Local Development Framework Consultation

The Preferred Option - PO2 - Rural Areas

The Preferred Option

Support partly

The policy to provide small scale infill or rounding off development, including conversion of unisolated rural buildings, in vilages and hamlets is a much needed change from the existing policy. The rigid nature of existing development boudaries restricts development on an arbitrary basis and a more flexible approach, treating individual sites on their merits will be a much fairer approach. South Lakeland contains many rural buildings which are uneconomic to convert into commercial use. The only realistic use is conversion into dwellings and the change to allow the conversion of rural builidngs in areas outside the constained development boundaries of listed villages is to be welcomed. This approach must be appropriate if rural builidngs are to protected from neglect and delapidation.


However, the restriction requiring the delivery of such a high percentage of affordable dwellings may meet an identified need, but will lead to stagnation of housing provision within the area. Any policy which forces unattainable demands on private individuals and businesses will result in a reduction in the provision of any housing.


Also, local occupancy should not be so 'severly defined'. Most of South Lakeland is very rural so a restriction to a single parish or adjacent parish could lead to development not taking place at all. The policy should be trying to achieve local occuancy for people not only living in the whole of South Cumbria but working in South Cumbria including the Furness Penisula.

A more flexible approach in relation to the percentages required for the delivery of affordable and local occupancy.


Local occupancy for people who live and work in the whole of South Lakeland including the Furness peninsula.

3.83 The Preferred Approach - PO4 - Balanced Housing Market

The prefered option

Oppose

The need for affordable housing and housing for local occupancy in South Lakeland cannot be disputed. However, it is unfair to ask developers, however large or small, to make a substantial contribution to a problem created by central government. Action is being taken too late to allow balanced alternatives, leading to a prescriptive approach which will fail to achieve it's basic objectives.

The current, differing policies in the east and west of South Lakeland have shown that if the requirement for too large a percentage of affordable housing it will lead to the provision of very few affordable homes. Clause 3.87 puts forward various reasons for the lack of applications in the east of the county, my experience tells me that it is only as a direct result of IPATH.

I have been involved in various housing developments for between two and eight new dwellings in the west of the area since the current policies were introduced. These schemes in Ulverston would not have gone ahead if P04 had been in place. I have also had enquiries from potential developers in the east of South Lakeland, however, no applications have been made due to the high percentage requirement for affordable homes for developments over four dwellings. Also, the high cost and difficulty of providing a viability study for IPATH has put off many small developers. Whilst the proposal 'reduces the expectation for affordable sites' in the east, it raises the requirement in the west and I can guarantee that a similar reduction in applications will occur in the west if this policy is adopted in its current form. If housing provision stops or substantially reduces due to this policy, the number of affordable homes provided will be very small, which could lead to even more presciptive policies which will be self defeating. The differences between kendal and Ulverston, the East and West of the area are significant and have been taken into account, quite rightly, under previous policies. This policy makes no such allowance.

If such a restrictive policy is adopted, local developers, who have been providing good quality housing will retire, stop developing or leave the area completely. This is already happening. When the proposed policy, if adopted, fails to provide expected or adequate levels of affordable housing, these good developers will not be around to pick up the pieces, which could lead to very serious consequenses for the provision of all housing within South Lakeland.

The percentage requiremmts for affordable housing should be reduced.

A more flexible approach is required, not one purely based on difficult and expensive financial appraisals. A policy which sets out such hard and fast rules will not achieve the objective of a balanced housing market.

The differences between the east and west of the area should be reflected in the policy.