Local Development Framework Consultation

2.16 - 2.17 Key Issues to be Addressed

2.16 para3

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

The issue no-one has addressed is whether building'affordable housing' is possible by only considering the standard 'row of cheap boxes in a group' model that has pertained in the past. There needs to be much more creativity and public/private partnership with a range of agencies and builders to come up with truly affordable options which are also eco-friendly. Many of us need cheaper better-quality housing, given the steep rises in food and fuel bills. Why cannot housing associations work with SLDC to develop a voluntary 'sell-back'scheme where second home owners who wanted to could sell their homes to housing associations who could refurbish/redevelop them for locals?. This would keep them on brownfield sites and within the existing development boundaries. What about building good quality all-season timber lodges and upgrading existing caravan sites to accommodate permanent residents? There is a precedent for 'trailer parks' already, but these would be more up-to-date and attractive. The active elderly might like them as well as the low-waged, and it would be a good source of income to farmers who can think of nothing but selling their land at the moment.

An unequivocal commitment and a creative proactive approach to evolving truly affordable homes within the existing development boundaries on brownfield sites.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Figure 27 - Grange-over-Sands Functional area Strategy Diagram

Site 1 Fig 27 land off Grange Fell Rd

Oppose

The invitation to interested parties to submit sites for consideration for development specifically limited these sites to land within the development boundaries of the Local Plan. How can SLDC nominate land outside the boundary for development unless the owner has already agreed? If the owner has already submitted an ineligible site for consideration, why has SLDC considered it? SLDC cannot claim at this point that there is no option but to build on greenfield as it has not carried out any of the more detailed assessments. It has also shown little initiative in seeking out brownfield sites in a proactive manner. It is not sufficient to accept a greenfield site outside the boundary merely because the landowner has offered one. If this type of decision is acceptable policy, it opens the door to continued attrition of farmland over the next twenty years and leads to farms that are too small to have the land/resources to diversify even if they wanted to.

Be consistent with existing policy and procedures, and remove area 1 from consideration altogether, along with any other greenfield sites outside the existing boundaries.

Consider some less obvious options for redeveloping town centre sites. How about replacing Grange Library with a three-story building? The existing building isn't attractive and the rear car park is a death trap with terrible access onto a one-way road! New library facilities on the ground floor, eco-friendly apartments above - keep the trees, build on most of the car park, plan in some pedestrianization for the site, incorporate balconies, cycle stores,wi-fi and recycling chutes. Give the first tenants/owners a free railcard for the first year to encourage them to sell their cars. What about using the site of the current British Legion on Kents Bank Road for serviced apartments for the elderly? The BL is having a hard time keeping its clubs going - it might be willing to sell if the purpose was in sympathy with its existing aims. There would be good level access to local amenities for the less mobile. Given the increased targets for identifying sites I think something other than the standard letter of invitation is called for, even at this stage - maybe a well-publicized 'invitation to discuss', pointing out the potential financial gain, to the owner of every large commercial premises in Grange. If SLDC can be flexible in their response to developers' obligations re co2 emissions, they can be flexible in the way they attract good brownfield sites. Now is the time to do a second trawl before everything becomes a foregone conclusion.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Re: Preferred Direction of Growth
Local Development Framework
1. North West Grange
Land off Grange Fell Rd, Grange Over Sands


1. I strongly oppose this option for many reasons. My stance is that this site should be taken out of consideration for any building development (other than small-scale improvements by the farmer) at this stage of the LDF process. Further, it should be designated as green gap/ protected as historic county landscape for the life of the Development Plan, and its existing character and historical interest should be gently enhanced to promote enjoyment and appreciation of locals and tourists alike with more footpaths, interpretation boards, and waymarkers.

2. This site is not in the Grange Regeneration Plan; if the evidence for this Preferred Option rests mainly on the surveys, statistics and details provided for the Grange Regeneration Plan, there is no evidence of it having been surveyed, assessed, analysed, commented on, or mentioned by anyone as good for building on. This Option has no robust evidence to support its inclusion. It fails the first test of soundness – that the choice should be based on good evidence.
3. It could be argued that this option also fails the second test of soundness in terms of good practice in involving the community in its preparation. While it may be more cost effective to put a copy of the LDF in Grange Library and have one consultation day at Victoria Hall, the needs of the elderly and less mobile to receive information in a form they can understand and comment on is not well served. The length, format and jargon of the LDF is impenetrable to someone with an average reading age and no background in planning, and the request for ordinary readers to comment on the Tests of Soundness is risible.

4. The information in the LDF has not got through to those most affected. I have talked to at least twenty of my nearest neighbours over the past week and most have expressed complete ignorance of anything planned for the area: coverage in Grange Now has had no detail for this site, the notification in the Westmorland Gazette was not noticed by anyone I talked to, most of them do not have internet access to electronic versions, and no councillors, with or without planners) have organized small meetings to discuss the proposals (unlike other local districts). SLDC may have fulfilled their statutory consultation obligations, but have failed to get a full and informative response or any sense of involvement from those most likely to be affected. The elderly are particularly vulnerable to disruption of familiar and safe surroundings, and sensitive to having their needs / views ignored. It is not sufficient to be told, there are no community buildings, no pub/shops, and no healthcare centre. “Don’t worry – it won’t happen in your lifetime”. If this Preferred Option is not taken out of the LDF at this stage, the type of people who are least best placed to fight their corner can look forward to the worry and uncertainty of contesting every planning application put in for this site for the next twenty years. Most of them are not affluent incomers- they are low income locals who have seen nearly every corner of their surroundings built on over the past fifty years and would like to preserve their last bit of neighbourhood open space.

5. The Grange Regeneration Plan specifies that developments should be sited in / near the town centre for sustainability – it is perverse and inconsistent to suggest large scale development outside the development boundary in the existing Local Plan. To achieve a cost-effective build density on this site would produce a development out of character with its nearest buildings in terms of size and scale.

6. The Grange Regeneration Plan recognizes the need to protect and enhance distinctively local landscape recognized as County Landscape. Altering the wonderful scenery around the foot of Fell End and Hampsfell is the opposite of all national, regional and local guidance on protecting the quality and character of the landscape. Building would ruin the history of this site and the Hampsfell / Fell End area. The fields have been like this for at least three centuries. They retain the characteristic wells, limestone walls and field patterns typical of the area; they are acknowledged as interesting and valuable heritage, which cannot be replaced once altered. National planning policy is to promote/create /reinforce local distinctiveness, and ‘Heritage’ is a key theme in Grange’s Regeneration Plan. The main road to Cartmel past this site is narrow, steep and has a blind bend with no footpath. To construct access for businesses and homes would mean a major reshaping of the road and complete loss of rural character including old trees and native wildflower verges.

7. The comment in the Preferred Options chart in the LDF that new residents might find work in Lindale is inappropriate and inconsistent. It is inappropriate at this point because it suggests some notional employment advantage to this site, when in fact it is open to residents on any of the proposed sites to work in Lindale.


8. In terms of reducing journeys by car, this site is a poor candidate, as residents would have to cycle to Lindale through Grange Town Centre and up Windermere Rd, both challenging gradients for the fittest amongst us! Anyone with a disability will hesitate to buy a house which demands they retain their car as they get older – in this sense it is discriminatory to build houses here as the inherent transport issues make them less accessible for low income, elderly and the disabled than sites on flatter ground near the town centre. This is the wrong place to build homes for the elderly population and young families – it produces an increase in car journeys, as no-one can carry a week’s shopping by foot /bus or cycle up this gradient of hill. There are no amenities in the immediate vicinity – the sub post office about to shut.9. It is not acceptable to sacrifice the quality of a major year-round attraction for ramblers, casual walkers, residents and day tourists to both Grange and Cartmel . Anything which lessens the visual appeal will have a detrimental effect on the number of visitors and the local economy. The site provides an appropriately characteristic and distinctive rural ‘skirt’ for the higher land, and a visually attractive approach to the major walking routes on Fell End and Hampsfell. Building on any of these fields would be visible to tourists and locals from the slopes of Fell End; this is easily demonstrable by photographs which can be supplied if necessary. It would be visible to cyclists, pedestrians and car users on the road from Cartmel to Grange ; there are stunning views of Morecambe Bay at the point that the road passes this site, which would not be complemented by new buildings. It would also be visible from the footpath that runs along the southern boundary wall of the fields. The buildings could not be hidden by conventional landscaping because of the landforms, the drawbacks of excavating limestone to sufficient depth, the lack of sufficient natural topsoil and the alteration to visual character produced by tree planting.


10. These fields, including their aged / veteran trees which are particularly valuable for biodiversity, are a major visual amenity for local residents, many of whose homes are bounded on three sides by other houses – they provide an important open space and source of pleasure to many who cannot walk far because of age or infirmity. They have views up to the hills, there are deer , foxes and birds to watch, and there are bats to be seen at dusk, which may be roosting in the unused agricultural building on the site. Most of the residents
I have spoken to bought their homes because of the amenity of living next to
open fields. Some of the small houses abutting the site will be much affected,
as they have little or no garden space, their only compensation being their
proximity to open space. As the development would be uphill from the
existing houses, their effect would be quite dominant and overbearing for
residents around the Beech Rd / Stone Terrace area.


11. There is already a high risk of flooding toward houses further down due to the slope and shape of the fields. Existing local houses and roads already flood in heavy rain. Mitigation through drainage would be expensive and unpredictable as limestone is very difficult to excavate – most of the local houses have drainage systems that are relatively near the surface as a consequence. The construction of building foundations on limestone might alter the existing underground and surface drainage patterns with further unpredictable flooding results. Any hardstanding associated with buildings will remove soakaway capacity and exacerbate existing flooding potential. The floodwater would end up at the Main St / Kents Bank Rd crossroads and would disrupt traffic and commerce as much as the Windermere Rd flooding has. There is strong presumption in regional and national planning policy against building in areas of flooding and this is not limited to the low-lying coastal strip.

12. Altering the ‘visual amenity’ of the area prejudices the possibility of developing further tourism – related businesses in existing premises. Grange Fell Sub-Post Office is shortly to close, and the owner has started a promising B&B business. This is immediately adjacent to the south boundary wall of the site and gains most of its attractiveness from its location next to open fields and within walking distance of Hampsfell. If other residents want to develop B&B businesses or start a holiday cottage business, their chance of success is slim if they lose the open views and rural atmosphere. As a resident on Beech Rd for seven years I can see increasing numbers of houses here contributing to the local economy . Of the ten houses on Beech Rd, two have operated as holiday cottages in the recent past, one brings long-term rental income for a local owner, three are currently second homes. I can only see the trend accelerating as affluent retirees look for affordable second homes outside the Lake District honeypots, and local families reject these small Victorian cottages as too cramped and lacking amenities for permanent residence. Holiday cottages and B&Bs are a traditional and accessible route to business for the area, particularly for women and farming families, and I think there is potential on Grange Fell to expand this in future if the scenery stays as attractive as it is. Grange centre has sufficient facilities for most second home owners to shop locally, and they certainly use the cafés and local attractions.


13. Developing on this site would take valuable agricultural land out of production. One predicted growth industry is local / organic food - more restaurants are trying to source it, more customers are paying premium prices for it. There is good commercial potential for local production to supply local hotels, and grow national businesses through internet marketing. This is already happening for individual local producers. Taking agricultural land out of production leads to less flexible land use later on, and limits the commercial options for future generations.

14. Any business development is better placed in the town centre near the railway, post office, banks etc. It is important to raise the vitality of town centre to keep it viable and attractive, and the Grange Regeneration plan is based on this premise. I think there may be brownfield options that have not been considered, such as:

Redeveloping the existing Station Yard business site. There is derelict land alongside the railway line at the end of this site, which seems to shelter nothing but unsightly dead cars, but has potential. The owner of Station Garage might be amenable to compulsory purchase. The existing garage building could be replaced by several units or refurbished into offices / starter units . It has the advantage of being near the Station to facilitate rail freight instead of road, delivery vehicles do not need to drive through the town centre to reach it, it is mainly not visible from the road, and it is near enough the access to the prom to consider including some retail outlets near the entrance. I think it would accommodate internet mail-order businesses or starter workshops and could even have an on-site training centre to assist starter businesses and promote mutual assistance / peer mentoring between businesses.

Redeveloping the land / buildings in the angle of Main St / Kents Bank Rd and Albert Rd ie the area behind Higginsons. Mr Higginson might be amenable to selling his undeveloped garage on Kents Bank Rd, and / or Mr. Gedyes might like to sell his defunct Auction Rooms for redevelopment. An attractive courtyard / all-weather arcade with quality food and speciality shops, and affordable apartments / offices above, would enhance the appearance of the area and be a great asset to that end of town, particularly if Booth’s does arrive at the Windermere Rd site. It could include outlets for local producers, even have space for a farmer’s market under cover – or a Sunday gardeners’ market, to build on a local characteristic and encourage tourists to include the Kents Bank Rd area in their walkabouts. There is already a good footfall in this area and this would help retain it.

If Booths does take up the Toyota garage site, one or more of Spar / Co-op / Fletchers might want to sell up for redevelopment. If the Booth’s decision is confirmed, they might like the option of realizing the capital from their existing assets to reinvest elsewhere rather than remaining to cope with the inevitable competition. If it were put into the plan at this stage, or opened to other businesses with suitable premises for redevelopment to offer for compulsory purchase, Grange might be able to avoid the conflict and tension experienced last time when Booths applied to build locally. If the Booth’s application fails again, that land still offers a well located site for housing / retail / business. Redevelopment could inclused finally sorting out the culverts and flooding as well. This would fit the ‘higher density housing on redevelopment land rather than lower density on greenfield’ priciple and also the sequential principle of town centre outwards development.