Local Development Framework Consultation

Para 3.42. The list of the existing settlements in the current Local Plan should include Great and Little Urswick.UPC fully supports the recognition of the problem (para 3.45) that the issue is to try to save the local community. Para 3.84 in PO4 also details the reasons for the problem.UPC does not support all aspects of the preferred option (page 46). The removal of boundaries and a policy of “rounding off” may lead to incremental development into the countryside on any edge of a settlement. There needs to be greater certainty for residents in terms of where future development may be possible. UPC therefore supports Option 2: Draw Boundaries for Rural Settlements with a Consolidated Nature. The size of areas for growth should reflect the number and type of properties required. In addition, UPC supports the following aspects of the preferred option: the conversion of buildings within a village or hamlet; or the conversion of other un-isolated rural buildings, which form part of a group. It also supports the preferred option points 2(i), 2(ii) and 2 (iii).Increasing economic development or “Rural Diversification” (para 3.49, page 48) will need careful consideration. Some activities/businesses will not be suitable in rural settlements.The number of new allocations for rural villages, in total, is 352 (4%) (PO4, para 3.70, page 59). If, as has been indicated (para 3.71, page 60), this figure has already been potentially achieved in current permissions then there is a clear need to increase the percentage allocated to rural settlements. How many of the current permissions are for affordable properties? Targets for affordable housing need to be set locally based on evidence from local Housing Needs surveys

Recognition that Development Control will need to ensure that approvals for single properties (2 ii) are not used as a loophole to build several single properties on the same site over a period of time. There also will need to be regular monitoring that the 70% figure overall (2 i) is being achieved: multiple single properties will not meet the primary objective of increased provision of affordable housing. Little Urswick should be included in the list of settlements in the preferred option (page46), and the existing settlement boundaries should remain, with extensions to indicate any preferred areas for growth.

The retention of existing boundaries but with some extensions indicating preferred directions of growth.Targets for affordable housing need to be set locally based on evidence from local Housing Needs surveys

The preferred option is NOT supported by UPC as the percentages are unlikely to be enough to meet the need for affordable housing in either the LSCs in the west of the district (see response to PO3, PO4 and PO17) or rural settlements (see response to PO2).Until local Housing Need surveys have been completed in all Parishes/villages then the exact requirements for housing are unknown.

Await the results of Housing Needs surveys before finalising percentages. In the meantime increase the percentages in LSCs and rural settlements.

Para 4.94. Great Urswick and Little Urswick are NOT known locally as “Urswick”. They are seen as separate and different villages. Page 192, Alternative Options for Growth, for Gt Urswick and Little Urswick. The “broad location” of “preferred direction of growth” is indicated as being to the South West of Gt Urswick on the edge of Kirk Flatt (Page 196 and 198, Table 9). Urswick Parish Council does not consider this location to have “lower landscape quality” (point 7, page 192). There is no local desire “to connect the school to the village”. This location is at the back of bungalows primarily inhabited by older residents and is overlooking the ancient church in Gt.Urswick. Page 198 identifies that that there is a flood risk covering the majority of the site.HousingWhilst UPC accepts the need for affordable housing (see comment on PO4), UPC would suggest that several other options, shown on the attached map, are considered in preference to this location.Business/Employment LandPara 4.98, page 196, states the need for about 2 hectares of employment land to be found in the five Local Service Centres. The preferred locations show only two potential sites: Lindal and Great Urswick. It is UPC’s opinion that Gt. Urswick is not a suitable village for such activity, other than small-scale home/office type business. UPC is not aware of any local demand for employment land for separate premises. Gt Urswick is essentially a rural village, with narrow road links to the A590. Other negative factors in relation to the proposed location SW of Kirk Flatt are the elderly residents living in the bungalows adjacent to the site and that access to the site would probably be across the route to the local school. UPC is also aware that existing office based accommodation on the A590 at the edge of Ulverston at Daltongate has rarely been full. It is UPC’s opinion that by far the best location is at Lindal in Furness (the remaining LSC).

Little Urswick is not linked with Great Urswick and is not considered a LSC.Little Urswick is classified as a rural village as in PO2.Housing UPC would suggest that several other options, shown on the attached map, are considered in preference to this location. UPC’s first choice would be the use of land on the North of the Kirk Flatt housing area, already within the current Local Plan.Business/Employment LandIt is UPC’s opinion that by far the best location is at Lindal in Furness (the remaining LSC).

The issue of financial viability is the fundamental factor in deciding proportions.UPC is not in a position to make a judgement on exact proportions as the financial information is not available and is likely to be complex.SLDC will have to ensure that the maximum number of affordable properties is delivered.UPC support the principle that all “affordables” must be “in perpetuity”.The principle of smaller developments in LSCs making a financial contribution to other, even smaller, developments elsewhere is fully supported. The mechanism for achieving this needs to be transparent. Who will decide where the accumulated contributions will be used?The definition of Local Occupancy for Service Centres is considerably broader than for Local Occupancy in rural settlements (PO2). To avoid confusion we suggest renaming to “area occupancy” or similar. Para 3.71 ,The number of new properties currently with permission exceeds the allocation to 2025. How many of these are for affordable properties? How will the increasing requirements for affordable properties be met? The recent housing needs survey of Urswick Parish shows a “significant need” for 12-16 affordable properties to rent (final figures and village locations still awaited). How will this demand be met? At the ratios suggested in the PO4 preferred option (page 70/71), then based on a need for 12 properties in Gt Urswick, then between 24 (@50%) and 40 (@30%) new properties will be required

A greater percentage allocation of “affordable “properties for the LSCs and Rural Settlements in the West. The definition of Local Occupancy for Service Centres is considerably broader than for Local Occupancy in rural settlements (PO2). To avoid confusion we suggest renaming to “area occupancy” or similar.

This Council would propose that some form of local “trade- off” is acceptable- in terms of one local development without affordable housing being considered more favourably if it subsidises another local development with affordable housing.The option of using the Government’s Housing Corporation money to fund increased amounts of “social housing” needs to be considered.

Little Urswick should not be classified as an LSC. Though close to Great Urswick the two villages are different in character. Little Urswick only has one service: a daily bus service, though access to the school, community hall and PO/Shop are within walking distance.The proposal to maintain a green gap between the two Urswicks is fully supported- the proposal perhaps confirms the distinction between the two. This Council would like to see the area of the green gap extended- please see map attached. This Council fully supports the preferred option proposal that choice of site should follow a “settlement hierarchy” and that the level/amount of development will be based on “local circumstance” (Option 5)Please see UPC’s response to PO3, PO4 and PO17 which are directly relevant to Gt Urswick LSC..

Little Urswick should not be classified as an LSC. Though close to Great Urswick the two villages are different and different in character.

The main issues have been identified

Clear definitions of “affordable” and “local occupancy”.In particular “affordable housing” does not specify whether such properties are also only for local occupancy. Affordability is given some definition in para 3.85, page 71. Local occupancy also appears to have two definitions within this report; one in relation to Rural Areas (PO2, page 46, point 2 iii.) and PO4, Option 5, page 66; and para 3.83 page 69 (but then not detailed in the wording of the preferred option, page 70).

The definition of “Affordability” should be the same as that used in the IPATH document, page 25, with the definition of “local connection” and “locality” also as given in the IPATH document, page 23.

Urswick Parish Council (UPC) has recently responded to the consultation on the LDF Core Strategy and Preferred Options. We did so because we consider we have a responsibility, as a Parish Council, to try to achieve what is best for our area and residents. We (UPC) wish to work with SLDC, in a two way process, to ensure that future housing and business development in our parish meets local needs and is appropriate for the particular character of our villages, community and environment. We understand that your increasing desire, as District Council, is to work closely with local communities and their representatives to ensure that your services, and the policies they are based on, meet local needs.

With the above points in mind we must make strong representation to you that your consultation had serious deficiencies:
· The shortness of time given for a considered response
· The inadequacy of the publicity about the consultation
· The complexity of the proposals
· The omission of a presentation event in Gt Urswick, considering that Gt Urswick was the only Local Service Centre in the area
· The lack of detail in the local presentation event about the effect of the policies and proposals locally


It is a fact that many local people knew nothing about this consultation, nor, initially, its significance and likely impact on their local area. Housing and business development are issues that residents have a significant concern about and consequently often take a keen interest. The “poster” provided to the Parish Council to publicise the local presentations was small and poorly presented. One copy was provided.

The proposals themselves were very difficult to understand and then to interpret for our local situation. The policies were interrelated and complex. For an essentially lay readership of local residents and councillors this was off-putting. There was no local presentation in Gt Urswick, despite it being the proposed Local Service Centre, and the presentation in an adjoining village/ Ulverston lacked detail of the effect of the proposals locally. Meaningful consultation starts with an understanding of the issues and proposals. Better efforts must be made to find ways of communicating and explaining.

The time available for the consultation process (ie. gather the information; read; understand; grasp the significance; discuss; consult; draft a response; finalise a response) was far too short.

The overall impact of this consultation has been to feed cynicism with local government, both District and Parish. Fundamentally this consultation was your responsibility. As the Parish council we should, (for the sake of open and participatory government) have done more to assist, but had to spend our time ( and please remember Councillors are lay people with limited time, and the Clerk is only employed for a few hours each week) on engaging with the process, for the same reasons as given above.
If you want Parish Councils to assist then why not ask? - but give us an idea of the importance, explain things clearly and allow us the time to do it.

Urswick

1.This area ought to be included in the development line. The whole of the Bankfield estate would then be included which at the moment is just going to rack and ruin. No one has been in the house since BAe sold it some years ago.
2.This is the field to the right of Bankfield House, some of which is allocated for parking when (or if) the conversions are made to make it an hotel. It could be used for housing.
This is the land to the north of Kirk Flatt that could be used for housing and is within the current development area
Green spaces ought to be maintained between the two villages on either side of the road between the school and the garage.
Mid Town Farm is an ideal site for development in Little Urswick – it is in decline at the moment and offers good opportunites for both rental and’for sale’ properties

Urswick

1.This area ought to be included in the development line. The whole of the Bankfield estate would then be included which at the moment is just going to rack and ruin. No one has been in the house since BAe sold it some years ago.
2.This is the field to the right of Bankfield House, some of which is allocated for parking when (or if) the conversions are made to make it an hotel. It could be used for housing.
This is the land to the north of Kirk Flatt that could be used for housing and is within the current development area
Green spaces ought to be maintained between the two villages on either side of the road between the school and the garage.
Mid Town Farm is an ideal site for development in Little Urswick – it is in decline at the moment and offers good opportunites for both rental and’for sale’ properties

Urswick

1.This area ought to be included in the development line. The whole of the Bankfield estate would then be included which at the moment is just going to rack and ruin. No one has been in the house since BAe sold it some years ago.
2.This is the field to the right of Bankfield House, some of which is allocated for parking when (or if) the conversions are made to make it an hotel. It could be used for housing.
This is the land to the north of Kirk Flatt that could be used for housing and is within the current development area
Green spaces ought to be maintained between the two villages on either side of the road between the school and the garage.
Mid Town Farm is an ideal site for development in Little Urswick – it is in decline at the moment and offers good opportunites for both rental and’for sale’ properties

2.28-2.38

Support

The main issues have been identified

Clear definitions of “affordable” and “local occupancy”.In particular “affordable housing” does not specify whether such properties are also only for local occupancy. Affordability is given some definition in para 3.85, page 71. Local occupancy also appears to have two definitions within this report; one in relation to Rural Areas (PO2, page 46, point 2 iii.) and PO4, Option 5, page 66; and para 3.83 page 69 (but then not detailed in the wording of the preferred option, page 70).

The definition of “Affordability” should be the same as that used in the IPATH document, page 25, with the definition of “local connection” and “locality” also as given in the IPATH document, page 23

3.17 The Preferred Option - PO1 - Locational Strategy

PO1 Locational Strategy p 37 onwards

Support partly

Little Urswick should not be classified as an LSC. Though close to Great Urswick the two villages are different in character. Little Urswick only has one service: a daily bus service, though access to the school, community hall and PO/Shop are within walking distance.The proposal to maintain a green gap between the two Urswicks is fully supported- the proposal perhaps confirms the distinction between the two. This Council would like to see the area of the green gap extended- please see map attached. This Council fully supports the preferred option proposal that choice of site should follow a “settlement hierarchy” and that the level/amount of development will be based on “local circumstance” (Option 5)Please see UPC’s response to PO3, PO4 and PO17 which are directly relevant to Gt Urswick LSC

Little Urswick should not be classified as an LSC. Though close to Great Urswick the two villages are different and different in character.

3.69 - 3.78 PO4 - Balanced Housing Market - You Told us That & Introduction

PO4 Balanced Housing Market

Support partly

The issue of financial viability is the fundamental factor in deciding proportions.UPC is not in a position to make a judgement on exact proportions as the financial information is not available and is likely to be complex.SLDC will have to ensure that the maximum number of affordable properties is delivered.UPC support the principle that all “affordables” must be “in perpetuity”.The principle of smaller developments in LSCs making a financial contribution to other, even smaller, developments elsewhere is fully supported. The mechanism for achieving this needs to be transparent. Who will decide where the accumulated contributions will be used?The definition of Local Occupancy for Service Centres is considerably broader than for Local Occupancy in rural settlements (PO2). To avoid confusion we suggest renaming to “area occupancy” or similar. Para 3.71 ,The number of new properties currently with permission exceeds the allocation to 2025. How many of these are for affordable properties? How will the increasing requirements for affordable properties be met? The recent housing needs survey of Urswick Parish shows a “significant need” for 12-16 affordable properties to rent (final figures and village locations still awaited). How will this demand be met? At the ratios suggested in the PO4 preferred option (page 70/71), then based on a need for 12 properties in Gt Urswick, then between 24 (@50%) and 40 (@30%) new properties will be required.

A greater percentage allocation of “affordable “properties for the LSCs and Rural Settlements in the West. The definition of Local Occupancy for Service Centres is considerably broader than for Local Occupancy in rural settlements (PO2). To avoid confusion we suggest renaming to “area occupancy” or similar

This Council would propose that some form of local “trade- off” is acceptable- in terms of one local development without affordable housing being considered more favourably if it subsidises another local development with affordable housing.The option of using the Government’s Housing Corporation money to fund increased amounts of “social housing” needs to be considered.

4.92 - 4.97 PO17 - Remaining Local Service Centres West 2025 - Introduction

PO17 Remaining Local Service Centres- West

Oppose

Para 4.94. Great Urswick and Little Urswick are NOT known locally as “Urswick”. They are seen as separate and different villages. Page 192, Alternative Options for Growth, for Gt Urswick and Little Urswick. The “broad location” of “preferred direction of growth” is indicated as being to the South West of Gt Urswick on the edge of Kirk Flatt (Page 196 and 198, Table 9). Urswick Parish Council does not consider this location to have “lower landscape quality” (point 7, page 192). There is no local desire “to connect the school to the village”. This location is at the back of bungalows primarily inhabited by older residents and is overlooking the ancient church in Gt.Urswick. Page 198 identifies that that there is a flood risk covering the majority of the site.HousingWhilst UPC accepts the need for affordable housing (see comment on PO4), UPC would suggest that several other options, shown on the attached map, are considered in preference to this location.Business/Employment LandPara 4.98, page 196, states the need for about 2 hectares of employment land to be found in the five Local Service Centres. The preferred locations show only two potential sites: Lindal and Great Urswick. It is UPC’s opinion that Gt. Urswick is not a suitable village for such activity, other than small-scale home/office type business. UPC is not aware of any local demand for employment land for separate premises. Gt Urswick is essentially a rural village, with narrow road links to the A590. Other negative factors in relation to the proposed location SW of Kirk Flatt are the elderly residents living in the bungalows adjacent to the site and that access to the site would probably be across the route to the local school. UPC is also aware that existing office based accommodation on the A590 at the edge of Ulverston at Daltongate has rarely been full. It is UPC’s opinion that by far the best location is at Lindal in Furness (the remaining LSC).

Little Urswick is not linked with Great Urswick and is not considered a LSC.Little Urswick is classified as a rural village as in PO2.Housing UPC would suggest that several other options, shown on the attached map, are considered in preference to this location. UPC’s first choice would be the use of land on the North of the Kirk Flatt housing area, already within the current Local Plan.Business/Employment LandIt is UPC’s opinion that by far the best location is at Lindal in Furness (the remaining LSC).

This Council would propose that some form of local “trade- off” is acceptable- in terms of one development without affordable housing being considered more favourably if it subsidises another local development with affordable housing.The option of gaining a greater proportion of Housing Corporation money to fund “social housing”, that is exclusively “affordable”, needs to be considered.

The Preferred Option - PO3 - Distribution of Development

PO3 Distribution of Development

Oppose

The preferred option is NOT supported by UPC as the percentages are unlikely to be enough to meet the need for affordable housing in either the LSCs in the west of the district (see response to PO3, PO4 and PO17) or rural settlements (see response to PO2).Until local Housing Need surveys have been completed in all Parishes/villages then the exact requirements for housing are unknown.

Await the results of Housing Needs surveys before finalising percentages. In the meantime increase the percentages in LSCs and rural settlements.

The Preferred Option - PO2 - Rural Areas

PO2

Support partly

Para 3.42. The list of the existing settlements in the current Local Plan should include Great and Little Urswick.UPC fully supports the recognition of the problem (para 3.45) that the issue is to try to save the local community. Para 3.84 in PO4 also details the reasons for the problem.UPC does not support all aspects of the preferred option (page 46). The removal of boundaries and a policy of “rounding off” may lead to incremental development into the countryside on any edge of a settlement. There needs to be greater certainty for residents in terms of where future development may be possible. UPC therefore supports Option 2: Draw Boundaries for Rural Settlements with a Consolidated Nature. The size of areas for growth should reflect the number and type of properties required. In addition, UPC supports the following aspects of the preferred option: the conversion of buildings within a village or hamlet; or the conversion of other un-isolated rural buildings, which form part of a group. It also supports the preferred option points 2(i), 2(ii) and 2 (iii).Increasing economic development or “Rural Diversification” (para 3.49, page 48) will need careful consideration. Some activities/businesses will not be suitable in rural settlements.The number of new allocations for rural villages, in total, is 352 (4%) (PO4, para 3.70, page 59). If, as has been indicated (para 3.71, page 60), this figure has already been potentially achieved in current permissions then there is a clear need to increase the percentage allocated to rural settlements. How many of the current permissions are for affordable properties? Targets for affordable housing need to be set locally based on evidence from local Housing Needs surveys

Recognition that Development Control will need to ensure that approvals for single properties (2 ii) are not used as a loophole to build several single properties on the same site over a period of time. There also will need to be regular monitoring that the 70% figure overall (2 i) is being achieved: multiple single properties will not meet the primary objective of increased provision of affordable housing. Little Urswick should be included in the list of settlements in the preferred option (page46), and the existing settlement boundaries should remain, with extensions to indicate any preferred areas for growth

The retention of existing boundaries but with some extensions indicating preferred directions of growth.Targets for affordable housing need to be set locally based on evidence from local Housing Needs surveys

Urswick Deveopment areas

Re: LDF Consultation

Urswick Parish Council (UPC) has recently responded to the consultation on the LDF Core Strategy and Preferred Options. We did so because we consider we have a responsibility, as a Parish Council, to try to achieve what is best for our area and residents. We (UPC) wish to work with SLDC, in a two way process, to ensure that future housing and business development in our parish meets local needs and is appropriate for the particular character of our villages, community and environment. We understand that your increasing desire, as District Council, is to work closely with local communities and their representatives to ensure that your services, and the policies they are based on, meet local needs.

With the above points in mind we must make strong representation to you that your consultation had serious deficiencies:
· The shortness of time given for a considered response
· The inadequacy of the publicity about the consultation
· The complexity of the proposals
· The omission of a presentation event in Gt Urswick, considering that Gt Urswick was the only Local Service Centre in the area
· The lack of detail in the local presentation event about the effect of the policies and proposals locally


It is a fact that many local people knew nothing about this consultation, nor, initially, its significance and likely impact on their local area. Housing and business development are issues that residents have a significant concern about and consequently often take a keen interest. The “poster” provided to the Parish Council to publicise the local presentations was small and poorly presented. One copy was provided.

The proposals themselves were very difficult to understand and then to interpret for our local situation. The policies were interrelated and complex. For an essentially lay readership of local residents and councillors this was off-putting. There was no local presentation in Gt Urswick, despite it being the proposed Local Service Centre, and the presentation in an adjoining village/ Ulverston lacked detail of the effect of the proposals locally. Meaningful consultation starts with an understanding of the issues and proposals. Better efforts must be made to find ways of communicating and explaining.

The time available for the consultation process (ie. gather the information; read; understand; grasp the significance; discuss; consult; draft a response; finalise a response) was far too short.

The overall impact of this consultation has been to feed cynicism with local government, both District and Parish. Fundamentally this consultation was your responsibility. As the Parish council we should, (for the sake of open and participatory government) have done more to assist, but had to spend our time ( and please remember Councillors are lay people with limited time, and the Clerk is only employed for a few hours each week) on engaging with the process, for the same reasons as given above.
If you want Parish Councils to assist then why not ask? - but give us an idea of the importance, explain things clearly and allow us the time to do it.

We would appreciate hearing your response to our points and how further consultation on this and other matters are going to be improved.

Yours faithfully


Urswick Parish Council
Clerk: David Foot