include residential units. There is no evidence to support the view that the current plans for the

NO CHANGE

193


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS connect what would be two rival centres have been established. The result would be more empty shops and a disproportionate negative impact on small and independent retailers.

 Some increase in retail provision is appropriate and this site may be an appropriate location for that, but it should be as part of a mixed use development with a significantly greater housing component. This would relieve some of the pressure from outlying Greenfield sites.

382

Andy Yuille

CPRE

Policy CWL4

 The diversification of the Lune industrial Estate should be accelerated, likewise reducing pressure on potential greenfield housing sites. The reliance on completion of the Heysham-M6 Link Road to significantly improve accessibility from Lancaster to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE Canal Corridor site are fundamentally inappropriate. Policy CWL1 sets a framework for future planning applications to be based upon and makes clear, via criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (v) and (viii) that connectivity, either to the surrounding built environment or transport. It is believed that proposals meet these requirements will be appropriate.  The regeneration of the Lancaster Canal Corridor site will be of significant economic benefit to the town and wider District, improving the retail offer for both local residents and visitors and increasing opportunities for further investment and growth. This proposals, along with regeneration of Lancaster Castle will be of great benefit to the toward and will result in the dynamics of the town centre changing, however there is no evidence to suggest that such changes will result in negative effects on the town.  Comment noted. The Local Plan is not merely prepared to deliver housing growth in the District. It is the statutory responsibility for a Local Plan to plan positively for economic investment and job creation. The de-allocation of employment sites purely to meet

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

194


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

383

NAME

Andy Yuille

ORGANISATION

CPRE

POLICY REF

Policy CWL5

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS employment sites on the Heysham Peninsula is misplaced. The most optimistic projections are that completion of the road will reduce journey times from the M6 to the port by 4-6 minutes during peak flows. Reductions for shorter journeys will be concomitantly less, and outside of peak times will be vanishingly small. There is therefore little reason not to accelerate the process and to free this site up for residential development to complement the Luneside developments.  Willow Lane / Coronation Field Opportunity Area: The vast majority of this site appears to be within the “regeneration priority area” within which it would be acceptable to develop. This is contrary to its designation as an opportunity area for open space and recreation. The policy should indicate the maximum extent of any enabling development, which should be limited to a very small proportion of this “regeneration priority area”

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

housing needs is not in accordance with the principles of the NPPF. The loss of Lune Industrial estate, which still accommodates a significant number of local businesses providing local jobs, would have significant implications on the local economy, with no alternative opportunities available for general industrial development south of the River Lune. Agreed that further work will be undertaken to understand the longer term viability of the site.  Policy CWL5 is quite clear over any future development in this area, in that it will ‘only support proposals that enhance and regenerate the quality and quantity of recreational and open space provision’ and that only in exceptional circumstance would the council support enabling development, i.e. development which would enable improvements to the wider recreational / open space offer in the locality. Therefore its identification within the Regeneration Priority Area, which reflects the site wider role in providing open space provision to the Luneside area, is irrelevant and does not weaken its protection. It would not be appropriate to suggest

NO CHANGE

195


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

384

Andy Yuille

CPRE

385

Andy Yuille

CPRE

386

Simon Raffaelli

Local Resident

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy HEY1

 Proposals on the whole appear reasonable. We particularly support para 28.5 with regard to landscape impact and residential amenity. We would add a concern here about visual impacts in terms of view to and from the wholly unique Sunderland Point, including the conservation area. Policy  The asterplan network appears GR3 to have been unnecessarily truncated. For example, the Lune Corridor is a vital green corridor at least from Glasson Dock to Brookhouse. Limiting it to Glasson-Marsh Point seems odd. The map does not always match well with the text, eg there is an oddly straight green corridor that does run bnroadly from Marsh point to Brookhouse but does not follow the river. In fact, the corridor on both sides of the river is important between these points. Policy EL1  I feel that it is flawed to consider the Grab Lane development as a

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE a quantum of ‘enabling development’ which would be appropriate, any proposals should be assessed on a case by case basis and focus on the overall recreational benefits that can be provided.  Support and Concern noted. Current wording within Policy HEY1 and other relevant Development Management Policies provide sufficient protection over this issue.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. Agreed that further CHANGE REQUIRED work will be undertaken, both with the documents themselves and the relevant Local Plan Policies Maps to ensure clarity is provided on the scale and detail of Greenspace networks.

 Objection noted.

NO CHANGE

196


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS single proposal as very different circumstances apply to the areas to the west and east of Grab Lane.  The argument that the Grab Lane development is infill due to other permissions to develop the abattoir/auction mart, Lancaster Leisure Park and Lancaster Moor Hospital is incorrect: it is apparent form a map that none of these developments would extend east of Grab Lane, therefore the ‘infill’ argument applies to the land west of Grab Lane only.  There is insufficient infrastructure in this area to support the level of housing now planned taking into account the Moor Hospital, Ridge Lea, abattoir/auction mart, Lancaster Leisure Park and Grab Lane developments. Aside from the lack of shops, public houses etc in this area, local schools, drainage are already at capacity. This is particularly an issue in relation to highways capacity in the local area, which would be exacerbated with any further development. The existing bus service is under used and despite planned improvements in public transport, there is no reason to suppose these new residents would use the bus any more than

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 No argument has been made within any Local Plan documents that the allocation at Grab Lane is ‘infill’ development, to suggest so is fundamentally incorrect. The Council acknowledged that this is a significant Greenfield site on the edge of Lancaster.

 Both Policy EAST1 and EL1 acknowledge the need for further infrastructure to be provided in this area, whether this is educational, health, transport or other. Ongoing dialogue will be taking place with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that development proposals satisfactorily address infrastructure requirements in the locality. It should be noted that many of the key infrastructure stakeholders have commented via this consultation process.

197


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

387

NAME

Mr Jon Suckley

ORGANISATION

HOW Planning/ TWUK

POLICY REF

Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS the existing ones do. Given of course that the buses will be stuck in the same traffic jams as everyone else.  There was a lack of consultation with adjoining land owners of the Grab Lane site who should have been contacted directly as per any normal planning application.

 There should remain a presumption in favour of the brownfield sites: if this is not possible, then a requirement for brownfield sites to be developed in advance of Greenfield sites. Representations against the five issues (I-V) issues:  (l) In principle, support

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

 Given the limited public sector resources it would be unrealistic to expect individual consultation measures for adjoining properties in the form of specific letters. However, the Council published a newsletter which was distributed via the Royal Mail to all households in the District which included information on the implications of the Local Plan and how people could get involved. This was supplemented by articles in the local press and within the Council’s newsletter, ‘Your District Matters’ which again is distributed to all households in the District. Therefore sufficient and appropriate consultation measures have been undertaken to inform all local residents of the Local Plan and its potential implications.  The emerging Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  (I) Need to review this part of the

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

198


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS requirement for solution to the highway capacity constraints on the A6 transport corridor. Objections raised to the requirements of the policy in order to achieve this: (ii) Need for a Strategic Solution – transport related background documents do not fully assess the requirements for a Strategic Highways Solution along the A6 Corridor. Whilst likely that the link road between the A6 and the A588 is required to release the Whinney Carr site, it has not been shown that it is required to deliver the other South Lancaster sites, including the land at Bailrigg Lane. (ii) Benefits of the Proposed Link Road – unknown whether the proposed link road between the A6 and the A588 will deliver the benefits required to ease congestion on the A6 Corridor. (iii) Alternative Solutions – the evidence base which informs the Local Plan does not assess other options for delivering a strategic highways solution. Unknown whether the link between the A6 and the A558 is the most appropriate solution. Request that flexibility incorporated within Policy SOUTH1 to enable an

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

policy to show more clearly what infrastructure is required throughout the whole South Lancaster area (including any alternatives), the evidence to support the provision, funding arrangements, and the benefits of each element (including triggers as appropriate). Could refer to Highways and Transport Masterplan.

199


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS assessment of the existing highway network along the A6 transport corridor to be undertaken. Assessment should include review of alternative options for delivering a strategic highways solution(s) along the corridor.  (IV) Council should pay attention to viability and costs to ensure that both the plan and development are deliverable. Essential that the Council does not impose policies which are not flexible and result in infrastructure requirements which could render sites unviable and undeliverable.  (V) TWUK will undertake an assessment of the sustainability measures which can be delivered as part of the site’s future development. District heating systems will be assessed but is unlikely to be a viable option. The sustainability measures which can be delivered in a financially viable way will be proposed which should be reflected in the emerging policy.  Specific Re-wording: (I) In delivering future proposals for growth the council will require all sites allocated in the Lancaster South area to address the following issues:

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 (IV) Comment noted. The Council is aware of its responsibilities in connection with the viability of infrastructure requirements.

 (V) Comment noted.

 (I) TWUK will be required to contribute towards the creation of infrastructure.

200


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

(ii)The delivery of a strategic solution(s) to existing highway capacity constraints on the A6 transport corridor which has been informed by a comprehensive assessment of the existing highway network along this corridor. Central to this will be the delivery of a new road connecting the A6 and the A558 (Ashton Road). The road will be required to enter into a legal agreement to secure delivery; (II) The delivery of a sustainable transport package integrating development proposals with the surrounding network of public transport, cycle and pedestrian network, creating strong links through each of the sites. Adjacent development proposals and the existing urban area; (III) The relationship of each of the sites with existing and planned adjacent development identifying how through design and access arrangements future development will enhance and complement each other and integrate with the surrounding area including existing residential areas; (IV) Cumulative issues relating to service and infrastructure

 Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

201


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

388

NAME

Mr Jon Suckley

ORGANISATION

HOW Planning/ TWUK

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

provision. Unless it can be demonstrated that it is not financially viable, future proposals will be required to address infrastructure issues including education and health care provision where identified as being necessary to support the level of development proposed. This will also include the provision of any utility infrastructure identified as being necessary to support development in this area; and (V) Sustainable construction and design aimed at minimising energy use and maximising energy efficiency unless it can be demonstrated that it is not financially viable to deliver. The feasibility of district heating systems for this area should be investigated as part of future proposals for growth. Policy SL2  Support the Land at Bailrigg (Bailrigg Lane’s draft allocation for mixed Lane) use of residential and University’s expansion.  In principle, support requirement for a Development Brief and a asterplan to guide the future development of this site. Request that Draft Policy SL2 amended to allow the Development Brief to be prepared by TWUK in conjunction

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy. Technical and financial viability should be undertaken by the applicants, and will be considered in assessing any planning application on the Whinney Carr site. Minor change to clarify this.  Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Need to clarify whether brief preparation will be joint or led by Council.

202


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS with Lancaster council. Representations against the (I – iv) issues:  (i) In principle, acceptable for the site to be released in a managed and phased way to enable infrastructure delivery. Essential that the Council do not require infrastructure to be delivered upfront as this would have a detrimental impact on the viability and deliverability of the development. Local Plan policies should be sufficiently flexible to enable the sites to contribute to infrastructure needs. If the burden of providing infrastructure is too much, then sites such as Land at Bailrigg Lane will become financially unviable which will impact on the delivery of the Council’s housing strategy.  (ii) Support the requirement for a secondary access to the site to be provided which will allow an alternative means of access to the approved Scotforth Road junction. Draft Policy SL2 should be sufficiently flexible to enable the secondary access(es) to be achieved allowing development to assist with the delivery of the required infrastructure at the adjoining Science Park site.  (iv) Support the requirement to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 (i) council will clarify infrastructure requirements, phasing triggers and flexibility.

 (ii) council will liaise with developers to agree on secondary access point(s).

 Support/comments noted. 203


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS contribute to the infrastructure needed to support the Lancaster University Science Park. The level of infrastructure provided by TWUK must be compliant with the provisions of Community Infrastructure Level Regulations 2010, Part 11, article 122 (2a-c).  (viii) Key Urban Landscape designation adjoining the M6 motorway is too wide. In principle, support requirement for landscaping, but object to width required, which is more than adjoining sites alongside M6, exceeds what is needed to protect the landscape setting of the area, and would be a constraint to development. Landscaping required should be informed by a Landscape Assessment: district-wide assessment commissioned but not available. Request that either the extent of the landscape allocation at the site is reduced, or Policies SL2 and GR5 incorporate flexibility to enable Key Urban Landscape Area to be informed by appropriate assessments.  (xiv) In principle, support requirement for affordable housing provision to be provided as part of housing developments.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Agree that landscape designation should be guided by the findings of the district-wide assessment, and/or cross-referenced to policies SL2 and GR5.

 Viability evidence from the Housing Needs Assessment undertaken in 2012 supports the policy wording to seek approximately 40% affordable 204


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Object to 40% affordable housing target proposed in Draft Policy SL2. Recognise that Council has an affordable housing need, but insufficient evidence to inform the Land Allocations DPD that 40% affordable housing should be delivered on greenfield sites. Whilst the Council has recognised potential viability implications of delivering affordable housing on brownfield sites, it has not recognised the extent of infrastructure requirements and other contributions that will be sought through the redevelopment of the greenfield sites. Request that either draft Policy SL2 is revised to show a lower affordable housing target or the policy incorporates a mechanism to allow viability testing which takes into account the full costs of development.  Specific Re-wording: Land identified as Bailrigg on the Local Plan Policies Map is allocated as a site for mixed use development incorporating residential development and provision for university expansion at Lancaster University. The Council developer working in conjunction with Lancaster

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

housing on this site. Consider using the expression “up to” – as a target instead of “approximately”.

 The Council will lead on the preparation of a Development Brief for the South Lancaster sites, and will expect to work closely with the owners, agents and potential developers of the various parcels of land.

205


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS council, will prepare a Development Brief to guide the development of this site. Proposals should be prepared in the context of this brief and taken forward through a comprehensive Masterplan submitted as part of a planning application for the whole site addressing issues of phasing and local infrastructure constraints as set out within the brief. In preparing the Development Brief the Council will require the following issues to be addressed: (ii)The managed and phased release of the site having regard to the proposed development’s financial viability and the delivery of the required infrastructure to support the site; (ii) Delivery of an secondary access road to the satisfaction of Lancashire County Council from the site to the existing residential area of Scotforth and Hala enhancing permeability and ensuring a secondary main access route for residents; (iii) The relationship of the site with existing and planned adjacent developments identifying with the surrounding area including the existing residential area of Scotforth, Bailrgg Village,

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Council’s preference is to agree the Masterplan before a planning application is submitted.

 Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy.

206


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Lancaster university and the Lancaster University Science Park; (iv) Support the delivery of Lancaster University Science Park by contributing to the infrastructure needed to support this key economic project. An assessment of how the identified infrastructure will be delivered by the site in a financially viable way will be required; (v) Appropriate safeguarding to the satisfaction of National Grid from the overhead power lines which run across the site; (vi) The submission of a detailed design statement recognising the site’s prominent and sensitive location as a gateway site on the entrance in Lancaster. Design and landscaping of the site should be sympathetic to the locality and create a strong sense of place, providing a welldesigned and high quality environment for residents; (vii) No net loss in value of the Burrow Beck Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) with evidence of how the BHS will be protected and enhanced with new planting and habitat creation. The Masterplan should also seek to deliver

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy.

207


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS positive benefits to biodiversity through the creation of habitat within the site; (viii) The protection and enhancement of identified masterplan systems running through the site identifying opportunities to secure recreation and wildlife improvements in these corridors; (ix) The submission of a suitable and appropriate landscaping plan which retains and reinforces the existing landscape structure of the site, protecting the existing landscape pattern including existing tree planting and hedgerows and incorporating this where appropriate into future proposals; (x) The protection in perpetuity of the allocated Key Urban Landscape (Policy GR5 Key Urban Landscapes) which runs through the eastern section of the site. Any future Masterplan should be informed by an assessment of the site’s landscape character and will be expected to demonstrate how much land is required within the Key Urban Landscapes designation to protect the site’s landscape setting. It should also be demonstrated how the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Agree that landscape designation should be guided by the findings of the district-wide assessment, and/or cross-referenced to policies SL2 and GR5.

208


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS landscaping proposals will be protected and incorporated into future design proposals; (xi) Mitigation measures to address potential noise impacts from the M6 motorway; (xii) Sensitive planting and landscape buffer around Bailrigg Village to help enhance the setting of the village and the potential impact of new development; (xiii) Proposals, through their design and construction, should seek to address and mitigate against flood risk which exists along Burrow Beck. Any proposals for this site will be expected to be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which addresses issues of flooding and mitigation to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency; (xiv) Approximately Up to 40% of the residential units provided will be ‘affordable’ unless it can be demonstrated that this is not financially viable. The agreed affordable housing provision and will be retained as affordable dwellings in perpetuity in partnership with a registered social landlord; and (xv) Other key infrastructure constraints identified in the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Viability evidence from the Housing Needs Assessment undertaken in 2012 supports the policy wording to seek approximately 40% affordable housing on this site. Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy. Consider using the expression “up to” – as a target instead of “approximately”.

209


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

389

NAME

Mr Jon Suckley

ORGANISATION

HOW Planning/ TWUK

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Development Brief should be addressed and where possible and financially viable to do so, incorporated into the Masterplan. This should address infrastructure issues such as improved education facilities and health care facilities required in the locality identified as being necessary to support the proposal, improvements to public transport infrastructure and network, the provision of open space particularly recreational space and an area for allotment provision and the provisions of any utility infrastructure identified as being necessary to support the development. Any comprehensive masterplan which is submitted as part of a planning application for this site will be expected to comply with guidance established in the Development Brief for the Bailrigg site and all relevant policies contained in the Development Management DPD. Policy SL3  Support policy SL3. TWUK will (Science work to ensure development at Park) Bailrigg Lane site: (ii) is planned to link with the adjoining Science Park; and (ii) supports delivery of the Science Park by contributing to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy.

 Council’s preference is to agree the Masterplan before a planning application is submitted.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

210


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

390

Mr Jon Suckley

HOW Planning/ TWUK

POLICY REF Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS the infrastructure needed.  Support allocation of 750 dw at Bailrigg Lane in Policy RES1.  Objection to length of the plan period and phasing of development between 20122024. Plan period should be 2012/13-2026/27 and phasing should be amended to15 years. TWUK expect to commence work on site in 2015. Expect to build 50 dw pa initially and 70 dw pa once the site has been set up. Request that table in Draft Policy RES1 is revised to 100dw (2012-17), 350 dw (2017-22) and 300 dw (20222027).  Specific Re-wording: The following sites, identified on the Local Plan Policies Map, are suggested for allocation for housing development. In delivering development at these sites the Council will require the applicant to demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure required to support proposals will be delivered unless it is demonstrated that this is not financially viable. This includes appropriate community infrastructure where a need is identified. Future proposals should have due regard to Policy DES1 of this document and all relevant policies

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Council will review time frame to 15 years for the DPD.

 Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy.

211


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

391

Robert Halstead

Lancaster City Football Club

Policy REC1

392

Robert Halstead

Lancaster Cricket Club

Policy REC1

393

Robert Halstead

Lancaster Girls Grammar School

Policy REC1

394

Robert Halstead

Royal Grammar School Playing Fields

Policy REC1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS within the Development Management DPD, including policies EN2.1 and EN5.3 in particular. Indicative Phasing 2012/13 - 2017/18 - 2022/23 2016/17 2021/22 2026/27 100 350 300  The location of this site at Lancaster Football Club (which includes the football ground and adjacent land to the east up to the railway line) provides a development opportunity to provide a mix of housing types in a sustainable location close to the City Centre.  The Lancaster Cricket Ground site provides the opportunity to develop high density family housing within walking distance of the City Centre.  The Lancaster Girls Grammar Playing Fields site provides a development opportunity to provide a mix of housing types in a sustainable location close to the City Centre. There is an identified need for housing in Lancaster.  The Royal Grammar School Playing Fields provides a development opportunity to provide a mix of housing types in a sustainable location close to the City Centre. There is an identified

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Council will review dates and indicative phasing.  Comment noted. The site in question provides a valuable recreational resource and therefore its loss within adequate alternative provision being provided.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. The site in question provides a valuable recreational resource and therefore its loss within adequate alternative provision being provided.  Comment noted. The site in question provides a valuable recreational resource and therefore its loss within adequate alternative provision being provided.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. The site in question provides a valuable recreational resource and therefore its loss within adequate alternative provision being provided.

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

212


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

395

Jill Bertram

Local Resident

396

Greg Dickson

Sainsburys

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

need for housing in Lancaster. Policy EL1  Whilst the use of brownfield sites to provide affordable housing for Lancaster residents is supported in principle. Concern is raised that the scale of the planned development and the addition of a substantial Greenfield site in the same area will have a major impact on existing residential neighbourhoods in East Lancaster.  The scale of the development proposed will have significant implications on the local transport network particularly highway capacity. Consider the impact on existing residential areas of this plan to concentrate a huge increase in the number of dwellings in East Lancaster. Policy  It is requested that the city centre RET1 boundary be extended to incorporate the Sainsburys site on Cable Street, Lancaster.

 Including the Sainsbury’s store within the city centre would highlight the positive impacts in terms of the vitality and viability of the immediate area and strengthen the existing centre. Sainsbury’s is trading as a main Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted. The Housing Needs and Demands Survey which was undertaken suggest that the housing needs in the District, both for market and affordable housing, is acute and significant. Therefore, in accordance with National Planning Policy, the emerging Local Plan needs to address such needs, identifying a range of sites across the District.  The impacts on the locality, irrespective of its location in the District, will be a material consideration in delivering sustainable development, however it is a statutory responsibility of the Council to provide the opportunities for sustainable development and growth.  Comment noted. Further work will be undertaken on the town centre boundaries and the identification of a Primary Shopping Area for Lancaster. This work will be included in future drafts of this document.  This does not mean that the site at Cable Street will be included within the town centre boundary as part of this further work.

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

213


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

397

NAME

Alan Hubbard

ORGANISATION

National Trust

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

town centre use, therefore, a relationship between the Sainsbury’s store and other retailers in the city centre has already been established. In relation to development sites identified in Silverdale, given their location within the AONB and the requirements of the NPPF and the European Landscape Convention it is important that the development of any site that is brought forward pays appropriate attention to its impacts upon the valued characteristics of the AONB. There is a lack of guidance on this within the Local Plan. In relation to the site at Cove Drive, there are significant questions over the deliverability of the site due to access considerations. The adjacent site is owned by the National Trust and would not be available to facilitate any access arrangements into the site. In relation to Cove House it is important that potential visual impacts are address via the use of Policy EN2.2 of the Development Management DPD. At this stage there are no overall comments on the Whinney Fold proposal although consideration

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted. Further work will be undertaken jointly with South Lakeland to understand the unique requirements of villages and communities within the AONB. However, these are communities which need to be sustainable in the long-term; therefore development should not be prohibited purely on the basis that is part of a designated landscape.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Acknowledge that issues relating to flooding and access will need to be addressed in relation to the allocation at Cove Drive, further investigations will take place prior to its inclusion within any future drafts of this document.

214


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

398

Alan Hubbard

National Trust

Policy DES1

399

Alan Hubbard

National Trust

Policy GR3

400

Alan Hubbard

National Trust

Policy HEY1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS should be given to local views on this matter.  Much of this policy is welcomed and supported. However, the scope of the policy in unduly limited, in particular inadequate consideration has been given to the impacts of the wider setting of designated sites and nature consideration sites. Wording suggested to alleviate these concerns.  National Trust is concerned about the apparent lack of comprehensiveness in the approach to green infrastructure and in particular the important role of green corridors and networks. The importance of these and their role is adequately set out in the documents but what is less clear is where these resources are and as a consequence the practical implementation of the Policy. This requires clarification. Overall, the extent of the District’s green infrastructure resource is under represented with the consequent issue that key resources are not adequately protected.  National Trust continues to be concerned about the lack of precision in the identification of the Heysham Energy Coast. The

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted. Policy as currently worded, along with guidance / policy within the Development Management DPD is sufficient to address issues in related to designated assets and their settings.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted. Agreed that further CHANGE REQUIRED work will be undertaken, both with the documents themselves and the relevant Local Plan Policies Maps to ensure clarity is provided on the scale and detail of Greenspace networks.

 Comment and Concern noted. Agreed that further work will be undertaken on how the Heysham Energy Coast is represented in

CHANGE REQUIRED

215


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

401

Ms Suzanne Barton Willmore/ Asher Story Homes

Introductio n

402

Ms Suzanne Barton Willmore/ Asher Story Homes

Key Diagram

403

Ms Suzanne Barton Willmore/ Asher Story Homes

Areas of Strategic Growth

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Heysham Energy Coast area should be more specifically defined and avoid the other important non-energy allocations identified in the Site Allocations DPD.  Land Allocations DPD is based on the Core Strategy but evidence based position has changed since the adoption of the Core Strategy. Need to undertake a review of the Council’s housing strategy to meet the needs of the district.  Key diagram adds little to the Plan and its explanation of the spatial strategy and locations of housing and employment growth. The diagram is too broad. It needs to demonstrate strategies specific to key local areas through a series of “zoomed4in” plans which give more specific identification of the areas and level of growth and regeneration for the plan period.  Council has fixed its distribution of growth in para 4.6 of the Core Strategy which sets out the intention to provide 40% of new homes in Lancaster, 40% in Morecambe and Heysham and 10% in Carnforth. The LADPD offers a different strategy which is not necessarily in accordance

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

more clarity within the Land Allocations DPD and the Local Plan Policies Map.

 Council acknowledges need for NPPF compliant housing needs/requirements evidence. Evidence base includes production of Housing Needs Study (incorporating update of SHMA) in 2011.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Key Diagram derives from Adopted Core Strategy. Council will review Key Diagram, Policies Map and other diagrams.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Land identified for development in the DPD has been subject to detailed deliverability and sustainability assessments, and is supported by evidence derived from Housing Needs Survey. Important for the DPD to identify and invest in regeneration, including through the Morecambe AAP, including several

NO CHANGE

216


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

404

NAME

ORGANISATION

Ms Suzanne Barton Willmore/ Asher Story Homes

POLICY REF

South Lancaster Introductio n

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS with the Core Strategy. The “Areas of Strategic Growth” identified in para 7.3 are inconsistent with the Core Strategy and appear to offer a new approach. They will restrict growth to Lancaster and South Heysham. Strategy in para 7.3 could undermine the regeneration/ development strategies elsewhere in the district as set out in Policy RPA1. Change in direction from the Core Strategy approach is unjustified and there is no evidence base to support change.  Concerned that Carnforth has not been identified as an area for growth. The town is a key service centre for the remaining areas of the district, which is reflected in the Core Strategy Vision. Council should consider other greenfield sites and a Green Belt review around Carnforth.

 Allocations south of Lancaster provide growth which will impact on the A6. Further evidence base required to assess the capacity of

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

“Development Opportunity Sites” which could accommodate housing development and which are in addition to those referenced in Policy RES1.

 Carnforth is identified as a District Centre in the Core Strategy. Several employment sites are identified for development in Carnforth; two housing sites are identified with a capacity of 230 dwellings, and a further Development Opportunity Site is identified which could include residential development – so not reasonable to say that Carnforth has not been identified as an area for growth. No specific site identified for development in the representation. NO CHANGE  Comment noted. The Council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are 217


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

405

Andrew Hewitson

Lancashire County Council

Policy OPP5

406

Jon Sear

Lancaster Cohousing

Policy OPP4

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS the A6 to determine whether it can cope with growth, and assess full cost of providing infrastructure is assessed within a Viability Assessment.  Growth south of Lancaster is linked to the development of Whinney Car Link Road and other infrastructure. If the road cannot be provided the Council will need to consider releasing land from the Green Belt to the north of the City. Sites to the South of Lancaster should therefore be brought forward in the medium term.  Meeting Rural Needs would benefit from the inclusion of text that refers to the need to provide appropriate highway infrastructure to support development in these rural villages, considering pedestrian, cycle and motorist access and the promotion of sustainable travel.  We are concerned that by seeking to restrict development of the land north of Mill Lane at Halton Mills to employment use, the plan would simply lead to the land being blighted, due to the lack of demand for more employment space in the village.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

delivered to the local road network through new development.

 The Council has every reason to expect that the link road is deliverable, in conjunction with the owners and developers of Whinney Carr. If the link road cannot be built, the Council will need to consider other options for deliverable growth, not necessarily including green belt release.  Comment noted. Policies within the Development Management DPD (Policies EC2.1, EC2.2, EC2.3 and CSC4.6 which relate to development in rural areas and address the issues of sustainable location and access to highways. Both Local Plan documents should be read in conjunction.

NO CHANGE

 Concern noted. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that there is a insufficient lack of demand for rural employment space in this location. It is felt that the provision of a mixed use development at Halton Mills provides opportunities for economic growth, the creation of jobs and

NO CHANGE

218


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

407

Ms Suzanne Barton Willmore/ Asher Story Homes

408

Ms Suzanne Barton Willmore/ Asher Story Homes

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Policy EAST1

 The Council’s intention is to prepare a Development Brief for all sites in the east of Lancaster (and for other growth areas) will act as another tier of general policy, which is unnecessary as such policy considerations should be set out in the Land Allocations DPD. Policy EL1  Support the identification of Grab (Grab Lane for housing development as Lane) a phase 1 site.  Concerned with the potential delay that the preparation of a development brief may bring given that this is a phase 1 release site. Policy should give clarity to the timetable and process involved in the preparation of the development brief. Representations on policy criteria:  (i) object to this criterion as there is no evidence to suggest that the release of Grab Lane should be linked to other sites. Grab Lane is identified for phase 1 release, so this criterion is illogical as it would delay delivery. This approach is in conflict with NPPF (paragraph 47), so criterion should be deleted.  (ii) criterion should be worded to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

new housing opportunities for the village. CHANGE  The Council will lead on the CONSIDERED preparation of a Development Brief for the East Lancaster sites, and will expect to work closely with the owners, agents and potential developers of the various parcels of land. Council will set out some more policy detail in the Local Plan.  Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 The Council will lead on the preparation of a Development Brief for the Grab Lane site, and will expect to work closely with the owners, agents and potential developers of the various parcels of land. Council will set out some more policy detail in the Local Plan.  The Council will review this statement.

 Not necessary to include viability 219


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS include “where appropriate and viable” to ensure that such requirements would not limit the delivery of development on the site. Story Homes will ensure that the release of this preferred site fully respects the Ashton Memorial and Williamson Park.  (v) grassland Biological Heritage site adjacent to Lancaster Moor Hospital is not included within the Site Boundary at Grab Lane, therefore, this should not be a specific requirement for the masterplan. There are no known ecological constraints to land release of Grab Lane.  (x) object to the 40% affordable housing requirement. Policy criterion should be worded to include “where appropriate and viable” to ensure that affordable housing requirements do not prevent the delivery of the site. Also object to restrictive requirement of policy to contribute to the green network and address infrastructure issues, as well as the need to comply with Development Management policies which seek contributions to education, public open space, and play equipment. All these factors need to be taken into consideration in the Council’s

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

wording in the policy.

 Legitimate to make reference to a BHS on adjacent land if there is a risk or significances being affected by development. Evidence required from developers to say that development will not harm BHS, or that mitigation would be provided if harm is anticipated.  Viability evidence from the Housing Needs Assessment undertaken in 2012 supports the policy wording to seek approximately 40% affordable housing on this site. Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy. Consider using the expression “up to” – as a target instead of “approximately”.

220


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

409

410

NAME

Peter Iles

Peter Iles

ORGANISATION

Lancashire County Council (Archaeology)

Lancashire County Council (Archaeology)

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

overall approach to development alongside other costs including affordable housing provision. The implementation of this policy could impact on the deliverability of this and other sites and hinder the Council’s ability to boost the supply of housing in line with the requirements of NPPF (paragraph 47). Policy SL1  It would be useful to note in the (Whinney DPD description of the Whinney Carr) Carr site that it is traversed by the projected route of the main northsouth Roman road leading into Lancaster, and that formal investigations into its known and potential heritage will be needed at an early stage in the planning of any development. Further detail, such as the potential for prehistoric and later settlement in this area, and the requirement for investigation and mitigation, should then be incorporated into the development brief.  Suggested wording in SOUTH1: “No net loss in value of the cultural heritage within the site, with evidence of how impacts are to be managed and mitigated.” Policy SL2  The Bailrigg Lane and the (Bailrigg) University Science Park sites also have significant heritage potential, ranging from prehistoric

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comment noted. Agreed that further CHANGE liaison will take place to understand REQUIRED the implications on any archaeological features on this site from development proposal. Further information on this issue will be provided within the future development brief for Lancaster South.

 Agree to accommodate this wording.

 Comment noted. It is agreed that further liaison will take place to understand the implications on any archaeological features on this site

CHANGE REQUIRED

221


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

411

A.P. Jones

Local Resident

Policy RES1

412

Peter Iles

Lancashire County Council (Archaeology)

Policy EAST1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS and Romano-British settlement to medieval remains. At this point it would not seem necessary to note this in the DPD, but as described above such detail and information on appropriate investigations should be included in the development briefs.  Objection to the allocation of land for housing to the rear of Hornby Primary School (RES1.24). Priory Lane is a single track, privately owned lane with no pedestrian provision and is heavily used by farm vehicles. Any attempt to widen Priory Lane to Highway Standards would involve the agreement of the owners and even if this could be achieved, any widening would involve the destruction of nine protected trees.  It should be noted that several of these sites also have some potential for buried remains, and that they would benefit from development briefs containing further detail on this potential and what heritage responses are expected from potential developers. Point (ii) in policy EAST1 could be altered to reflect this, but it may be seen as unnecessary. Individual site policies, where a significant

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

from development proposal. Further information on this issue will be provided within the future development brief for Lancaster South.

 Objection noted. noted that significant issues arise in relation to the accessibility of the site via a private road which has been confirmed as not available for potential use.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Comment noted. It is agreed that further liaison will take place to understand the implications on any archaeological features on this site from development proposal. Further information on this issue will be provided within the future development brief for Lancaster South.

CHANGE REQUIRED

222


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

413

Peter Iles

Lancashire County Council (Archaeology)

Central and West Lancaster

414

Peter Iles

Lancashire County Council (Archaeology)

Policy OPP3

quantity of construction (as opposed to conversion), such as Grab Lane/EL1, may also benefit from the inclusion of a variation of the suggested bullet above: “There should be no net loss in value of cultural heritage within the site, and evidence of how impacts are to be managed and mitigated should be presented.” Suggested wording in EAST1: “No net loss in value of the cultural heritage within the site, with evidence of how impacts are to be managed and mitigated.” The built and buried heritage of the Canal Corridor, the Castle and Quay site and Luneside East sites are a significant or major factor to be taken into account, and this is not always apparent from the existing text. In the case of the Canal Corridor the need for consideration of impacts on buried, as well as built, heritage is not mentioned, and could be usefully added. Suggested rewording of reasoned justification. It may be useful to note, however, that there are two, not one, silk mill sites next to each other at Galgate. The earlier is the stonebuilt site on the west side of Chapel Lane, which was

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Agree to accommodate this wording.

 Comments noted. Agreed to consider how the issues of archaeological protect should be integrated into future policy wording in relation to both Lancaster Castle and Lancaster Canal Corridor.

CHANGE REQUIRED

 It should be noted that the Development Management DPD contains Policy EN3.5 which specifically deals with archaeological issues.  Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

223


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

415

416

NAME

Peter Iles

ORGANISATION

Lancashire County Council (Archaeology)

Ms Suzanne Barton Willmore/ Asher Story Homes

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

converted from an earlier waterpowered corn mill in 1792. The brick mill site on the east of the lane is that constructed in 1852. Both sites are Listed Grade II. Policy  This policy attempts to cross DES1 reference the protection given to the built and natural environment in the main Development Management DPD. If it is appropriate to have such a policy then it should probably also refer to non-designated sites as well as to selected designated sites, and the inclusion of an appropriate sentence or two with a mention of the appropriate sections of the NPPF is suggested.  It is also notable that an areabased heritage designation – the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest – is not included in the policy and on the associated mapping. Suggested rewording of reasoned justification. Policy EL2 Question the requirements in (viii) and (ix) which require the provision of affordable housing, education and healthcare. Development will not be viable without gap funding via HCA. Object to the requirement to provide affordable housing and contributions to education which

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted. The Local Plan documents, both Development Management and Land Allocations, and the policies it contains should be read as a whole. Policies EN3 of the Development Management DPD deal with the Historic Environment, including designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings which it is believed addresses this issue sufficiently.

CHANGE REQUIRED

 Policy EN3.3 addresses issues relating to Registered Parks and Gardens although it is agreed that such features will be identified within the Local Plan Policies Map.

 The council will review this policy.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

224


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

417

NAME

ORGANISATION

Ms Suzanne Barton Willmore/ Asher Story Homes

POLICY REF Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS could threaten the delivery of the site.  Council, under NPPF, should review housing evidence on the basis of the findings of the SHMAA and latest DCLG Household Projections, which suggests a higher delivery target. The Council has not provided any evidence as to why historic targets are appropriate to be rolled forward beyond both the RSS and Core Strategy plan periods. NW RS housing targets are inappropriate and based on outdated evidence of need. Specific comments:  Object to para 34.2, on the housing delivery target from the Core Strategy plan period to 2021/22, up to 2023/24. NW RS does not go to 2024. Council cannot roll this figure forward and expect it to be compliant with NPPF. Council figures do not account for the existing undersupply of 1,286 (2003–2012).  Para 34.5 suggests that failure to meet targets is because of downturn in the economy, however restriction on supply relates to the lack of land release and policy restrictions. Council must release more land in more locations, to enable the house

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 RSS targets are still valid and lawful.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 The council will review this paragraph.

 Disagree with the claim that a reduced supply of housing development relates the lack of land release or policy restrictions, as there are currently over 3000 units with valid planning consent. 

225


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

builders to access a range of sites in a range of locations. Objects to future strategy for housing from table 34.2 based on a short-term period of recession under the “Viability Informed View” in para 34.10. Objects to ‘realistic assessment of delivery’ indicating that completions in excess of 4,800 are not achievable or sustainable. NPPF provides no guidance or justification for such an approach and Council has not produced evidence to justify its ‘Viability Informed View’. Housing target should be a minimum of 700 dwellings per annum up to 2031. DPD does not look to a long enough time period and should be 15-years from the date of adoption (up to 2029/30). Housing targets should be met on this basis. Policy RES1 only allocates 3,915 units. This leaves a remaining 2,171 units (4,800 + 1,286 – 3,915). No evidence that Council is capable of achieving windfall of 2,171 dwellings over the next 15 years. Council’s allocations are not distributed according to para 4.6 of the Core Strategy. There is under provision outside of

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 No evidence provided to support the target figure of 700 dwellings pa.

 The council will review the timeframe of the DPD.

 Comments noted.

 The council acknowledges the importance of continuing to identify and invest in regeneration, including through the Morecambe AAP, which 226


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Lancaster, with only 361 units are identified in Morecambe and Heysham, which accounts for 9% of all allocations; and 230 units are identified in Carnforth, which equates to 6% of the total allocations. The Core Strategy identifies Carnforth as a key service centre for the remaining areas of the district where development to meet local needs will be supported. In order to achieve this vision a managed amount of growth is required in Carnforth to address need and sustainability objectives of the Core Strategy.

 Our table 4.1 “Housing Targets and Delivery” below sets out the level of provision on the basis of the Core Strategy figures, Our assessment of need and the findings of the evidence base alongside the allocations set out in Policy RES1. This shows that the allocations are below Core Strategy housing targets.  Table 4.1 Housing Targets and Delivery Core Strategy 15,year period (480 dpa inc undersupply) Barton Willmore 15,year period Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

includes several “Development Opportunity Sites” which could accommodate housing development and which are in addition to those referenced in Policy RES1. Carnforth is identified as a District Centre in the Core Strategy. Several employment sites are identified for development in Carnforth; two housing sites are identified with a capacity of 230 dwellings, and a further Development Opportunity Site is identified which could include residential development – so not reasonable to say that Carnforth has not been identified as an area for growth. No specific site identified for development in the representation.  Comments noted. The Council will review the housing calculations submitted.

 Council acknowledges need to ensure that housing allocations match the agreed needs/ requirements figures, but no specific site identified for 227


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

418

NAME

Barbara Stanley

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS (700 dpa) Council’s SHMA Evidence 15,year period (900 dpa) RES1 Allocations up to 2024 Total Provision 7,200 10,500 13,500 3,915 Lancaster (40%) 2,880 4,200 5,400 2,992 Heysham and Morecambe (40%) 2,880 4,200 5,400 361 Carnforth (10%) 720 1,050 1,350 230 Rural (10%) 720 1,050 1,350 332  Question the delivery of some of the sites identified within RES1. Footnote i and ii on page 81 and footnote iii on page 82 refer to some sites being “subject of further investigation” and that physical constraints such as flood risk could affect the level of delivery, contrary to NPPF(para 47). Council have not identified enough sites for housing growth. The LADPD is therefore in conflict with the Core Strategy.  Council may need to release further greenfield sites or release Green Belt land to ensure that the needs of the district are met.  Concern over how land at Royal Oak Meadow will be accessed from the highway network without affecting highway safety on the main road.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

development in the representation.

 Council acknowledges need to ensure that housing allocations match the agreed needs/ requirements figures, but no specific site identified for development in the representation.

 Comment noted but no specific site identified for development in the representation.  Objection noted. There is no evidence submitted to suggest that access to the site via Royal Oak Meadow or Hornby Bank cannot be achieved. Whilst both streets are

NO CHANGE

228


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Whilst it is accepted that housing may be required there are plenty of houses for sale why is there a need to build new ones?

 Any new development will impose extra demands on local community facilities and have a negative impact on existing local residents.

419

Ms Suzanne Barton Willmore/ Asher Story Homes

Policy RPA1

 Policy is too vague and specific areas should be identified for improvement, including identification of sites and the preferred type and level of intervention. Policy supports development within areas without

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE residential these are not inappropriate for the scale of development proposed by Policy RES1.23 and to date no objections to the proposal has been received from Lancashire County Council Highways Department.  The Housing Needs and Demands Study undertaken in 2011 suggests that the housing needs of the District are acute and significant, therefore the Local Plan needs to seek to address such issues with the allocation of land for new housing to meet current and future generations.  The council will continue to liaise with all relevant infrastructure stakeholders to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local infrastructure through new development. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development at Royal Oak Meadow (20 dwellings) will place inappropriate pressures on local infrastructure.  The reasoned justification describes the regeneration priority areas, all of which are referenced elsewhere in the Local Plan in other policies and on the Policies Map – consider some cross referencing to clarify.

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

229


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

specific criteria of what is required to support holistic strategies in each area.  Central Morecambe: DPD allocates just 361 dwellings in Heysham and Morecambe throughout the plan period. Council should identify housing sites which support economic and environmental improvements to Central Morecambe and the neighbouring Morecambe West End Regeneration Priority Area.  Carnforth: Core Strategy says 10% of housing growth should be delivered in Carnforth which should be at least 720 dw based on the existing 400 dwelling per annum target, or 1,050 dw taking account of a more appropriate revised target of 700 dw per annum. DPD identifies just 230 dw over the plan period, which is not enough to meet the growth identified in the Core Strategy. Keer Bridge and TDG sites have constraints to their delivery, which could reduce the number of units and increase the timescales for delivery. DPD should provide for dwellings in Carnforth during the plan period based on the distribution in the Core Strategy and the level of housing need identified through household

 Council acknowledges the importance of continuing to identify and invest in regeneration, including through the Morecambe AAP, which includes several “Development Opportunity Sites” which could accommodate housing development and which are in addition to those referenced in Policy RES1.  The council acknowledges the importance of continuing to identify and invest in regeneration, including through the Morecambe AAP, which includes several “Development Opportunity Sites” which could accommodate housing development and which are in addition to those referenced in Policy RES1. Carnforth is identified as a District Centre in the Core Strategy. Several employment sites are identified for development in Carnforth; two housing sites are identified with a capacity of 230 dwellings, and a further Development Opportunity Site is identified which could include residential development – so not reasonable to say that Carnforth has not been identified as an area for growth. No specific site identified

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

230


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

420

Mr John Mackenzie

NLP/Peel, & Countryside Properties

Introductio n

421

Mr John Mackenzie

NLP/Peel, & Countryside Properties

Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS growth projections and the SHMA. Object on this basis and seek the identification of other sites in Carnforth to support the regeneration vision for the area. Housing development would strengthen the local economy and support regeneration of Carnforth. Area could accommodate more growth and Council should release Green Belt to support overall vision for the area, and distribution targets set out in the Core Strategy. Suggest Council looks beyond derelict sites to bring forward social, economic and environmental gains for the area.  Agree need to release greenfield land to meet Lancaster's housing needs and that sustainable urban extensions are required in South Lancaster. Specifically, support the release of Whinney Carr for residential development and associated infrastructure including a district centre.  Peel and Commercial Properties (PCP), and Commercial Estates Projects [CEP], control and will jointly develop the Whinney Carr development site. Support allocation of site for residential led development.  Attached Concept Diagram

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

for development in the representation.

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Consider minor change to show 231


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS shows a residential allocation on PCP land for approximately 1,000 dw, a District Centre on CEP's land, and a strategic link road between Scotforth Road and Ashford Road, over the West Coast Main Line (WCML).  PCP support principle of including a general policy relating to key development sites in South Lancaster. Support policy requirement that development at all of the key sites in South Lancaster (i.e. Whinney Carr, Bailrigg, Lancaster University Science Park, and Lancaster University) must contribute towards delivering a strategic link road between the A6 and A588 (Ashton Road), over the West Coast Main Line. PCP agree that the provision of a new link road through the Whinney Carr site is critical to achieving planned strategic growth in South Lancaster. Policy SOUTH1 should prioritise release of Whinney Carr for development in advance of other strategic sites.  PCP accept that development should incorporate sustainable construction and design practices, where viable, in order to minimise energy use and maximise energy efficiency.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

higher capacity figure, subject to viability and ability to deliver public benefits.

 Support noted. Policy SOUTH1 makes no reference to the prioritisation of development, but does refer to a strategic transport solution and legal collaboration between the various parties. Development of any of the land covered by Policy SOUTH1 requires agreement and funding commitment of the provision of transport infrastructure before planning consents are granted.

 Not necessary to include viability wording in the policy. Technical and financial viability should be undertaken by the applicants, and will be considered in assessing any planning application on the 232


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

422

NAME

Mr John Mackenzie

ORGANISATION

NLP/Peel, & Countryside Properties

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

District heating systems are expensive to implement and could undermine the viability of delivering these important strategic sites. Suggest that the last sentence of criterion (v) amended: "The feasibility and viability of district heating systems for this area should be investigated." …to ensure that scheme is technically feasible and financially viable. PCP offer to investigate feasibility and viability of district heating system in preparing their Masterplan. Policy SL1  PCP strongly support the (Whinney allocation of land at Whinney Carr Carr) for residential led development. Development of the site, and the associated delivery of the link road, is critical to achieving wider strategic growth in South Lancaster, in accordance with the spatial strategy. Submit that land at Whinney Carr must be brought forward for development as a priority.  Site could accommodate more than 900 dwellings as set out in PCP Development Statement and Concept Diagram, indicating that approximately 1,000 dwellings can be built west of the West Coast Main Line alone. First para of Policy SL1 should be amended

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Whinney Carr site. Minor change to clarify this.

 Support noted (although Policy SOUTH1 makes no reference to the prioritisation of development).

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Consider minor change to show higher capacity figure, subject to viability and ability to deliver public benefits.

233


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS to read: "....The Council expect approximately 1,000 dwellings to be constructed on this site."  PCP is working with CEP to prepare Masterplan for the whole of Whinney Carr. Masterplan will be discussed with the Council prior to submission of planning applications for the development of the area. Council’s preparation of a Development Brief could delay the development of the site. Development should comply with guidelines in an amended Policy SL1, as follows: - First sentence of second para should read: "The developers, in consultation with the Council, will prepare a development strategy and Masterplan to guide the development of this site." - First sentence of the third para should read: "In preparing any application the Council will require....."  Object to target of 40% affordable housing within the development. Policy requirement could undermine viability and deliverability. Affordable Housing Viability Study [AHVS 2010] provides no robust evidence that 40% affordable housing is viable on greenfield sites. Rather, it indicates that the inclusion of

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The Council will lead on the preparation of a Development Brief for the South Lancaster sites, and will expect to work closely with the owners, agents and potential developers of the various parcels of land.

 Viability evidence from the Housing Needs Assessment undertaken in 2012 supports the policy wording to seek approximately 40% affordable housing on this site. Consider using the expression “up to” – as a target instead of “approximately”.

234


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

423

NAME

Mr John Mackenzie

ORGANISATION

NLP/Peel, & Countryside

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 40% affordable housing would generate extremely low residual land values (even where developers had no abnormal costs) to the extent that there would not be sufficient incentive for the landowner to release the site, thereby preventing development. Criteria (xi) should be amended to state "approximately 30% of the residential units provided will be defined as affordable, subject to viability...."  DPD [para 10.8] specificaly refers to the need for the creation of a new local centre within the site, providing a range of community and commercial uses, including retail development, to assist in establishing a sustainable community. PCP broadly supports this but suggest policy and paragraph 10.8 should be amended to refer to a District Centre, anchored by a foodstore. This is on the basis that this is the scale of development that is required to address existing deficiencies and to meet the needs of new residents. The CEP site is the most appropriate location for this District Centre.  PCP strongly supports the specific identification of Whinney

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted, although the Land Allocation document does not include any reference to a District Centre: the Council has concerns about the location, scale and content of this proposal.

 Consider minor change to show higher capacity figure, modified

CHANGE CONSIDERED 235


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION Properties

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Carr as a housing allocation within Policy RES1, but consider the site is capable of accommodating approximately 1,000 dwellings, as set out in the Development Statement and the attached concept diagram. Site can deliver some housing within the first 5 year period (20122017). Anticipate that the site will deliver approximately 50dpa (based on 2 outlets on the site). Policy should be amended to show the following indicative phasing: 2012/13-2016/17 017/18-2012/22 2022/23-2023/24 100 250 100  Council's Housing Needs and Demands Survey (2011) indicates that there is a short term need for a net increase of 931 dpa (592 market and 339 affordable houses). Council's approach to retain the Core Strategy requirement of 400 dpa fails to accord with the NPPF [para 47].  Stresses the importance of the full adopted requirement being delivered as an absolute minimum, including the shortfall of 1,286 dw completions since 2003. Objects to DPD para 34.10 which states that the requirement

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

dates and indicative phasing?

 The council will review housing delivery.

 The council will review para 34.10.

236


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

424

Mr John Mackenzie

NLP/Peel, & Countryside Properties

425

Mr Steven Abbott

Booths Supermarkets

POLICY REF

Policy RET1

Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS of 400 dpa plus the backlog is undeliverable because of market conditions, infrastructure and environmental constraints. DPD should ensure that the policy framework supports the best and most efficient use of Whinney Carr, as a key strategic site, and ensure that it is brought forward as soon as possible to help address local needs.  DPD does not include an additional 20% buffer for the first 5 year period, as set out in NPPF para 47, equal to an additional 400 dw (resulting in a total requirement of 6,846 dw).

 Policy confirms that town centre, primary and secondary retail frontage boundaries for Lancaster and Carnforth are identified on the Local Plan Policies Proposals Map. PCP supports the provision of a District Centre at Whinney Carr. Recommend that the DPD be amended to show a District Centre boundary around the CEP site on the Policies Map, which can be referred to in Policy RET1.  Booths support this policy in principle subject to changes suggested to the maps.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Buffer calculations of 5% or 20% as set out in para 47 of the NPPF relate to the delivery of sites within a five year period, moved forward from later in the plan period. This does not increase the supply of land required in the plan period in the way stated, rather it re-schedules that supply. NO CHANGE  The DPD does not include any reference to a District Centre: the Council has concerns about the location, scale and content of this proposal.

 Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

237


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS The following detailed changes should be made to the policy:  Policy should state that none of the developments proposed should progress unless they are able to connect up by way of adoptable standard footways to existing adopted footways and cycleways, ie with no gaps at all, to ensure permeability throughout the area but also road safety.  Given the capacity issues affecting the local road network, reference needs to be made to the importance of taking account of commitments which will affect that road network, i.e. planning permissions.

 Amend Policy SOUTH1 to include reference to landscape considerations, given the approach taken to Whinney Carr in the past (the correct one) and the Secretary of State’s conclusions in August 2012.  Suggest that the following changes should be made to Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 This is a very detailed point, relating to the specific circumstances between Booths and CEP.

 Policy SOUTH1 makes no reference to the prioritisation of development, but does refer to a strategic transport solution and legal collaboration between the various parties. Development of any of the land covered by Policy SOUTH1 requires agreement and funding commitment of the provision of transport infrastructure before planning consents are granted. council will consider policy amendment to include more detail of the principles of funding transport infrastructure.  Landscaping matters considered in Policy SL1(ix).

 These points are detailed in respect of the Booths site, rather than the 238


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Policy SOUTH1 South Lancaster: - Insert new ‘I’ and re-order other points: “The land is sensitive in landscape terms due its particular drumlin land form (a local feature); prominent key ‘gateway’ location into Lancaster and trees affected by an extensive tree preservation order. The Development Brief must be based on a considered approach to these features using good practice used in design and access statements; and landscape and visual assessments (LVIAS) for such sites. The starting point must be the three dimensional context and its characteristic features.” - ‘I to ‘II’ to become ‘II’ to ‘III’ accordingly. - amend current III to IV as follows: “The relationship of each of the sites with existing and planned and committed adjacent development identifying how through design and access statements arrangements future development will enhance and complement each other and integrate with the surrounding area including existing residential areas and committed commercial or education

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

broader South Lancaster area. council will consider whether some aspects can be incorporated?

239


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

426

NAME

Mr Steven Abbott

ORGANISATION

Booths Supermarkets

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS sector areas.”  Amend para 9.1 to add the words ‘and educational’ after the word ‘employment’.  Welcome inclusion of the Link Road and needed for Whinney Carr to happen. However, it will not in itself solve problems with the A6 into Lancaster. Evidence heard at the public inquiry into CEP’s retail proposals for the A6 frontage land demonstrated that a detailed study is needed to establish the likely transfer of trips and the scale of development the Link Road will facilitate.

Policy SL1  Booths should be involved in (Whinney preparing Development Brief in Carr) conjunction with the Council, given their immediately adjacent interests. Support principle that a master plan is necessary – as has always been the case – to enable Whinney Carr to happen.  Suggested change to second para, first sentence to read: “Planning permission will not be granted in the absence of a Development Brief to guide the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Accept this minor change.  Policy SOUTH1 refers to a strategic transport solution and legal collaboration between the various parties. Development of any of the land covered by Policy SOUTH1 requires agreement and funding commitment of the provision of transport infrastructure before planning consents are granted. Policy needs to be amended to include more detail of the principles of funding transport infrastructure throughout the whole South Lancaster area (including any alternatives), the evidence to support the provision, and the benefits of each element (including triggers as appropriate).  The Council will lead on the preparation of a Development Brief for the South Lancaster sites, and will expect to work closely with the owners, agents and potential developers of the various parcels of land.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Consider revision, especially involving LVIA reference.

240


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS development of the site which has been approved by the council following consultation with the local community and stakeholders. The Brief should be informed by a robust Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).”  Welcome reference to ‘gateway’ site status in (ii) but see our comments on the need to refer to that factor in policy SOUTH1 South Lancaster as an important matter of principle.  Also on clause (ii) suggest reference made established and proven methodology for the production of design and access statements. - (ii) should be amended to read: “The submission of a detailed design and access statement…” etc.  On (iii) as with Policy SOUTH1 South Lancaster – care should be taken to refer to commitments, i.e. planning permissions, given those already affecting the local area – Lancaster Science Park and the approval for Booths new supermarket. - (iii) should be amended to read: “The relationship of the site with existing planned and committed (with planning permission)

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 See SOUTH1 response.

 Consider re-wording of clause (ii).

 Development of any of the land covered by Policy SL1 requires agreement and funding commitment of the provision of transport infrastructure before planning consents are granted. Policy needs to be amended to include more detail of the principles of funding transport infrastructure.

241


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS developments…” etc.  (v) should be amended to read: “….the West Coast Main Line, which runs through the centre of the site”.  On (ix) need to require an LVIA ahead of a ‘landscape plan’.  (ix) should be amended to read: “The Masterplan should be informed by a suitable and appropriate landscaping plan Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which takes a lead from the one required to inform the proposed Development Brief. which The Masterplan should also be accompanied by a comprehensive landscape plan. The landscape plan should seek to retain the existing natural features including the topography of the site, particularly the retention of important trees and the creation of landscape buffers between the proposed development and the Countryside to the South and West of the site. those trees which are subject to a tree preservation order”.  On (xii), the term ‘sustainable local centre’ is vague. Assume it is intended to be a local centre to serve Whinney Carr and involves Class A1-A5 uses, perhaps B1(a)

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Agree Minor Change.

 Agree Minor Change.  Consider minor amendment of LVIA section.

 Need to review as part of the consideration of whether part of the site is to be a District Centre.

242


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS and community uses. Suggest clause is more specific about land use and scale, particularly if Class A1 is involved. Otherwise, could lead to unnecessary problems later as a consequence if different parties taking different meanings from it. Concerns policy principles which should be established in the DPD so that there is clarity for everyone now (including those taking an interest) and for prospective developers. See also comment below on para 10.8.  (xii) should be amended to read: “Other key infrastructure constraints highlighted within the Development Brief should be addressed and incorporated into the master plan. This should address infrastructure issues such as improved educational and health care facilities in the locality, the creation of a sustainable local centre….” etc. and: “The local centre described above shall comprise facilities to serve the day to day needs of the neighbourhood and may comprise the following land uses A1-A5, B1(a) and Community facilities. No individual Class A1-A5 or B1(a)

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 If we decide to retain this area as a Local Centre, this suggested wording is useful.

243


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS unit should exceed ____m2 of gross floor space”.  Suggest rephrase para 10.2, as whilst Ashford Road provides a link between the A6 and A588 it is clearly undesirable as a means of servicing the west side of Whinney Carr per se. Suggest inserting the word ‘currently’ and qualify its capabilities, not just in itself but also because of the acknowledged traffic congestion point at the A6/Hala Road junction. The A6 to A588 link should cross Ashford Road as was planned when the previous Whinney Carr proposals came forward. The first part of that link road is, of course, already built.  Last sentence in 10.2 is misleading. Booths site should be excluded from the allocation as it is a commitment. Also land south of it does not enjoy planning permission for a food store. On the contrary, that land was the subject of a failed appeal against council’s refusal to grant planning permission for a food store – and on a number of material considerations – set out clearly by the Secretary of State, as recently as August 2012.  Para 10.3 describes the site as being ‘on the urban fringes’ of

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 No change, this is simply a factual description of what is there.

 The Booths site is a commitment but it is also part of Whinney Carr site. No change.

 No change.

244


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Lancaster. This could be read as meaning that the land is, in fact, ‘urban fringe’ by virtue of its use or character as is widely understood in landscape and planning circles. At the Public Inquiry into CEP’s proposals on part of the defined Whinney Carr site para 450 of the Inspector’s report stated: ‘Nevertheless, the rural area of which the appeal site forms part remains generally attractive. I do not consider it to have been severely compromised by development, or by its “urban fringe” location. Its pleasant appearance owes much to its softly rounded landform, which is characteristic of this drumlin landscape; and to the mature trees which grace the appeal site and adjacent land.’ Suggest that the Inspector’s description is more appropriate such that paragraph 10.2 should be extended.  On para 10.8, bullet point 3 concerns the same problem as identified above concerning the vagaries of Policy SL1 (xii) about the local centre. In para 10.8 the centre is just described as a ‘local centre’ comprising a range of community/commercial uses

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 There is no justification for the CEP site as a District Centre: the Council has concerns about the location, scale and content of this proposal.

245


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

which ‘should not be delivered purely as one retail unit’. Suggest that scope for this centre is defined now, in the policy, in terms of the use classes (or parts of them) and an indication of scale given. If only a local convenience shop for the neighbourhood is what is proposed, the policy should say so. Left as proposed the uncertainties of the paragraph are unhelpful to prospective developers and decision-makers in the future. Even at this stage it makes it impossible for those who have taken an interest – such as our clients – to make informed comments. Booths would object to another food store in Scotforth beyond the existing one in Hala Road and the approved new Booths one, on the basis that the Secretary of State endorsed Booths case (accepted by the Inspector) that current deficiencies can be met by Hala Road, the extant permission (new Booths) and the sequentially preferable (and now a proposed allocation in the LA DPD CD) Canal Corridor site. New Booths would be well located to act as part of the local facilities for existing and proposed residential

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

246


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID 427

428

NAME

ORGANISATION

Mr Steven Abbott

Booths Supermarkets

Mr & Mrs Hand

Local Residents

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

areas. Policy SL2  Concerned that there is no (Bailrigg phasing between Whinney Carr Lane) and Bailrigg Lane. Suggest that it would be sensible for Whinney Carr to be developed ahead of Bailrigg so that the vital infrastructure needed (the A6A588 road link in particular) is provided before Bailrigg comes on stream.  Material difference physically between Whinney Carr and Bailrigg which would represent the infilling of hitherto open land between the historic City boundary and the ‘campus’ University (including the extant LSP) which was always a separate entity to the City’s built up area. Policy  Access to the proposed housing RES1 allocation at Royal Oak Meadow Hornby via Hornby Bank and Royal Oak Meadow is not feasible due to the narrowness of the roads and parking issues. Some affordable housing for the young people in Hornby, who at present cannot afford to buy a property in Hornby would be a good thing (provided they are not the 3 storey type town houses!) but not for these to be accessed through Hornby Bank and Royal

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Clause (i) makes general reference to phasing, but there is no choice or preference made on the order of development or release of any of the component sites.

NO CHANGE

 Comment noted.

 Objection noted. There is no evidence submitted to suggest that access to the site via Royal Oak Meadow or Hornby Bank is ‘unfeasible’. Whilst both streets are residential these are not inappropriate for the scale of development proposed by Policy RES1.23 and to date no objections to the proposal has been received from Lancashire County Council Highways Department.

NO CHANGE

247


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID 429

NAME

ORGANISATION

Mr & Mrs Boyd

Local Residents

POLICY REF Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Oak Meadow.  Access to the land allocation at Royal Oak Meadow is not feasible via the A683 due to highway safety concerns. Access to the site via Hornby Bank or Royal Oak Meadow is not feasible because of the narrow access road causing unacceptable danger to local residents.  With regard to the Priory Lane site, access onto the main road is not feasible due to highway safety issues.  More thought needs to be given to where housing proposals should be located in the Hornby area.

430

Nicole Penfold

Gladman Developments

Policy RES1

 Gladman agree with the need to review the spatial strategy set in the 2008 adopted Core Strategy. This strategy had a focus on brownfield development and also regeneration. Gladman agree with the statement by the Council that there would be significant dangers in preparing a ‘Local Plan’ which placed an over reliance on constrained brownfield sites…”

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Objection noted. There is no evidence submitted to suggest that access to the site via Royal Oak Meadow or Hornby Bank is ‘unfeasible’. Whilst both streets are residential these are not inappropriate for the scale of development proposed by Policy RES1.23 and to date no objections to the proposal has been received from Lancashire County Council Highways Department.  Noted that significant issues arise in relation to the accessibility of the site at Priory Lane via a private road which has been confirmed as not available for potential use.  Further engagement work will take place within the Parish Council via the ‘Parish Partnerships Process’ to identify sites to address local housing needs.  Comment and Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

NO CHANGE

248


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

431

NAME

Mr & Mrs Nelson

ORGANISATION

Local Residents

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  It is recognised that it will not be possible for all development to be accommodated within the main settlements and therefore some development, appropriately designed and of a scale and kind that is benefiting of the rural villages should be encouraged. This will help to sustain village life and breathe impetus into the rural communities.  For the Local Plan to be considered sound, the distribution of housing needs to be directed towards sustainable locations, to meet the identified needs in the District.  Objections over the allocation of land for housing at Royal Oak Meadow due to significant highway issues, in terms of highway safety and accessibility to the site via both Hornby Bank and Royal Oak Meadow.

 Future development in Hornby should avoid stringing out development in an unattractive ribbon development.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Objection noted. There is no evidence submitted to suggest that access to the site via Royal Oak Meadow or Hornby Bank is ‘unfeasible’. Whilst both streets are residential these are not inappropriate for the scale of development proposed by Policy RES1.23 and to date no objections to the proposal has been received from Lancashire County Council Highways Department.  The Local Plan should seek to deliver sustainable development, which involves the identification of suitable sites within or on the edge of existing settlements; it is considered that this site represents

NO CHANGE

249


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Concern that Members of the Parish Council were not aware of the Consultation Events in Hornby.

432

433

Mr Tony Ewens

Ms Anneka Perry

Hornby St Margarets CofE Primary School

Drivers Jonas Deloitte/ University of Cumbria

Policy RES1

Policy EDC1

 Access from RES 1.24 to the A683 would be via Priory Lane, a single track, privately owned road, which joins the A683 close to the boundary of the school. School Governors unwilling to sell any of the land surrounding the school, and in any case this would require the permission of the Secretary of State.  Governing body is generally sympathetic to gradual, sensitively managed development in Hornby-withFarleton. While there is support for the provision of further affordable housing in the parish, concerned that demand for this type of housing satisfied by recent permissions and development.  Object to policy EDC1 which will restrict the University's future options to dispose of surplus estate. No reference in policy to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE a sustainable location to meet recognised housing needs.  The Parish Council were made fully aware of the Draft Preferred Options Consultation, via invitations to a Parish Council event on the Thursday 18th October 2012 and numerous emails and letter. Please note the response from the Parish Council in ID REF 335 of this report.  Comment and Support noted.

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Noted that significant issues arise in relation to the accessibility of the site at Priory Lane via a private road which has been confirmed as not available for potential use. Therefore this site will be removed from future drafts of the Land Allocations DPD.

 The council will review this policy.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

250


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS the potential surplus site, or the alternative uses that would be considered to be acceptable within a mixed use allocation. DPD does not include a mixed use allocation within the overall campus boundary as previously drawn in the 'Developing the Options': DPD refers to education uses only, despite previous engagement with the Council since 2010 which suggested mix of uses to be residential (C3) driven. Other acceptable uses could include education use, student accommodation and extra care housing. Residential element of any development within the overall mix of uses will make a positive contribution to the Council's Housing Trajectory. A mixed use allocation accords with the NPPF. Figure 1 illustrates the potential larger area of land that may become surplus during the plan period. University may wish to redevelop this area of land for University purposes in which case, D1 use (within the overall mix of uses), will provide long-term flexibility to the University.  Majority of the existing developed footprint is allocated under EDC1. Policies map pays no regard to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Check car park designation and consider amending policies map.

251


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

434

NAME

Ms Anneka Perry

ORGANISATION

Drivers Jonas Deloitte/ University of Cumbria

POLICY REF

Introductio n

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS the previous discussions and 'in principle' agreement with the Council regarding alternative uses for the surplus southern corner. Object to the Policies Map which shows car park (granted full planning permission in June 2011) allocated under Policy GR5 Key Urban Landscapes and Policy REC 1 Amenity. Car park should be treated as previously developed land and included within the developed campus footprint.  Core Strategy policy ER1 focuses on the regeneration benefits to Lancaster District of growth at Lancaster University and the University of Cumbria. It says that the Council wishes to see a masterplanned approach to the campuses of the University of Cumbria and Lancaster and Morecambe College. University recognises the importance of a masterplanned approach, particularly with regard to bringing surplus estate forward for redevelopment. Housing development (as a significant part of a mixed use scheme) has the potential to maximise regeneration, environmental and community benefits and increase the choice of housing and variety

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted.

NO CHANGE

252


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

435

Ms Anneka Perry

Drivers Jonas Deloitte/ University of Cumbria

Policy RES1

436

Mr Richard Anderson

Ministry of Justice

Policy EAST1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS of housing types within the area.  SHLAA analysis: site area approximately 1.73 ha. The University has suggested mixed use development for this site (C3, C2, D1). Junction improvement works may be required which will require alterations to the original barrack walls. Highways network impact will require further investigation but development of this area of the estate will not generate significant traffic issues. Development on this site is achievable within 5 years. University wish to work with the Council to agree masterplan. University has received a number of direct approaches from developers interested in the surplus estate. There may be an opportunity for the developer to work with the University in the implementation of their travel plan.  Land at HMYOI Lancaster Farms is no longer required for operational use. MoJ believe land suitable for residential development as shown on aerial photograph [nb not attached]; detailed plan will follow which will more clearly delineate the extent of the site. Suggest a specific set of policies are applied similar to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 This is a site suggestion, but one which requires quite a bit more work before it could be implemented. The council acknowledges the need to work with the University to clarify the university’s evidence and aspirations.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Comment noted. It is agreed that further consideration will be given to the future allocation of this site through future drafts of the Land Allocations DPD.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

253


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

437

NAME

Mr Damien Garner

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

that for Ridge Lea and Moor Hospital (e.g. “EL6” and “RES 1.28”) indicating site characteristics in more detail including the expected number of dwellings it can accommodate. Policy SL2  Proposals will have a significant, (Bailrigg) detrimental impact on our home environment and our feeling of happiness and wellbeing. Worried about the effect this development will have on the value of our house. If the development proposals go ahead we will seek compensation for any adverse impact this has upon us.  Currently 485 properties (noncommercial/non-retirement) for sale in Lancaster itself alone. Of these, 377 are under £200,000 and 315 for sale at £150,000 or less (The average house price in Lancaster being around £150,000 and therefore this represents a considerable number of affordable houses). If there is such demand and such a shortage of housing available in Lancaster why are so many properties on the market unsold? We would also be interested to know if there is already land in and around Lancaster which is already owned by developers and has been granted planning

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Comments noted. A reduction in property values is not a material consideration in determining the most sustainable location for future development.

NO CHANGE

 Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need. This document is available to download via the Council website.

254


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS permission but which is ‘banked’ for future development at the most profitable time? Assertions that housing market is harmed by the difficulty people have in raising finance.  Concern that large numbers of properties in Lancaster unavailable for purchase by local people because of people owning a large number of properties for the rental market. This rental market has an effect on the supply and demand of housing for sale which drives prices up at the expense of local people looking to get on the property ladder. Is there a possibility of addressing this issue as a way to improve housing availability in the area?  Concern that the council is motivated by the financial incentive of hitting government led new housing targets.  Concern that proposals will be detrimental to the aesthetic and character of Lancaster and identity of the city.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The lack of housing opportunities available to many sectors of the community is the reason why the Council is committed to identifying and meeting housing needs, and why as a result the Council has introduced Policy CSC4.2 on affordable housing. The other mechanism at work is the recent increase in provision of student accommodation in the City, which has the potential to release properties previously occupied by students back onto the general housing market  The Council have a statutory legal responsibility to meet its objectively assessed housing needs as set out within the NPPF (paragraph 47). This is not a financial objection more a legal requirement.  Whilst the principle of development on Greenfield location will change the character of the locality there is no evidence to suggest that development will not be designed sensitively and sympathetically to the character of the area. Indeed Policies within the Development 255


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 DPD refers specifically in Section 22 to the southern approach to Lancaster via the A6 as of particular importance. Concern that Lancaster will become a heavily congested housing estate.  Land at Bailrigg is valuable for recreation. It is important not to underestimate the value of such areas to the feeling of well being of communities and residents which once lost cannot be replaced. Therefore development of Brownfield Sites should be the focus for Lancaster which would greatly improve its sense of health and vibrancy and aesthetic and have knock on effects of attracting tourism and business as well as addressing housing needs without the loss of Greenfield sites.  Bailrigg area is also valuable for wildlife providing habitat, biodiversity and a green corridor for a variety of flora and fauna Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Management DPD, specific Policies in the Land Allocations DPD and guidance in the forthcoming Development Brief for South Lancaster will be quite clear over the need for good quality design which is in keeping with the locality.  Policy CSC1 of the Development Management DPD (Section 22) sets out that development in gateway locations (such as this one) should be of a high standard. This Policy does not however prohibit development taking place in gateway locations.  The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs, and so sites such as Bailrigg Lane have been identified for development. The master planning approach to the development of the Bailrigg Lane site will enable appropriate land to be identified for recreational use.

 The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as 256


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS including established hedgerows. There are many bird species, insects and butterflies, small mammals (including bats) and amphibians active on and around the site.

 Concern about flooding and drainage for any proposed housing development on the site at Bailrigg; there are already existing problems of this nature in the area and our concerns are that further development would exacerbate the problems for existing residents. Concern about potential traffic congestion and road capacity. Disagree that the impact (when coupled with the effects of the Science Park and ever expanding University) will be mitigated by a bus route and a cycle path. (Policy SOUTH 1 (ii)). Expect 1650 additional houses to have an average of 2-4 people and at least 2 cars. To a city the size of Lancaster and its proportionate existing infrastructure this is a significant increase. Don’t believe that people will use buses and bicycles in sufficient numbers to Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

sustainably as possible. Policies exist within the Development Management DPD, Land Allocations DPD and forthcoming Development Brief which will seek to protect important and designated species and habitats along with planning positively for the natural environment through development proposals.  The council will continue to liaise with Lancashire County Council Highways Department. the Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that development can deliver improvements to the local road network and can be accommodated within existing drainage regulations.

257


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

have a significant, mitigating impact. Concern that there will not be jobs for new residents. Will people living outside Lancaster be prevented from purchasing these houses so that they can meet the demand of Lancastrians? Roads are already at capacity in and around Lancaster (over capacity at times) and the suggestion of a link road with the A588 being a solution seems unlikely as this road is itself already often congested, particularly at peak times. This solution seems at best to be one which moves congestion around. Concerns about the effect on air quality for all residents concerned but also Galgate which is mentioned specifically as a sensitive area for air quality/pollution in the DPD. (Section 19.2) At present, and at rush hours in particular, the traffic on the A6 adjacent/near to the proposal site is already backed up through Galgate, south of Lancaster and beyond junction 33 of the M6. Concerned about the proportionate increase in demand on local services, many of which

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Whilst the Local Plan addresses housing needs it also addresses future employment growth with sites allocated for employment growth at Lancaster Science Park, Lancaster Canal Corridor, the Port of Heysham and the range of other allocated employment sites throughout the District. However, the planning system should not and will not seek to dictate where people should live or work.

 The centre of Galgate has been identified as a Air Quality Management Area but to the levels of traffic which use the A6 in this area. However, there is no evidence provided as part of this response to suggest that the proposed development to the South of Lancaster will unacceptably affect air quality levels in the Galgate area.

 These matters are covered in Policies SOUTH1, SL1 and SL2, 258


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

438

Mr Shaun Welsh

439 440

NOT USED Dr G.A. Steele

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

Health & Safety Executive/ Office of Nuclear Regulation-

Policy HEY2

Local Resident

Policy OPP5

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS are already stretched, such as healthcare, schooling etc. These concerns are also once again related to those of traffic congestion as there will be an increase in school traffic, both in terms of school buses and cars doing the school run, and the fact that the A588 is often congested around the hospital as it is (Policy  SOUTH1 (IV)).  Nominated site for Heysham 3 subject to consultation with DECC, as appropriate, ONR may say something along these lines:  “The promoters of the proposed new build site at Heysham may also have an interest in seeking to ensure that any proposed development in the surrounding area does not compromise their ability to deliver on the UK's National Policy Statement, nomination of the site near 'Heysham' as being potentially suitable for a new nuclear power station.” Has EDF been consulted and commented on your Local Plan?  I would like to be involved in the planning process. The SLDC LDF public inquiry is suspended, probably for several months so the council is now the lead body

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

and will be developed in the Development Brief and the Master planning process for developing the sites. They will also be informed by close liaison with the County Council education service and the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group.

 Comment noted. It is agreed to include this revised wording within future drafts of Policy HEY2 of the Land Allocations DPD.

CHANGE REQUIRED

 The Local Authority have a statutory responsibility to prepare and publish a Local Development Plan for their area. This Local Plan should be in accordance with National Planning

NO CHANGE

259


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS for a local plan covering the AONB.

 For nearly 40 years I have been concerned that planners and the planning process from the Government Office in the North West downwards have been the masters and not the servants of rural communities. The importance of their well being has constantly been devalued.

441

Helen Easton

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH1

 Objection to the allocation of Greenfield sites to the South of Lancaster.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE Policy and seek to deliver opportunities for growth, meet current and future development needs and protect areas of value, whether this be social, economic or environmental value.  It should be recognised that in preparing a Local Plan it is difficult to balance the completing, if not opposing views over its approaches to policy and land allocation. It is therefore the Council’s responsibility to make a balanced, impartial view over planning policies and the delivery of sustainable growth and development. It is believe the delivery of this Local Plan represents that. Every individual who makes a response on a Local Plan document will be kept informed of its progress (provided that contact details have been provided).  Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The delivery of sustainable growth and development, irrespective of their Greenfield or Brownfield location is in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

260


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 In my opinion, the development of brownfield sites has not been fully explored. As far as I understand it this is contrary to National Planning Policy which prioritises brownfield sites.

 The purposes of a Local Plan are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible. The Council’s view is that the delivery of development on a range of brownfield and Greenfield sites represents the most sustainable approach to meeting the needs of this generation and future generations.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways team, Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality. This is referred to in Policy SOUTH1 within the Land Allocations DPD.  Comment and Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 The cumulative effect of a Bailrigg Business Park and the proposed new housing developments will put huge pressure on the highways infrastructure and will ruin this pleasant green area which makes south Lancaster so attractive. 442

Judith Nelson

English Heritage

 Policy EAST1 rightly underlines the key role which a range of significant heritage assets play in defining the character of the areas. In total approximately 1,200 dwellings have been proposed for East Lancaster and ongoing dialogue between English Heritage, the council and Developers will be required to ensure positive outcomes for the historic environment as a whole.  We note and support Policy EL2 which seeks to retain the Cricket

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

261


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

443

NAME

C.J Manson

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Pitch at Lancaster Moor Hospital.  However English Heritage remain concerned about the potential harmful impact on the setting of the historical environment in the area, in particular development at Grab Lane. In allocating the Grab Lane site the policy includes provision that proposals should demonstrate that there will not be an unacceptable impact on the setting of heritage assets. However in allocating the site a principle of development will already have been set. Therefore evidence should be provided at this stage that there will be no substantial impacts on the setting of the heritage asset.  Objection raised to the allocation of housing at Cove Drive for the following reasons.  A number of properties are already on the market in the village and are not selling which demonstrated there is insufficient demand for housing in the area.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Agreed that further evidence work is required to understand the impacts on this locality both in terms of the landscape and the setting of heritage assets. This work is currently underway and will inform future drafts of the Land Allocations DPD.

 Objection noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 The housing which is for sale in the village is of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the Silverdale area, in particularly younger people. The consequence of not addressing such an issue will be to result in a village and community which is not demographically sustainable in the long term. To suggest that development needs should not be addressed purely on the basis it is 262


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 The land is geologically unsound and has issues with drainage and flooding issues. Proposed development would make a mockery of the AONB status of Silverdale through the development of a Greenfield site and important ecological habitats. The social needs of the community are being disregarded. Opposition to the plans in terms of the noise, dirt and general disruption caused via the construction process. Increased housing numbers will place increased traffic and schools would not cope with the sudden rise in population.  The Council should work in the interests of tax payers and therefore if there are sufficient objectors then the proposed development should not go ahead.  Any further development in the Silverdale area should be directed towards brownfield sites and any future housing in the Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

located within the AONB is not realistic and would result in longer term social issues for communities within AONBs.  There is no evidence to suggest that the scale of development proposed in Silverdale (Circa 27 dwellings) would have significant impacts on the rural character of the village. The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways and educations team, United Utilities and the Environment Agency to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure through new development. Further investigations will be undertaken in relation to flood risk. Further investigation work will be undertaken in relation to the drainage and flood risk issues that face this site prior to future drafts of the document.  Agreed that Council should work in the interests of all taxpayers in the District, regardless of demographic, to ensure that a appropriate balance is struck between the protection of areas of value and the need to meet the needs of both current and future generations.  The council will welcome the opportunity to work with Parish Councils to seek to meet their current and future development 263


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

444

NAME

R. & J.M Halstead

ORGANISATION

Local Residents

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS village should be only occupied by local people.

 Objection raised to the proposed development in Hornby.  Concern over the potential access to the potential housing site at Royal Oak Meadow via the existing estate as the roads in this location are very narrow and congested.

 Questions raised over the recognised housing needs, there are a number of properties available in the Hornby area which remain unsold.

 Concern that any new development will detract visually from the village and will lead to Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

needs in the most sustainable manner. However, should Parish Council’s fail to address the housing needs of all sections of their community the Council will seek to address development needs in the most suitable and sustainable locations possible through the preparation of the Local Development Plan. CHANGE  Objection noted. CONSIDERED  There is no evidence submitted to suggest that access to the site via Royal Oak Meadow or Hornby Bank cannot be achieved. Whilst both streets are residential these are not inappropriate for the scale of development proposed by Policy RES1.23 and to date no objections to the proposal has been received from Lancashire County Council Highways Department.  The Housing Needs and Demands Study undertaken in 2011 suggests that the housing needs of the District are acute and significant, therefore the Local Plan needs to seek to address such issues with the allocation of land for new housing to meet current and future generations.  There is no evidence to suggest that proposed development within Hornby will detract from the visual 264


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

445

Mrs L Willis - Smith

Local Resident

Policy OPP2

446

Mrs BM Fairbarn

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

more light pollution.  Building new houses may affect the value of existing homes in the village.

 There was insufficient publicity of the consultation event.

 The site at Priory Lane is not feasible or deliverable as key landowners are unwilling to see the site come forward for development.

 The site should seek to provide an element of sheltered accommodation given its central location.  Objection raised to the development proposed at Whinney Carr and Bailrigg, South Lancaster.

 There should be a priority

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

character of the area not lead to an increase in light pollution. The fluctuation of an individuals property prices, either increase or decrease, is not a material planning consideration. As part of this consultation exercise the Council prepared and published a leaflet which was distributed to every household in the District via the Royal Mail. This was supplemented by articles in the Local Press and within ‘Your District Matters’ – the Council’s own newsletter which again is distributed to every household in the District. It is noted that significant issues arise in relation to the accessibility of the site at Priory Lane via a private road which has been confirmed as not available for potential use. Therefore this site will be removed from future drafts of the Land Allocations DPD. The current policy wording for Policy OPP2 provides the flexibility for the provision of sheltered accommodation on this site. Objection noted. The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. There is no evidence to suggest

ACTION

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

265


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS towards the re-use of brownfield sites and not the development of green fields. There is sufficient housing within the Lancaster area already, with many houses on the market for sale and rent.  There is insufficient highways capacity in the local road network.

447

Matthew Fogg

Local Resident

Policy CWL1

 Concern raised over the proposed Canal Corridor Development in relation to increases in local traffic, damaging the historic aesthetic of the city centre and the current retail offer.

 Has consideration been given to a further junction being provided to the East of Lancaster in the proximity of Grab Lane.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE that the available homes in the Lancaster area are appropriate to meet all local needs for size, location and affordability. Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District.  The council will continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as County Council highways and education teams to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to key infrastructure in the locality if it is required. This is highlighted within Policy SOUTH1.  Concern noted. It is felt that the policy wording currently proposed for Policy CWL1 will sufficiently address the issues raised. City Centre currently lacks opportunities to deliver a retail offer which will improve the local economy. In particular there is a lack of retail units which are fit for modern retail purposes. The Canal Corridor Scheme will provide modern retail accommodation and will benefit the town’s economy through investment and job creation.  The creation of a new motorway junction to the East of Lancaster which be extremely expensive and may not offer the most sustainable solution to highways issues in that area.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

266


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

448

Paul Williams

Local Resident

449

Jeanne Holden

Local Resident

POLICY REF Policy RES1

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Concern over the proposed development in Silverdale, the recent development of housing for 6/8 houses in the village will be sufficient for the 15 year life of the Local Plan. All rural communities should take a proportionate level of development not just Silverdale.

 Concern noted. There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale does not require further housing over the forthcoming 15 years. To maintain a healthy and sustainable community the creation of appropriate housing to meet the needs of current and future generations of Silverdale will be critical to the village’s long term viability. The allocations within the Local Plan seek to ensure that development is directed to settlements which have, or have good access to, key services. As policy RES1 demonstrates allocations have been made in other rural settlements and the Council will continue to engage with Parishes over the identification of further sustainable locations for development.  Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

 I am of the opinion that change and development can be a positive thing as long as it is done sensitively. All communities need different types of affordable housing to keep the community a diverse one. Families with young children are essential to keep the community working well. Silverdale should not be seen as a retirement village, it needs to embrace all members of the community young and old.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

NO CHANGE

267


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

450

Anne Imm

Local Resident

451

Laura Middleton

Local Resident

POLICY REF Policy RES1

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 In relation to future development in Silverdale, can the proposed building site at the former Appleby on Emesgate Lane not be included in the council quota for new housing and so take pressure off Greenfield sites?

 Comment noted. The council will welcome the opportunity to work with Parish Councils to seek to meet their current and future development needs in the most sustainable manner. However, should Parish Council’s fail to address the housing needs of all sections of their community the Council will seek to address development needs in the most suitable and sustainable locations possible through the preparation of the Local Development Plan.  Further investigations will be undertaken in relation to flood risk. Further investigation work will be undertaken in relation to the drainage and flood risk issues that face this site prior to future drafts of the document. To date no objections have been received from either the Environment Agency or United Utilities.  The provision of new housing not only provides the opportunity to maintain a healthy and balance community with the creation of appropriate housing to meet current and future generations any sustainable growth in population will assist in securing the long-term viability of key services within the village.  As with any standard consultation

NO CHANGE

 In relation to development at Cove Drive, Silverdale what account has been taken of current flooding and drainage issues on site?

 How will the provision of new housing benefit the village?

 Nobody at the consultation event Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

CHANGE CONSIDERED

268


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

453

Wendy House

Local Resident

Policy RES1

454

M.C. Ryan

Local Resident

Policy RES1

455

Robert Swain

Local Resident

Policy OPP2

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS was taking notes at the consultation event at Silverdale

 My comment and understanding on housing in Silverdale is that it is needed. I myself rent from the Council and if it wasn't for the available housing I would not know where I would be today. Silverdale has a lot to offer people and not just a way of rest.  Objection raised to proposed allocation of land at Coastal Road, Bolton-le-Sands.

 This proposed housing development will block the best view of the Lakeland Hills from the canal and canal towpath. The towpath and canal are very well used and are an amenity for all. Once blocked by housing it is gone forever. There are plenty of other places to build houses, very few of this proposed housing will be for affordable housing!  This site is very suitable for mixed use, including residential and

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

event to have any comment registered formally these must be made in writing. Many, if not all the comments, received on that day are reflected within this consultation report.  Comment noted.

NO CHANGE

 Objection noted. It is felt that the site at Coastal Road, Bolton-leSands provides a good opportunity to deliver sustainable development and address local housing need, particularly in an area which has significant policy constraints in terms of Green Belt.  There is no evidence to support the notion that development of this site will automatically result in the loss of views from either personal properties of the canal towpath. Sensitive layout and design of new development would sufficiently address these issues.

NO CHANGE

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

269


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

457

NAME

J. Murton

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS possibly a budget priced hotel. It needs to be considered for attracting more tourists to the area. There is good opportunity for tourist development in Carnforth. Of prime importance is the reinstatement to make use of the main line platforms, which research suggests have not been closed, just that trains do not stop at them.  Objection raised to development in Hornby, what study has been undertaken to establish a housing demand in Hornby?

 The site identified at Royal Oak Meadow has significant issues over its access from Melling Road and use of a residential road of Hornby Bank and Royal Oak Meadow.

 Questions raised over whither local infrastructure such as drainage could cope with further housing. Existing flood problems exist in the village and further Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Objection noted. The Council undertook a Housing Needs and Demands Survey in 2011 which identifies acute and significant need of market and affordable housing across the District. This Survey is available to download on the Council website.  There is no evidence submitted to suggest that access to the site via Royal Oak Meadow or Hornby Bank is not feasible or appropriate. Whilst both streets are residential these are not inappropriate for the scale of development proposed by Policy RES1.23 and to date no objections to the proposal has been received from Lancashire County Council Highways Department.  Equally there is no evidence that a development of this scale (20 dwellings) will place unacceptable and inappropriate strain on local infrastructure. To date no objection

NO CHANGE

270


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS development would exacerbate this.  Views from our property would be affected as would house values which would be greatly affected.

 The development would result in the loss of agricultural land.

458

Mr & Mrs Staveley

Local Residents

Policy RES1

 Access to the land allocation at Royal Oak Meadow is not feasible via the A683 due to highway safety concerns. Access to the site via Hornby Bank or Royal Oak Meadow is not feasible because of the narrow access road causing unacceptable danger to local residents.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE to the proposal site have been received by United Utilities or the Environment Agency.  Personal views from property and any fluctuation in property values (either increases or decreases) are not a material planning matter and would not be a reason to remove this allocation from the Local Plan.  Whilst the development of this site would be the loss of a greenfield and opportunities for continuing agricultural use there is no evidence there is no evidence that there is overriding needs to maintain this site for agricultural purposes. Whilst it is acknowledged that the loss of agricultural land should be avoided where possible this is not always achievable and it is felt that the need to meet the local housing needs outweigh the loss of agricultural potential.  Objection noted. There is no evidence submitted to suggest that access to the site via Royal Oak Meadow or Hornby Bank is not feasible or appropriate. Whilst both streets are residential these are not inappropriate for the scale of development proposed by Policy RES1.23 and to date no objections to the proposal has been received from Lancashire County Council Highways Department.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

271


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID 459 460

NAME

ORGANISATION

NOT USED Mr Chris Hart

Local Resident

POLICY REF Policy RET1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

 Concerned about overdevelopment that will lower the quality of life for residents and the fabric of the city (eg Lancaster Castle, Canal Corridor). OK to develop castle and make most of the Centros site into community parks or other community facilities - we own it and let’s keep it that way.

NO CHANGE  The Local Plan seeks to identifiy plans for future economic growth in the District, this includes housing sites and proposals for town centre expansion at Lancaster Canal Corridor. All proposals have been carefully researched and evidenced: the Council’s ownership of land on the Canal Corridor site is expressly to facilitate development (which may include some community facilities), not to provide a community park.  The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. The delivery of new and necessary infrastructure will be a key component of future development to the East of Lancaster that is clearly suggested in Policy EL1 criterion (xi). Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the South of Lancaster, with aspects of the requirements developed in Policy SL1. Further investigation will be undertaken by the City and County Councils to produce and deliver a Highways and Transport Masterplan which will ensure that

 Need to maximise the brownfield sites for housing. Concern about Grab Lane, Whinney Carr and other greenfield sites. Must protect the water table and all these developments need new doctors dentists and hospital places, council services etc - also roads and transport - I am not convinced.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

ACTION

272


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

461

NAME

Mr Brain Scragg

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 We need more imaginative housing projects like the cohousing in Halton. We need fully integrative housing heating transport are waste systems.  Lancaster is already quite ghettoized - Haverbreaks fenced off for the rich, Ryelands and Ridge hidden and ill resourced on the edge - do these plans really look at social and ecological planning?  Responsible for running a private treatment plant in Silverdale, operative for the past 10 years and has passed regular EA tests ensuring that outflows reach the approved standard of cleanliness. Concerned that most sewage treatment plants in village are cess pits which are desludged on an irregular basis with untested outflows emptying into the bay. Great consideration needs to be given to waste disposal in a village which has no main drainage.  Support DPD requirement for developers to install proper treatment plants in any new build sites. However, concern that

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

appropriate measures are taken to deal with all aspects of travel and traffic, including congestion at the Pointer Roundabout.  Comment noted. SOUTH1 is an example of a policy requiring the investigation of district heating systems for the area.  The DPD is a spatial plan whose purposes are not only to protect the natural environment but also meet future generations’ development needs as sustainably as possible.  Comment noted. The Council acknowledges the constraint that Silverdale properties are not on mains drainage.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted. The DPD cannot insist on United Utilites installing a mains drainage system.

273


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

462

NAME

Ms Jane Lambert

ORGANISATION

Local Resident

POLICY REF

Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS United Utilities are not required to install main drainage system in the village for the foreseeable future. The result is that no improvement in the quality of outflows from the older cess pits is likely to occur.  Concern is that future purchasers of new build houses will be informed of legal responsibilities and costs. An element of control at the planning stage is clearly necessary to ensure that would be purchasers are fully informed of their obligations.  A site at the bottom of Shore Road frequently has water standing on it. Drainage of this site could be a problem.  Silverdale is within an area of outstanding natural beauty. There are already too many houses in this area. I am against future development of new sites. There are plenty (52 in fact) empty properties, buy some of these and convert them into 'low cost' housing - a much cheaper and more sensible option. Keep urbanisation to the urban areas. We do need cheap, affordable houses to keep the village 'alive' but not in the way you want to do it.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 These matters are always the subject of conditions at the time of consent. The Council is not responsible for ensuring that planning conditions are passed on to subsequent owners, this is a matter for the owner’s conveyancing solicitors.  Comments noted.

 There is no evidence to suggest that Silverdale does not require further housing over the forthcoming 15 years. To maintain a healthy and sustainable community the creation of appropriate housing to meet the needs of current and future generations of Silverdale will be critical to the village’s long term viability. The housing which is for sale in the village is of a significant size and value which would preclude many sections of the community from living in the Silverdale area, in particularly younger people. The Council has

NO CHANGE

274


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 The sewage system cannot cope.

463

Mr & Mrs John and Magda Westmorela nd

Local Residents

Policy RES1

 Object to allocation of land at Coastal Road [Bolton-le-Sands] for housing. 1000 signatures petition should not be ignored proposed development is not fit for the area around and would remove agricultural land.  Essential that integrity of the canal side bank be preserved together with access to maintain it. Further points of access from the proposed development may erode or obstruct these requirements. Vista of the Lake District from the canal towpath and existing housing should be kept as an amenity.  Although we were advised that increased traffic flows would be acceptable there are safety issues, traffic speeds down the hill from the A6 - a vulnerable bus stop - and a possible problem turning into the proposed site from the Morecambe direction.  There is ample housing of all

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE no plans or funds available to buy and rent new housing: it operates in conjunction with Registered Providers to acquire or build low affordable housing.  Comment noted. The Council acknowledges the constraint that Silverdale properties are not on mains drainage.  This site has been carefully assessed and is a sustainable location for housing development.

ACTION

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted. All such matters will be dealt with when the Council receives and considers a planning application.

 The council will continue to liaise with County Council highways team to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the local road network through new development.  Evidence in the District’s 2011 275


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS types including flats for rent or sale in the area.

 We understand that the developers do not own the entire proposed site - how can this development be executed?  Understand that surge tanks are already proposed for storm water. However, temporary flooding already occurs at the beginning of Whitendale Drive after heavy rains. This suggests that the coastal road main drain is already undersized and unable to cope. This does not seem acceptable and the additional burden of the proposed developments will aggravate it.  Many brownfield sites exist in the area (eg between Bulk Road and Kingsway in Lancaster which has not changed in over 40 years.) Not enough has been done to use brownfield sites.

 Comments that existing school, shopping and medical provisions Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need.  Information available to the Council confirms that development on this site is deliverable during the timescale of the Local Plan.  The council will continue to liaise with the Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that appropriate improvements are delivered to the key infrastructure in the locality through new development.

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. There is no evidence to suggest that brownfield sites will remain derelict and un-used through the life of the Local Plan (15 years) as a consequence of allocating Greenfield sites.  Comments noted. The DPD does not go into the detail of improving 276


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

464 465

NOT USED Ms E Wright

466

Mr W M Fairbairn

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

Wright Design Partnership

Policy RES1

Local Resident

Policy SOUTH1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS are adequate seem to overlook the fact that parking for these is already difficult.  Submission of site on behalf of client, Mr E Mackereth for land and buildings at Harrison Farm, Whittington for consideration as being appropriate for residential use. Currently an active farm: the farmhouse is a listed building. Acknowledge that Whittington benefits from most of the services which would make it a service centre and its relationship with Kirkby Lonsdale should allow serious consideration of this site for housing.  The council at present prefers to permit the building of houses on brownfield sites. This policy should be continued and should be stated explicitly in the new district local plan. There is planning permission within the district for over 3000 houses and building on those sites should be completed before new areas are identified for housing estates.  There should be clear statements about the proportion of affordable housing and accommodation for rent. The present rate of provision of these is certainly inadequate but any new build should be

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

car parking at individual premises.

 The Council will consider this site for a residential allocation through the next SHLAA update.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 The Land Allocations DPD anticipates that most housing needs will be met on brownfield sites. However, this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs. There is no evidence to suggest that brownfield sites will remain derelict and un-used through the life of the Local Plan (15 years) as a consequence of allocating Greenfield sites.  Clear affordable housing policies are set out within Policies SL1, SL2 and CSC4.2.

NO CHANGE

277


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

467 468

NOT USED Mr Ian Kershaw

469

Mr Ian Kershaw

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

Guinness Northern Counties

Areas of Strategic Growth

Guinness Northern Counties

Areas of Strategic Growth

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS concentrated centrally in the city.  The suggested large allocation of land for housing in south Lancaster needs to be reconsidered in respect of the consequent increase in traffic. There must be no new housing in South Lancaster until the traffic problems on the A6 are solved. Otherwise the quality of life for the residents in South Lancaster will be greatly diminished, as would the occupants of newly built houses.

 Where specific sites are mentioned – e.g. Land at Whinney Carr – the definition of affordable housing in perpetuity will be unpalatable to some RPs who may be unable to secure private finance at all or at least at as attractive rates. Simply put without private finance we can not develop. If the term affordable housing refers to 50% rent and 50% LCHO, where the premise is that owners can staircase out, this means this tenure can not be in perpetuity.  Lancaster Hospital pg 47 doesn’t stipulate % of affordable housing. No mention of affordable (%) at

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Policy SOUTH1 of the Land Allocations DPD specifically identifies the need for highway improvements in the South of Lancaster, with aspects of the requirements developed in Policy SL1. Further investigation will be undertaken by the City and County Councils to produce and deliver a Highways and Transport Masterplan which will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to deal with all aspects of travel and traffic, including congestion at the Pointer Roundabout.  The council is aware of these difficulties, and will consider a qualification to the definition, which will be explained in the Glossary.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Policy CSC4.2 (in the DM DPD) applies on all sites not having a specific affordable housing

NO CHANGE

278


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Nightingdale Hall Farm, Ridge Lea Hospital, Wyresdale Rd, Lancaster Corridor (pg 49, 51, 53 and 56). Similar for the sites at Luneside, Lundsfield Quarry, Keer Bridge & Halton Mills (pg 61, 88, 92, 103) . Potential of contamination based on previous use associated with boilers or heating oil storage or waste disposal. Potential of contamination based on previous use associated with boilers or heating oil storage or waste disposal. Potential of contamination based on previous use associated with boilers or heating oil storage. Potential of contamination due to former landfill site.

470

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy EL2 

471

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy EL4 

472

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy CWL2

473

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy CWL5

474

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy HEY1

475

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy HEY2

 Potential for contamination due to previous/current uses in the locality.  Potential for contamination due to previous use and former landfill site located within this area.

476

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy HEY3

477

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy HEY4

 Potential for contamination due to previous use and a number of former landfill sites are located within this area.  Potential for contamination due to previous use associated with heating system.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

percentage.

 Add this information into SHLAA records and the consideration of planning applications.

NO CHANGE

 Add this information into SHLAA records and the consideration of planning applications.

NO CHANGE

 This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.  This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.  This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.  This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications or the preparation of Development Consent Orders.  This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.

NO CHANGE

 This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

279


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

478

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

POLICY REF Policy RES1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 There are a number of proposed residential developments located on brown field land which have not been specifically referenced (i.e. Albion Mills, Heysham Road Depot). Section 34.13 does refer to contamination.  No reference to contamination specifically in this section. Text does not indicate that land contamination will be taken into account.  If there is previous contaminative land use then should indicate that ground contamination is fully investigated prior to commencement of development on site and that suitable remediation measure are adopted.  Potential for contamination due to previous use.

 Comments noted. The Council will add extra text to policy RES1 to describe the key features of each development site.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

479

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy EMP1

 Comments noted. The Council will review wording in this section and the DM DPD on contamination.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

480

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy OPP1

 This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.

NO CHANGE

481

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy OPP3

 This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.  This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.  This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.  This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.  This information will be relevant for the consideration of planning applications.

NO CHANGE

482

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy OPP5

483

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy EDC1

 No reference to potential contamination but this will be site specific.  Unsure if there is a potential for contamination.

484

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy EDC2

 Unsure if there is a potential for contamination.

485

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

Policy EDC3

 Unsure if there is a potential for contamination.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE

280


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

486

Mr Jeremy Pickup

Environment Agency

487

Mr Philip Cork

POLICY REF Policy RES1

Policy HEY4

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Development proposals at Cove Road, Silverdale should be subject to: i) Full consideration should be given to the potential impact of any development on the effective functioning of the drainage field serving the school sewage treatment plant. ii) No development should take place on the area occupied by the drainage field. iii) The potential effects on the effectiveness of the drainage field of development adjacent to it should be taken into consideration. Lancaster County Council should be contacted to ascertain how this relatively new drainage field is performing. If there are problems with performance then one option for addressing this may be to extend the existing drainage field, an option that would be removed should the location be developed. iv) Consideration should also be given to how sewage treatment needs of any development at this location would be met.  Housing land is clearly needed in Lancaster district In the future, and it is logical that as much brownfield land such as the remaining former Pontins land,

 Comments noted. council will take these comments into consideration in reviewing development options on this site.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 This is consistent with the wording of Policy HEY4.

NO CHANGE

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

281


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS should be allowed to make its contribution. The site already has planning permission for a retirement village, and is immediately available for development. There is therefore no reason why the land should not remain in that allocation.  There is little apparent demand In the Heysham area for land for major commercial uses, and modern office space is presently on offer at the new Heysham Health Centre. As the retirement village grows there may be demand for smaller commercial uses, such as shops, treatment rooms, hairdressers etc, appropriate to a residential area. These uses could be accommodated within the retirement village, subject to planning permission, without the need to make a specific Commercial Land Use Allocation.  There is already substantial unused industrially-allocated land in the area, at the Heysham and Middleton Industrial Parks, and at the Dock estate. All have good or easily upgraded access, which will be 'further improved on completion of' the Heysham Link road, In contrast, the former Pontins land does not have

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Such uses would be secondary to the priority of implementing the existing planning consent for the delivery of a specialist retirement village.

 Such uses would be secondary to the priority of implementing the existing planning consent for the delivery of a specialist retirement village.

282


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

488

Mr Richard Smith

In Touch Ltd

489

Mr Peter Savills Whittingham

POLICY REF

Policy EMP1

Policy HEY4

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS primary road access, and Industrial use of any part of it would also be clearly inappropriate, as it is bordered by residential use to the north-east, and south-east, and by agricultural land to the south.  Consideration should be given to the allocation of the car park at Smithy Lane / Shore Road for employment purposes, to be occupied by InTouch/John Walden.  Middleton Towers is partially developed as a retirement village following an appeal in 2002. The development has not proved commercially successful. Broad support for Policy HEY4, as it allows for a wide range of uses, in the event that the permitted scheme does not proceed.  Para 31.3 says that the location of the site is such that development would not be normally supported, as it is outside of any defined settlement and remote from services and infrastructure, but para 31.4 states that the LPA will seek to prioritise the implementation of the existing consent. These paras are self contradictory. It follows that the policy should not make it a priority to implement the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Council will review the need for car parking at this site.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Council will review paras 31.3 and 31.4. Second para of the policy makes it clear that alternatives are subject to viability assessments on the existing scheme.

283


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

490

NAME

Ms Fiona Pudge

ORGANISATION

Sport England

POLICY REF

South Lancaster Introductio n

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS existing consent. Emphasis of policy should be changed to allow for the site to be regenerated but by allowing for alternative forms of development. The council would require alternative development to demonstrate first that the existing scheme is not viable, and the requirement of policy to produce viability evidence is appropriate.  Policy should deleting 2nd sentence of the first paragraph, namely: "In considering proposals the priority will be for the implementation of the existing planning consent for the delivery of a specialist retirement village."  Summary of PPG17 Study clearly recognises that a playing pitch strategy needs to be undertaken, but drawing conclusions about outdoor sport provision in the absence of a Playing Pitch Strategy is of little value. Aware the Playing Pitch Strategy is underway but unsure what status it has. Sport England would welcome reference to the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy at relevant points throughout the DPD.  PPG17 Study findings for outdoor sport combine all sports and are not based on an assessment of

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 This sentence is to encourage and promote the implementation of the existing consent. No change.

 Comment noted. Not appropriate or necessary to include these changes in the South Lancaster introduction.

NO CHANGE

284


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

491

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Policy SOUTH1

492

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Policy SL1  (Whinney Carr)

493

Ms Fiona

Sport England

Policy SL2 

demand. Findings did identify a future deficiency of almost 87 hectares of land for outdoor sport which has not been taken through to the DPD, plus land requirements relating to facilities for built facilities for sport. Sport England oppose the loss or redevelopment of existing buildings and/or land used for sport unless it could be demonstrated that they are genuinely surplus to requirements or they would be replaced to an equivalent quantity and quality in a suitable location in line with the requirements of NPPF para 73 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy. No mention of relationship to existing or proposed Green Infrastructure (including sport and recreation) that either needs to be protected or created as a result of increase in population in this area. Part vi - suggest including the word "sport" in the sentence. Part xii and para 10.8 bullet point 5 - suggest provision of open space based on findings and recommendations set out in PPG17 Study and emerging Playing Pitch Strategy. Part xv and in para 11.9 bullet

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 There are specific references to these matters in the more detailed policies, such as SL1. However, council will review Policy SOUTH1, and will incorporate more specific references to sport and recreation in the relevant planning briefs.  Acknowledge need to cross-refer to Playing Pitch Strategy, which should also inform a DM policy on standards of open space provision in association with new development.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Acknowledge need to cross-refer to

CHANGE

CHANGE CONSIDERED

285


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

Pudge

494

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

495

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

POLICY REF (Balirigg Lane)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

point 4 - suggest provision of open space based on findings and recommendations set out in PPG17 Study and emerging Playing Pitch Strategy. Policy SL4  Policy supported as it limits Lancaster University development to those areas identified as being developable with the remainder restricted to outdoor sports use. East  Summary of PPG17 Study clearly Lancaster recognises that a playing pitch Introductio strategy needs to be undertaken, n but drawing conclusions about outdoor sport provision in the absence of a Playing Pitch Strategy is of little value. Aware the Playing Pitch Strategy is underway but unsure what status it has. Sport England would welcome reference to the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy at relevant points throughout the DPD.  PPG17 Study findings for outdoor sport combine all sports and are not based on an assessment of demand. Findings did identify a future deficiency of almost 87 hectares of land for outdoor sport which has not been taken through to the DPD, plus land requirements relating to facilities for built facilities for sport.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

Playing Pitch Strategy, which should also inform a DM policy on standards of open space provision in association with new development.  Support noted.

CONSIDERED

 Council will consider amendment to reference emerging Playing Pitch Strategy. Same rep and response as no.490.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

NO CHANGE

286


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

496

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

497

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

498

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 Sport England oppose the loss or redevelopment of existing buildings and/or land used for sport unless it could be demonstrated that they are genuinely surplus to requirements or they would be replaced to an equivalent quantity and quality in a suitable location in line with the requirements of NPPF para 73 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy. Policy  Part i appears to limit the EAST1 cumulative issues relating to service and infrastructure provision. Clarity is required as to whether infrastructure includes Green Infrastructure including sport and recreation. The PPG17 study and emerging Playing Pitch Strategy will help determine what improvements and/or new provision are required to support residential development. Policy EL1  Part iv and xi - suggest inclusion (Grab of "sport" in these sentences. Lane)  Para 16.9 bullet point 4 - suggest reference to Needs identified in PPG17 Study and emerging Playing Pitch Strategy. Policy EL2  Part i - unclear whether the pavilion is to be restored so that it provides an ancillary facility for the former cricket pitch or whether the intention is to restore

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Acknowledge need to cross-refer to Playing Pitch Strategy, which should also inform a DM policy on standards of open space provision in association with new development.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Acknowledge need to cross-refer to Playing Pitch Strategy, which should also inform a DM policy on standards of open space provision in association with new development.  Policy is worded to protect and retain the facilities, but neither has been in use for years. Further analysis will be included in the Playing Pitch Strategy.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

NO CHANGE

287


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

499 500

501

NAME

ORGANISATION

Ms Fiona Pudge Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Sport England

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

the cricket pavilion for another use and the cricket pitch will become a different type of open space. If the latter the loss of a cricket pitch and pavilion will need to be justified via a Playing Pitch Strategy and in the context of para 74 of the NPPF. Sport England will object to this policy if the loss is not justified through a Playing Pitch Strategy. Policy EL3  Suggest including sport in part ii. Policy EL4  Suggest including sport in part vi. There is no comment box for policy ELR5 - suggest including sport in part. Central  Summary of PPG17 Study clearly and West recognises that a playing pitch Lancaster strategy needs to be undertaken, Introductio but drawing conclusions about n outdoor sport provision in the absence of a Playing Pitch Strategy is of little value. Aware the Playing Pitch Strategy is underway but unsure what status it has. Sport England would welcome reference to the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy at relevant points throughout the DPD.  PPG17 Study findings for outdoor sport combine all sports and are not based on an assessment of demand. Findings did identify a

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Council will consider this amendment.  Council will consider this amendment.

CHANGE CONSIDERED CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Council will consider amendment to reference emerging Playing Pitch Strategy. Same rep and response as no.490 and 495.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

288


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

502

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Policy CWL5

503

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Housing Introductio n

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS future deficiency of almost 87 hectares of land for outdoor sport which has not been taken through to the DPD, plus land requirements relating to facilities for built facilities for sport.  Sport England oppose the loss or redevelopment of existing buildings and/or land used for sport unless it could be demonstrated that they are genuinely surplus to requirements or they would be replaced to an equivalent quantity and quality in a suitable location in line with the requirements of NPPF para 73 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy.  Suggest inclusion of "sport" in the first paragraph of the policy and reference to emerging Playing Pitch Strategy to identify actual improvements to help implement this policy.  Summary of PPG17 Study clearly recognises that a playing pitch strategy needs to be undertaken, but drawing conclusions about outdoor sport provision in the absence of a Playing Pitch Strategy is of little value. Aware the Playing Pitch Strategy is underway but unsure what status it has. Sport England would welcome reference to the

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Council will consider amendment to reference emerging Playing Pitch Strategy.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Council will consider amendment to reference emerging Playing Pitch Strategy. Same rep and response as no.490, 495 and 501.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

289


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

504

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Policy RES2

 

505

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Policy EDC1

emerging Playing Pitch Strategy at relevant points throughout the DPD. PPG17 Study findings for outdoor sport combine all sports and are not based on an assessment of demand. Findings did identify a future deficiency of almost 87 hectares of land for outdoor sport which has not been taken through to the DPD, plus land requirements relating to facilities for built facilities for sport. Sport England oppose the loss or redevelopment of existing buildings and/or land used for sport unless it could be demonstrated that they are genuinely surplus to requirements or they would be replaced to an equivalent quantity and quality in a suitable location in line with the requirements of NPPF para 73 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy. Support part iv of this policy as it aims to protect Carnforth Rangers Football Ground. Part vii - the open space needs to be determined by the PPG17 Study and emerging Playing Pitch Strategy Policy supported as limits University development to those areas identified as being

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Council will consider amendment to reference emerging Playing Pitch Strategy.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

290


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

506

NAME

Ms Fiona Pudge

ORGANISATION

Sport England

POLICY REF Policy REC1

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

developable with the remainder restricted to outdoor sports use. Summary of PPG17 Study clearly recognises that a playing pitch strategy needs to be undertaken, but drawing conclusions about outdoor sport provision in the absence of a Playing Pitch Strategy is of little value. Aware the Playing Pitch Strategy is underway but unsure what status it has. Sport England would welcome reference to the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy at relevant points throughout the DPD. There is no mention of emerging PPS within this policy; outdoor sport is unique in that it performs a key role in the Health and well being of the community but is one of the few open space types that has economic benefits. Part i of the policy conflicts with NPPF para 74 and Sport England Playing Field Policy in that it supports enabling development. Any development of a site (especially if playing field or last used as playing field) would need to meet NPPF para 74 and the exceptions to the Sport England Policy. Sport England has a statutory remit to protect playing field (or

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Council will consider amendment to reference emerging Playing Pitch Strategy.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

291


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

507

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Policy GR3

508

Ms Fiona Pudge

Sport England

Appendix A

509

Ms Vicki Reede

Local Resident

Policy RES1

510

Mr Andy Yuille

CPRE

Relationsh  ip with Core Strategy

playing field last used within the last 5 years) and will object to any proposals that result in the partial loss of playing field unless it meets one of the exceptions to the playing field policy. This policy is generally supported as gives an additional layer of protection to open space, sport and recreation that form part of these networks. There is no mention of the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy. I have dealt with requests for advice on the preparation and methodology for this but I do not know whether it has been completed. It is likely the PPS will be adopted prior to the publication of this document and it will provide key evidence to support the sport and recreation element of this document. Whinny Fold - Silverdale: I hope this land is developed into 1 and 2 bedroom flats - as many as possible The consultation documents refer to a “partial review of the core strategy”. Not clear which elements of the core strategy (ie which policies / parts of policies) are being reviewed, or what those policies are being amended to now state. We urge council to

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Support noted.

NO CHANGE

 Comments noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Support noted.

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 Comments noted. The council is reconsidering the partial review approach, and considering the publication of a combined Local Plan document at submission stage. However, whilst the process may change, the substance and emphasis will not change: most

CHANGE CONSIDERED

292


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS confirm with the Planning Inspectorate that this is an acceptable course of action before submitting the draft DPD for examination.  Policy of urban concentration remains the most appropriate and sustainable policy for the district. We suggest that this should not be permitted to fall to less than 80%.  The proposed urban extensions at Whinney Carr, Grab Lane and Bailrigg are therefore significant departures from Policy SC2 of the Core Strategy. We recognise, however, that if it is not possible to finds sufficient land for housing within the existing urban area, then planned urban extension is likely to represent the most sustainable means of making up the shortfall without impinging on the Green belt or other significant environmental constraints.  An extension to the south of Lancaster would increase journey lengths and car travel. It would present a major design challenge which many existing urban extensions elsewhere have struggled to meet. It would divert activity from the District’s town centres and potentially have an adverse impact on areas in need

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

housing needs will be met on brownfield sites, but this will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  No evidence provided in support of the 80% figure.

 Evidence in the District’s 2011 Housing Needs Study suggests that there is significant need within the District. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the need for local authorities to provide for its evidenced housing need. The plans put forward within the Land Allocations DPD represent the most sustainable, suitable and realistic way of dealing with future development needs.  The purpose of the South Lancaster suite of policies is to minimise any difficulties associated with the development of an urban extension, and set up the detailed guidance required to deliver sustainable development through the development brief, and masterplans, informed by surveys and evidence. There is no evidence 293


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS of regeneration and Morecambe and Heysham in particular.

 The policies in the DPD require: • A stronger focus on promoting sustainable transport modes over the private car; • Clearer phasing and other policies and initiatives to ensure that they do not detract from town centres and areas in need of regeneration. These extensions should only be considered for release once those brownfield sites that have been allocated and granted permission have been built out.  Majority of CS Policy SC3 remains fit for purpose. The only element that may be in need of review is the sentence “Development outside these settlements will require exceptional justification”. It should be clarified that a limited amount of development (of around 10% growth in households) of an appropriate scale, type and character may be acceptable in all rural settlements, providing it meets the criteria laid out in the Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

presented in support of the CPRE assertions: in particular to suggest that brownfield sites will remain derelict and un-used through the life of the Local Plan (15 years) as a consequence of allocating Greenfield sites.  The council is re-writing the South Lancaster suite of policies to reflect some of these matters, but disagrees that that brownfield sites will remain derelict and un-used through the life of the Local Plan (15 years) as a consequence of allocating Greenfield sites. The council is actively promoting development on several brownfield development sites, but these alone will not be sufficient to meet future development needs.  The council is reconsidering the partial review approach, and considering the publication of a combined Local Plan document at submission stage. It will be necessary to find suitable sites in rural communities to accommodate future development needs (see also Policy OPP5).

294


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS remainder of the policy. All rural development should “Protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements”; and the remaining 6 bullet points set out what kinds of development are likely to be suitable.  It is not apparent at present that housing delivery in rural areas complies with the core strategy policy that requires the Council to “Identify housing needs and opportunities for meeting them and ensuring that any housing permitted is directly related to those needs”. There is a particular need for affordable housing in rural areas and we support delivery of new housing to meet this need; however, feedback from the field is that it is large, luxury homes that often do not complement local character and distinctiveness or meet local need that are being approved. This should be addressed through firmer policy in the Development Management document to ensure that the central thrust of the core strategy on this issue can be delivered.  Total allowance of development for the rural area will of course be

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 Current delivery of housing in rural areas is below levels set out in the Core Strategy. The council view is that development of sustainable rural Greenfield sites will meet local housing needs, particularly through the application of strong affordable housing requirements to deliver more affordable homes.

 Comment noted.

295


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

511

NAME

Mr Andy Yuille

ORGANISATION

CPRE

POLICY REF

Policy GR3

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS dependent on the degree of urban concentration decided upon.  Other DPDs that follow the core strategy are expected to comply with it. While details may be amended and developed over time, the core thrust of the strategy, ie urban concentration, cannot be departed from.  The NPPF (para 123) states that “Planning policies and decisions should aim to… identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.” DPD should identify tranquil areas and propose a suitable type and degree of protection for them.  The NPPF also states that communities should be able to designate Local Green Spaces of particular value to them through Local Plan preparation and review (para 76), and that one of the reasons for such designation could be their tranquillity and beauty (para 77). Communities should be given the opportunity to put forward places

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

 Comments noted. The council is reconsidering the partial review approach, and considering the publication of a combined Local Plan document at submission stage. This will require a review of the extent of urban concentration, in order to meet the evidenced housing needs in the district.  Comments noted. The concept of tranquillity is alluded to in Core Strategy E1, as one of the key characteristics of environmental capital. Council will review wording.

ACTION

CHANGE CONSIDERED

 No local green spaces or tranquil areas suggested here.

296


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan ID

NAME

ORGANISATION

POLICY REF

512

Mr Alex Willis

BNP Paribas Real Estate/SCOPE

Introductio n

513

Mr Greg Dickson

Sainsburys

Introductio n

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS for designation as Local Green Spaces and tranquil areas, with a view to the inclusion of the most appropriate ones in the finalised Local Plan.  Scope requests that the document also includes a policy which provides support for the improvement of the College’s facilities, either through redevelopment of Beaumont College or an increase in the built footprint at the site through infill development or extensions to the existing buildings. This will allow the College to meet the needs of its learners and would ensure that the Local Plan is compliant with the requirements of the NPPF in proactively and positively meeting the development needs of the College.  Request that the DPD Map Inset 1 be updated to ensure that the Sainsbury’s Morecambe store is an identifiable existing land use.

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

RESPONSE

ACTION

 The DPD is not intended to contain a policy which might be applied to the potential development of every site in the district. council has indicated in principle that this site is capable of redevelopment of the buildings on the existing footprint, subject to the submission of a satisfactory scheme.

NO CHANGE

 Change required (providing the OS base has been updated).

CHANGE REQUIRED

297


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan

Index of consultees Name of responder Abbott, Steven Abramson, Teresa Akhtar, Muhammad Anderson, Richard Alexander, David

Organisation representing Steven Abbott Associates N/A N/A Ministry of Justice N/A

Anderton, Neil Atkinson, Angela Austin, Julian Baguley, Janet

N/A Marine Management Organisation AMEC E&I UK Ltd Natural England

Bailey, Bob Balmer, George Barron, Lucy

Heaton-with Oxcliffe Parish Council N/A Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership Officer N/A N/A Trilogie CRE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A JWPC Ltd N/A N/A N/A N/A Silverdale Parish Council N/A N/A Lancaster Civic Society Dynamo Cycling Campaign Lancaster council

Beardsworth, Mr & Mrs Beasley, Joyce Bennett, Michael Bertram, Jill Birchall, Robert Bird, Alison Bishop, Ruth Blackburn, Keith Boit, Andrew Bolton, Sean Bond, Kirstine Booth, Stuart Boyd, Mr & Mrs Braithwaite, John Burr, Sandra Cakebread, P. Challenor, Denise Chapman, Anne Charles, Susan Clark, Mrs W. Clarke, Patricia Coates, Cllr Chris Cork, Philip Dawber, Matthew Dearden, Janet Derbyshire, Helena Dewhirst, Bob Dickson, Greg Dodgson, Robin Easton, Helen Eccles, Mark Eden, Ted Ennis, Jayne Entwistle, Paul Ewens, Tony

Peel Ports Group Ltd N/A N/A N/A Turley Associates N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A GL Hearn Hornby St Margaret’s CE School

ID reference(s) 425 – 427 280 15 & 16 436 240, 242 – 245, 250 258 292 88 & 91 336 & 337 206 – 234, 236, 238, 241, 246 – 248, 261 120 13 & 14 342 - 345 159 71 338, 340 395 63 19 2 46 82 & 83 51 37 346 - 349 429 266 59 99 119 268, 271 - 277 260 303 - 312 155 - 157 235 487 325 - 330 109 293 25 396 23 441 38 – 40 65 & 66 68 353 432

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

298


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan Name of responder Fairbairn, Mr W M Fairbarn, Mrs Farnworth, Ivor Faulkner, Rachael Fielding, Dorothy Finnerty, Dr C. Fisher, Mike Fishwick, County Cllr Sarah Flaherty, Mark Fleet, Hannah Fogg, Matthew Francis, John Freeman, Rose Garner, Damien Gaw, Dr Alex Gegg, Ann Gilbert, Matt Gilbert, Michael Gledhill, Hamish Gisbourne, Rev. Michael Godding, Brian Gorton, P. Grimshaw, Kate Hadland, Jennifer Hall, David Halstead, Robert Halstead, R & JM Hand, Mr & Mrs Harrison, Nick Hart, Mr Chris Hartley, Colin Heath, Dr Emily Herbert, David Hetherington, Colin Hewitson, Dr Andrew Hird, Catherine Hirst, Tracey Hodgson, Louise Holden, Jeanne Hones, Simon Hope, Jenny Howden, Phil House, Wendy Hubbard, Alan Iles, Peter Illingworth, John Imm, Anne Imm, Stuart

Organisation representing N/A N/A Workspace Properties N/A N/A N/A Fisher Wrathall N/A Peel Energy N/A N/A DPP The Theatres Trust N/A Lancashire North Clinical Commissioning Group N/A The Planning Consultancy Peter Brett Associates on behalf of Hurstwood Compass Planning Scotforth Parish Church N/A N/A Lancashire County Council – Property Group Smiths Gore on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Friends of Freemans Wood & Coronation Wood N/A Applethwaite Homes Lancashire County Council – Strategic Planning N/A Wyre Borough Council N/A N/A N/A United Utilities N/A N/A National Trust Lancashire County Council - Archaeology N/A N/A N/A

ID reference(s) 466 446 355 52 141 125 - 128 177 341 298, 300 32 447 319 & 320, 350 - 352 123 437 77 26 316 - 318 198 199 - 202 34 107 173 & 174 262 - 264 369 - 377 165 391 - 394 444 428 160 & 162 460 79, 130 - 136 137 54 164, 166 – 68, 170 184 – 188, 405 49 & 50 203 - 205 33 449 259 358 17 453 397 - 400 409, 410, 412 - 415 108 450 138

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

299


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan Name of responder Ingham, Anthony Joleys, Patrick Jones, A.P. Jones, Brian Jumah, Meisoon Kamath, Vijay Kynch, Chris Keogh, Andrew Keogh, Mary Kemp, Roger Kershaw, Ian Lambert, Jane Lambert, Rebecca Landles, Jann Lee, Ray Leeson, P Lynch, Dr Robert McCann, Val McGill, Kate

Organisation representing Network Rail N/A N/A The Ramblers Association N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Guinness Northern Counties N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nathaniel Lichfield on behalf of CEP

McKenzie, John McMahon, Joanne Makinson, Melonie Manson, C.J. Marsh, Kristian Mason, Shirley Mazza, Dr Nadia Middleton, Laura Milston, Ron Mitchell, Dan

Nathaniel Lichfield on behalf of Countryside Homes and Peel Properties N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Barton Wilmore

Moffatt, Janet Mom, K. Morgan, Rosemary Morison, Claire Murton, J. Narasimhan, Shantha Nelson, Mr & Mrs Nisbet, Wayne Norris, Michelle Ollerenshaw, Eric

N/A N/A N/A GL Hearn on behalf of British Land N/A N/A N/A N/A Hornby-with-Farleton Parish Council Local MP

O’Neill, Marian Pacula, Janthia Page, Alison Palmer, Ann-Marie Park, Gilbert Park, Wallace Parker, David Pearce, Martin Peet, Alec Penfold, Nicole

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EDF Energy N/A Gladman Developments

ID reference(s) 315 29 411 72 & 73 47 & 48 67 314 61 69 45 468 462 27 143 129 11 30 140 323, 331, 334, 354, 357, 361, 363 420 - 424 9 10 443 175 98 101 – 106 451 117 401 – 404, 407, 408, 416, 417, 419 21 55 & 56 18 322, 324, 332, 333 457 22 431 24 335 267, 270, 278, 281 – 291, 294 – 297, 299, 301 97 172 35 & 36 70 118 60 176 339 356 430

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

300


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan Name of responder Perry, Anneka Pickup, Jeremy Pilkington, Nick Pilling, Dorothea Prideaux, Emma Pudge, Fiona Raffaelli, Simon Renolds, Gisela Riches, Sam Roberts, Hugh Robin, Alayne Ryan, M.C. Scholey, David Scragg, Brian Sharples, D. Sear, Jon Siddall, Kathleen Smith, Richard Smith, Valerie Spencer, Kevin Spencer, Sheila Staniland, Isobel Stanley, Barbara Staveley, Mr & Mrs Steele, Dr G.A Swain, Robert Suckley, Jon Taylor, Malcolm Terry, Ben Thackeray, Dr Stephen Thomas, Ray Thompson, Jacqui Thornton, Sally Threlfall, John Toogood, Mark Tripp, Louise Troughton, Jo Truman, Alison Turnbull, G.A. Turner, Andy Voyle, Ian Watson, Helen Watson, Mark Weaver, Colin Webb, Imogen Welsh, Shaun Westmoreland, John and Magda Whitehead, K. Whittingham, Peter Whitworth, Gillian Williams, Amber-Skye

Organisation representing Drivers Jonas Deloitte on behalf of the University of Cumbria Environment Agency Fisher Wrathall N/A Lancashire Economic Partnership (LEP) Sport England N/A N/A North Lancashire Green Party N/A N/A N/A Moor Platt Neighbours Group N/A N/A Cohousing N/A In Touch Ltd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A HOW Planning N/A Lancashire County Council - Education N/A N/A North Lancashire NHS Primary Care Trust N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Canals and Rivers Trust N/A Friends of the Bugle Inn Retirement Scheme N/A N/A Over Kellet Parish Council N/A N/A Office for Nuclear Regulation N/A

ID reference(s) 433 - 435

N/A Savills N/A N/A

142 489 78 44

470-486 265 96 171 193, 490-508 386 81 178 – 181, 190 100 124 454 94 461 86 406 95 488 41 & 42, 113 - 116 80 93 12 418 458 440 455 387 - 390 7&8 364 - 368 64 6 74 - 76 92 62 144 - 147 237 57 & 58 191 - 196 31 110 28 139 359 & 360, 362 87 3-5 438 463

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

301


Lancaster City Council - Local Plan Name of responder Williams, Dorothy Williams, Les Williams, Paul Willis-Smith, Mrs Wisdom, Kim Wright, Ms E Yuille, Andy

Organisation representing N/A BNP Paribas on behalf of SCOPE N/A N/A The Lancashire Wildlife Trust Wright Design Partnership Campaign for the Protection of Rural England

ID reference(s)

43 302, 321 448 445 148 - 154 465 378 - 385

Land Allocations DPD Draft Preferred Options Consultation Report, March 2013

302

Draft Preferred Options consultation report, Land Allocations DPD - March 2013  

Report of comments received during the Draft Local Plan consultation held October - December 2013

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you