Representations received on Preferred Options Draft Local Plan...Network Rail will be required to undertake an assessment of how best to mitigate this risk. In the event that mitigation

Representations received on Preferred Options Draft Local Plan

0

Contents Page

Page 1-2 Introduction

Pages 3-23: General Comments on Plan

Pages 24-27: Representations received on Chapter 1 Introduction

Pages 28-32: Representations received on Chapter 2 Vision & Objectives

Pages 33-47: Representations received on Chapter 3 Development Strategy

Pages 48-55: Representations received on Chapter 4 Climate Change & Pollution

Pages 56-73: Representations received on Chapter 5 Infrastructure

Pages 74-85: Representations received on Chapter 6 Economy

Pages 86-124: Representations received on Chapter 7 Housing

Pages 125-134: Representations received on Chapter 8 Retail

Pages 135-140: Representations received on Chapter 9 Heritage & the Built Environment

Pages 141-146: Representations received on Chapter 10 Natural Environment

Pages 147-156: Representations received on Chapter 11 Green Infrastructure

Pages 157-162: Representations received on Chapter 12 Promoting Healthy Communities


1

Introduction

The Council consulted on the Preferred Options Draft ran from 8th July 2015 and 4th September 2015 and included the following:

• The Council sent 275 consultation emails and 71 letters to interested parties including Councillors, specific consultees, consultants, architects, agents and housing developers.

• The Council publicised the consultations on the Council website.

• The Council made consultation documents available in Council offices and local libraries.

• The Council issued a press release to the local newspaper.

• The Council displayed posters and leaflets at the Town Hall and local libraries.

• The Council held public drop in events throughout the Borough.

During the consultation period, the Council received representations from 104 different individuals, organisations and bodies. A total of 480 representations were received with 330 relating to the content of the Plan and its potential policies and 150 comments on specific sites.

The response to the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan has overall been positive although some objections to the content of the Plan and proposed sites have been received. Comments and proposed amendments to wording have been taken on board where appropriate and the Council welcomes the continued input and engagement from consultees as the Barrow Borough Local Plan progresses through to adoption.

This document sets out the representations received on the content of the plan in chapter order along with a response from the Council on how the comments has been taken on board and used to amend the Publication Draft

Comments relating to Sites

The council received 150 comments relating to specific sites and these are reproduced alongside other site information in the Proposed Housing Site Assessments Document.


2

Consultation Database

If you would like to be added to our Planning Policy Consultation Database, or would like to update your details, please contact us at:

[email protected]

Planning Policy

Development Services

Barrow Borough Council

Town Hall

Duke Street

Barrow in Furness

LA14 2LD

Tel: 01229 876363/876388/876349

mailto:[email protected]


3

Representations received on Chapter: GENERAL

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 23 representations with General comments on the content of the Plan, all 23 of these representations have been categorised as comments.

These representations are set out below in relation to the paragraph or policy to which they refer to and the response from Barrow Borough Council is noted underneath.

General Comments on the Plan

23 representations were received on the chapter in general and information set out in the introductory text. A number of amendments are proposed to the supporting text in response to the comments received from consultees and these are detailed below.

Rep ID 767/3

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - J Pickup, Environment Agency We are supportive of the policies formulated from the range of options put forward in the previous Issues and Options Draft of the Local Plan on which the Environment Agency was previously consulted and which are now incorporated in the Preferred Options Consultation Draft. We are pleased to see that our comments and recommendations have been incorporated in the Preferred Options Consultation Draft and we have no further comments to add at this stage. BBC Response – Comments welcomed and noted.

Rep ID 768/6

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Diane Clarke, Network Rail Network Rail would comment as follows: (1) Network Rail Statutory Consultation Process Network Rail would draw the council’s attention to the following (which applies to England only): The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Publicity for applications for planning permission within 10 metres of relevant railway land. (1) This article applies where the development to which the application relates is situated within 10 metres of relevant railway land. (2) The local planning authority must, except where paragraph (3) applies, publicise an application for planning permission by serving requisite notice on any infrastructure manager of relevant railway land.


4

(3) Where an infrastructure manager has instructed the local planning authority in writing that they do not require notification in relation to a particular description of development, type of building operation or in relation to specified sites or geographical areas (“the instruction”), the local planning authority is not required to notify that infrastructure manager. (4) The infrastructure manager may withdraw the instruction at any time by notifying the local planning authority in writing. (5) In paragraph (2) “requisite notice” means a notice in the appropriate form as set out in Schedule 3 or in a form substantially to the same effect. (2) Level Crossings Network Rail would draw the council’s attention to the following (which applies to England only):Town & Country Planning (GPD) England Order 2015 Procedure for applications for prior approval under Part 3 (5) Where the application relates to prior approval as to transport and highways impacts of the development, on receipt of the application, where in the opinion of the local planning authority the development is likely to result in a material increase or a material change in the character of traffic in the vicinity of the site, the local planning authority must consult—…. (c) the operator of the network which includes or consists of the railway in question, and the Secretary of State for Transport, where the increase or change relates to traffic using a level crossing over a railway. Procedure for applications for prior approval under Class E(5) On receipt of the application, where in the opinion of the local planning authority the development is likely to result in a material increase or a material change in the character of traffic in the vicinity of the site, the local planning authority must consult—(c) the operator of the network which includes or consists of the railway in question, and the Secretary of State for Transport, where the increase or change relates to traffic using a level crossing over a railway. Councils are urged to take the view that level crossings can be impacted in a variety of ways by planning proposals: By a proposal being directly next to a level crossing By the cumulative effect of developments added over time in the vicinity of a level crossing By the type of level crossing involved e.g. where pedestrians only are allowed to use the level crossing, but a proposal involves allowing cyclists to use the route By the construction of large developments (commercial and residential) where road access to and from the site includes a level crossing or the level / type of use of a level crossing increases as a result of diverted traffic or of a new highway. By developments that might impede pedestrians ability to hear approaching trains at a level crossing, e.g. new airports or new runways / highways / roads. By proposals that may interfere with pedestrian and vehicle users’ ability to see level crossing warning signs. By any developments for schools, colleges or nurseries where minors in numbers may be using the level crossing By any proposal that may cause blocking back across the level crossing By any proposal which may see a level crossing impacted by the introduction of cycling or walking routes. Where proposals impact the type or volume of user at a level crossing, Network Rail would seek to liaise with developers, the LPA, Highways and Public Rights of Way to mitigate the impacts of third party proposals. Therefore we would wish to see in the ‘Preferred Options’ a policy specifically related to level crossings. Network Rail would wish to have included within the ‘Preferred Options’ a policy along the following comment lines: Following monitoring of a level crossing we will notify the council of our concerns should the proposal or the impact from cumulative proposals in the area result in a material increase in the type and / or volume of users at this crossing. An increase in type and / or volume of users may result in an increase in risk, in which case Network Rail will be required to undertake an assessment of how best to mitigate this risk. In the event that mitigation measures are required. Network Rail would seek the support of the Local Planning Authority, together with that of Highways and Public Rights of Way to progress any necessary mitigation measures to ensure that the risk at any level crossing is either reduced or eliminated. This may be by, but not limited to undertaking the following actions: a .Closure of the level crossing


5

and replacement of the level crossing by a suitable bridge, closure of the level crossing and diversion of any public right of way level crossing to remain open but mitigation measures to be installed (mitigation measures to be determined by the type and location of the level crossing). 4.We would also seek support in principle from the Local Planning Authority, Highways Authority and Public Rights of Way for any necessary mitigation measures and that the Local Planning Authority, Highways Authority, Public Rights of Way would not act to prevent these mitigation measures. 5. That developers would provide funds (either via CIL or S106) to either fully fund or contribute towards funding of mitigation measures at level crossings. As Network Rail is a public body it is not reasonable to expect Network Rail to fund mitigation measures that are necessary as a result of third party commercial development. Should the Council be minded to approve any planning application, Network Rail would expect full support in undertaking the measures outlined above if required as a result of the new development. Local Planning Authorities are also encouraged to consider the cumulative impact of smaller multiple developments on level crossings. (3) Developer Contributions Where growth areas or significant housing allocations are identified close to existing rail infrastructure it is essential that the potential impacts of this are assessed. Many stations and routes are already operating close to capacity and a significant increase in patronage may create the need for upgrades to the existing infrastructure including improved signalling, passing loops, car parking, improved access arrangements or platform extensions. As Network Rail is a publicly funded it would not be reasonable to require Network Rail to fund rail improvements necessitated by commercial development. It is therefore appropriate to require developer contributions or CIL contributions to fund such railway improvements; it would also be appropriate to require contributions towards rail infrastructure where they are directly required as a result of the proposed development and where the acceptability of the development depends on access to the rail network. The National Planning Policy Framework states that councils should, “work with…transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development…or transport investment necessary to support strategies for the growth of …other major generators of travel demand in their areas.” Also, “encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plan, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.” The likely impact and level of improvements required will be specific to each station and each development meaning standard charges and formulae may not be appropriate. Therefore in order to fully assess the potential impacts, and the level of developer contribution required, it is essential that where a Transport Assessment is submitted in support of a planning application that this quantifies in detail the likely impacts on the rail network. To ensure that developer contributions can deliver appropriate improvements to the rail network we would recommend that the Barrow – Local Plan Preferred Options include provisions for rail. The policy should include the following: A requirement for developer contributions to deliver improvements to the rail network, including any development that occurs as a consequence of the Barrow – Local Plan Preferred Options. A requirement for Transport Assessments to take cognisance of impacts to existing rail infrastructure to allow any necessary developer contributions towards rail to be calculated. A commitment to consult Network Rail where development may impact on the rail network and may require rail infrastructure improvements. In order to be reasonable these improvements would be restricted to a local level and would be necessary to make the development acceptable. We would not seek contributions towards major enhancement projects which are already programmed as part of Network Rail’s remit. Improvements to rail transport contribute to the public good and railway developments should not be expected to support other public projects. Our infrastructure projects and station developments and improvements support regeneration, increase the attractiveness of settlements and benefit communities.


6

BBC Response- Comments regarding the Network Rail Statutory Consultation Process are noted. Within the Infrastructure Chapter there is detail on the rail infrastructure in the borough in terms of current and future requirements. The Council has not included a specific policy on level crossings as there is only one in the borough which may be affected by cumulative development proposals, and this is at Askam. The effect on this level crossing is unknown at this time and would be dependent on the scale and timing of development, the total no of dwellings proposed for Askam and Ireleth being 124 over the lifetime of the Plan. The Council has however added the issue of monitoring the level crossings in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and Network Rail will be consulted on any applications affecting, or close to, a level crossing as set out in your response. However Policy I1- Developer Contributions includes provision for improved rail infrastructure and Policy I5 – Travel Plans sets out what the Travel Plan needs to contain.

Rep ID 769/10

Status - Comment Policy /Para - General Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Thank you for giving South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) the opportunity to make comments concerning the above document. The comments below represent the views of Officers within the Development Strategy Team. In overview, we confirm that Barrow Borough’s emerging Draft Local Plan is well aligned with and complementary to the adopted SLDC Core Strategy and Land Allocations DPDs and raises no areas of planning policy conflict. Officer comments are split into: 1) those relating to the Local Plan – Preferred Options Draft (ordered by chapter heading); and 2) Comments relating to supporting draft evidence base documents that are also subject to consultation. BBC Response – Comments welcomed and noted.

Rep ID 800/25

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Maria Curran, Northern Gas Networks Please be advised that Barrow-in-Furness does not fall within the geographic boundary of the gas network owned and operated by Northern Gas Networks. The owner and operator in that area is National Grid. BBC response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 803/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para -General Contact/Organisation Alan Hubbard, National Trust Generally the work on the draft Plan following the Issues and Options consultation in 2014 is considered to have suitably advanced the Plan in a manner that should improve its soundness. A number of important changes have been made and these are commented on as appropriate below. In contrast the Trust does have a number of concerns relating to the Green Infrastructure Strategy, again as set out below. National Trust. National Trust is a leading conservation charity with 4.2 million members. Established 120 years ago, our primary statutory purpose is to promote the preservation of special places for the benefit of the nation. To achieve this aim we manage over a quarter of a million hectares of land, more than 700 miles of


7

unspoilt coastline and estuary, several hundred historic houses, gardens and parks, and 6 World Heritage Sites. More than 100 million visits are made every year to the properties in our care. Within the Barrow area the Trust has two particular property interests at Sandscale Haws and Dalton Castle. Sandscale Haws and Dalton Castle Sandscale Haws has been described by Natural England as the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the areas’ world class natural heritage. It is not only a National Nature Reserve, but also part of the Duddon Estuary Ramsar Site, Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation. In addition it is a Site of Special Scientific Interest. A key aspect of the importance of Sandscale Haws is its cumulative value as an eco-system – some parts of which are very fragile. This ecosystem extends beyond the boundaries of the Trust’s ownership. There are key inter-dependencies with the Duddon Estuary such as the supply of sand, sediments and nutrients which are essential to initiate dune building processes. There are many species that rely on different habitats within the wider ecosystem such as wading birds which utilise different areas for feeding, nesting and roosting. The site also contains around 20% of the national population of natterjack toads. The reserve is a popular place for recreation, both on the beach and in the quieter areas of the dunes. The vistas over the Duddon estuary and towards the central Fells of the Lake District being a key, and much valued, characteristic of the property. It is estimated that there are 70-80,000 visits there each year. Dalton Castle is a 14th Century tower built to assert the authority of the Abbot of Furness Abbey. Situated within a Conservation Area in Dalton town centre the Castle overlooks the town, its approaches and the countryside beyond, being a reminder of the glory days of this small market town. BBC Response – Comments welcomed and noted.

Rep ID 851/132

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Fiona Pudge, Sport England I have the following comments to make: Draft Green Infrastructure Strategy June 2015 It is noted playing fields and pitches are included for their physical characteristics and visual amenity and not level of provision required. This will be in the Council’s emerging Sports Pitch and Facilities Study Review. Sport England would welcome being consulted on the emerging Study. As Sport England hasn’t been consulted to date, we are unable to endorse the methodology used and assess whether the Study will be robust. The Council is strongly urged to contact Sport England to discuss the Study to ensure it is capable of informing emerging planning policy, individual planning applications and funding applications. The current approved methodology, and referenced in the NPPG can be using the link below:http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/playing-pitch-strategy-guidance/ There is no mention of a built facilities sports strategy to assess the need for indoor sports facilities, and in line with para 73 of NPPF the Council is strongly advised to prepare one to help inform emerging planning policy, individual planning applications and funding application. Sport England guidance can be found using the link below: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/assessing-needs-and-opportunities-guidance/ Potential Housing Sites: Barrow Borough Site Assessments It is noted that the site assessments include a number of playing fields. Sport England is a statutory consultee on all planning applications affecting playing fields used within the last 5 years or allocated as playing fields. For that reason any sites identified in the LAA that affect playing fields, should make it clear that any subsequent site allocation or planning application will be assessed by Sport England using the criteria set out in paragraph 74 of the NPPF and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for sport/development management/planning-applications/playing-field-land/ Any potential planning application or site allocation that affects playing field should either: Identified the site in an up to date and robust assessment as clearly demonstrated to be surplus to requirements; or An equivalent or better replacement site is proposed in terms of quantity and quality and in a suitable location It should also be noted that Sport England’s statutory remit also extends to proposals that could prejudice the use of a playing field. Sport England would like to be


8

consulted on any potential site allocations or planning applications that are adjacent to playing fields. This is because construction of buildings next to playing fields, especially used by cricket or rugby union, can prevent play taking place, either because buildings are located within the strike zone of balls, or because physical access to a site is compromised. BBC Response – The Council is prioritising the updating of this evidence base before the end of 2016 and is working with the County Council and Barrow Borough Sports Council to achieve this and we welcome the input of Sport England. Sites going forward which include playing fields or parts of them have been deemed by their owner/promoter to be surplus to requirements and no longer in use this could be because of alternative provision elsewhere, or because they are no longer fit for purpose or required.

Rep ID 858/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association The Road Haulage Association (RHA) is the trade and employers organisation for the hire-and-reward sector of the road haulage industry. The RHA represents some 7,000 companies throughout the UK, with around 100,000 HGVs and with fleet sizes and driver numbers varying from one through to thousands. Generally, RHA members are entrepreneurs, including many family-owned businesses as well as some plcs. More than 80 of the Motor Transport top 100 companies are RHA members. The RHA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Barrow Borough Local Plan noting that there is a strong focus in the document on the desire to regenerate the area which has had a declining population since the 1950s, and which is described on pages 18-20s as being largely rural and isolated from regional and local markets. BBC Response- Comments noted.

Rep ID 863/133

Status - Comment Policy /Para - General Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association Specifically in terms of employment opportunities, we would like to draw your attention to a recent report published by the Policy Exchange think tank, titled “On the Move”, which says that making it easier for people to commute twenty minutes further would put them in touch with at least one major urban area and potentially 10,000 more job opportunities. A link to the report is below: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/item/on-the-move-how-to-create-a-more-mobile-workforce?category_id=24 Therefore I restate the RHA view that any vibrant economy must be supported by a good transport network because businesses must be able to get their products to markets, and customers must be able to access goods and services easily, as well as allowing residents access to employment. So while we recognise and support the need for sustainable development which is a key theme of the Plan, we suggest that Barrow resident should be helped to find a wider range of employment opportunities through provision of excellent public transport and good roads links. It is likely that for the foreseeable future road transport will remain the dominant mode for the transportation of goods. It is quite possible that much more will be moved by vans rather than by trucks particularly for so called last mile deliveries, or that technology will make trucks quieter, less polluting and even driverless, but in our view commercial road haulage will remain the best and most cost effective option for customers wishing to move goods for decades to come. If this is the case then the interests of the industry must be accommodated if the economy of Barrow is to thrive. BBC Response – Comments noted, improvements to the borough’s transport infrastructure is an important thread running through the Local Plan supported by the


9

Infrastructure Delivery Plan, one of the Plans objectives is to ensure that ‘efficient and integrated infrastructure networks are in place to support growth and development’.

Rep ID 909/508

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - David Sherratt, United Utilities United Utilities Water Limited has reviewed your consultation documents and have no specific comments to make at this stage, but wish to be included in further consultations and where necessary, the development of your future growth plans and supporting policies, to ensure we can facilitate the delivery of the necessary sustainable infrastructure in line with your delivery targets, whilst safeguarding our service to customers. BBC response – Comments welcomed and noted.

Rep ID 911/40

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation BNP Paribas Real Estate, Associated British Ports We have been instructed by our client Associated British Ports (ABP), to submit representations to the Barrow Borough Local Plan Preferred Options consultation, in respect of their land and port holdings at Barrow (the ‘Port of Barrow’). These are made pursuant to ABP’ previous representations to the Barrow Port Area Action Plan (AAP) and Local Plan and are set in detail below. BACKGROUND The vital role the UK’s ports play in local, regional and the national economies is recognised and supported in national policy. More specifically, the National Policy Statement for Ports (NPSP), published January 2012, recognises the “essential role of ports in the UK economy”, particularly in terms of freight and bulk movements, energy supplies and tourism and leisure, as well as the wider economic benefits associated with these. Other important provisions of the NPSP include: That it is a fundamental element of Government policy to “…allow judgments about when and where new developments might be proposed to be made on the basis of commercial factors by the port industry or port developers operating within a free market environment.” (para 3.3.1,bullet point 2); and In respect of issues relating to the location of development, that “...the Government does not wish to dictate where port development should occur. Port development must be responsive to changing commercial demands and the Government considers that the market is the best mechanism for getting this right, with developers bringing forward applications for port developments where they consider them to be commercially viable.”(para3.4.12); The Government’s belief that “there is a compelling need for substantial additional port capacity over the next 20–30 years, to be met by a combination of development already consented and development for which applications have yet to be received” (para 3.4.16); and “Excluding the possibility of providing additional capacity for the movement of goods and commodities through new port development would be to accept limits on economic growth and on the price, choice and availability of goods imported into the UK and available to customers. It would also limit the local and regional economic benefits that new development might bring. Such an outcome would be strongly against the public interest.”(para 3.4.16). Furthermore, important provisions from the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) include the following: Paragraph 30, which requires local planning authorities to “facilitate the use of sustainable modes of transport” when preparing their Local Plans by supporting, amongst other things, ports. Paragraph 33, which identifies that local planning authority plans, should take account of the growth of ports and their role in serving the needs of business. Paragraph 35, which requires plans “protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people”.


10

Paragraph 41, which requires local planning authorities to identify and protect “sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice”. Paragraph 154, which requires Local Plans to “set out the opportunities for development and clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where”. ABP is the UK’s largest and leading port operator, helping to drive the vital contribution that ports make to our economy. A Report by Ove Arup and Partners for ABP titled “The Economic Value of ABP in the Humber” and published in November 2013, identifies a number of key findings in relation to ABP’s 21 ports across the UK, including the Port of Barrow: ABP contributed circa £5.6 billion in Gross Value Added (GVA) to UK plc in 2012 including approximately £510m at its North West ports at Barrow, Garston, Fleetwood and Silloth. 25% of the volume of all UK seaborne import / export trade passes through ABP ports. ABP creates and supports circa 84,000 private sector jobs, including over 7,600 at its North West ports. The estimated economic value of ABP’s planned investment at it UK ports from 2013 – 2017 is in order of £1.75 billion in GVA to the UK economy, including circa £20m at ABP’s North West ports. It also should be noted that ABP plays a vital role in facilitating modal shift, with its UK ports supporting 25% of all UK rail freight (around half of all freight carried by rail in the UK moves to and from ports). In addition, every year around 30 million tonnes of domestic cargo is transported around our coast by sea (short sea shipping). Accordingly, by facilitating modal shift, ABP helps to remove HGVs and other commercial vehicles from the UK’s congested road network, contributing to a more robust and efficient transport network. PORT OF BARROW The Port of Barrow comprises Buccleuch Dock, Cavendish Dock, Devonshire Dock and Ramsden Dock, as well as associated port land located primarily to the north and south of Ramsden Dock (see Appendix A). ABP’s port land at the Port of Barrow extends to circa 138 acres (56 ha) in total, the majority o which is occupied by a number of port related operators on a leasehold basis, in addition to warehousing and quay side occupied by ABP. Approximately 1.21 ha (3 acres) of ABP’s port land to the north of Anchor Line Basin is also expected to be developed in the near future as a port related biomass energy plant by Sunrise Renewables (see Appendix B ABP Plan 3). Dong Energy also currently has a tenancy at will link to the Deep Water Pontoon on the land identified on the plan at Appendix B. This tenancy may turn into a lease going forward dependent on the potential future development of port facilitates on the adjacent development area (Ref, 510341D on plan at Appendix B). Assuming the Sunrise development goes ahead, as well as the future development of port facilities on area 510341D, this will only leave approximately 24.25 acres (9.81 ha) of existing port land available to accommodate other future port related development. However, this includes approximately 9.81 acres (3.97 ha) of existing port land on the south side of the Ramsden Dock lock entrance (Ref 5103339D on plan at Appendix B) which is likely to be difficult to develop without the construction of a deep water berth to the Walney Channel, south of the Ramsden Dock entrance gates (see options 1 and 2 on plan at Appendix C). Current development and uses on ABP’s port land at the Port of Barrow include the following: Land to the North of Ramsden Dock ABP’s own bulk handling operations, BAE Systems operations at Devonshire Dock, Hope Construction Materials Limited’s concrete batching plant and Tarmac Limited’s open storage area, Centrica RPS Limited and Hydrocarbon Resources Limited’s Gas Condensate StorageTerminal, as well as Dong Energy Power (UK) Limited, Ormonde Energy Limited’s and Dong Energy West of Duddon Sands (UK) Limited / Scottish power Renewables (WODS) Limited’s Operations and Maintenance bases to serve the offshore wind farms in the Irish Sea. Land to the South of Ramsden Dock International Nuclear Services (INS) Limited’s operations at its nuclear fuel terminal and Dong Energy Power (UK) Limited’s Construction and Storage base to serve the offshore wind farms in the Irish Sea. The Port of Barrow handles around 300,000 tonnes each year and, although tonnage has been slightly down on this figure since 2012, it is expected to increase going forward. The port specialises in short sea shipping with a variety of specialist cargos and a range of bulk aggregates handled at the port in recent years. More specifically, these operations include the following:


11

Dry Bulks The Port of Barrow has experience in handling imports of sand and aggregates, along with exports of granite and locally quarried limestone in connection with the offshore wind farm construction. The port’s rail link is used for the movement of flasks for INS and has been used previously for the movement of wood pulp and manufactured goods. Liquid Bulks Centrica / Hydrocarbon Resources operate a condensate-storage facility adjoining Ramsden Dock, through which the liquid by-product of gas production at nearby onshore gas terminals is exported. It is expected that the amount of condensate handled at the port will increase in the near future. Forest Products The importation of wood pulp returned to Barrow in 2006. A regular pulp transhipment service from Flushing, Holland, has been established for Kimberly Clark. Circa 60,000 tonnes of pulp is received by Barrow each year, destined for Kimberly Clark’s Barrow Mill, and is an important cargo for the port. This pulp was previously delivered by road, and the new operation has reduced vehicle movements on Britain’s busy road networks by more than 600,000 lorry miles every year, representing a significant environmental benefit. Offshore Oil, Gas and Low Carbon / Renewable Energy The Port of Barrow continues to play an important role in the construction of the offshore wind farms in the Irish Sea, and also provides support for both existing and proposed future renewable-energy projects in the Irish Sea. The Port of Barrow also plays an important role in other offshore activity in the Irish Sea, having operated as a base for the load-out of offshore gas pipelines and the import of modules and heavy-lift units for the three Barrow gas terminals. The port is also well placed to facilitate the import of raw materials used for low carbon and renewable energy generation, allowing the more sustainable movement of these by sea rather than road. Passengers and Cruises The Port of Barrow has a berth available to accommodate vessels up to 160 m length, in an ideal location for easy access to the Lake District National Park. Vehicular access to the land north of Ramsden Dock at the Port of Barrow is provided by Harding Rise / Ramsey Way which was recently considerably improved as part of the Waterfront Business Park development, pursuant to ABP’s 2006 land sale to Cumbria County Council (see below for more information) . The southern route to ABP’s land to the south and east of Ramsden Dock via Cavendish Dock Road is, however, much inferior in comparison and, as part of ABP’s land sale to Barrow Borough Council in 2006 (see below for more information), provisions were also agreed for a new road to be constructed along the route of the existing Cavendish Dock Road as part of the Marina Village development. This new road has yet to be constructed and ABP is keen to see it brought forward at the earliest opportunity, to help attract new investment by improving access to the southern and eastern areas of the Port of Barrow, the proposed Marina Village development, as well as the other business accessed via Cavendish Dock Road. With respect to vehicular access to the wider highway network, the Port of Barrow has good road connections to the A590, which links Barrow to the M6 motorway. ABP has also facilitated the construction of publicly accessible walkways on its landholdings along the north of Buccleuch Dock, as well as around Cavendish Dock, to assist the regeneration of the wider Barrow Port Area. These walkways have been a success and are very well used by members of the public. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ASPIRATIONS As part of the Government’s national energy strategy to combat climate change and secure the nation’s energy supply, West Cumbria has been identified as having the potential to deliver a critical element of this strategy. More specifically, Britain’s Energy Coast (BEC) was established in 2009 with the mission of transforming West Cumbria in to a diverse, resilient and low carbon economy. Building on existing strengths, the aim is to provide businesses with the support and infrastructure they need to capitalise on potential investments in the local nuclear industry and exploit opportunities in high-growth clean technologies such as solar, wind and biofuels.


12

In light of this, the Port of Barrow has the potential to play an important role in facilitating the anticipated significant future growth in renewable and low carbon energy technologies in West Cumbria. This could include energy generation development within the port, the import of materials to facilitate generation within and outside the port, as well as the development of Operations and Maintenance and or Construction bases to support off shore energy generation. Further to the above, as acknowledged by National Policy, as an Island economy the UK is increasingly dependent on the import and export of goods and there are few alternatives available other than sea transport. The alternatives that are available (rail and air transport) are constrained in terms of capacity of rail links through the channel tunnel and the cost and environmental disadvantages of aviation. As a consequence, the UK’s ports will continue to play an integral role in the movement of the vast majority of freight into and out of the country. The role of the Port of Barrow as a short sea shipping port is expected to increase going forward. This is due to the increasing costs of moving freight by road associated with the Working Time Directive, fuel costs and road taxation. The Port of Barrow is also expected to play an important role in the following projects going forward: 1. BAE System’s proposed Successor nuclear submarine deterrent programme, including the following to facilitate the programme: a) The import of materials and equipment through the port; b) Short term lease agreements for overflow car parking and storage; and c) Works to increase the depth of the water to in order to facilitate the movement of the new submarines. 2. The proposed new Moorside Nuclear Power Station adjacent to Sellafield, with materials and equipment expected to be imported via the port to facilitate construction. 3. National Grid’s North West Coast Connections Project to service the proposed new Moorside Nuclear Power Station, with the importation of materials and equipment through the port anticipated in connection with National Grid’s proposed route for new power cables at Morecambe Bay in connection with this project. Notwithstanding the above, ABP’s land holdings at the Port of Barrow were significantly reduced as part of the sale of port land in 2006 to facilitate the regeneration proposals set out in the Barrow Port AAP. More specifically, approximately 29.6 ha (73.3 acres) was sold to Cumbria County Council for the development of the Waterfront Business Park, with a further 7 ha (17.2 acres) sold to Barrow Borough Council to facilitate the Marina Village development proposals. Following the 2006 land sales, BAE Systems has now secured planning permission for the development of a circa 300,000 sq. ft. Strategic Bulk Storage Facility at Barrow Waterfront Business Park to support the Successor submarine programme, with construction now underway. This development is evidence of how ABP has further facilitated major economic development in Barrow, on what was previously port land. ABP excluded land which provided deep water access to the Walney Channel, as well as at Ramsden Dock, from the 2006 sale, in order to accommodate future port related development at the Port of Barrow. Since 2006 however, there has been a significant increase in development at the Port of Barrow, particularly in connection with the offshore wind farm developments in the Irish Sea e.g. Operations and Maintenance bases and Construction and Storage bases. This has resulted in land take up which is considerably more than anticipated at the time of the 2006 landsale, creating increased pressure in terms of accommodating future development needs on the land that remains at the Port of Barrow. As a result of the above, demand for land at the Port of Barrow with direct deep water access to the Walney Channel (rather than through the Ramsden Dock entrance gates) has increased significantly, and is anticipated to continue to do so going forward. This is due to the 24/7 access provided to the Irish Sea, which is particularly important for Operations and Maintenance bases, in order to facilitate the unrestricted access necessary for the emergency repair and regular maintenance work required in connection with the off shore wind farms in the Irish Sea. It is clear from the above that the land at the Port of Barrow with existing, or the potential to create, direct deep water access to the Walney Channel is of increasing strategic importance. Much of the land at the Port of Barrow with existing direct deep water access to the Walney Channel has, however, now been developed, principally to provide Operations and Maintenance bases to serve the offshore wind farms. Accordingly, ABP is currently exploring the development potential of all its remaining port land which offers direct deep water access to the Walney Channel. These


13

development opportunities include the following: 1. Deep water facilities to support large scale construction requirements. 2. Channel side pontoon facilities to support both servicing and commissioning, as well as the long term operation and maintenance requirements associated with the anticipated growth in the burgeoning offshore energy sector. ABP is looking to progress development schemes within the short, medium and longer term. These proposed developments will be vital to the Port of Barrow, as well as the local and wider regional economies given the significant economic benefits that will result. For example, the Operations and Maintenance bases referred to above typically create in the region of 50 jobs each, with a significant number of these being of a highly skilled nature. Importantly, these bases also facilitate the continued generation of off shore renewable energy. It is clear from the above that demand for the use and development of the land within the Port of Barrow for port and energy related uses is likely to remain high in the short, medium and potentially the longer term, particularly for the land fronting the Walney Channel. Not foregoing the above, and subject to it’s priority, ABP is happy to work with the Council and other partners to investigate and evaluate the opportunity for a Marina Link to the Port over the longer term, subject to funding sources being identified and a scheme being physically and financially deliverable. BBC Response – Comments noted and welcomed, the Plan stresses the importance of the Port of Barrow within the Economy Chapter.

Rep ID 914/126

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation The HBF is the principal representative body of the house building industry in England and Wales and our representations reflect the views of our membership of multinational PLCs, through regional developers to small, local builders. Our members account for over 80% of all new housing built in England and Wales in any one year including a large proportion of the new affordable housing stock. The Council will be aware that the HBF made comments upon the Issues and Options version of the plan (Rep ID 216). We make further reference to these comments below. BBC Response – Comments welcomed and noted, specific comments dealt with under relevant chapter.

Rep ID 932/161

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Ginny Hall, Mobile Operators Association The Mobile Operators Association (MOA) represents the four UK mobile network operators – 3, Telefonica (O2), Everything, Everywhere (formerly Orange & T-Mobile) and Vodafone – on radio frequency, health and safety and associated town planning issues. The MOA has commissioned Mono Consultants Ltd to monitor all emerging development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance relating to telecommunications development on its behalf. Please find attached a response to the current consultation documents prepared by Mono Consultants Ltd on behalf of the MOA. Thank you for your recent consultation on the above and taking the time to seek our views on the introduction of a new Local Plan Policy relating to telecommunications developments. We consider this a very proactive approach to forward planning and welcome the opportunity to have input in the process. Paragraph 42 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that; “advanced, high quality communications infrastructure is essential for sustainable economic growth and play a vital role in enhancing the provision of local community facilities and services.” Paragraph 43 confirms that “in preparing local plans, local planning authorities should support the expansion of telecommunications networks”, but should also “aim to keep the numbers of radio telecommunications masts and sites for such installations to a minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. Existing masts, buildings and other structures should be used, unless the need for a new site has been justified.”


14

BBC Response- Comments welcomed and noted. Rep ID 938/423

Status - Comment Policy /Para - General Contact/Organisation - Edward Harvey, United Utilities CBRE Limited previously made representations on behalf of UUPS (dated 30.10.14) to the Council’s emerging Local Plan: Issues and Options consultation. Prior to this we submitted representations (dated 02.11.12) to the emerging Local Plan consultation, and also submitted representations (dated 30.10.12) to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), in respect of UUPS’ site off Saves Lane, Askam & Ireleth. UUPS’ site is identified as ‘Land East of Saves Lane, Ireleth’ (Site Ref: REC01) at Table 8 of the current Local Plan: Preferred Options document. BBC Response – Comments welcomed and noted.

Rep ID 1022/7

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Lindsay Alder, Highways England JMP have provided a number of general points in the attached document but I have provided the conclusions from the report below. JMP Consultants were commissioned by Highways England to undertake a review of the following Barrow Borough Local Plan documentation, which is currently out for consultation: •Barrow Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation Draft (June 2015); •Draft Employment Land Review (June 2015); and •Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (June 2015). In broad terms, it is agreed that the strategic sites and locations should be developed sustainably to minimise the number of private vehicle trips emanating from these development sites. The majority of sites are not considered to impact upon the SRN, but some sites, in particular employment sites, may have potential to impact upon the SRN. Development in the main centres of Barrow and Dalton should be supported due to the sustainable nature of these locations. When considering the developments proposed within the documentation, it is considered that a cumulative assessment of the development aspirations should be undertaken, through the creation and development of a robust transport evidence base. It is recommended that Highways England work proactively with BBC in the development of the transport evidence base, especially with regard to the capacity, operation and safety of the A590, and the development and use of assessment tools and methods to assess the cumulative impacts of the Local Plan proposals. Such work will help identify the trip generation of the content of the proposed developments, as well as helping Highways England understand where the future year pressures on the network may lie. In addition, such work will assist in identifying the infrastructure needed to support the development aspirations, and what developments may be required to contribute towards / fund the required transport infrastructure. This information will be provided in the Local Plan, with more detailed proposals outlined in the IDP. It is advised that further justification is provided for the balance of housing and employment sites within the Borough. An imbalance in requirements will result in increased in- and out- commuting via the A590, placing additional pressure on the SRN. The Local Plan and ELR should also consider the potential effects of housing and employment development outside of the Borough and how this may impact on commuting patterns and the operation of the A590. With regards the use of the 2012 SATURN model for junction assessments, and it is recommended the model is updated before undertaking any further assessments; JMP advises that Highways England requests the findings of any additional junction assessments at the earliest opportunity. In addition, Highways


15

England is advised to request further information regarding the anticipated operation of the BAE site over the plan period. Overall, the proposed developments outlined in the Local Plan are in line with relevant policy. Where there is the potential for developments to impact at the SRN, caution has been applied within this review. Following the provision of additional information, as requested above, the detail provided within the Local Plan is sufficiently supported by and in concurrence with the accompanying ELR and IDP. Notwithstanding, Highways England should welcome the details provided at this stage, support the sustainable nature of the transport and highways policies coming forward to support the development proposals, and continue to work with BBC to ensure the capacity, operation and safety of the SRN is not compromised as a consequence of the aspirations within the Local Plan. The report itself is rather long but as you can see from the main points above the development of the Local Plan is felt to be in line with the relevant policies. However some further work is required with regard to the junction assessments and updating of the modelling work. We would welcome information you may have with regard to the BAE site over the plan period. It may be useful to arrange a meeting to discuss those points raised and also ensuring we continue to work together as the Local Plan progresses. BBC response – Comments noted and welcomed, the Council has undertaken in conjunction with Cumbria County Council some Highways Modelling and a Transport Improvements Study. Both will be forward to Highways England as requested.

Rep ID 1023/7

Status – Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation Lindsay Alder, Highways England Introduction JMP Consultants Ltd [JMP] has been commissioned by Highways England to undertake a review of the following Barrow Borough Local Plan documentation, which were released for consultation in June 2015: •Barrow Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation Draft [the Local Plan]; •Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan [IDP]; and •Draft Employment Land Review [ELR]. The Barrow Borough Local Plan details the development aspirations for Barrow Borough Council [BBC] between 2016 and 2031 and outlines the preferred options for policies to be taken forward. The draft document has been released for consultation, with all reviews and comments to be taken into account in the next draft of the Local Plan, due for completion in late 2015 / early 2016. As ‘call-off’ consultants to Highways England, it is JMP’s role to review the documentation presented by BBC to identify if there is the potential of the aspirations and proposals within the documentation to impact upon the capacity, operation and safety of the Strategic Road Network [SRN]. A previous review of the Barrow Borough Issues and Options Consultation Draft was undertaken by JMP in October 2014 (Ref: W512009-002a). The SRN within Barrow is comprised of the A590, which provides a strategic route through the Borough, linking Barrow-in-Furness to Dalton, Askam and Lindal to the north of the Borough, before accessing Ulverston and the South Lakes, joining the M6 at Junction 36. The A590 is classified as a trunk road and as such, Highways England has the responsibility for the operation of this route as well as being responsible for funding improvements to the route. In summary, the key junctions along this section of the SRN within Barrow are, from west to east: •A590 / Park Road Roundabout; •A590 / A595 Askam Road Roundabout; and •A590 / Ulverston Road Roundabout.


16

This review considers the aspirations and proposals within the Preferred Options document, and takes a view on the aspirations and proposals contained within. In addition, JMP will consider the contents of the IDP and ELR which have also been prepared to support the Preferred Options document, and is available for review as part of the consultation. For ease of reading, the pertinent issues with the Local Plan documentation have been reviewed in the order they have been presented within each document listed above. In addition, JMP has provided conclusions and recommendations at the end of this Review Note. BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 1032/219

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Christopher Garner, Holker Estates These representations have been prepared by Garner Planning on behalf of the Holker Group. Holker Group of Companies has long established operations in Barrow in Furness and have a long track record of investment and commitment to the Borough. Recently the Group set up a new Estate Agency business and have just completed a £4 million investment in Devonshire Buildings on Barrow Island. The Group currently have 2 active building sites (Holbeck Park Avenue and St James’s Gardens, Holker Street) under construction and wish to actively support the current regeneration and inward investment programme for the area. Holker Group owns land in the following locations:- 1. EMR10 Sowerby Woods Business Park; 2. REC26 Land east of Holbeck, Barrow; and 3. SHL082 Land east of Rakesmoor Lane, Barrow. Holker Group would like the planning authority to take into account the comments made in the submission below. BBC Response – Comments noted, specific comments dealt with under relevant chapter.

Rep ID 1042/4

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England A requirement of the NPPF (Paragraph 169) is that a sound local plan will be based on a strong up-to date evidence base about the historic environment. This should be used to assess the significance of the heritage assets in the area and the contribution they make to the town. BBC Response- Comments note, Heritage Impact Assessments have been prepared by the Council which have informed the development of the Plan along with other heritage evidence.

Rep ID 1079/56

Status - Comment Policy /Para -General Contact/Organisation - John Moran/ Allison Chippendale, Health and Safety Executive When consulted on land-use planning matters, HSE where possible will make representations to ensure that compatible development within the Consultation zones of major hazard installations and major accident hazard pipelines (MAHPs) are achieved. HSE acknowledges that early consultation can be an effective way of alleviating problems due to incompatible development at the later stages of the planning process. We also recognise that there is a requirement for


17

you to meet the following duties in your plan, and that consultation with HSE may contribute to achieving compliance: 1. The National Planning Policy Framework (Para. 172) requires that planning policies should be based on up-to-date information on the location of major accident hazards and on the mitigation of the consequences of major accidents 2. Regulation 10(1) (b) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 as amended1 requires that in local plans and supplementary planning documents, regard be had for the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents for human health and the environment by pursuing those objectives through the controls described in Article 13 of Council Directive 2012/18/EU (Seveso III) 2. Regulation 10(c)(i) requires that regard also be had to the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate safety distances between establishments and residential areas, buildings and areas of public use, recreational areas, and, as far as possible, major transport routes. At this early stage HSE can give a general opinion regarding development compatibility based only on the outline information contained in your plan. This opinion takes no account of any intention to vary, relinquish or revoke hazardous substances consents. Planning authorities are advised to use HSE’s Planning Advice Web App to verify any advice given. The Web App is a software version of the methodology used in providing land use planning advice. It replaces PADHI+. Further information on the Web App is available on HSE’s website:http://www.hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning/padhi.htm Encroachment of Local Plan Allocations on Consultations Zones We have concluded that there is the potential for land allocated in your plan to encroach on consultations zones. The land allocations that could be effected are listed at Annex 1 attached to this letter. Compatibility of Development with Consultation Zones The compatibility issues raised by developing housing and workplaces within the inner, middle and outer zones are summarised below. Housing Allocations Inner Zone – Housing is not compatible with development in the inner zone. HSE would normally Advise Against such development. The only exception is developments of 1 or 2 dwelling units where there is a minimal increase in people at risk. Middle Zone – The middle zone is compatible with housing developments up to and including 30 dwelling units and at a density of no more than 40 per hectare. Outer Zone – Housing is compatible with development in the outer zone including larger developments of more than 30 dwelling units and high-density developments of more than 40 dwelling units per hectare. Workplace Allocations Inner Zone – Workplaces (predominantly non-retail) providing for less than 100 occupants in each building and less than 3 occupied storeys are compatible with the inner zone. Retail developments with less than 250m² total floor space are compatible with the inner zone. Note: Workplaces (predominantly non-retail) providing for 100 or more occupants in any building or 3 or more occupied storeys in height are compatible with the inner zone where the development is at the major hazard site itself and will be under the control of the site operator. Middle Zone – The middle zone is compatible with workplaces (predominantly non-retail). Retail developments with total floor space up to 5000m² are compatible with the middle zone. Outer Zone – Workplaces (predominantly non-retail) are compatible with the outer zone. Workplaces (predominantly non-retail) specifically for people with disabilities (e.g. sheltered workshops) are only compatible with the outer zone. Retail developments with more than 5000m² total floor space are compatible with the outer zone. This is a general description of the compatibility for housing and workplaces. Detail of other development types, for example institutional accommodation and education, and their compatibility with consultations zones can be found in the section on Development Type Tables of HSE’s Land Use Planning Methodology,


18

which is available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning/methodology.pdf Verification of Advice using the Web App The potential for encroachment is being brought to your attention at an early stage so that you can assess the actual extent of any incompatibility on future developments. Information on the location and extent of the consultation zones associated with major hazard installations and MAHPs can be found on HSE’s extranet system along with advice on HSE’s land-use planning policy. Lists of all major hazard installations and MAHPs, consultation zone maps for installations, and consultation distances for MAHPs are included to aid planners. All planning authorities should have an authorised administrator who can access HSE’s Planning Advice Web App; further information is available on HSE’s website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning/padhi.htm When sufficient information on the location and use class of sites becomes available at the pre-planning stages of your local plan, the use of the Web App could assist you in making informed planning decisions about development compatibility. Identifying Consultation Zones in Local Plans, HSE recommends that where there are major hazard installations and MAHPs within the area of your local plan, that you mark the associated consultation zones on a map. This is an effective way to identify the development proposals that could encroach on consultation zones, and the extent of any encroachment that could occur. The proposal maps in site allocation development planning documents may be suitable for presenting this information. We particularly recommend marking the zones associated with any MAHPs, and HSE advises that you contact the pipeline operator for up-to-date information on pipeline location, as pipelines can be diverted by operators from notified routes. Most incidents involving damage to buried pipelines occur because third parties are not aware of their presence. Identifying Compatible Development in Local Plans The guidance in HSE’s Land Use Planning Methodology, available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning/methodology.pdf will allow you to identify compatible development within any consultation zone in the area of your local plan. HSE recommends that you include in your plan an analysis of compatible development type within the consultation zones of major hazard installations and MAHPs based on the methodology. The sections on Development Type Tables and the Decision Matrix are particularly relevant, and contain sufficient information to provide a general assessment of compatible development by use class within the zones. There are a number of factors that can alter a Web App decision, for example where a development straddles 2 zones. These factors are outside the scope of the general advice in this letter. HSE’s final advice on development compatibility can only be determined through use of the Web App. Provision of Information to Interested Parties – Pipeline Operators The pipeline operator/s referred to will be sent a copy of this representation to make them aware of HSE’s preliminary advice on this matter. BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 1080/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Kate Wheeler, Natural England Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. 1.4 Spatial Portrait Natural Environment and Landscape Natural England welcomes the reference at 1.4.19 to the National Character Area, most of the area falls within the West Cumbria Coastal Plain, but also partly into South Cumbria Low Fells and Morecambe Bay Limestone. The links to these NCA profiles that fall within Barrow are as follows West Cumbria Coastal Plain


19

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6207059431260160?category=587130 South Cumbria Low Fells http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4754470?category=587130 Morecambe Bay Limestones http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5805974522691584?category=587130 Section1.4.20 should specifically name the designated sites. BBC response – Comments noted, the spatial portrait is a brief overview of the Natural environment of the Borough, more detail including the lists of designated sites is included with the Natural Environment Chapter.

Rep ID 1103/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation Barton Willmore, Story Homes These representations have been prepared on behalf of Story Homes Ltd (“Story Homes”) in response to the current consultation on the Preferred Options of the Barrow Local Plan. Story Homes has significant objections to the Local Plan as published, and does not believe that the Preferred Options or supporting evidence can be considered to be sound. In order to ensure that the Plan can be considered to be consistent with National Policy, there is need for extensive revision to the Council’s evidence base, strategy, allocations and policies, ahead of its submission. Below we provide a brief summary of the comments contained within these representations regarding the soundness of the Plan on a policy by policy basis. BBC Response – Comments noted, specific comments addressed in relevant Chapter.

Rep ID 1124/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes These representations have been prepared and submitted by Barton Willmore LLP on behalf of Story Homes. Story Homes has land interests in Barrow at a number of sites including Manor Farm, and Abbey Road (both in Barrow-in-Furness), further details of which are provided later in these representations. The representations made to this consultation reflect the general views of Story Homes, our knowledge of national policy requirements, and experience of the Borough and local issues, and further emphasise the representations made on behalf of Story Homes to the Issues and Options consultation in October 2014. These representations reflect the structure of the preferred options Local Plan; - Examining national policy requirements and guidance; - Plan period, vision, and objections; - Approach to sustainable development; - Development management policies; - Soundness of the approach and assumptions made in assessing the objectively assessed needs of the Borough and defining the housing requirement; - Deliverability of the housing requirement; - Effectiveness of housing policies; - Soundness of heritage, environmental and green infrastructure policies; - Submission of two sites for consideration as further housing allocations.


20

We hope that the Council takes on board the comments submitted by Story Homes within these representations, and wish to be informed on any future progress with the plan including consultations and stakeholder events. BBC Response – Comments noted, specific comments addressed in relevant Chapter.

Rep ID 1125/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - General Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes NATIONAL POLICY National Planning Policy Framework Adopted in March 2012, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework or NPPF) provides the Government’s policies for Planning. Annex 1 of the Framework establishes how the policies of the NPPF should be implemented by Local Authorities. Paragraph 212 confirms that policies contained within the Framework are material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account from the day of its publication. The Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of plans. Paragraph 182 of the Framework sets out that to be considered suitable for adoption, local plans must be found “sound” – namely that the Plan is; “Positively Prepared – the Plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development; Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence; Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.” The achievement of sustainable development is set out within paragraph 6 of the NPPF as being the “purpose of the planning system.” Paragraph 7 of the NPPF goes on to define sustainable development, comprising three dimensions: economic, social and environmental (our emphasis). These three roles are identified in paragraph 8 of the NPPF as being “mutually dependent,” and thus “should not be undertaken in isolation.” Accordingly, to achieve sustainable development, “…economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.” The Presumption in favour of sustainable development is confirmed by Paragraph 14 of the NPPF to run at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework, and should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For plan-making this means that: Local Planning Authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole; or Specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted (with reference to examples listed in footnote 9). Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin both decision-taking and plan-making. This includes the following: Be genuinely plan-led. Up-to-date, based on joint working and co-operation. Provide a practical framework within decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency; Be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives; Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities to growth. Plans should take account of market signals, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for technical constraint, and can be delivered in the short to medium term. development in their area taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities; Secure high quality design and good standard of amenity; Take into account the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality or urban areas, protecting Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and


21

supporting thriving communities within it; Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change and encourage the reuse of existing resources; Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution; Encourage the effective use of land; Promote mixed use developments; Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance; Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus sustainable development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and To account of and support strategies to improve health, social and cultural welling for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs (Policy Summarised). Section 6 of the NPPF focuses specifically on “delivering a wide choice of high-quality homes.” Paragraph 47 requires Local Planning Authorities to “boost significantly the supply of housing” (our emphasis), using their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, and identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional 5% buffer (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, Local Planning Authorities should increase the buffer to 20% taken from the end of the plan period to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply, and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. In addition to the above, Paragraph 50 of the NPPF seeks the delivery of a wide choice of high quality new homes, widening the opportunity for home ownership and creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. This includes provision of a mix of house types and sizes, including affordable housing where there is an identified need. Paragraph 158 sets out that each local planning authority “should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals.” Further emphasis underlining the need for the implementation of an integrated housing and economic strategy is provided in Paragraph 21 of Framework which outlines that “planning policies should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment, including a poor environment or any lack of infrastructure, services or housing.” The Framework is clear in Paragraph 159 that local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area. To do this, the Framework outlines that they should; Prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which: Meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change; Addresses the need for all type of housing, including affordable housing and the need of different groups in the community (such as but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes); and Caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand; Prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period. Planning Practice Guidance Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides the Government’s interpretation of how the policies of the Framework should be implemented by local planning authorities. Part 3 of the Housing and Economic Development Needs Chapter provides guidance on how local authorities should approach establishing their objectively assessed housing needs. As Paragraph 014 of the guidance outlines, there is no exact science to the assessment of housing needs. Notwithstanding this, PPG clearly establishes that household projections published by DCLG form the basis of the assessment. Recognising that these projections are trend based, PPG allows for some adjustment to be made to projections to reflect facts affecting local demography and household formation rates which are not captured in past trends1. In circumstances where the supply of working age population that is economically active is less than the project job growth, Paragraph 018 of PPG outlines that plan


22

makers will need to consider how the location of new housing or infrastructure could help address this problem. Paragraph 020 outlines that a worsening trend in any indicator of market signals, following comparison to long term trends, the housing market area, similar demographic and economic areas and nationally, will require and upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based solely on household projections. Once the overall housing figure has been identified PPG requires plan makers to break this down by tenure, household type and size. This includes assessing the need for Private Rented Sector provision, Self-build, family housing, housing for older people (including an assessment of need for residential institutions), households with specific needs (including the disabled) and student housing. PPG confirms in Paragraph 022 that authorities will need to identify as part of the objective assessment, future need for affordable housing. The total affordable housing need should then be considered in context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments. An increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes (as outlined in Paragraph 029). The Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment Chapter of PPG sets out the methodological approach to be applied by local authorities in assessing the housing land capacity of the local authority area. Paragraphs 019, 020, 021 of PPG defines the Government’s view of what is meant by the terms suitability, availability and achievability. Paragraph 028 of PPG outlines the following standard outputs from a land supply assessment to ensure consistency, accessibility and transparency: A List of all sites or broad locations considered, cross referenced to their locations on maps; An assessment of each site or broad location, in terms of its suitability for development, availability and achievability (including whether the site/broad location is viable) to determine whether a site is realistically expected to be developed and when; Contain more detail for those sites which are considered to be realistic candidates for development, where others have been discounted for clearly evidenced and justified reasons; The potential type and quantity of development could be delivered on each site/broad location, including a reasonable estimate of build out rates, setting out how any barriers to delivery could be overcome and when; An indicative trajectory of anticipated development and consideration of associated risks. BBC Response- Noted, this section is extracted from national policy.

Rep ID 1152/257

Status - Comment Policy /Para -General Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes This section summarises Story Homes’ representations to the Preferred Options stage of the Barrow Local Plan produced on behalf of Story Homes. In these representations we have considered whether the strategy, policies and allocations proposed by the Council are consistent with the policies of the Framework, commenting on their deliverability, effectiveness and justification, and providing recommendations how issues identified may be overcome in moving forwards within the Plan. Story Homes has significant concerns regarding the overall soundness of the Plan. We do not consider the approach or evidence supporting the Plan to meet the tests of soundness outlined within Paragraph 182 of the Framework. Fundamental issues with the plan as drafted include: The approach to defining the objectively assessed housing needs represents a departure from national planning policy and guidance; The overall housing requirement will not provide for a significant boost to housing land supply, support the opportunity to develop the local economy, or address key issues such as a declining population and shortage of skilled labour force; The Plan does not support the delivery of identified affordable housing need; The Plan in part is supported by evidence that is inadequate in its detail to justify proposals within the Plan; There are a number of sites identified by the Council as


23

preferred options for housing allocations which face constraints that may prevent or delay the delivery of development, threatening the deliverability of the Plan; Several policies lack sufficient clarity and in cases unnecessarily delay decision making to later documents creating uncertainty; and A number of policies conflict with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Substantial revisions are required to supporting evidence, proposed policies and proposed site allocations to address the issues identified above. This we consider includes the adoption of a housing requirement of the level required to support projected job growth (352 dwellings per annum). The allocation of further sites to deliver housing needs is fundamental in securing a sound and deliverable Plan. On this basis sites for at least a further 3,221 dwellings need to be identified by the Council to meet full objectively assessed housing needs plus shortfall. In Section 11 of these representations we submit two sites to the Council for consideration as allocations for housing. Abbey Road (Barrow-in-Furness) has a capacity for 200 dwellings, with the potential to contribute to the short and medium supply. The Site is sustainably located and faces no known technical constraints that would prevent its delivery for housing. Story Homes is confident that a sensitive scheme can be delivered on site without detrimental effect on nearby heritage assets. Story Homes is currently in the process of appealing a decision by the Council to refuse an application for 38 dwellings on land at Manor Farm, Barrow-in-Furness. We have prepared a detailed suite of evidence in support of this planning application that demonstrates the suitability of the Site for housing development. The submission of a planning application demonstrates the Site’s availability and deliverability for housing, and provides a realistic prospect of delivering new homes in the short to medium term. We consider that, alongside the wholesale changes to the Plan and its evidence base required ensuring a sound plan, both sites should be allocated by the Council for housing. BBC Response – Comments noted specific comments dealt with under relevant chapter.


24

Representations received on Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 11 representations on the Introduction Chapter, of these representations 6 have been categorised as comments, 4 as supports and 1 objection.


Comments on the Introduction Chapter and introductory text


Rep ID 1104/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Plan Period Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes We do not believe that it is realistic that the Plan will be adopted in 2016. The Plan Period should extend to at least 2032 to provide a 15 year timeframe from 2017. BBC Response – The Plan is now likely to be adopted in 2017, the base date for household and population projections are 2012, the Plan period is 2012 to 2031.

Rep ID 1126/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Plan Period Contact/Organisation - Barton Wilmore, Story Homes The proposed Plan period will run from 2016 to 2031. The Council currently estimate that the Local Plan will be adopted in Mid-2016. This would provide a post-adoption Plan period of 15 years and accords with Paragraph 157 of the Framework. Story Homes does not consider it realistic that the Council will be able to adopt the Plan in 2016. In these representations we highlight multiple significant flaws with the soundness of the overall planning strategy and policies that must be addressed ahead of the Plans submission for examination. We believe that 2017 would provide a more realistic target to secure and adopt a robust and effective Local Plan for Barrow Borough. We note already that production of the Local Plan has slipped from the timescales outlined within the most recent Local Development Scheme, published by the Council in February 2014. Taking this into account as well as our comments above, we consider that it would be prudent for the Council to adjust the end of the plan period to 2032 now, rather than through later modification at examination. BBC Response- The Plan is now likely to be adopted in 2017, the base date for household and population projections are 2012, the Plan period is 2012 to 2031.

Rep ID 770/10

Status - Support Policy /Para - Para 1.3


25

Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Cross boundary issues: SLDC welcomes the reference to the duty to cooperate at paragraph 1.3. BBC Response – Response noted. A Duty to Cooperate statement will be produced alongside the next draft of the Plan.

Rep ID 804/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Paras 1.3 to 1.5 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The changes made to include reference to the relationship with the Lake District National Park are noted, welcomed and suitably address the Trust’s response to the Issues and Options consultation document. BBC response – Response noted.

Rep ID 915/126

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Section 1.3 Contact/Organisation Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation The HBF is encouraged by the positive stance taken towards the Duty to Co-operate (section 1.3 of the consultation document). However, further to our previous comments upon the Issues and Options document, these statements still considered lack documentary evidence of this joint working and how it has influenced plan preparation. It is important that these issues are addressed prior to the next stage of consultation upon the plan. BBC Response – Response noted. A Duty to Cooperate statement will be produced alongside the Local Plan Publication/Submission Draft.

Rep ID 805/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Para 1.4.14 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The changes made to include reference in the second bullet point to flora and fauna are noted, welcomed and suitably address the Trust’s response to the Issues and Options consultation document. BBC Response – Response noted.

Rep ID 1043/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Para 1.4.14- 1.4.18 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England Despite the title of this section of the spatial portrait, it predominantly deals with the two main towns of Barrow and Dalton, and briefing describes the designated assets. Para 1.4.18 makes reference to the importance of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness but yet this does not appear to have been identified here. The Plan should be expanded to detail local character and distinctiveness as the Plan makes reference to it as important. BBC Response- Comments noted. The Heritage and Built Environment Chapter contains more detail on the local character and distinctiveness of the borough and its heritage assets.


26

Rep ID 773/10

Status - Support Policy /Para - paragraph 1.4.29 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC The reference to GSK at paragraph 1.4.29 is welcomed. BBC Response – Response noted.

Rep ID 772/10

Status - Comment Policy/Para - paragraph 1.4.44 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Spatial Portrait – about Barrow in Furness: Key issues are mentioned at paragraph 1.4.44. It is suggested that walking and cycling linkages, such as the (National Route 72) Walney to Wear Coast to Coast route and new routes such as the Morecambe Bay Cycle Way and public transport linkages such as – railway / bus wise, would also merit mentioning. Concerning green infrastructure linkages, for example the coast, it is suggested that a reference to Morecambe Bay and linkages across Birkrigg Common are added. The spatial portrait also refers to the Borough’s Travel to Work Area (TTWA). It is suggested that the extent of this is mentioned, i.e. it covers the Furness area of South Lakeland and beyond. For Lindal - in - Furness, it is suggested that a coordinated approach is needed in the settlement in terms of infrastructure delivery etc. The majority of the built up area is within Barrow–in–Furness. BBC response – Comments noted. Text amended to include reference to wider routes such as those suggested for walking and cycling. Reference to the borough’s Travel to Work area is added to the section on employment. Reference to the settlement of Lindal is made in the cross boundary issues section.

Rep ID 862/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Transport Contact/Organisation Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association We note in the Transport and Accessibility section on page 20 that the local economy in Barrow depends on long distance connections to West Cumbria, the M6 and the rest of the UK by road and that regrettably it is acknowledged that transport links are limited, with the A590 being the only direct link to the motorway network. Indeed it is explicitly stated that the unreliability of journeys on this route hinder inwards investment. BBC Response – Comments noted. The Council feel it is necessary to highlight the issues with transport links to and from the borough particularly by road, however the word ‘limited’ has been replaced with ‘are in need of improvement ’in relation to transport links.

Rep ID 860/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - 1.4.48 Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association In 1.4.48 the need to improve transport links is mentioned, but in the view of the RHA this issue should be given greater priority than is currently the case. BBC Response – Comments noted, the Council agrees and will raise this issue with Highways England. Any improvements to the road transport links to the borough will be supported.


27

Representations received on Chapter 2: VISION AND OBJECTIVES

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 15 representations on the Vision and Objectives Chapter, 4 of these representations have been categorised as comments, 8 as supports and 3 objections.


General Comments on Chapter 2: Vision


Rep ID 806/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Vision Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust Whilst it is noted that the Council considers that it is implicit that all aspects of the Vision should be achieved simultaneously through the lifetime of the Plan, it remains the Trust’s view that there is merit in making this explicit. This could be achieved by having opening text in the form of “By 2031 Barrow Borough will be a place where economic, social and environmental goals have been achieved together and simultaneously, in particular:” and following that by a series of bullet points relating to each of the elements of the Vision (‘thriving diverse economy supporting strong inclusive communities’, ‘an improved housing offer’, etc). Failing that approach it would be possible to simply combine the two sentences into a single Vision, e.g. “By 2031 Barrow Borough will be a place where a thriving diverse economy has supported strong inclusive communities, with an improved housing offer, diversified job opportunities, high level education and skills base, vibrant town centres and retail offer, with access to high quality open space and active leisure, the Borough’s health and wellbeing will have improved, and the natural environment and landscape will have been protected and enhanced, with resources managed sustainably and waste minimised.” BBC Response – Comments noted, the vision statement has been amended to flow better by adding the text ‘as a result’ to the beginning of the second sentence. The Council has endeavoured to keep the vision as succinct as possible.

Rep ID 807/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Section 2.1 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The changes set out here, in particular the reference to ‘access’ are noted and supported. BBC Response- Support noted.

Rep ID Status - Comment


28

859/133

Policy /Para -2.1 Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association Despite regeneration being a key aim of the Local Plan we are concerned at the lack of explicit recognition in the main Plan objectives under 2.1 that good transport links are an essential part of any attempt to promote economic growth. We suggest that businesses may be reluctant to move to an area with an inadequate road network, and skilled people may also be concerned that they will not have easy access to employment, educational or social opportunities if transport links are poor. BBC Response – Comments noted, the Council feels these concerns are addressed by the second to last bullet point of 2.1 which states ‘efficient and integrated networks are in place to support growth and development’ and in the first bullet point which actively encourages and supports business growth..

Rep ID 916/126

Status - Support Policy/Para - Vision Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Vision / Objectives 5. The vision and objectives are generally supported. It is, however, considered that the vision could be improved by greater reference to the different spatial elements of the borough and how they are anticipated to develop to meet particular issues and aspirations. The objectives do begin to pick up such issues but these should be augmented to ensure the plan is locally specific and provides a true vision for the borough of Barrow-in-Furness. 6. The HBF is pleased to note the amendments to the Housing Objective at paragraph 2.1.6. This accord with our previous comments at Issues and Options stage of plan preparation. We also welcome the objectives concerning economic growth and would stress that it is important that the housing offer provided through the plan align with such growth ambitions. The economic impact of housing development also should not be overlooked. The HBF has undertaken research upon the economic footprint of housing development both nationally and across the North West, this can be accessed via our website at www.hbf.co.uk. BBC response – Comment noted. The Council has endeavoured to keep the vision as succinct as possible.

Rep ID 939/423

Status - Support Policy/Para -2.1 Paragraph 2.1.6 Contact/Organisation Edward Harvey, United Utilities Local Plan Chapter 2.1: Objectives We support the Council’s view that: “The Plan must enable communities to grow, ensuring they have access to decent homes in the right locations which are suitable for all their needs”. We also support the inclusion of Paragraph 2.1.6, which states: “There will be a choice of good quality housing for current and future residents, which meets local needs and aspirations throughout the Borough, to encourage inward investment and to attract and retain a high quality workforce”. This accords with the NPPF which seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities BBC Response – Support welcomed and noted.

Rep ID 953/436

Status - Support Policy/Para - Vision Contact/Organisation - Janet Dixon Town Planners, Oakmere Homes


29

We support the Vision of an economically prosperous area offering diversified job opportunities and a high level education and skills base. The Vision should be expressed more strongly however, making plain the vital role that new housing development must play in not simply improving the housing offer, but ensuring it is realistic and fit for purpose and will be capable of facilitating significant economic growth. High quality new homes must be provided in sufficient numbers and in the right choice of locations to meet the needs of industry, by attracting and retaining a highly skilled workforce and inward investment to the Borough, as well as meeting the housing aspirations and needs of existing residents to reverse population decline. BBC Response – Comment noted. The Council has endeavoured to keep the vision as succinct as possible, however the Council feels your comments are addressed elsewhere in the Plan and most specifically in the housing chapter. The Plan has been amended to include a short section at the beginning of each chapter outlining how the policies within it link back to the wider version for the Plan and its associated objectives.

Rep ID 1044/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Vision Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Local Plans should contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. There does not appear to be any reference to the built environment including heritage assets, as well as high quality design and the importance of local identity and character. Therefore, the vision needs to be expanded to ensure consistency with the rest of the Plan's objectives. The vision should be amended to read: "By 2031, Barrow Borough will be a place where a thriving diverse economy has supported strong inclusive communities with an improved housing offer, diversified job opportunities, high level education and skills base, vibrant town centres and retail offer and access to high quality open space and active leisure. The Borough's health and wellbeing will have improved, and the built, natural, and historic environment and landscape will have been protected and enhanced, with resources managed sustainably and waste minimised". BBC Response- Comments noted, the text in the vision has been amended in line with Historic England’s suggestion.

Rep ID 1045/4

Status - Objection Policy /Para - Para2.1 Objective 9 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Local Plans should contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The objective makes reference to local heritage, which it is assumed is undesignated assets, defined under a local list. There does not appear to be any objective that deals with (designated) heritage assets and their settings. Given the Plan's reference to that all development makes local character and a positive contribution to distinctiveness and the key local character and challenges of new distinctiveness". development making a positive contribution to it, then this should be mentioned here also, Bullet 9 should be amended to read: "The Plan must conserve and enhance the historic environment including heritage assets and their settings and recognise the contribution they can make to the Borough". An additional bullet should be included "The Plan must demonstrate that only good quality design is acceptable and ensure that all development makes local character and a positive contribution to distinctiveness.” BBC Response – Comments noted, bullet points amended to address the concerns of Historic England and additional bullet point added as requested.

Rep ID Status - Support


30

1081/2 Policy/Para - Vision Contact/Organisation - Kate Wheeler, Natural England Natural England welcomes the vision for the Barrow In Furness Local Plan which states: “… the natural environment and landscape will have been protected and enhanced. However we recommend that maintained’ is included in the statement, in addition to ‘protected and enhanced’. BBC response – Support noted and text amended to include suggestion from Natural England.

Rep ID 1082/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para -2.1 Contact/Organisation Kate Wheeler, Natural England Natural England recommends the inclusion of a specific Green Infrastructure (GI) objective within the Local Plan; this would link well with the associated GI policy. For the following objective: The plan must protect and enhance habitats and species and help promote them as a key to sustainable development. Natural England recommends that this should be revised to reiterate the importance of the natural environment and include the commitment to protect, maintain and enhance. Biodiversity is referred to here and it states “.that biodiversity will have been enhanced and protected from unsympathetic development.” Clarification over unsympathetic development is recommended BBC Response – Comment noted, the bullet point text has been amended in light of these comments from Natural England.

Rep ID 1127/257

Status - Support Policy/Para - Vision Contact/Organisation - Barton Wilmore, Story Homes Vision Story Homes is supportive of the proposed Vision outlined by the Council; however, greater emphasis should be applied by the Council towards the delivery of housing and economic needs, addressing identified issues such as: - Equality; - Providing a greater number of executive housing; - Support in quantum and type the delivery of both planned and potential job growth in the Borough. Strategic Objectives Story Homes is supportive of the proposed strategic objectives of the Local Plan. BBC Response – Support welcomed and noted.

Rep ID 1130/257

Status - Support Policy/Para - Strategic Objectives Contact/Organisation - Barton Wilmore, Story Homes Story Homes is supportive of the proposed strategic objectives of the Local Plan BBC Response- Support welcomed and noted.

Rep ID Status - Support


31

808/131 Policy/Para - para 2.1.5 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The inclusions of ‘enhanced’ are noted, welcomed and suitably address the Trust’s response to the Issues and Options consultation document. BBC Response – Support welcomed and noted.

Rep ID 861/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - 2.1.2 Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association In 2.1.2 under the economy heading, it is stated that the goal of the Plan is that “Barrow will play a leading and pivotal role in West Cumbria’s economy and have sustainable economic growth based on a highly skilled workforce operating effectively in national and international markets, set within a unique and high quality environment, with strong links to the Energy Coast.” Again we repeat that only a limited amount can be achieved without good roads infrastructure, and without consideration of the needs of the logistics sector which moves goods for businesses, including for the farming community, as well as providing employment for local people. It is also worth noting that currently, there is a national shortage of haulage industry drivers, so we suggest that Cumbria should focus on supporting road transport to ensure the region achieves the maximum benefits in terms of economic and employment growth. BBC Response- Comments noted, the Council is committed to lobbying for improvements to the road network both within the borough and county wide, and recognises that improvements to the road and rail network are linked to supporting the economy in West Cumbria and the Energy Coast.

Rep ID 1046/4

Status - Objection Policy /Para - 2.1.5 Culture and Heritage Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that the Local Plan should contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. This paragraph does not particular focus on culture heritage and heritage (as the title suggests) and does not reflect the requirements of the NPPF. It is focused on open spaces, health and wellbeing and retail uses. The Plan needs to be amended to detail specifically what the Plan is proposing in relation to culture and heritage. The paragraph should be amended to ensure it makes reference to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment what it is that the Plan will do in relation to culture and heritage. BBC Response – The Plan has been amended and paras 2.1.1 to 2.1 9 have been amended and moved to form an introduction to each chapter to address how each chapter relates to the overarching vision and objectives, this includes the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment.


32

Representations received on Chapter 3: Development Strategy

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 36 representations on the Development Strategy Chapter, of these representations 16 have been categorised as comments, 13 as supports and 7 objections.


General Comments on Chapter 3: Development Strategy

1 representation was received on the chapter in general and information set out in the introductory text. A number of amendments are proposed to the supporting text in response to the comments received from consultees and these are detailed below.

Rep ID 1083/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Section 3 Development Strategy Contact/Organisation - Kate Wheeler, Natural England Under the key sustainability objectives the following one is repeated: To preserve, enhance and maintain landscape quality and character for future generations, but an objective is missing for the natural environment, this may be an oversight, but we would expect to see a specific natural environment and biodiversity objective here. Also there is no reference to green infrastructure here; this should either be incorporated within the objectives or as a separate objective. BBC response – Noted. Repeated objective removed from list.

Policy S1 Council`s commitment to sustainable development (now Policy DS1)

5 representations were received on Policy S1.

Rep ID 788/10

Status – Support Policy/Para - Policy S1 Contact/Organisation Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy S1 – we have reviewed the objectively assessed need evidence base and support the proposed annual housing requirement for the plan period. BBC Response – Support noted.


33

Rep ID 809/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy S1 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust is pleased to support this Policy and in particular notes the detailed additions in response to comments made at the Issues and Options stage. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1047/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy S1 Contact/Organisation Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15). The policy does not accord with the requirements of the NPPF, in that it only seeks to protect the historic environment. The policy should be amended to read: "The Council is committed to seeking to enhance the quality of life for residents by taking an integrated approach to protect conserve and enhance the built, natural and historic environment whilst ensuring access to improved services and facilities and a wider choice of housing". BBC Response- Comments noted, the text has been amended in line with the suggestion from Historic England and to bring the policy wording in line with the NPPF.

Rep ID 1128/257

Status - Support Policy /Para - Policy S1 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes note and support the inclusion of Policy S1 within the Local Plan, which provide the Council’s commitment to the implementation of the presumption in favour of Sustainable Development as outlined by Paragraph 14 of the Framework. The inclusion and unhindered implementation of the Presumption is critical in securing the soundness of the Plan. This is due to the significant weight applied by the Government towards this policy as underlined by Paragraph’s 6 and 14 of the Framework. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1172/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S1 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The preparation of a policy that articulates the Council’s commitment to sustainable development is welcome. This commitment aligns with the NPPF and should ensure both the development industry and planning authority are working to deliver sustainable development. While the policy approach is robust, the suggestion that new development should be able to access improved services could be considered to be unrealistic and may give rise to undeliverable expectations. Suggested Change On the third sentence of the first paragraph to the policy, the word “improved” should be replaced by “essential”.


34

BBC response – Policy amended as requested.

Policy S2: Sustainable Development Criteria (now Policy DS2)


Rep ID 810/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy S2 Contact/Organisation Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust is pleased to support this Policy and in particular notes the detailed additions in response to comments made at the Issues and Options stage. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1048/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy S2 Sustainable Development Criteria Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15). The policy does not accord with the requirements of the NPPF, in that it fails to make reference to the historic environment. An additional bullet point should be introduced, to read: "Ensuring that any proposed development conserves and enhances the historic environment including heritage assets and their settings" BBC Response – Additional bullet point added to policy as requested.

Rep ID 1105/257

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy S2 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes is supportive of the inclusion of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as outlined in Paragraph 14 of the Framework. We object to the wording of policy S2 which requires all development to accord with all of the principles set out by the Policy when this may not be possible and may result in the refusal of sustainable development proposals. Policy S2 should be revised to ensure that developments take account of the criteria listed. BBC Response- Comments noted, the purpose of this policy is to set out what the Council thinks is sustainable development, however we appreciate that some of the criteria are more onerous than others, a number of textual amendments have been made to improve the criteria and overcome this objection including text added to require applicants to provide justification of why developments cannot meet any of the required criteria, should this be the case, and how they meet the objectives set out in Policy S1 ( Now Policy DS1).


35

Rep ID 1129/257

Status - Objection Policy /Para -Policy S2 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes object to the current wording of Policy S2. We are concerned that as written requirement of the Policy for all development to meet the sustainable development criterion listed is beyond the scope and capacity for all development schemes. We believe instead that the policy should be revised to require developments to have regard to the sustainability criteria outlined potential job growth in the Borough. BBC Response – Comments noted, the purpose of this policy is to set out what the Council thinks is sustainable development, however we appreciate that some of the criteria are more onerous than others, a number of textual amendments have been made to improve the criteria and overcome this objection including text added to require applicants to provide justification of why developments cannot meet any of the required criteria, should this be the case, and how they meet the objectives set out in Policy DS1.

Rep ID 1173/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S2 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council It is suggested the policy could go further and encourage the effective use of previously developed land for development to follow the development strategy advocated in Policy S3 whilst still ensuring that development is realistic and deliverable. While the policy approach is robust, the suggestion that new development should delivered improved facilities could be considered to be unrealistic. Suggested Changes The policy should address the value of PDL but also the importance of the policy enjoying links to the development strategy set out within Policy S3. In criteria a) to policy S2 replace the word “improve” with “enable”. For criteria b) replace that statement “Improving road safety and reducing congestion” with “ensuring development does not prejudice road safety or increase congestion”. For criteria c) replace the word “Improving” with “Ensuring”. For criteria e) replace the words “Contributing to the enhancement of the residential amenity” with “Respect the residential amenity”. For criteria f) replace the words “Improvements to” with “Meet”. For criteria g) replace the words “Contributing to the enhancement of” with “Contribute to the character of”. Revise criteria k) to state “the incorporation of energy and water efficiency measures, use of sustainable drainage systems where appropriate and steering development away from areas of flood risk.” BBC response – Comments noted, the Council has made a number of textual amendments to improve the criteria including those suggested by the County Council and text added to require applicants to provide justification of why developments cannot meet any of the required criteria, should this be the case, and how they meet the objectives set out in Policy DS1.


36

Policy S3: Development Strategy (now Policy DS3)


Rep ID 774/10

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy S3 Contact/Organisation Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy S3 – support strategy of sustainable balanced growth, including increased growth in settlements outside Barrow including Lindal in Furness, which would benefit residents in nearby areas of South Lakeland. The economic and regeneration ambitions set out in the draft Plan are also welcomed and will complement SLDC’s jobs and growth aspirations in Ulverston South Lakeland. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 917/126

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy S3 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy S3: Development Strategy The HBF is supportive of a strategy which moves away from the concentration of development on previously developed land within Barrow-in-Furness. Past experience shows that such an approach is unlikely to foster the significant boost to housing supply required by Government, nor will it meet the needs of other areas within the borough. To maximise the opportunities for growth the Council needs to provide a wide range of development opportunities which appeal to different parts of the market. Whilst the proposed development strategy seeks to provide a wider housing offer the policy could be more prescriptive by identifying a balanced portfolio of brownfield and greenfield sites within urban, edge of settlement and village settings will be developed. Such a statement could be further augmented by reference to specific settlements. This would provide greater clarity to the plan and certainty for the development industry to make investment decisions. BBC Response – A balanced portfolio of sites is included in the plan in table 6, along with maps in the appendices showing their location.

Rep ID 940/423

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy S3 Contact/Organisation - Edward Harvey, United Utilities Policy S3 Development Strategy Support is given to Policy S3, which states the Council intends to pursue an overarching strategy of sustainable balanced growth, redistributing development across the Borough including “an increased amount of development in Dalton and/or Askam”. It is essential that the Local Plan seeks to provide for a good range of sites for both employment and residential development throughout the authority area, rather than focussing new development and regeneration solely within the Principal Centre of Barrow. Whilst support is given to draft Policy S3, we consider the Local Plan should support an increased amount of development in Askam & Ireleth. The settlement is well served by road, has strong transport links, and already benefits from local services and facilities including primary schools, community centre and hall, a petrol


37

station, shops, pubs, employment and a doctor’s surgery. All of which contribute to making Askam a sustainable location for future growth and development. We agree that the redistribution of development across the Borough, including an increased amount in Askam & Ireleth, will best encourage inward investment to the Borough as well as improving housing choice to address the “lack of choice in the current housing market” (Paragraph 1.4.26). However, in order for Draft Policy S3 to be effective, the wording of the policy should be refined to confirm that an increased amount of development will be allowed “in both Dalton and Askam”. This revised wording will best accord with draft Policy H2, which confirms the Council intends to direct a higher level of housing growth to both of these settlements than it has in previous years. Planning for positive growth across each of the settlements will support the Council’s vision for the Borough, by facilitating the objectives to “help create a strong, sustainable and diverse economy”, and also by enabling communities outside the Principal Centre to grow, “ensuring they have access to decent homes in the right locations which are suitable for all their needs”. BBC Response- Text amended to remove ’or’ from policy wording. The Council considers the wording of Policy S3 adequately reflects the Councils Strategy and allows an increased amount of development in both Dalton and Askam, linked to Housing Chapter Policies H2 and H3..

Rep ID 954/436

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy S3 Contact/Organisation - Janet Dixon, Oakmere Homes The development strategy is central to achieving the Vision for the Borough and we support the positive decision and change of strategy (adopting Option 3) away from urban concentration and brownfield redevelopment, to more dispersed and distributed growth at a range of sites and locations across the Borough, where it will provide existing and future residents with wider housing choice to boost economic growth. The policy is not positively worded however. It explains what the Council and development strategy should do, rather than it being a statement of what the Council and development strategy will do. The policy must be positively prepared and definitive. The word “balanced” is also unnecessary in the first sentence as growth that is sustainable will be balanced by definition. The policy wording is also too vague and does not provide certainty. A development strategy policy requires clear spatial / geographic expression and a table (and map-based diagram) would be helpful to confirm the distribution (by location and scale) of proposed growth across the Borough’s settlement hierarchy. (This approach is taken to the distribution of housing development in draft Policy H2 of the Preferred Options). The potential and contribution to be made by the northern urban area and edge of Barrow must not be overlooked in helping to achieve the economic Vision and re-distribute greater growth across the Borough to the more resilient and stronger parts of the housing market where a greater choice of aspirational and executive housing can be provided. The last part of the first paragraph of the policy should therefore be re-written as; “……and also to allow an increased amount of development in and adjoining the outer wards of north Barrow and some growth in Dalton and Askam and other sustainable settlements” BBC Response – Policy S3 has been amended to make it more streamlined and positively prepared. This policy sets out the strategy for the development across the borough for the lifetime of the Plan and as it is a move away from previous plans the Council feel it is important to set it out in policy terms. The policy should be read in conjunction with Policy H2 – Distribution of Housing, and H3 – Allocation of Housing which set out the proportion of development for each settlement and the sites which we have identified can deliver this strategy. Text has been added to make this link in the Plan.

Rep ID 1094/184

Status - Support Policy/Para – Policy S3 Contact/Organisation – Signet Planning, Moorsolve Self Administered Pension Fund This revised policy is supported, with increased amount of development being directed towards Dalton and/or Askam as it is considered that these sustainable


38

settlements offer a suitable location for further growth to meet the borough’s housing needs and reduce pressure on Barrow in Furness. It will also ensure that facilities within Dalton in Furness, including schools, shops, surgeries etc are sustained BBC response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1106/257

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy S3 Contact/Organisation – Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes is supportive of the development strategy that seeks to address issues such as skill shortages and population loss. We are however, far from convinced that resultant policies within the Local Plan work positively to address these issues. BBC Response – Comment noted.

Rep ID 1131/257

Status – Support Policy/Para – Policy S3 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes support the aims of this Policy that seeks to overcome existing identified issues in the Borough such as population loss, skilled worker shortage and the lack of quality homes. We are far from convinced, however, that subsequent policies within the Barrow Local Plan Preferred Options will support the implementation of this strategy. BBC Response- Comments noted.

Rep ID 1171/9

Status - Comment Policy /Para – Policy S3 Contact/Organisation – Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council Barrow contains a diverse mix of urban and rural areas and with them a range of bespoke issues and challenges which the Local Plan should address. County Council’s Area Plan for Barrow plays an important role in identifying some of our priorities. In particular it gives focus to: •Promoting sustainable economic growth, and creating jobs; •Improving educational achievement; and •Improving health and well-being and tackling poverty. Barrow enjoys an important role as a manufacturing, shopping and leisure centre. Despite this, it has in the past faced long term economic difficulties brought about by the decline in its traditional manufacturing base and its relative remoteness from regional and national markets. However Barrow does also enjoy significant opportunities, not least due to the specialisms in the manufacturing sector highlighted by BAE’s £370m investment in the town. Framed by this context, the development strategy set out in this plan is considered to be fundamentally robust, highlighting the need for the plan to support sustainable development while also addressing the challenges of delivering housing market renewal. Moreover the proposed approach to focus future growth at Barrow-in-Furness (including Walney) with smaller levels proposed at Dalton, Askam and Ireleth and outlying villages should promote sustainable development and not conflict with the need to deliver regeneration at Barrow-in-Furness. Despite this, there is room for improvement, the strategy would benefit by being more explicit about the role of individual settlements within the borough (together with the specific role of Walney) and the capacity of these to support the principle of sustainable development.


39

Moreover there should be more clarity about the opportunity and strengths enjoyed by Barrow and building upon this, the plan should give clear encouragement for development that enhances Barrow’s offer in its widest sense (housing, leisure, culture, evening economy, employment etc.). By improving its proposition, workers and the supply chains associated with major investments will be encouraged locate in the town. Suggested Changes The policy should be strengthened to be more explicit about the strengths enjoyed by the district and how these will play a key role in achieving the future prosperity and sustainability of the borough. The policy should be clearer about the role of the different areas of the borough in delivering sustainable development. The policy should provide clear support to development which improves Barrow’s offer to employers, workers and visitors. BBC Response – Policy S3 has been amended in line with the thrust of the recommendations made by CCC, the Council believe the amendments make the policy more positively prepared and by adding links to other policies particularly in the Housing Chapter which support the delivery of the strategy Policy S3 is strengthened. Text added on the Boroughs, strengths and opportunities in line with CCC’s suggestion.

Policy S4: Design (now Policy DS5)


Rep ID 775/10

Status - Support Policy/Para - Proposed Policy S4 Design Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Proposed Policy S4 Design – supported. BBC response – Support noted.

Rep ID 811/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy S4 Contact/Organisation Alan Hubbard, National Trust The Policy as currently drafted is supported, including the additional bullet point m) in respect of climate change considerations. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 918/126

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S4 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy S4: Design The policy identifies a long list of design considerations, many of which are encapsulated within Building for Life 12 (BfL12) scheme. The HBF encourages the use of BfL12 to aid discussion upon design issues. The Council may wish to consider reference to BfL12 within the supporting text to this policy as it is a widely understood


40

by the industry. Whilst the HBF is supportive of BfL12 and many of our members accord to its requirements it is important that it does not become mandatory for all developments to attain a certain score as this would remove flexibility. Part ‘m’ of the policy seeks the incorporation of water and energy efficiency measures. There are no details upon the interpretation of this requirement within the supporting text. The Council will be aware that the Housing Standards Review set out that in terms of housing both water and energy efficiency measures will be included within the Building Regulations. With regards water efficiency there will be an optional higher standard which can be imposed where justified by robust evidence, as set out within the PPG paragraphs 56-013 to 56-016. It is noted that Policy C3 refers to the Building Regulations. In terms of energy efficiency, after 2016, this will become strictly a matter for the Building Regulations with no optional standards. BBC Response – The thrust of Policy DS5 (formerly Policy S4) is the high standard of design the Council would like to see in new developments which has been some what lacking in the past, this overarching policy will be applied to all development. The Council appreciates that some aspects of the policy are regulated under other legislation such as Building Regulations and this policy is not intended to go beyond such regulations it is a starting point for all new development to embrace high quality design leading to a more attractive sustainable environment in the Borough.

Rep ID 941/423

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy S4 Contact/Organisation - Edward Harvey, United Utilities Policy S4: Design We acknowledge the inclusion of an over-arching design policy, draft Policy S4, within the emerging Local Plan, and accept the wording of the first paragraph of the body of the policy which states that: “Designs will be specific to the site and must demonstrate a clear process that analyses and responds to the characteristics of the site and its context”. Support is given the inclusion of criterion (b) within the body of Policy S4, which states proposals must demonstrate how they (inter alia): “Make the most effective and efficient use of the site and any existing buildings upon it”. The inclusion of this criterion within the body of draft Policy S4 accords with the NPPF, which seeks to encourage the effective use of land (Paragraph 111). It is clear from the Council’s intention to revise the existing development cordons that available development land in the Borough is at a premium. The NPPF seeks to encourage the effective use of land. Therefore we strongly consider the Local Plan should ensure, on a site-by-site basis, that new housing development achieves an optimum level of density that is appropriate to the site’s character and location, but also contributes to addressing the existing lack of choice in the Borough’s housing market, as detailed in the latest SHMA for Barrow and referenced at Paragraph 1.4.26 of the Local Plan. BBC Response- The thrust of Policy DS5 (formerly Policy S4) is the high standard of design the Council would like to see in all new developments, and in order to achieve this it is important for a design to respond to the specific attributes of a site along with other factors such as neighbouring uses and amenity. This policy is the starting point for development proposals which will of course be required to accord with other policies in the Plan such as the density policy (Policy H9), referred to in this representation, which again requires that density should be determined on a site by site basis. Both policies are flexible and accord with the NPPF.

Rep ID 1049/4

Status - Objection Policy /Para - Policy S4 Design Bullet A Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives.


41

The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15). The policy does not accord with the requirements of the NPPF, in that it refers to integration and enhance the character of the built environment including heritage assets and fails to make reference to setting. Any proposals affecting heritage assets will be expected to conserve and enhance heritage assets and their setting. The policy should be amended to read "Conserve and enhance the historic environment, including heritage assets and their setting" BBC Response – Comments noted, new bullet point added with amended text as proposed by Historic England, to bring policy in line with wording of NPPF.

Rep ID 1050/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy S4 Design Bullet H Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15). The policy does not accord with the requirements of the NPPF, in that heritage assets are on a list of key environmental assets that need to be incorporated into new development proposals. Therefore, reference to "heritage assets" should be removed from this bullet. The policy should be amended to delete strategy for the conservation reference to "heritage and assets” BBC response – Comments noted, bullet point h) amended to remove ‘heritage and assets’ from the criteria.

Rep ID 1087/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S4 Building design Contact/Organisation Kate Wheeler, Natural England Building design It is recommended that wording is included as to how building design should be applied to avoid the provision of nesting sites for gulls in urban areas. BBC Response – Comments noted, additional bullet point added to address this comment from Natural England.

Rep ID 1174/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S4 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The delivery of good quality and inclusive development is fundamental to the robustness of the Local Plan. Although it is considered to be broadly robust, there are a number of improvements to the policy we would wish to see. In particular care is needed that design principles are not so prescriptive or onerous that they would prejudice otherwise sustainable development. Suggested Changes It is suggested that criteria d) is revised to state; “Allow permeability and ease of movement within the site and surrounding areas and maximise opportunities to meet the needs of pedestrian, cyclists and for public transport.


42

It is considered that a criterion f) is not necessary. It is suggested criteria K is revised to state; “Ensure that development is both accessible and usable to different age groups and people with a disability.” BBC Response – d) and k) amended, f) is retained (now g)).

Policy S5: Landscaping (now Policy DS6)

1 representation of objection was received on paragraph 3.4.11supporting text to Policy S5.

Rep ID 1051/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para – Para 3.4.11 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England Under the provisions of the Planning ((Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 there is a requirement to pay "special attention “to "the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance" of its conservation areas. This includes ensuring development within or in proximity to, does not affect its significance {NPPF). This paragraph only makes reference to harming the character of the area and should be amended. The paragraph also refers to conservation areas as being defined by their high landscaped value and this is incorrect. It is their special architectural or historic interest which determines whether they are designated not their landscape value(NPPF Para 127) The Plan should be amended to ensure that reference is made to both character and appearance and reference to landscape value should not refer to conservation areas. BBC Response- Comments noted, reference to Conservation Areas removed from paragraph as these are not designated for their high landscape value but for the reasons outlined in the NPPF.

Policy S7: Development Briefs (this Policy has been removed)

8 representations were received on Policy S7, including 1 Supporting and 7 Comments.

Rep ID 812/131

Status - Support Policy /Para - Policy S7 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust is pleased to support this Policy and in particular notes the detailed additions in response to comments made at the Issues and Options stage. It is considered that the inclusion of the Policy will add to certainty in terms of the matters to be addressed in bringing forward sites for development and as a result will be of benefit to land owners and developers, as well providing a degree of reassurance for local communities.


43

BBC Response – Support noted, however the Council has removed this policy is response to previous consultations. Rep ID 919/126

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S7 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy S7: Development Briefs The HBF expressed concerns with the production of development briefs for all allocations at Issues and Options. We remain unconvinced that they will aid delivery. The policy justification suggests that the production of a development brief would provide greater certainty that a site would be developed and notes some existing allocations have not come forward even after 15 years. Whilst the HBF is not intimately aware of all the sites within the borough, the reason allocations have not come forward is more likely due to site viability and location, as opposed to the lack of a development brief. The HBF recommends the Council discuss the delivery of sites with developers or site promoters to ensure that a full appreciation of any barriers to delivery is understood enabling appropriate policy responses to be made. This will provide greater certainty that an allocation will be developed as opposed to a development brief. The policy identifies an extensive list of requirements and criteria which if applied prescriptively would limit flexibility and the ability of the developer to respond to unforeseen or changing issues with the site or market conditions. The justification suggests that it is not ‘envisaged’ briefs will be over-prescriptive, yet this tone is not reflected in the policy wording. Furthermore Policy H9 indicates densities will be included within the development briefs. The policy wording does not provide confidence that briefs will be used simply to assist development. There is also no indication of when the Council will produce the briefs and what will happen if an application for the development of a site is received in the interim. If the Council is committed to the production of development briefs in a timely manner, these should be delivered in conjunction with a developer or site promoter. They should also only be used to identify opportunities and over-arching development principles they should not be prescriptive interpretations of policy requirements and criteria, which in many cases will replicate other plan policies, unless they are indications of when certain policies will not be applied. BBC response – The Council has considered the representations to previous Drafts of the Local Plan and has removed the Development Briefs Policy going forward. The Council will however encourage meaningful pre application discussions with developers to help guide development and encourage sustainability in line with the policies in the Local Plan and any other relevant information. Development Briefs will be produced for Council owned sites which must be given consideration when developing a planning application of these sites.

Rep ID 942/423

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S7 Contact/Organisation Edward Harvey, United Utilities We note the Council intends to carry forward draft Policy S7, whereby the Council will produce Development Briefs for each of the allocated sites. As per our comments to the Issues and Options version of the Local Plan, we object to the inclusion of draft Policy S7 on the basis that preparation of a Development Brief for each and every site allocation is not necessary to inform its future development. Whilst we acknowledge that Development Briefs may be appropriate to guide development on larger, strategic sites, which are liable to have more physical site constraints, we consider that smaller development sites, such as UUPS’ site at Saves Lane, can make an important contribution to achieving the Local Plan housing targets without the requirement for a Development Brief to guide development at the site. The body of draft Policy S7 states that Development Briefs “will include the type of development the authority considers acceptable for the site” to enable developers “to produce a scheme of appropriate design, density and layout”. In its response to Rep ID 256/257 on Page 122 of the ‘Representations to Issues & Options Draft Local Plan’ (June 2015), the Council states that Development Briefs “are not intended to be restrictive to developers and landowners but provide a


44

steer of the type and mix of housing”. Draft Policy S7 states the Council believes that Development Briefs for each site “will be helpful to developers and the local authority to promote sites which will be realised in a timely manner in order to meet supply”. We would argue that the preparation of Development Briefs for each and every site allocation will have the opposite effect and will prevent sites from coming forward for development. Development Briefs including parameters in terms of scale, density and layout will severely inhibit the potential sale of allocated sites to house builders, who do not want to be tied down by restrictions imposed by the Council. We consider this policy will not be effective in delivering the objectives of the Local Plan. Rather, the development of sites within the Borough should be guided by the policies contained within the Local Plan DPD, therefore negating the requirement for separate Development Briefs. It is important to note that the Council would still retain the ability to influence elements such as the design, density and layout of new developments, without the requirement for a Development Brief for each and every site allocation. We consider that matters relating to design should be guided by design policies in the Local Plan, with the specific details agreed through discussions between the local authority and landowner during the planning application process. The Council states that Development Briefs will help to promote sites in a timely manner in order to meet supply. However the task of producing Development Briefs for each and every site allocation is a significant undertaking for the Council. We consider that this will delay the development of the smaller sites and prevent them from coming forward in a timely manner. On this basis the Local Plan is not positively prepared. BBC response – The Council has considered the representations to previous Drafts of the Local Plan and has removed the Development Briefs Policy going forward. The Council will however encourage meaningful pre application discussions with developers to help guide development and encourage sustainability in line with the policies in the Local Plan and any other relevant information. Development Briefs will be produced for Council owned sites which must be given consideration when developing a planning application of these sites.

Rep ID 984/193

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S7 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Pardoe, Amstone Developments The Council's aspiration to provide certainty and speed up the development process is supported. However, in order to avoid unnecessary work on the part of the Authority, it is suggested that such briefs have already been produced for the key sites within the Barrow Port Area Action Plan, thereby rendering this requirement redundant in those instances. BBC response – The Council has considered the representations to previous Drafts of the Local Plan and has removed the Development Briefs Policy going forward. The Council will however encourage meaningful pre application discussions with developers to help guide development and encourage sustainability in line with the policies in the Local Plan and any other relevant information. Development Briefs will be produced for Council owned sites, such as Marina Village, which must be given consideration when developing a planning application of these sites.

Rep ID 1107/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S7 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes The Council should only produce Development Briefs for the largest and most complex Sites. The role and status of Development Briefs should be made clear by the Council. To require the preparation of Development Briefs for all allocated sites will only serve to delay development and constrain housing land supply.


45

BBC response – The Council has considered the representations to previous Drafts of the Local Plan and has removed the Development Briefs Policy going forward. The Council will however encourage meaningful pre application discussions with developers to help guide development and encourage sustainability in line with the policies in the Local Plan and any other relevant information. Development Briefs will be produced for Council owned sites which must be given consideration when developing a planning application of these sites.

Rep ID 1132/257

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy S7 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Policy S7 sets out the Council’s intention to produce a series of “Development Briefs” to inform the delivery of allocated sites set out within the Local Plan. The lack of any detailed explanation defining the exact role and content of these briefs gives rise to significant uncertainty over their potential impact on the delivery of sites proposed to be allocated by the Council. This is in conflict with Paragraph 17 of the Framework. The policy is silent on whether Development Briefs will be required to have been published by the Council ahead of the delivery of any development of allocated sites. Should the Council require Development Briefs to be produced ahead of any planning permission being granted, this may provide for a significant barrier to the delivery of development allocated to meet identified housing needs, with delivery heavily dependent on the capacity of the Council to produce and approve a Development Brief ahead of approving any scheme. Does the Council have the resources to do this and undertake this work immediately to ensure delivery? Or will the Council be forced to split its delivery as applied in South Lakeland District2 in response to resource shortages and delay the delivery of housing allocations? The policy only provides an indication of what Development Briefs might require of sites. Whilst we appreciate that this will change from site to site, the policy needs to be careful to ensure that its requirements do not introduce new and onerous policy burdens that may affect the viability and deliverability of sites proposed by the Local Plan to deliver the future development needs of the Borough (see Paragraph 173 of the Framework). Story Homes believe that Development Briefs should only be required on the largest and most complex sites within the Borough. They should not be required for all sites proposed to meet the Borough’s housing needs. Where they are required, the role and relevance of Development Briefs, together with their timetable for production must be clearly set out by the Council. BBC response – The Council has considered the representations to previous Drafts of the Local Plan and has removed the Development Briefs Policy going forward. The Council will however encourage meaningful pre application discussions with developers to help guide development and encourage sustainability in line with the policies in the Local Plan and any other relevant information. Development Briefs will be produced for Council owned sites which must be given consideration when developing a planning application of these sites.

Rep ID 1175/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S7 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council Development Briefs can add value and guide development on the most complicated of development sites. Notwithstanding this, preparation can take time and on more straightforward sites such a requirement may constrain otherwise appropriate development. The policy as drafted is unclear when briefs would be used. It is considered that policy should require that they would only be developed where the complications affecting a site require it (e.g. multiple ownerships or significant environment or infrastructure constraints). It is considered important that the policy picks up on the highways and transport matters that the development brief may be required to address. We welcome the emphasis placed on the need for surface water drainage assessments and the use of SuDS and where delivered, development briefs should


46

promote integrated solutions and subsequent ownership of SuDS features introduced across such development(s). Suggested Changes The policy should be revised to specify the sites or circumstances on which development briefs will be required. Policy should be clear that the briefs include access requirements (pedestrians, cycle, public transport, vehicular), details of existing PRoW to be accommodated within the design and key linkages etc. Policy should make clear reference to the promotion of integrated solutions and subsequent ownership of SuDS features introduced across such development. BBC response – The Council has considered the representations to previous Drafts of the Local Plan and has removed the Development Briefs Policy going forward. The Council will however encourage meaningful pre application discussions with developers to help guide development and encourage sustainability in line with the policies in the Local Plan and any other relevant information. Development Briefs will be produced for Council owned sites which must be given consideration when developing a planning application of these sites.

Rep ID 1095/184

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy S7 Contact/Organisation Signet Planning. Moorsolve Self Administered Pension Fund Whilst it is acknowledged that Development Briefs can assist with the deliverability of the sites and provide greater clarity for developers and landowners, the Council need to ensure that they are not overburdening themselves by committing to the production of Development Briefs for lots of sites as if they do not have the resources to prepare these promptly, this in itself could undermine the objectives of ensuring that sites are delivered effectively and efficiently. In this regard, it is noted that draft allocation SHL096 which is 0.753ha in area is identified as a site which a Development Brief will be prepared. Although it is accepted that there are various technical matters that will need to be addressed and coordinated as part of a planning application submission, it is considered that a site on this scale would not require a Development Brief to ensure effective delivery and instead, detailed pre-application discussions with the Local Planning Authority followed by a robust and comprehensive planning application submission, should be sufficient to ensure that this site is deliverable. It is therefore considered that the Council should take a more selective approach in choosing which sites will be made the subject of Development Briefs and it should be confirmed that they have sufficient resources available in order to produce these documents. It is also recommended that the landowner/ developer is involved in the production of the Development Brief, as they will have knowledge of the site that the Local Planning Authority may not be aware of and which could inform the content of the brief. BBC response – The Council has considered the representations to previous Drafts of the Local Plan and has removed the Development Briefs Policy going forward. The Council will however encourage meaningful pre application discussions with developers to help guide development and encourage sustainability in line with the policies in the Local Plan and any other relevant information. Development Briefs will be produced for Council owned sites which must be given consideration when developing a planning application of these sites.


47

Representations received on Chapter 4: Climate Change & Pollution

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 20 representations on the Climate Change and Pollution Chapter, of these representations 10 have been categorised as comments, 6 as supports and 4 objections.


Comments on the Climate and Pollution Chapter

A number of amendments are proposed to the text in response to the comments received from consultees and these are detailed below.

Policy C1: Flood Risk and Erosion

3 representations were received on Policy 1, including 1 support, 1 comment and 1 objection.

Rep ID 814/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy C1 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust is pleased to support this Policy and in particular notes the detailed addition in response to the comments it made at the Issues and Options stage. It is also noted that a number of other additions and changes have been made; these are considered to be appropriate and to have improved the Policy, accordingly they too are supported BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 1176/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy C1 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council It is considered that this policy’s focus on design should be enhanced. Suggested Changes The final paragraph of the policy should be revised to state: “The design of schemes should be influenced by natural drainage flow patterns, respecting open watercourses and incorporating SuDS. Measures should be implemented that deter future development, including domestic gardens, extending into the buffer.” BBC Response- Policy amended as requested by with the inclusion of “where appropriate” after SuDs.

Rep ID Status - Objection


48

1052/4 Policy /Para - Policy C1 Flood Risk and Erosion Bullet B Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15). The policy does not accord with the requirements of the NPPF, in that it refers to "historic sites" and therefore does not offer protection to the whole of the historic Environment. The plan should be amended to ensure that proposals do not harm the “historic environment” rather than “historic sites”. Bullet B therefore should be amended to read:” There will be no harm to natural coastal processes, habitats, geodiversity and historic sites the historic environment.” BBC Response – Comments noted, Bullet B amended as requested

Policy C2: Development and the Coast

3 representations were received on Policy C2 including 1 support, 1 comment and 1 objection.

Rep ID 815/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy C2 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust Whilst several improvements have been made to this Policy which the Trust is pleased to support [in particular to part b)], it is apparent that one key alteration has not been made. The Report on Consultation relating to the Issues and Options stage includes the following in respect of Rep/ID 452/131: “BCC – comments noted, criterion amended in line with comments”. However, the Preferred Option as currently being consulted upon has not picked up the requested change to bullet point a); it is confirmed that it should read as follows: “There will be no unacceptable harm to natural coastal processes including increasing the risk of flooding, coastal erosion and instability.” BBC response –Comments noted, Bullet point amended as requested.

Rep ID 1053/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy C2 Development and the Coast Bullet B Contact/Organisation Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the heritage assets rather than historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment" and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15). The policy does not accord with the requirements of the NPPF, in that it refers to "historic sites" and therefore would not ensure the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The Plan should be amended


49

to ensure proposals do not harm heritage assets rather "historic sites" Bullet B, therefore should be amended to read: “There will be no unacceptable harm to habitats species, geodiversity, designated and historic sites and historic environment". BBC Response – Comments noted, Bullet point amended as requested.

Rep ID 1177/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy C2 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The proposed policy is appropriate and should ensure development respects the important asset of Barrow’s attractive coastline. Coastal and route based tourism can be an important element of the Furness Peninsula’s visitor offer. In this respect, it is considered that opportunities to improve access to the coast as part of the development process should be promoted. Suggested Changes It is proposed that an additional criteria be added, this highlighting that opportunities to improve access will be sought where possible. BBC Response – Comments noted. Additional sentence added to end of policy stating “Opportunities to improve access to the coast will be sought where possible and where the above criteria can be met.”

Policy C3: Water management

7 representations were received on Policy C3 including 5 comments and 2 support.

Rep ID 793/10

Status – Comment Policy/Para - Paragraph 4.3.15 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC The Code for Sustainable Homes referred to at Paragraph 4.3.15 is no longer in force. BBC Response- Reference deleted.

Rep ID 794/10

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy C3 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy C3 – Water Management, the text for this policy should reflect Central Governments Housing Standards Review and Building Regulations. A water efficiency requirement such as that proposed, would need to be evidenced as specifically being needed in the borough. BBC Response – The thrust of Policy C3 is sustainable water management in all new developments. The Council appreciates that minimum water efficiency standards are defined by Building Regulations and this policy is not intended to go beyond such regulations. It is a starting point for developments and developers can adopt higher standards if they wish.


50

Rep ID 816/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy C3 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust Changes noted and no objections raised. BBC response – Response noted.

Rep ID 920/126

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy C3 Contact/Organisation Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy C3: Water Management The HBF support the removal of references to the ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’ from this policy and replacement by reference to the Building Regulations. These amendments generally accord with our comments upon this policy at Issues and Options. The HBF does, however, question the need for such a policy given that the majority of its requirements are the subject of separate regulations. BBC Response – The thrust of Policy C3 is sustainable water management in all new developments. The Council appreciates that minimum water efficiency standards are defined by Building Regulations and this policy is not intended to go beyond such regulations. It is a starting point for developments and developers can adopt higher standards if they wish. The County Council as Local Lead Flood Authority support the inclusion of this policy.

Rep ID 1108/257

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy C3 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes We support the update to this policy which ensures consistency with latest Government guidance. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1133/257

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy C3 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes is supportive of the redrafting of this Policy to update it to align to the latest national policy requirements. The Council should be careful when referencing “all development”, that wording takes into account the scale of developments and their ability to deliver policy requirements. BBC Response- Comments noted.

Rep ID 1178/9

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy C3 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council It is considered that this policy and its supporting text should be strengthened to amplify the role of SUDs as part of good design principles and highlight linkages with the work of the responsible drainage and flooding authorities and bodies. Suggested Changes


51

The policy should include an additional paragraph state that: “On large sites, drainage proposals must demonstrate their function within a wider, holistic strategy which coordinates the approach to drainage between phases, between developers, and over a number of years of construction.” The policy should include an additional sub-paragraph stating: “Development will be supported by proposals for long term maintenance and management details for surface water drainage schemes.” We ask for the role of Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority to be introduced through new paragraphs following 4.2.3: “The provision of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 mean Cumbria County Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority for Cumbria. Key duties for the County Council under this new legislation include: - •Investigating and publishing reports on localised flooding; •Providing land drainage flood defence consent on Ordinary Watercourses; and •Publish a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) to set out how local flood risks will be managed in the county, who will deliver them and how they might be funded. The Strategy was published in April 2015 and can be found here: - http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/planning-environment/flooding/Local_Flood_Risk_Management_Strategy.asp This Strategy has not been developed solely by the County Council. It has been produced in collaboration with the Environment Agency, District and Borough Councils, (including Barrow Borough Council), United Utilities and other bodies. The County Council must take a lead in Cumbria on local flood risk management and this Strategy identifies how this will be done. Partnership working is central to the Strategy.” Paragraph 4.2.3 should be revised to state: “Another key document is the South West Lakes Catchment Flood Management Plan, which provides…” We propose a new paragraph after 4.2.4 introducing the work undertaken in producing coastal strategies, this could state: “Barrow Borough Council has a strategy for coastal work already in place for Walney Island and a study has been undertaken for the Shorelink at Roa Island. These documents will make a significant contribution to the development of a Coastal Strategy currently being undertaken by the Cumbria LLFA on behalf of coastal borough/district councils. This will cover the entire Cumbria coastline and will aim to identify where benefits can justify funding from a number of sources for coastal defence/erosion projects, to be led by local authorities. Coastal environment and habitats will also be considered.” The last sentence of Paragraph 4.2.5. should be revised to state: “…the government’s Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management funding.” We suggest the addition of a new sentence to para. 4.2.5., this would state: -“The Borough Council works in partnership with Cumbria County Council, the Environment Agency and United Utilities to identify and fund solutions to localised flooding. This partnership working is carried out through a local Making Space for Water Group and the Cumbria Lead Local Flood Authority Working Group.” For paragraph. 4.3.10 the last sentence should be removed and replaced with: “Cumbria LLFA is a Statutory Consultee to local planning authorities on the management of surface water when considering planning applications. Cumbria County Council as LLFA will expect sustainable drainage systems to be provided in new developments of more than 10 dwellings/0.5 ha unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. Cumbria LLFA also expect to be consulted on smaller developments where there are records of surface water flooding or the area is shown be at risk on Environment Agency mapping.” In paragraph 4.3.11. After the first sentence the following addition should be included: “A draft SuDS Design Requirements document produced by Cumbria LLFA as Statutory Consultee asks for the submission of such a Strategy to support planning applications.” Third sentence should read: “The Local Plan requires SuDS to be of a high design…” The following should be added to Paragraph. 4.3.12: At the beginning add: “Both Cumbria LLFA and United Utilities have stated that …” Replace the beginning of the second sentence with: “On large sites, drainage proposals must demonstrate their function within a wider, holistic strategy which


52

coordinates the approach to drainage between …” The third sentence of paragraph 4.3.14. include: “The mechanical treatment and …” The last sentence of paragraph. 4.3.15. should read: Opportunities to install SuDS at existing developments will be encouraged by Cumbria LLFA; this will contribute towards reducing surface water runoff. BBC Response –Amendments made in line with those suggested by Cumbria CC both to Policy C3 and the supporting text.

Policy C5: Promotion of Renewable Energy

5 representations were received on Policy C5 including 2 comments, 1 objections and 2 support.

Rep ID 921/126

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy C5 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation The policy seeks to encourage the use of renewable energy within developments. It is important that such encouragement is not interpreted as a requirement as set out within preceding paragraph 4.5.4. This would be contrary to the Governments Housing Standards Review which specifically identifies from 2016 the energy requirements for new housing development will solely be a matter for the Building Regulations with no optional standards. BBC response – Comments noted, paragraph 4.5.4 removed and text inserted in justification to clarify role of Building Regulations.

Rep ID 1054/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy C5 Contact/Organisation Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering what “unacceptable harm "number of other planning objectives. The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15). The policy needs to be expanded to ensure that when referring to "unacceptable harm" it makes it clear as to the definition of what this is referring to. In terms of Historic England's remit this will be to ensure that there is no unacceptable harm to the Borough's heritage assets and their setting. The policy should be expanded to provide clarity to those submitting planning applications for development which use renewable energy as to what "Unacceptable harm “relates to. BBC Response –wording ‘providing they do not result in unacceptable harm’ removed and link to C6 added, C6 amended in line with HE’s suggestion.

Rep ID 1096/184

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy C5 Contact/Organisation - Signet Planning, Moorsolve Self Administered Pension Fund


53

The general principle of requiring new development to consider renewable energy production is commended, however, often the objective of reducing carbon omissions can also be achieved through a 'fabric first' approach which in certain instances can prove to be as effective or more effective than providing renewable technology which does not necessarily remain operational for the duration of the development and is reliant on correct use by the occupier of the property. It is therefore suggested that a degree of flexibility is provided within this policy so as not to burden every single development with the need to deliver renewable technology. BBC Response –The Council feels the Policy as set out does not over burden developments and is intended to encourage the use of renewable energy where appropriate, and in line with the standards set out in Building Regulations. The text has been amended to use the word ’encouraged’.

Rep ID 1109/257

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy C5 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes welcome the flexibility introduced by the Council in regards of this policy. BBC Response- Support noted.

Rep ID 1125/734

Status - Support Policy /Para - Policy C5 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes note and support the inclusion of more flexible wording within this policy to account for the potential implications of its requirements on development viability. The promotion of renewable energy is a key priority of the Framework, but this should not prevent the delivery of growth which is necessary to achieve the plan’s vision and objectives. BBC Response – Support noted.

Policy C6: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Proposals

2 representations were received on Policy C6 including 1 comment and 1 objection.

Rep ID 817/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy C6 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust notes that several changes have been made that suitably address the concerns that it had previously raised. However, it is also noted that the text in bullet point a) has been amended to refer to ‘any significant negative impacts’ as opposed to ‘any negative impacts’ and is a notably lower threshold. In our view that change is not justified and a high standard can reasonably be expected. It is our view that the original wording should have been retained; however, if that is not considered suitable then it is submitted that “any unacceptable negative impacts” would be a more appropriate wording.


54

BBC response – The text was amended in light of responses to the Issues and Options Draft in response to comments made by Cumbria CC, the Council agrees that it is appropriate in this case to use the word ‘unacceptable ‘as suggested as this brings it in line with bullet d) which uses the same word.

Rep ID 1055/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy C6: Bullet D Contact/Organisation Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The policy needs to be amended to make reference to both heritage assets and their setting when considering proposals for renewable energy. To ensure consistency, the previous policy uses the phrase "unacceptable harm" rather than “unacceptable adverse impact” and the policy should be amended accordingly. The Plan should be amended to read: "proposals do not have an unacceptable adverse effect on nature conservation, biodiversity, geodverstiy, flood risk or the settings of heritage assets and their setting. BBC Response – Bulletpoint amended as requested, now bullet c) of Policy C6.


55

Representations received on Chapter 5: Infrastructure

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 41 representations on the Infrastructure Chapter, 33 of these representations have been categorised as comments, 7 as supports and 1 objection.


General Comments on the Infrastructure Chapter


Rep ID 869/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Air Quality Contact/Organisation Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association Delivery restrictions We hope that work is undertaken to review delivery time bans that force truck operators to use the roads at the most congested times. We appreciates that the buy-in of local residents is essential if delivery windows are to be changed and quiet delivery initiatives to be implemented. BBC Response – Comments noted, no amendments required.

Rep ID 870/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Air Quality Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association Congestion, Air Quality and Emissions We would suggest that in developing the Plan, the cost of congestion to the local economy in general and the haulage industry in particular, is studied. We would hope that efforts are made to identify congestion hot-spots as well as the rat-run routes that are used by trucks when main roads are too busy, so that any new infrastructure development can act to relieve existing problems. Dealing with and minimising congestion can help reduce carbon emissions and air pollution. BBC Response- Comments noted, Transport Modelling work has identified hotspots for vehicle use and congestion and also looked at average vehicle speeds this is set out in the Modelling Report and Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Rep ID 871/133

Status - Comment Policy /Para -Transport Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association


56

Road Safety The RHA gives in principle support to initiatives aimed at improving road safety noting that the A595 is identified as one of the most dangerous roads in Cumbria. However we would always ask that the impact of any proposals on the business community in Barrow is fully considered prior to the implementation of any plans. BBC Response – Comments noted, highway safety is an important consideration for all new developments. However the important of the A590 as a strategic route into Barrow is also emphasised within the Plan.

Rep ID 1183/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Para 5.7.3 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council A factual error on paragraph 5.7.3 has been identified. There is no need to await confirmation of the Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs). The draft Cumbria Minerals & Waste Local Plan (MWLP), issued for consultation in February 2013, is the most up-to-date depiction of MSAs and the Mineral Consultation Area (MCA) – see http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/planning-environment/policy/minerals_waste/MWLP/Consultations.asp BBC response – Text amended as a result of comment.

Rep ID 866/133

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Tourism Contact/Organisation Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association We note that it is hoped that tourism can be developed given that Barrow is not far from major tourist sites such as Morecombe Bay and the Lake District. In the view of the RHA the tourist economy also needs to be supported by good roads infrastructure, allowing visitors easy access to areas of interest and ensuring that tourist related businesses can be resupplied. BBC response – The Council agrees that the development of the tourism industry in Barrow Borough needs supporting and this is a thread running through the Plan, and in particular within the Economy Chapter.

Rep ID 867/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Transport Contact/Organisation Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association Traffic management, signage and intelligent transport systems We hope that new development in the Barrow district will make use of the most up-to-date technology for traffic management. We know that that inappropriate routing of traffic, including HGVs, through some areas is a problem. We suggest that technology now offers many ways in which all traffic can be successfully managed. However investment in intelligent transport systems, proper signage, traffic light sequencing technology, as well as major investment in town centre by-pass routes is needed before these benefits can be realised. We would also like to see proposals included to upgrade IT systems in order to provide improved real time travel information. Hauliers have themselves already embraced the use of intelligent transport technologies which help in the efficient running of their businesses. In the view of the RHA the positioning of road signs is also important. Good signage helps drivers to find correct places to park and load, but also to avoid the risk of trucks, for example, hitting low bridges because signs are in the wrong place or because the bridge sign gives insufficient notice for the driver to divert before


57

approaching the bridge. Bridge strikes can result in massive disruption whilst the driver tries to turn the vehicle round or gets stuck. BBC Response – Comments noted, no amendments to Plan required.

Rep ID 1024/7

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Infrastructure Contact/Organisation - Lindsay Alder, Highways England INFRASTRUCTURE As mentioned in the introduction to this review, the Local Plan is being prepared alongside an IDP that will detail what infrastructure is required to support the proposed developments identified in the Local Plan. A brief overview of the infrastructure proposals are also provided in Section 5 of the Local Plan, which is reviewed below. Development and Infrastructure The Local Plan states that some identified potential development sites will be constrained by infrastructure. To overcome this issue, developments will be phased throughout the plan period to allow time for the appropriate infrastructure to be put in place. It is suggested that much of the funding for new infrastructure in the Borough will be sought from developer contributions. It is also stated that new developments will be brought forward based on their proximity to existing infrastructure, thus reducing the requirement for additional infrastructure and encouraging development in the most sustainable locations. This approach should be supported by Highways England, as this will aid in increasing the mode share of sustainable travel options, such as walking and cycling, within the Borough, and in turn will reduce the potential volume of generated traffic on the A590. BBC response – Support welcomed and noted.

Rep ID 1242/40

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Infrastructure -Operational Port Contact/Organisation BNP Paribas Real Estate, Associated British Ports Operational Port Estate The National Policy Statement for Ports makes clear that it is the port industry and port developers who are best placed to make decisions about where and when to invest in the port sector in response to market demand. The Statement also notes the need for substantial additional port capacity in the UK. ABP’s Port of Barrow plays a vital role in attracting new investment and job creation to the local and wider regional economies, and will continue to do so going forward. The port also facilitates new energy generation (including from renewable and low carbon sources), as well as the more sustainable movement of goods by sea and rail rather than road. Further to this, the development opportunities set out above under ‘Future Development Aspirations’ are integral to ABP’s intentions to continue to plan for, and invest in, the future development of the Port of Barrow. These are vital to secure its future as a key UK port, gateway to international trade and important generator of new investment and skilled job creation for the local and wider regional economies, as well as assisting in meeting the national need for additional port capacity and renewable energy generation. They will also enable the port to continue to facilitate new renewable and low carbon energy generation, as well as the more sustainable movement of goods by sea rather than road. Notwithstanding the above, ABP's ownership at the Port of Barrow is not proposed to be allocated for development on the Central Map of the Borough for the Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation. Furthermore, there is no policy in the document which specifically supports future development at the Port of Barrow, and it


58

appears the Council is looking to rely on the policies and allocations in the Barrow Port Area Action Plan (adopted 2010). As set out above, since 2006 the demand for development land at the Port of Barrow has considerably exceeded that anticipated at the time ABP sold part of its landholdings to facilitate the regeneration of the wider Barrow Port area. The result of this has been an increased pressure in terms of accommodating future development needs on the land that remains at the Port of Barrow, with a particular demand for the development of new deep water berths along the Walney Channel to service the off shore wind developments in the Irish Sea. Furthermore, ABP has entered into a number of short term agreements at the Port of Barrow in recent years to facilitate off shore energy generation, and expects to continue to do so going forward. In light of the above, it is vital that the Barrow Local Plan supports existing operations and the future development needs of the Port of Barrow. Integral to this is the need for the allocation of ABP’s land at the port, as well as the inclusion of policies in the Local Plan to acknowledge its importance to the local and regional economy, support its continued operation, as well as promote its future growth and development. It is also vital that the future allocation of the Port of Barrow provides flexibility to facilitate both future port and energy related development. BBC Response – Comments noted. The Plan stresses the importance of the Port of Barrow within the Economy Chapter in particular paras 6.1.14 to 6.1.21. The Council will continue to liaise with ABP on the ongoing operation of the Port and associated land holdings.

Rep ID 1243/40

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Infrastructure -Operational Port Contact/Organisation - BNP Paribas Real Estate, Associated British Ports 1. Allocation It is requested that all of the land within ABP’s ownership at the Port of Barrow (see plan 1 at Appendix A) is allocated in the Local Plan for port related use and development. This includes the land currently allocated as “Land Retained for Port Related Use and Development” in the Barrow Port AAP, as well as the following: a) The unallocated land fronting the Walney Channel to the north west for which initial feasibility work has been undertaken in relation to its future port related development (see option 3 on plan at Appendix C and Appendix A) b) The land currently allocated as a Marina Link in the Barrow Port AAP and fronting the Walney Channel which is also being considered for future port related development (see option 3 on plan at Appendix C and Appendix A) c) The Centrica / Hydrocarbon Resources gas condensate storage facility. More specifically, although the majority of this facility is allocated as “Land Retained for Port Related Use and Development” in the Barrow Port AAP, it is requested that the extent of the allocation is amended to include all of the land owned by ABP (and leased to Centrica / Hydrocarbon Resources for the terminal facility) as shown on the plan at Appendix D. The allocation requested above is important in order to firmly establish the area within which port related development will be supported, both through the implementation of ABP’s Permitted Development Rights and also where planning permission or other consent is required. This will help safeguard the future of the Port of Barrow, as well as ensuring the Local Plan is in line with the approach taken by other Local Authorities in their Local Plans, as well as National Guidance and Law, therefore ensuring the Local Plan meets the tests of soundness. In particular, the National Policy Statement for Ports makes clear that the port industry (of which ABP is an integral part) should take the lead in terms of the location of future port development. It is therefore important that Barrow Local Plan supports this in order to ensure it is sound. BBC Response – The Plan stresses the importance of the Port of Barrow within the Economy Chapter in particular paras 6.1.14 to 6.1.21The Port Retained Land Policy within the Area Action Plan will be reviewed as part of an update to the AAP following the adoption of the Local Plan. The Council will continue to liaise with ABP on the ongoing operation of the Port and associated land holdings.



59

1244/40 Policy/Para - Infrastructure -Operational Port Contact/Organisation - BNP Paribas Real Estate, Associated British Ports 2. Policies It is requested that policies are also included in the Local Plan, pursuant to the allocation requested above, which safeguard and support the continued future operation and development of the Port of Barrow. More specifically, it is requested that these policies: a) Support future port related development at the Port of Barrow, including the potential development of new deep water berths along the Walney Channel, which ABP is Continuing to consider the feasibility of bringing forward (see Appendix C). b) Identify the Port of Barrow as an economic investment and development priority to help it attract new funding, investment and job creation. c) Identify and promote the Port of Barrow as a priority location for the development of renewable and low carbon energy generating uses, given the sustainability benefits of locating such development at the port. d) Encourage linkage between the future economic developments of the land around the Port of Barrow e.g. the Waterfront Business Park to the port. e) Encourage the development of a new road along the current route of Cavendish Dock Road at the earliest opportunity, to help attract new investment by improving access to the southern and eastern areas of the Port of Barrow, the proposed Marina Village development, as well as the other businesses accessed via this road. f) Include a specific requirement for the potential impact of the Port of Barrow on any new development proposed on land adjacent to it to be fully assessed as part of any future planning application and, where necessary, mitigation provided as part of the new development. BBC Response- The Plan stresses the importance of the Port of Barrow within the Economy Chapter in particular paras 6.1.14 to 6.1.21The Port Retained Land Policy and other policies relevant to the Port within the Area Action Plan will be reviewed as part of an update to the AAP following the adoption of the Local Plan. The Council will continue to liaise with ABP on the ongoing operation of the Port and associated land holdings.

Rep ID 776/10

Status -Comment Policy /Para –Key Facts Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC The reference at page 68 to the A590 and its importance to the economic success of the borough and equally to the success of the Furness Peninsula as a whole is supported (referenced in paragraph 5.5.1). BBC Response – Support noted.

Policy I1: Developer Contributions

5 comment representations were received on Policy I1.

Rep ID 1245/10

Status -Comment Policy/Para - Policy I1 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Page 70 – developer contributions – It is suggested that a reference is made to the role of other sources of funding, for example, the Local Growth Deal and the role of Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership in assisting bids for funding. Also, there’s a need to acknowledge in the light of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)


60

Regulations, that it may be difficult to secure developer contributions in certain circumstances, particularly where there is a viability constraint or it cannot be justified as necessary to deliver a site. The role of other sources of funding should be mentioned in this context. Proposed Policy I7 may need amending in this respect. BBC response – Comments noted, Paragraph added to supporting text prior to Policy I1 to outline additional funding streams and difficulties with CIL.

Rep ID 852/132

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I1 Contact/Organisation - Fiona Pudge, Sport England Developer Contributions As there is no CIL in place any developer contributions should be based on information contained within relevant up to date and robust evidence base studies. For example, paragraph 73 of NPPF requires an assessment of need to determine provision for open space, sport and recreation. Sport England’s guidance on the production of Playing Pitch Strategies requires site specific Action Plans to be developed as part of the Strategy that identifies which sites require improvements or new provision with indicative costs. These can then be used to help inform developer contributions for sites where an increase in demand for sport arising from the increase in population in an area will require additional capacity to be created in that area. It should be noted that on site provision is very rarely sustainable and contributions to existing sites to improve pitches/facilities to meet demand is both sustainable and meets needs identified in the relevant sports strategies. Suggested amendment: developer contributions for indoor and outdoor sport will be informed by the relevant up to date and robust assessment of need. BBC Response – Text amended as requested for all types of infrastructure including sport.

Rep ID 985/193

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I1 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Pardoe, Amstone Developments The flexibility of this policy is appreciated, along with the potential for developers to provide any necessary infrastructure themselves. The policy does not, however, add much to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and ignores the needs to ensure viability and deliverability. If this policy site should be retained it should more strictly accord with the provisions of the NPPF or be deleted due to the lack of clarity about specific rates. BBC Response – Text added ‘consideration will be given to how these requirements will affect the viability of development.’ The NPPG states that Councils should set out the contributions required by developers in their Local Plans.

Rep ID 1097/184

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I1 Contact/Organisation - Signet planning, Moorsolve Self Administered Pension Fund It is suggested that an updated supplementary planning document is prepared in relation to Developer contributions as the proposed policy is non-specific in its drafting and it is important to provide developers with clarity on the methodology for calculating contributions so this can be considered at an early stage. It is assumed that once the Council has adopted CIL, that much of Policy I1 will be superseded. BBC Response- This proposal is something the Council may consider once the Local Plan is adopted.



61

1179/9 Policy /Para - Policy I1 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The growth proposed within the Local Plan will have inevitable infrastructure consequences. The Local Plan and its evidence base, including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), must be able to identify the infrastructure requirements and present a credible strategy for enabling its delivery. The development of infrastructure evidence is currently evolving and there is a real opportunity to establish linkages between the IDP, the Local Committee Area Plan and the LEPs developing Infrastructure and Strategic Investment Plans. During development of the IDP it will be essential that ongoing consideration is given to the strategic evidence emerging through the Strategic Investment Plan and Cumbria Infrastructure Plan together with a more in depth assessment of the cumulative effects of growth. In particular it is considered that detailed consideration should be given to the impact of development upon the highway and transport network within Barrow-in-Furness. The identification of infrastructure needs must dove-tail with a robust delivery strategy. This should highlight the role of developer contributions and as part of this evolution of infrastructure evidence; consideration will need to be given to the role of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which is a levy on development used to fund the delivery of infrastructure. The county council and Barrow Borough Council have enjoyed a positive working relationship with respect to infrastructure planning matters borne out within the recently signed Statement of Intent. It is considered that the principle enshrined within this will allow the effective development of this evidence. Planning obligations have an important role in ensuring the suitability and sustainability of new development. Robust Local Plan policy about Planning Obligations is therefore essential to the creation of an effective Local Plan 58. While policy approach for developer contributions is considered to be strong, it would benefit from strengthened links with the IDP. Moreover it is considered that the policy should introduce the potential of CIL to support the growth of the district. In September 2013, Cumbria County Council adopted its Planning Obligations Policy. The policy document details the scope and range of planning obligations that Cumbria County Council, may seek to secure through the planning process. In doing so it promotes a consistent and transparent approach so that communities and the development industry are able to see and understand how development in their area is making a fair and positive contribution to sustainable communities. Since its adoption it has been in widespread use and has assisted Inspectors during the consideration of appeals. This policy should be referenced within the supporting paragraphs. Suggested Changes The policy should introduce the potential of CIL to support the growth of the district. Following the first bullet point “Utilities and waste” the bracketed text should be removed as it is not relevant. There will be a need for the IDP to undergo further evolution over the plan period. There should be a reference to the County Council’s Planning Obligations Policy within the text supporting the policy. BBC Response – Comments noted, supporting text amending to reference Cumbria Strategic Investment Plan and alternative funding streams such as Cumbria LEP. Link with IDP strengthened in text and in policy. Bracketed text removed from policy. Reference to the Planning Obligations Policy added to supporting text.

Policy I2: Protecting community Facilities

3 representations were received for Policy I2, including 1 support and 2 comments.


62

Rep ID 952/426

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I2 Contact/Organisation - Rosanna Cohen, NHS Property Services I am writing in response to your recent notification in respect of the above consultation with the following comments from NHS Property Services on Section 5.2 of the document, ‘Accessing Community Facilities’; specifically with regard to Policy I2 ‘Protecting Community Facilities’. Policy I2: ‘Protecting Community Facilities’ ‘Community facilities that serve the requirements of local people and which are accessible by walking, cycling, and public transport will be protected.’ The policy does not make specific reference to healthcare facilities as community facilities and greater clarification is needed within the policy to avoid misinterpretation. The NHS requires flexibility in its estate and in particular, the ability to dispose of unneeded or unsuitable sites and properties for best value. This is an important component in funding new or improved facilities for public services within an area, and the categorisation of healthcare facilities as ‘community facilities’ as implied by Policy I2 would, in its current form, have a considerable impact on the NHS’ ability to re-provide future services for the community. ‘Community facilities which benefit the less mobile and which promote health and wellbeing will be given particular protection.’ Recent government departmental directives actively encourage the co-commissioning of public services, including health and social care, as part of a wider objective to ensure that the public health estate can continue to provide for the needs of communities for generations to come NHS commissioning and estates strategies are currently working towards solutions which places services in locations accessible to those who require them, and working with local Councils to ensure that those services will meet the needs of the local population they serve for the lifetime of the facility. This goal sits within longer term objectives to improve the future of extra care provision to cater for the ageing population, many of whom would benefit from care at home or in a home-like environment. The approach taken by policy I2 is not sustainable and takes too simplistic a view of the role of the public health estate. The protection of facilities which ‘promote health and wellbeing’ for health and wellbeing’s sake could prevent necessary investment in more modern and fit for purpose facilities in the area for the future. ‘It has been demonstrated that continued operation of the facility would not be viable;’ The NHS subjects its estate to rigorous testing and approvals before declaring a facility to be surplus to requirements. It must be approved as being unsuitable for continuation of its current use by the health commissioning bodies NHS England and the relevant Clinical Commissioning Group before being disposed of for other uses. In some cases, other healthcare related services may be relocated to the facility if it is feasible and viable to do so as part of a healthcare estates strategy which has taken into account the lifetime of the facility and the services required in that location. Therefore, when a facility is disposed of by the NHS, it can be assumed that this is because its continued use is unviable. In turn, it can be assumed that the benefits of its disposal will clearly outweigh the loss, as it will facilitate the development of services in locations where they are needed most. ‘To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan for the use of shared space and guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities.’ Whilst paragraph 70 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ‘guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services,’ the overarching objective of this paragraph is to ensure the delivery of necessary facilities and services for the community. As such, and with this in mind, we believe that the policy slightly misquotes national policy. Paragraph 70 of the NPPF also states that planning policy should: i Plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; ii. Guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs; iii. Ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community; and iv. Ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services. Policy I2 is restrictive in the emphasis it places upon the retention of ‘valued facilities’ as referred to in paragraph 70. We consider that it wrongly infers an assumption that the existence of a community facility is proof of its value to the community and thus it should be protected. In line with national policy, community


63

facilities should be able to be developed ‘in a manner which is sustainable and retained for the benefit of the community.’ The NPPF resists the loss of facilities ‘where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs.’ Policy I2 fails to take into account that public service providers such as NHS Property Services undertake regular reviews of the NHS’ estates requirements. The decision to retain a health facility by the NHS sits within a wider strategy for the commissioning of health services in locations most beneficial to the local community. The retention of a health facility is therefore an indicator of its value to the community, not the other way round. There should not be a presumption that existing facilities will be the best placed to serve the needs of the local community. The Council will encourage new developments to enhance existing community facilities and where appropriate increase provision. ’Significant growth in an area will have a direct impact upon the existing community facilities in that area, such as healthcare service provision. The ability to plan for the future needs of the community should be viewed as a proactive not reactive addenda. The NPPF states that planning policy should `ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services. As such, meeting the healthcare needs of a local community should be place-based, not facilities-led. Policy I2 places too much weight on solving these pressures by enhancing the provision of existing community facilities. A replacement facility may in some cases be a more sustainable solution to planned growth and require the loss of one or more existing facilities. Furthermore, whilst the loss of a community facility may sometimes require a replacement, this is not always the case. In some cases, it would be both feasible and sustainable to meet the needs of the community via existing facilities. The NHS in particular is working towards more modern methods of service provision and developing estates strategies to meet communities’ needs by utilising less space in fewer, more efficient facilities. In terms of the test of soundness: We consider that Policy I2 is not positively prepared, as it does not take into account the need to dispose of unsuitable properties as a key component of government strategy for meeting on going healthcare requirements. It is not justified, as the need to retain established facilities and services is not in line with the objectives of public service providers such as the NHS who are strategically planning for the future of the public healthcare estate. It is not consistent with national policy, as paragraph 70 of the NPPF requires that plans ensure the delivery of facilities and services for the community, and the policy in its current iteration is restrictive of the ability of public service providers to do so. We therefore propose the following revisions to the draft policy: Clarification of the status of health facilities within the categorisation of ‘community facilities.’ “Community facilities that serve the requirements of local people and which are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport will be protected. Community facilities in locations which are accessible to the local population they serve will be protected. Community facilities which benefit the less mobile and which promote health and wellbeing will be given particular protection. Community facilities which cater for the long term strategic healthcare requirements of the local community will be given particular protection. The loss of such facilities will only be permitted where: Adequate facilities are provided to meet the needs of the local population; or It has been demonstrated that there is a need to relocate the services at that facility; or It has been demonstrated that the services that the facility provides are no longer required by the community they serve; or Continued operation of the facility would not be viable and relevant marketing information can be shown to support this, unless the facility in question is part of a wider public services estates reorganisation programme. The National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘to help deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan for the use of shared space and guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities plan positively for the provision and use of shared space and ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.’ In addition to ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community. Giving consideration to government strategy for the co-location of public services, development should avoid the unnecessary loss of valuable community facilities and promote the retention of existing facilities where they are both sustainable and viable in the context of the long term interests of the local community. The Council will encourage new developments to enhance existing community facilities and where appropriate increase provision. Where it is anticipated that planned growth will give rise to an increase in the existing community services requirement, it will be necessary for new developments to provide for additional capacity in those services affected and for new facilities where


64

appropriate in line with on going estates strategies. ”An additional paragraph should read: “The loss or change of use of existing community facilities will be deemed acceptable if it is shown that the disposal is part of a wider estates reorganisation programme put in place to ensure the continued delivery of public services and related infrastructure, such as those being undertaken by the NHS. Evidence of such a programme will be accepted as a clear demonstration that the facility in question is neither viable nor needed as is therefore not of value to the service requirements of the local community. In this instance, it can be assumed that adequate facilities are, or will, be made available to meet the ongoing needs of the local population. In such case no marketing will be required. The rationalisation of healthcare services and subsequent disposal of existing surplus facilities should not be subjected to restrictive policy wording as it is suggested that the draft policy I2 currently imposes. It is therefore suggested that in order to be made sound, the policy wording is revised according to the points raised. BBC response – Policy HC2 amended to include loss of doctor’s surgeries and health facilities. This policy (I2) is not intended to cover healthcare facilities, rather community facilities which may be linked to health and wellbeing such as recreation exercise classes etc.

Rep ID 853/132

Status – Comment Policy/Para - Policy I2 Contact/Organisation Fiona Pudge, Sport England Protecting Community Facilities Although, the principle of protecting community facilities is welcomed some of the loss criteria is could be in direct conflict with paragraph 74 of NPPF and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy and draft local plan policy HC7 (Loss of playing fields, sports pitches or facilities) where playing field land and ancillary facilities are concerned. Both paragraph 74 of the NPPF and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy require the following criteria to be fulfilled when assessing loss: Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss. Suggested amendment: It is suggested that the playing field and sport element is a duplication of HC7 and the reasoned justification in para 5.2.1 should omit reference to sports venues and playing pitches. However a note within the policy to cross reference to policy HC7 should be included. BBC Response – Comments noted, suggested amendment made to remove reference to sports venues and playing pitches and include reference to Policy HC7.

Rep ID 877/179

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy I2 Contact/Organisation - Ross Anthony, Theatres Trust The Trust supports the inclusion of proposed Policy I2 Protecting Community Facilities. The policy reflects guidance in item 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan for the use of shared space and guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also to ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community. However, we recommend avoiding the word ‘viable’. There are many cultural facilities including theatres that contribute to the vitality of local communities that are not economically viable in developer terms, with many relying on grants or financial subsidies to remain in operation, yet they are a valuable component of your social infrastructure to support local cultural and social well-being and should be safeguarded.


65

BBC Response – Comments noted, the policy wording has been amended to include operations that are maintained using grants or financial subsidies.

Policy I3: Access to Community Facilities

1 comment representation was received for Policy I3.

Rep ID 922/126

Status – Comment Policy/Para - Policy I3 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy I3: Access to Community Facilities In assessing whether a contribution should be made from a particular site the Council should also take account of economic viability as well as the other considerations listed. BBC Response- Comments noted, policy wording amended to add ‘economic viability of the development’.

Policy I4: Sustainable Travel Choices

6 representations were received on Policy I4 including 4 comments and 2 supporting.

Rep ID 818/131

Status - Comment Policy /Para -Policy I4 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The changes made are noted and the Trust has no further observations at this stage. BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 872/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Cycling Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association Segregated cycling infrastructure We acknowledge that the existing UK roads infrastructure has not been designed to accommodate cycling as an integral and significant part of the transport system. We would welcome moves to make standard the consideration of the needs of cyclists as a part of the roads design process. We understand that in countries where more people cycle routinely, it is common to have cycle routes completely segregated from other road traffic. The RHA would support the allocation of resources to the development of viable networks of cycle routes that are separated from motorised traffic. However we would stress that in a time of budgetary constraint, in our view it is essential that funds are allocated to the proper maintenance of the whole road


66

network, since poorly maintained roads are also unsafe. I hope that you will take these points on board and I look forward to working with you as the development of the Barrow Borough Local Plan continues. BBC response –Cycling routes should be safe, attractive and useable it would be up to the Highways Authority in consultation with the Council to ensure the road network is maintained.

Rep ID 873/157

Status - Support Policy/Para - Access/Cycling Contact/Organisation Charles Ecroyd, Cumbria Local Access Forum The Cumbria Local Access Forum (CLAF) is a statutory consultee on all matters relating to public access to the countryside, and rights of way. It is an advisory body, representing a range of interests, including farming, landowners, conservation and access interests. This letter constitutes formal advice from the Cumbria Local Access Forum. Barrow Borough Council is required, in accordance with section 94 (5) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to have regard to relevant advice from this forum in carrying out its functions. The CLAF is pleased to note that some of our suggestions (Response ID 157) for inclusion of mention of public footpaths and bridleways have been added to the Plan. We are pleased to see that the connection between the Public Rights of Way (PROW) network and health and well-being has been made. We hope these important links will continue to be stressed: walking and cycling, essential ingredients of a more active lifestyle, depend on a fully maintained PROW network. The CLAF is pleased to note that our suggestions for strengthening the explanation of the consideration to good design principles for new footpaths and cycleways have been adopted. BBC Response – Supporting comments noted.

Rep ID 1025/7

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I4 Contact/Organisation - Lindsay Alder, Highways England Enhancing Sustainable Travel Choices The Local Plan states that the number of people travelling to work by car in the Borough is higher than the national average. The A590 is the only SRN route in the Borough, and is the main route connecting the local centres of Barrow, Dalton, Askam and Lindal. As such, development within the Borough could potentially place additional pressure on the A590. The Local Plan has taken account of the proximity of potential housing sites to employment sites and services to reduce the need for vehicle trips. There will be a focus on providing new walking and cycling routes, following on from Cumbria County Council’s [CCC] proposals for new cycle routes for major towns in Cumbria, including Barrow-in-Furness. A ‘Circular Route’ for cyclists routing around Barrow and extending through the Borough is suggested in the Local Plan. This would allow for sustainable travel within Barrow itself and between local centres, creating an alternative travel option to the private car for residents travelling through the Borough. The quality and reliability of public transport is also addressed in the Local Plan, with the potential of a bus interchange being constructed in Barrow. Public transport options across the Borough are also addressed in further detail in the IDP, which includes proposals for rail and bus services in relation to potential development sites identified in the Local Plan. The proposals put forward in the IDP are discussed later in this review. Highways England is advised to welcome proposals to increase the provision of sustainable travel options in the Borough. Public transport and active travel infrastructure will reduce the need for private car trips and therefore reduce the potential impact of proposed development sites on the SRN.


67

BBC Response – Supporting comments noted. Rep ID 1180/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I4 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council This policy correctly highlights the need for development to be accessible and sustainable. Notwithstanding this, the policy should highlight the need for the whole transport impact of development to be assessed through the transport assessment and amplify the importance of there being early engagement with the highways authority. The policy should also amplify the importance of proving necessary cycle parking facilities as part of residential developments. Suggested Changes The policy should be revised to include reference to the need for Transport Assessment to be provided and the value of early engagement in schemes. In addition to seeking secure cycle parking provision in the developments listed, there should also be a requirement for residential developments to provide secure cycle storage. BBC Response- Policy text amended to include reference to the value of early engagement in schemes with the Council and Highways Authority and residential developments. Transport Assessments are dealt with in Policy I5.

Rep ID 777/10

Status - Support Policy /Para - Policy I4 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke/ SLDC Policy I4 is supported. This policy will help to deliver a network of cycling, walking routes that can be integrated cross - district. BBC Response – Supporting comments noted.

Policy I5: Travel Plans

2 comment representations were received on Policy I5

Rep ID 819/131

Status – Comment Policy/Para - Policy I5 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The development of this Policy on Travel Plans since the Issues and Options stage is noted and generally the Trust has no particular observations to make. However, it does note that the term “generates a significant amount of movement” is key to the Policy but that it is unclear how this will be defined, especially in the context of, say, proposals for modest development at existing sites that are already large generators of vehicle movements. There is arguably a case to be made for some more detailed advice in the supporting text on how this term will be defined. BBC response – Comments noted, supporting text added to reference national guidance.


68

Rep ID 1181/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I5 Contact/Organisation Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The first paragraph is not clear whether this policy is intended to relate to Travel Plans or Transport Assessments and as such consideration should be either given to splitting it into two or altering it so solely relates to Travel Plans. The final paragraph concerning developer contributions may be too onerous and it is suggested that it be revised to be consistent with the County Council’s Planning Obligations Policy. Suggested Changes Revise the first paragraph to state: “A Travel Plan is a long-term management strategy for a development that seeks to deliver sustainable transport objectives through positive action. By helping to reduce single occupant car use, Travel Plans can encourage effective use of current highway and transport networks, help support sustainable economic growth, encourage healthy lifestyles, promote social inclusion, manage travel demand, and assist in reducing the impacts of climate change. Travel Plans will be secured via planning obligations through the planning process (Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) to guarantee the provision of sustainable travel options that will result in social, economic and environmental benefits. As set out in national guidance the Travel Plan will demonstrate how:” Revise the final paragraph to state: “Where the trip reductions proposed to be achieved through a Travel Plan are to be considered as the mitigation measure in order to make the development impact acceptable, a developer contribution equal to the cost of providing the highway infrastructure improvements in the form of a bond will be required. In the event that the Travel Plan objectives are not being met, the bond monies will be used to provide the necessary infrastructure. In exceptional circumstances, should a developer be unwilling to commit to including an Action Plan within the Travel Plan, or the development proposals are at such a preliminary stage that it is unrealistic to draw up a list of measures, then it will be necessary to secure the outcome of the Travel Plan through a developer contribution.” BBC Response – Comments noted, the supporting text has been amended, reference to Transport Assessment removed and final paragraph of policy amended.

Policy I6: Parking

2 comment representations were received on Policy I6.

Rep ID 780/10

Status -Comment Policy/Para - Policy I6 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy I6 – Is Cumbria County Council supportive of this approach? Re/ looking at requirements on a case by case basis? BBC Response – Comments noted however Cumbria CC have not made any comments on this policy, the Council understands an updated Parking Guidelines document will be produced shortly..



69

820/131 Policy/Para - Policy I6 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust. The development of this Policy on Car Parking since the Issues and Options stage is noted and generally the Trust has no particular observations to make. BBC Response- Comments noted.

Policy I7: Transport Links

8 representations were received for Policy I7 including 4 support and 4 comments.

Rep ID 778/10

Status - Support Policy /Para - Paragraph 5.5.1 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Paragraph 5.5 – The reference to South Lakeland is welcomed. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 771/10

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Paragraphs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC At paragraph 1.3.4 – transport connections, it is suggested that reference is made to the A590T and its key role as part of the strategic road network and the need to safeguard its safe and efficient operation. BBC response – Comment noted.

Rep ID 779/10

Status -Comment Policy/Para - Paragraphs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 Contact/Organisation Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Paragraphs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 make reference to the need to manage the operation of the A590 in the context of the cumulative impacts of new development in Ulverston and Swarthmoor and changes in demand through additional growth. BBC Response – Comments noted, reference added to developments at Ulverston and Swarthmoor.

Rep ID 781/10

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy I7 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Support Policy I7 – It is consistent with the vision in South Lakeland’s adopted Core Strategy. BBC Response – Support noted.


70

Rep ID 821/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I7 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust remains concerned about this Policy and its practical implementation, in particular element a) and it’s geographic extent which goes well beyond the Borough’s boundaries, contrary to the advice in the NPPF. BBC Response- Comments noted, however the Council feels that it is and important to recognise works that can be done in Barrow Borough which would have an effect on journey time reliability to the M6, policy text amended to state ‘proposals within the borough’.

Rep ID 864/133

Status - Support Policy /Para - Policy 17 Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association We welcome the proposals set out on page 79 under the Policy I7 of the Transport Links heading that road safety and journey time reliability in the borough, to West Cumbria and the M6 should be improved. However we are concerned that this is the only roads related policy specifically mentioned in the Transport Links section. We ask why there are no plans to create new road capacity to facilitate the economic and social development promoted by the Plan. Given that there is a commercial port operated by Associated British Ports in Barrow, with major businesses such as BAE Systems, Glaxo Smith Kline and BNFL operating in the area, and there is also a push to develop advanced manufacturing as well as the offshore wind and the nuclear power sectors, we would like to emphasise again the importance of good roads infrastructure and a thriving road haulage sector in connecting businesses, employees and residents, and in supporting and promoting economic growth and regeneration. BBC Response – The Transport Improvements Study commissioned by BBC and CCC looked at the cumulative effect of the development proposed in the Plan on the highway network, the conclusions of this study do not highlight the need to create new road capacity just to improve the capacity of the existing network and specific junctions which are/will be operating at near or over capacity during the lifetime of the Plan. The Plan, IDP and Area Action Plan all emphasise the importance of a good road infrastructure in the borough not least due to its geographical location and the ongoing operation of major businesses.

Rep ID 1026/7

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I7 Contact/Organisation - Lindsay Alder, Highways England External Transport Links The Local Plan discusses the importance of the A590 in connecting the Borough to the rest of South Cumbria and the M6. The following issues regarding the A590 are also highlighted: •Sections of the route are isolated with few suitable diversion routes; •Sections of the route are single carriageway; •Significant delays during periods of highways maintenance work; and •Poor journey time reliability. ‘Policy I7: Transport Links’ seeks to improve road safety and increase journey time reliability between Barrow and the M6. It is stated that BBC will work with Highways England to secure the required improvements to the A590 to enable development across the Borough. JMP advises Highways England welcomes this approach to ensure that any proposed development sites that come forward are fully examined to assess their potential impact on the SRN and to determine


71

whether mitigation is required. Any proposed improvements to the SRN should only come forward if essential, and only if other mitigation measures - such as offering alternative sustainable travel options - are not appropriate or feasible. The Local Plan also states that BBC will work alongside CCC to improve external transport links serving the Borough. However, JMP notes that there is no mention of the infrastructure improvements or development sites proposed for the neighbouring South Lakeland District Council [SLDC]. JMP suggests that Highways England requests further consideration of SLDC infrastructure and development proposals, as development within SLDC, and in particular Ulverston, will potentially impact on the operation of the SRN between Barrow and the M6. Key Points: •JMP welcomes the proposals to increase provision of sustainable transport options across the Borough; and •Highways England is advised to request further consideration of how the SLDC infrastructure and development proposals will potentially impact on the operation of the SRN between Barrow and the M6. Key Points: JMP welcomes the proposals to increase provision of sustainable transport options across the Borough; and Highways England is advised to request further consideration of how the SLDC infrastructure and development proposals will potentially impact on the operation of the SRN between Barrow and the M6. BBC response – Supporting text amended to reference development proposals in South Lakeland, ongoing dialogue with neighbouring authorities and County Council.

Rep ID 1182/9

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy I7 Contact/Organisation Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council Measures to improve accessibility of the Furness Peninsula to the M6 and West Coast Mainline are recognised as priorities in helping to facilitate the sustainable development of Barrow. In this respect this policy and the support it gives for these principles is supported. BBC Response – Support noted.

Policy I8: Telecommunications

3 representations were received for Policy I8 including 2 comments and 1 objection.

Rep ID 822/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I8 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust notes the changes made to the detailed wording and generally considers that the Policy is suitably improved as a result. BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 933/161

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy I8


72

Contact/Organisation - Ginny Hall, Mobile Operators Association While we support the inclusion of a telecommunications policy within the emerging Local Plan, we have the following minor concern about the draft wording of Policy I8: Telecommunications: Criterion (d) of Policy I8 appears to be overly restrictive. While the design of certain telecommunications base stations will allow for future site sharing by other Operators, it is not physically possible in every case. Lattice style masts generally have capacity for site sharing however designs such as replica flagpoles and street works style poles may not. It is not possible for the telecommunications Operators to foresee all future equipment requirements on each base station site and it is not therefore feasible to future proof every design to allow site sharing. When the Operators identify the need for a new base station in a particular area, they will consider the availability of site sharing as part of the site selection procedure and details of this would be submitted along with a planning application. Each planning application for telecommunications equipment should be determined on its merits (whether it is for a new site or for a site share) and it is considered that designing all new base stations to accommodate future sharing would be overly restrictive to future rollout by the Operators. On that basis it is requested that criterion (d) is removed from the Draft Policy I8. Summary In summary, while we support the inclusion of a telecommunications policy, we consider that the criterion discussed above is overly restrictive on telecommunications developments and contrary to the provisions of NPPF. We therefore request that this criterion is removed from the Draft Policy I8. BBC Response- Comments noted, text of bullet point d) has been amended to address these concerns.

Rep ID 1056/4

Status - Objection Policy /Para - Policy I8 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan the policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. For consistency within the Plan as a whole, the policy needs to be amended to make reference to "unacceptable harm" rather than "unacceptable adverse impact" and the policy should be amended accordingly. To ensure consistency the Policy should be amended to refer to "unacceptable and not "impact". BBC Response – Comments noted, bullet points amended as requested by Historic England.


73

Representations received on Chapter 6: Economy

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September2015 we received 31 representations on the Economy Chapter, of these representations have been categorised as 17 comments, 10 as supports and 4 objections.


General Comments on the Economy Chapter


Rep ID 868/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Employment Contact/Organisation - Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association Parking and loading We would also like to see planners take more seriously the need for provision of secure lorry parking sites, particularly near interchanges and major industrial sites. Lack of provision creates problems in terms of security of load and driver and road safety. We urge you to insist that such parking areas have bathroom facilities incorporated which visiting truck drivers are allowed to use. Unfortunately it is the case that even after long journeys some customers refuse to allow HGV drivers to use staff toilets. Such an attitude leads to discomfort and inconvenience for drivers who may then use lay-bys or other inappropriate sites to relieve themselves. We would also like to emphasise that as well as parking facilities, trucks need loading and unloading provision at high street shopping centres for example, and any lack of adequate provision can also cause difficulties for other traffic, pedestrians and for the shop owners being served by hauliers. In summary we would ask that the Plan makes proper provision for adequate facilities for truck drivers. BBC Response – Comments noted, bullet point f) amended to include reference to large vehicles (lorries). Reference also made to provision of bathroom facilities for drivers.

Rep ID 913/40

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Economy Contact/Organisation - BNP Paribas Real Estate, Associated British Ports ABP is committed to ensuring that the Port of Barrow remains an economic hub which attracts investment and skilled job creation to the local and wider regional economies. Integral to this is ABP’s intentions to continue to plan for, and invest in, the future development of the Port of Barrow. It is therefore vital that the Barrow Local Plan includes an allocation and policy support for both current operations at the Port of Barrow and its future growth, in recognition of the port’s economic importance as a catalyst for wealth and employment generation. In particular, it is requested that the Barrow Local Plan supports


74

the potential future development of new deep water berths along the Walney Channel which ABP is currently considering the feasibility of bringing forward, as set in more detail under ‘Future Development Aspirations’ above. ABP also requests that the Barrow Local Plan identifies the Port of Barrow as a priority location for the development of renewable and low carbon energy generating uses given the sustainability benefits of locating such development at the port. In addition, ABP request that the triangular area of land to the north-east of Cavendish Dock is allocated for residential development in the Barrow Local Plan, alongside the Salthouse Housing allocation set out in the Barrow AAP. BBC Response- Reference to supporting the ongoing operation of Barrow Port added at paragraph 6.1.19.The triangular piece of land to the north east of Cavendish Dock is included within the proposed Opportunity Area at Salthouse Mills ( OPP3 see Appendix G3)

Policy EM1: Waterfront business Park Strategic Employment Opportunity Area (now Policy EC1)

3 comment representations were received on Policy EM1

Rep ID 782/10

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy EM1 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy EM1, Waterfront Business Park Enterprise Zone, is supported as a strategic employment site for large scale business development. This strategic site is within the Travel to Work Area (TTWA) for parts of South Lakeland, including Furness and South Lakeland’s Principal Town Centre; Ulverston. BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 1027/7

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy EM1 Contact/Organisation - Lindsay Alder, Highways England EMPLOYMENT SITES The Local Plan identifies the Port of Barrow as a major regeneration project within the Borough, and a key location for economic activity. It states that the Barrow Port Area Action Plan (AAP) has resulted in significant growth in employment in the Port area, including the construction of a £5 million access road leading from the A590. The Waterfront Business Park is also identified as a major employment site in the region, with the Local Plan seeking to expand this employment area. Highways England should be aware that increased employment in these areas will potentially result in increased pressure on the A590, with employees associated with the sites travelling from areas both within and outside of the Borough. The anticipated level of in- and out-commuting as a result of any proposed employment development sites is not provided within the Local Plan. It is advised that Highways England requests that this be addressed in the final Local Plan document to provide an understanding of the potential impact of in- and out-commuting on the SRN Where possible, Highways England should be involved in the master planning stage of any large employment sites being promoted through the Local Plan process, to ensure that they are developed in a sustainable manner, minimising the number of single occupancy private vehicle trips.


75

BBC Response – Supporting text added above EM1 to outline importance of business park and how it is developing. The Council and partners will continue to liaise with Highways England as requested. Policy I5 Travel Plans supports sustainable travel choices in particularly minimising single occupancy trips.

Rep ID 1184/9

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy EM1 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council Economic growth in Cumbria is a key priority for the County Council. The Cumbria Economic Ambition and LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan highlight key priority sectors for economic growth. Of particular relevance to the Barrow area is the potential for business investment in the advanced manufacturing sector, which in Barrow, is underpinned by the marine engineering and major investments proposed by BAE and DONG. Waterfront Business Park is the key strategic employment site in Barrow and its importance is recognised within the Local Plan. This recognition should send a clear message about the priority for public and private investment in the Borough. This policy is therefore supported. BBC Response-Support noted.

Policy EM2: Local Employment Sites (now Policy EC2)

9 representations were received on Policy EM2 including 6 comments, 2 objections and 1 supporting.

Rep ID 823/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy EM2 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The responses to the Issues and Options consultation have been reviewed and it is noted that 2 of the 3 supporting Option 1 do not indicate why or how that Option is preferable to Option 2. The third representation makes detailed comments about the Port of Barrow but again makes no comment about why Option 1 is preferable to Option 2. In contrast three of the responses supporting Option 2 make clear comments about why it is preferable to Option 1, with two of them (including that submitted by the Trust) giving clear reasons for this preference. It is confirmed that National Trust remains of the view that Option 2 is to be preferred. The reasoning remains as previously advised, i.e.: “Option 2 is supported – it is a much more appropriate approach, which will provide greater certainty for investors and ensure that the overarching expectations of the Plan, in particular in promoting sustainable development by securing the right development in the right place, are achieved.” The approach set out in Option 2 is now further endorsed by the draft Employment Land Review work and the identification of specific sites both in Table 6 and on the plan at Annex A. The modest addition to criterion k) is noted and it is confirmed that the specific cross reference to the sustainable development policy is supported. There is arguably benefit in amending the way this criterion is presented in order to aid clarity, e.g.: “The proposal accords with the criteria set out in the policies within the Development Strategy Chapter, specifically those relating to Sustainable Development (Policy S2) and Design (Policy S4).” BBC response – Both options have been retained in the Publication Draft Local Plan, and now form two policies, Policy EC2 allocates a number of sites and Policy EC3 deals with windfall employment sites. As pointed out the Employment Land Review suggest recent trends have not shown a high demand for employment floorspace,


76

although this may change as we move through the life of the Plan. Criterion j) added in line with suggestion. Rep ID 865/133

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Contact/Organisation Phil Snowdon, Road Haulage Association We note on pages 97-98 that the Waterfront Business Park is identified as a site where additional development should be promoted, and we further note that the impact on the trunk road network of additional HGV movements has been assessed. We would ask that a positive approach is taken when the prospect of extra truck traffic is considered since increased truck activity will be linked to economic and employment growth. BBC Response – Supporting text added above EM1 to outline importance of business park and how it is developing. The Council and partners will continue to liaise with Highways England and other bodies as the business park develops.

Rep ID 783/10

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy EM2 policy criteria of EM2 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy EM2 – Local employment sites (option1). Policy option 1, criteria a) as it stands, gives the impression that new employment development directly adjoining the development cordon at Lindal- in - Furness will be approved (subject to the other policy criteria of EM2 being satisfied and other borough planning policies being met). Appendix E shows the development cordon on Lindal’s eastern boundary following the borough council’s administrative boundary. On Lindal’s north eastern boundary, beyond the proposed development cordon, is the existing housing at East View and then open land which is not developed. The housing at East View and the undeveloped land are within South Lakeland’s local planning authority area (LPA). In this context and for clarity, it is suggested that some text is added to the policy / policy justification to recognise that there may be circumstance(s) where the settlement development cordon directly adjoins a neighbouring LPA and in such circumstances the adjoining LPA’s planning policies will apply on land within SLDCs boundary. It would also help in the policy justification / reasons, to explain what is meant be ‘directly’ adjoining. Proposed Policy EM2 - Local employment sites (option 2). It is suggested that Policy Option 2, allocating specific local employment sites for B1, B2 and B8 uses will give more certainty to developers. Furthermore, it is suggested that the allocation of local employment sites will help the borough to protect the best sites and resist development proposals for other uses (provided the allocated sites are regularly reviewed to ensure that they are still available, suitable and deliverable). BBC Response – Comment noted, text has been added to Policy EC3 to state that where a cordon adjoins a neighbouring authority’s boundary the neighbouring LPA’s planning policies will apply to land within their boundary.

Rep ID 1033/219

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy EM2 Contact/Organisation - Christopher Garner, Holker Estates Option 2 is supported if the Sowerby Woods Business Park is considered to be part of Barrow. Specifically identifying the site would give more certainty prior to the preparation and submission of a planning application, as to whether or not the principle of development is accepted. Holker Group own land adjoining the Sowerby Woods Industrial Estate, Barrow, which is considered appropriate for allocation for employment purposes to accommodate B1, B2 and B8 type uses. Established businesses at Sowerby Woods have been looking at the opportunity to expand their existing operations and the allocation of land adjoining would allow them to do so in situ. The site would be a logical extension of the existing employment area (see area outlined in red on the attached plan) which lies immediately to the west and further enclosed by the Shanks MBT Plant (EMR05). The site has good access to both Barrow and the regional road network and there are no planning policy


77

constraints such as Green Wedge that would make it unsuitable as an employment site. If the planning authority decides to progress on the basis of the criteria based Option 1, then it is considered that Criteria a) should include reference to “or adjoining existing employment land or property”. BBC response – Comments noted, no amendment suggested both Options for policy retained and form Policy EC2 and Policy EC3.

Rep ID 1057/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy EM2 Contact/Organisation Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan The policy should be policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The policy includes a comprehensive list of criteria but fails to make reference to heritage assets and their setting. The policy should be amended to include reference to employment sites not having unacceptable harm to heritage assets and their setting. BBC Response – Comments noted, additional bullet point l) added in line with the comments suggested by Historic England.

Rep ID 1110/257

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy EM2 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes We support the adoption of a combination of Option 1 and 2. Combining these two options would provide for the most responsive approach to meeting the needs of business and enterprise, enabling sufficient flexibility to adapt and respond to needs, whilst also providing for a degree of certainty through site allocations. BBC Response – Support noted. Both options retained split into 2 policies, a number of allocated sites and a policy to deal with windfall employment sites.

Rep ID 1135/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy EM2 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes consider that the adoption of a combination of Option 1 and Option 2 would provide for the most effective strategy in securing the economic potential of the Borough. The Council needs to be flexible in its approach, allowing for enterprise, expansion and re-use of existing and new employment sites to maximise the economic potential of Barrow and to allow for the broadening of the local economy. The Council may consider relaxing planning rules on certain existing employment sites to secure new investment. In addition, specific allocations are required to provide certainty that the economic vision of Barrow can be secured, and provide a fresh range of sites that may meet needs not already provided for within the existing supply. Story Homes does not wish to submit comments regarding the suitability of potential employment sites at this time. BBC Response- Both options retained split into 2 policies, a number of allocated sites and a policy to deal with windfall employment sites. As pointed out the Employment Land Review suggest recent trends have not shown a high demand for employment floorspace, although this may change as we move through the life of the Plan.

Rep ID 1185/9

Status - Comment Policy /Para -Policy EM2 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council


78

It is noted that Barrow Borough Council is consulting on two separate options for this policy. Option 1 proposes not to allocate employment sites other than Waterfront Business Park, but instead consider individual planning applications as they come forward. Option 2 proposes to allocate individual sites for employment uses. To provide certainty to operators and infrastructure providers, it is considered that the Local Plan should allocate a number of smaller, local employment sites. Complementing these allocations and to ensure a flexible and dynamic supply, there should be a further criteria based policy to consider windfall employment opportunities. Suggested Changes The Local Plan should support Option 2 to allocate specific sites in Barrow and Dalton for employment uses, together with a separate criteria based policy similar to Option 1. Within the criteria for assessing site the following should be added: “The internal layout responds to natural drainage flow patterns, has suitable space for landscaping” Potential Local Employment Sites In line with the comments provided to Policy EM1, the County Council supports proposals to allocate site EMR03 – Waterfront Business Park. In addition to this site the allocation of the remaining part of Furness Business Park (ref. EMR 01) is supported. BBC Response – Comments noted, bulletpoint f) amended in line with comments to include drainage flow patterns.

Rep ID 1058/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - EMR01 Remaining part of Furness Business Park Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England There is the potential for industrial archaeology on the site. Therefore, the Plan/evidence base will need to be amended to ensure that reference to this is included and that an assessment will need to be undertaken prior to the site coming forward for development. The Plan needs to be amended to ensure that the potential for industrial archaeology is included as part of the considerations in the redevelopment of this site. BBC response – Sites table amended in Plan and in Employment Land Review to state that there is potential for industrial archaeology which should be considered during the redevelopment of the site.

Policy EM3: Loss of Employment Land (now Policy EC4)

5 representations were received on Policy EM3 including 3 comments and 2 supporting.

Rep ID 784/10

Status - Support Policy/Para -Policy EM3 Contact/Organisation Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy EM3 - Loss of employment land The inclusion of this policy is supported in order to maintain a stock of employment land and premises to meet demand. The policy justification for EM3 could refer to recent changes to temporary changes of use /permitted development rights (Prior approval procedure) for changes from employment use class B1 (a) office use to housing etc.


79

BBC Response – Support noted, reference to prior approval has not been added as it is subject to change during the life of the Plan and this policy refers to full applications.

Rep ID 986/193

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy EM3 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Pardoe, Amstone Developments As currently worded Policy EM3 could require the unnecessary justification of the development of sites such as Salthouse Mills for alternative purposes, despite their allocation in the Barrow Port Area Action Plan. The policy should, therefore, be amended to refer to such justification not being required where a site is identified/allocated for other forms of development within the Local Plan or other adopted DPDs. BBC Response – Comment noted, policy text amended to clarify this policy does not apply to sites allocated for other uses in the boroughs Development Plan.

Rep ID 1111/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy EM3 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes The wording of the policy fails to reflect the flexibility of the Framework, and should be revised to allow for varied use of allocated employment land based on the merits of the application, and having regard to market signals and relative need for land uses to support sustainable communities (see Paragraph 21 of the Framework). The sequential approach implied by point d of this policy should be removed from the Plan. BBC Response- Comment noted, bullet point d) removed as suggested.

Rep ID 1136/257

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy EM3 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes The national policy context for this policy is provided by Paragraph 22 of the Framework, which outlines that Local Authorities 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 use.” In principle Story Homes supports the inclusion of this policy within the Local Plan, but believes that point C of the policy requiring the demonstration of “clear need for the proposed use in the locality” both exceeds the requirements and fails to reflect the thrust of the Framework. Instead Paragraph 22 states that “applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities” [our emphasis]. The Policy should be reworded to reflect the approach of the Framework. We are also concerned by the wording of point d of this Policy. At present it would appear to imply a sequential approach to development proposals, requiring the consideration of suitable alternative sites for the proposed use by the developer. A sequential approach to development is not advocated by national policy, and should therefore be removed by the Council. BBC Response – Comment noted, bullet point c) updated to reflect the requirements of the NPPF and bullet point d) removed as suggested.

Rep ID 1186/9

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy EM3 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The proposed policy approach is supported.


80

BBC response – Support noted.

Policy EM4: Conversions of Employment use in urban locations (now Policy EC5)

1 supporting representation was received on Policy EM4

Rep ID 785/10

Status – Support Policy/Para - Policy EM4 Contact/Organisation Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy EM4 -Conversions for employment use in urban locations. This policy is supported. Depending on which option for EM2 is chosen, then the policy cross referencing may need changing, or, the inclusion of an additional criteria in EM4. BBC Response – Support noted, policy reference amended.

Policy EM5: Conversions for employment in rural locations (now Policy EC6)

1 supporting representation was received on Policy EM5

Rep ID 786/10

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy EM5 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy EM5-Conversions for employment use in rural locations. This policy is supported. If option 1 for EM2 is not chosen, then EM5 will need to include an additional criterion, rather than cross referring to option 1 of EM2. BBC Response – Support noted, policy reference amended.

Policy EM7: Economic Diversification- Tourism (now Policy EC8)

4 representations of comments were received on Policy EM7

Rep ID 876/157

Status – Comment Policy/Para - Para 6.5


81

Contact/Organisation - Charles Ecroyd, Cumbria Local Access Forum The major omission appears to be that, despite requests in the previous Consultation, there is still no mention of the England Coast Path (see The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009) in the Barrow Local Plan. We feel that your comment that our consultation response has been ‘noted’ is not sufficient. There is a need to ensure that public access continues at all coastal developments. The initial stage of this important long distance National Trail [Stage 1 from Allonby to Whitehaven] was opened in April 2014 with Natural England’s recommendations for Stage 2 [Whitehaven to Silecroft] currently resting with the Secretary of State pending appeals. Natural England staff are currently walking and plotting Stage 3 [Allonby to Gretna] and propose to start work on the Silecroft to Silverdale stretch and Walney Island early in 2016 which is when we understand that the final plan will be adopted. BBC Response- Comments noted, the England Coast Path is referenced in 6.5.2 of Preferred Options Draft, and elsewhere in the Plan. The Council is working with Natural England to ensure the delivery of the ECP route, where is passes through the borough.

Rep ID 878/249

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Para 6.5 Contact/Organisation - Ian Brodie/ Ramblers Association Unless I missed the relevant section, I could not find any reference to the forthcoming English Coastal Path which, as per government policy, is to be completed by 2020. Indeed preliminary work along the northern section of the Borough’s coast is shortly to start. The Local Plan needs to contain a policy that encourages the work of NE in creating this route and for protecting the route from non-essential development whilst it is created and once it has been created. Indeed protecting the amenity of users of the route should also form part of this much needed policy. The route also provides a good cause for developer contributions to assist with the enhancement of the route and its corridor. The route is a small but significant element in sustainable economic development within the Borough. BBC Response – Comments noted, the England Coast Path is referenced in 6.5.2 of Preferred Options Draft, and elsewhere in the Plan. The Council is working with Natural England to ensure the delivery of the ECP route, where is passes through the borough, and this process is already underway the Councils feels a policy to this effect is not necessary.

Rep ID 825/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy EM7 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust notes the changes in response to the Issues and Options consultation and has no additional comments at this stage. BBC response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 1059/4

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy EM7: Economic Diversification Tourist Bullet B Contact/Organisation Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15).


82

The policy does not provide adequate protection to heritage assets as it does not make reference to their setting. Also, in reference to heritage assets and their setting "disturbance" does not accord with the requirements of the NPPF. Also Bullet B refers to "designated sites” but does not say what this means. Therefore, the Plan needs to be amended to include reference to this. The policy should be amended to read: Developments must not cause unacceptable levels of disturbance or harm to designated sites, habitats, natural features and heritage assets and their setting. BBC Response – Comment noted, policy text in bullet point b) amended as requested and to expand on what is meant by ‘designated sites’.

Policy EM8: Caravan and Camping Sites (now Policy EC9)

2 representations on Policy EM8 were received including 1 support and 1 objection.

Rep ID 826/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy EM8 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust welcomes the detailed changes made, in particular in response to its previous submission, and supports the current Policy wording. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1060/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy EM8: Bullet F Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15). For consistency within the Plan, the policy should be amended to read "unacceptable harm" rather than "detrimental impact". The policy should be read: There would be no detrimental impact unacceptable harm to heritage assets* and their setting". BBC Response- Comments noted, policy wording amended as suggested.

Policy EM10: Self Catering Holiday Accommodation (now Policy EC11)

2 representations were received on Policy EM10 including 1 supporting and 1 objection


83

Rep ID 827/131

Status - Support Policy /Para - Policy EM10 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust notes and supports the additions made to this Policy in response to its submission at the Issues and Options stage. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1061/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para – Policy EM10 Bullet F Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The policy does not provide adequate protection to heritage assets as it does not make reference to their "setting". The Policy should be amended to read “The proposal with will not result in unacceptable harm to landscape, nature conservation or heritage assets and their setting". BBC response – Comments noted, policy wording amended as requested.

Policy EM11: Farm diversification (now Policy EC12)

3 representations were received on Policy EM11 including 2 supporting and 1 objection.

Rep ID 787/10

Status – Support Policy/Para - Policy EM11 Contact/Organisation Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy EM11-Farm Diversification. The inclusion of this new policy is welcomed. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 828/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy EM11 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard/ National Trust National Trust is pleased to support this Policy and in particular notes the detailed additions in response to the comments it made at the Issues and Options stage. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1062/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy EM11 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England


84

The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The policy does not provide adequate protection to the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting as it is omitted from the policy. The policy should be amended to ensure that it references the need to consider unacceptable harm to the historic environment /heritage assets and their setting. BBC Response- Comments noted, new bullet point added to include reference to historic environment, heritage assets and their setting as requested by Historic England.


85

Representations received on Chapter 7: Housing

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 79 representations on the Housing Chapter, of these representations have been categorised as 56 comments, 12 as supports and 11 objections were received.


General Comments on the Housing Chapter

1 representation was received on the chapter in general.

Rep ID 1137/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Housing Contact/Organisation - Barton Wilmore, Story Homes Objectively Assessed Housing Needs (OAN) Approach of the Council Table 7 of the consultation document provides a breakdown of the components comprising the OAN for Barrow which is used to define the housing requirement of the Local Plan. The Table outlines that in the Council’s assessment of the OAN for Barrow results in a housing requirement of 1,481 dwellings between 2016 and 2031. The OAN has been arrived at using the 2012 Household Projections published by DCLG, adjusted to account for demolitions, allowing for future vacancies, second homes, returning vacant homes back to use, and historical unmet need/shortfall that has accumulated since 2011. Story Homes does not agree with the Council’s assessment of its OAN and further disagrees with the methodology applied by the Council in the calculation highlighted above. The Council outlines that there are two differing OAN’s for the Plan period, with a higher OAN required to be delivered in the first five years due to the application of the Sedgefield approach to meet previously unmet needs. Story Homes is in agreement with the adoption of this strategy for meeting unmet needs. The Sedgefield approach most accurately reflects the aims of the Framework to “boost significantly the supply of housing land” and is consistent with guidance provided by PPG in Paragraph 035 (see Ref ID: 3-035-20140306). The difference between the OAN and the housing requirement for the Plan period is due to the application of a 10% uplift by the Council to the OAN to account for the economic aspirations for the Borough. Story Homes objects to the adoption by the Council of this arbitrary approach in supporting economic needs. Story Homes does not consider that the Council has undertaken a robust assessment of housing need. We therefore conclude that neither 1481 nor 1630 (when 10% is applied) dwellings represent the full OAN for Barrow. With reference to national policy requirements, the remainder of this sub-section seeks to demonstrate the findings of Story Homes above, advocating the need for Barrow Borough Council to review the approach taken in defining the OAN for Barrow and in account of the strategic objectives of the Plan adopt a higher housing requirement. Demographic Need In accordance with Paragraph 014 of PPG, the Council uses the latest available household projections published by DCLG to identify the future demographic needs of the Borough. Noting that household projections are trend based (therefore the figures are based on past delivery and reflect past policy choice), PPG enables


86

adjustments to be made to projections to reflect facts affecting local demography and household formation rates which are not captured in trends. In response to this guidance the Council adjusts these projections upwards to take into account of previous undelivered completions within the Borough since 2011. No further adjustments are proposed despite evidence demonstrating an ageing population, a declining working population, overall population loss and the lack of skilled workers. Whilst Story Homes supports the move to account for this shortfall against the projections, we do not support the approach of the Council to spread the 249 households that would have been created since 2011 across the remaining plan period. As with the shortfall in housing completions, this should be addressed within the first five years of the plan to meet these housing needs now, boost significantly the supply of housing and accord with Paragraph 035 of PPG. In addition we question the choice by the Council not to account for previous shortfall that accumulated within the Borough prior to 2011. Whilst noting the array of High Court judgements provided by the Council on this matter, it is not clear whether projections fully account for previous shortfall, which is significant. In reflection of economic aspirations and the need to boost significantly the supply of housing land supply it would represent a positive approach to Detail accommodate further shortfall. We object to the decision by the Council not to seek to apply further adjustments to the demographic projections on account that the 2012 projections are trend based. This means that the 2012 household projections project forward past policy decisions and supply failures. They are also underpinned by recessionary trends experienced household formation and lowered inward migration. In addition the 2012 Projections are known to significantly under estimate typical inward international migrations by around 100,000 migrants per year. As a result it is considered that the 2012-based projections significantly underestimate demographic need, and their use must be with extreme caution. In response to the factors outlined above, we consider at the very least the headship rates for the 25 to 44 age band of the 2012 Household Projections should be rebased to 2008 levels to account for evidence demonstrating constrained household formation for this age group. Economic Need The need for housing and economic strategies to align is clearly set out within National Policy. Both Paragraph 21 and 158 of the Framework underline that housing and economic strategies should be integrated, taking into account relevant market and economic signals. Housing supply should not provide a barrier to the achievement of economic objectives. In circumstances where the supply of working age population that is economically active is less than the project job growth, Paragraph 018 of PPG outlines that plan makers will need to consider how the location of new housing or infrastructure could help address this problem. The application of a 10% increase applied to demographic projections on account of economic needs, appears to demonstrate the Council’s acceptance of this approach. Referencing national policy, it can be beyond no reasonable doubt that the necessity to accommodate economic needs within the housing requirement is considered to be a component of the OAN. We are therefore concerned by the Council’s presentation of the OAN in Table 7 that would suggest that economic needs are an addition to the OAN. This approach represents a fundamental misinterpretation of national policy and needs to be revised. Story Homes objects to the approach taken by the Council to apply an arbitrary 10% boost to “objectively assessed needs” to align the housing requirement to the economic growth aspirations of the Borough. The reasoning applied by the Council as set out by Paragraph 7.1.10 that “using Experian data does not project a level of jobs growth over and above previous trends” fails to grasp that the delivery of housing in the past in support of these jobs was insufficient resulting in a lowering of the working population, a reduction in the skilled workforce and the increase of commuting from neighbouring authorities. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the cause of past and current issues facing the Borough. According to BRES data, in the period between 1997 and 2013, an average of 300 jobs per annum were created within the Borough. Over a similar period, published completions data reveals that an average of 89 dwellings per year were delivered within Barrow between 2003 and 2013, aligning with a population loss experienced by the Borough between 2001 and 2013 of 4,180 people.


87

Today the Council’s latest evidence suggests that 352 dwellings per year are required to support the delivery of 68 jobs per annum. More recent economic forecast published in March 2015 identify a future job growth rate of 179 Full-time equivalent jobs per year, 111 more than the forecast used to underpin the economic jobs scenario cited by the Council, but far below the typical level of job growth seen within the Borough between 1997 and 2013. The Council’s misunderstanding of the cause of existing problems within the Borough is further underlined by the case made by the Council that considers there to be no need to plan to meet investment at BAE Systems on account that it will occur “with or without the Local Plan.” This is a naïve approach. BAE Systems already suggest that the lack of quality housing means that its workers need to commute from outside the Borough. This problem will only be exacerbated. Economic Projections are “Policy-off” and may not take into account planned investment by the Council or the Government. The amount of jobs predicted within the projections reflects past trends. The potential boost in investment at BAE Systems in Barrow-in-Furness is therefore unlikely to be considered as part of the projections. In light of this and in contrast to past trends, jobs projections are likely to provide a conservative estimate of the likely job growth for the Borough for the plan period. The failure of the Council to plan to provide sufficient housing to meet even projected economic growth fails to support the economic potential of the Borough, with harmful implications for the Plan area. Should the Council fail to enable sufficient growth to meet economic growth projections as a minimum, this could reduce further the working and skilled population of Barrow, increasing inward commuting and potentially lleading to missed opportunities for investment as employers are unable to source an appropriate workforce. The lack of a skilled workforce is identified in page 52 to 53 of the Barrow Borough Housing Land Statement published in June 2015. The attraction of new workers with relevant experience and qualifications to the Borough is described as important by this document. Should BAE secure investment in 2016, the emerging Barrow Borough Local Plan would be woefully inadequate and would be required to be withdrawn. Story Homes believe that the Council should prepare a positive plan that seeks to address head-on existing issues regarding the workforce, and provide sufficient housing to deliver the Borough’s economic potential. Should the Government drop its plans to invest in BAE in Barrow-in-Furness, the plan could be reviewed. Market Signals Paragraph 020 outlines that a worsening trend in any indicator of market signals, following comparison to long-term trends, the housing market area, similar demographic and economic areas and nationally, will require and upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based solely on household projections (our emphasis). Reviewing the evidence provided by the Council alongside the preferred options it is evident that there is no need to revise upwards any further the overall housing requirement to accommodate market demand. That said, the Council also has the responsibility to ensure that the correct housing mix is provided by the Plan to meet identified need. There are clear indicators within the Council’s existing evidence (page 46 of the 2014 SHMA) highlighting the demand for larger executive housing. Providing such housing is important to fulfil key planning objectives in the plan area such as supporting the retention and attraction of high skilled professionals in support of the local economy, and reduce inward commuting rates. Reviewing proposed allocations, we do not consider that the Council have allocated sufficient sites of the right type and location to support the delivery of larger houses that would be desirable to these groups. The Council should allocate more Greenfield sites such as Abbey Road and Manor Farm, in Barrow-in-Furness to ensure that the plan is responsive to these needs. Affordable Housing National policy clearly states that alongside understanding need for future market housing, local authorities will also need to find the future requirements for affordable housing as part of the objective assessment of housing needs (see Paragraph 47 and 159 of the Framework, and Paragraph 022 of PPG). The total affordable housing need should then be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments. An increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes (as outlined in Paragraph 029). Contrasting the content of the Housing Land Statement with the 2014 SHMA, it appears that the Council has ignored findings within the SHMA identifying net affordable housing needs amounting to 71 dwellings per year (see page 60 of the 2014 SHMA). The Housing Land Statement instead wrongly outlines that no


88

affordable need is found within the SHMA. This is a significant omission especially in the context of national policy that requires Local Plans to meet the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing (see Paragraph 47 of the Framework). Given the extent of affordable housing need identified compared to the proposed housing requirement, and in consideration of the viability constraints within the Borough, the Council needs to consider applying an increase to the proposed housing requirement to maximise the provision of affordable housing. Identifying the full objectively assessed housing needs of Barrow Borough In this section we have provided a critique of the Council’s approach to the assessment of its OAN. We consider that the choices applied by the Council within its methodology towards household formation, migration, economic growth and affordable housing have resulted in an overtly constrained assessment of the future housing needs of the borough. At present there is an absence of evidence supporting the housing requirement that can be considered to be fully up-to-date and consistent with the requirements and guidance of national government. All things considered, in the context of the evidence currently available we believe that the economic jobs scenario (identifying the need for the delivery 352 dwellings per annum) provides the most accurate account of the full objectively assessed housing needs of the Borough. There is however, a pressing need for the Council to update its evidence ahead of submission for examination, as detailed above. A housing requirement of 352 dwellings per year therefor represents a minimum. BBC Response – The most up to date information on the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) and housing requirement for the Borough can be found in the Housing Land Statement 2016. These figures have altered since the Preferred Options draft as they take into account a number of factors which can change over time. National guidance states that the most recent household projections produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government should be used as a “starting point” when calculating the OAN. Adjustments can then be made to take into account housing market and economic signals and previous unmet need. The Council has calculated the OAN and housing requirement for the Borough over the Plan period based on the most up-to-date evidence available (CLG 2012 household projections). CLG 2012 household figures project a continued decline in the Borough’s population over the period 2012 to 2031. The size of households in the Borough will also continue to fall. This results in a projected growth of only 362 households between 2012 and 2031, which equates to an annual average of 19 additional households. This figure should be adjusted upwards to take into account future employment growth, future housing vacancies and second homes. A number of options for OAN have been identified, however the most realistic is considered to be an OAN of 1990 net additional dwellings over the 19 year plan period which is an average of 105 dwellings per year. This is the minimum number of net additional dwellings which should be built over the Plan period. It is not a ceiling and additional housing will be accepted where it accords with the Development Plan.

Policy H1: Annual Housing Target

10 representations were received on Policy H1 including 3 comments and 7 objections.

Rep ID 1028/7

Status - Comment Policy/Para - paragraph 7.1.7 Contact/Organisation - Lindsay Alder, Highways England


89

Housing Land Requirements Based on an assessment that takes into account population decline in the Borough, employment growth, existing vacancies and historic shortfall, the following proposed housing requirement is set out in the Local Plan (Proposed housing table reproduced). It is proposed that a total of 1,629 dwellings will be delivered in the course of the plan period, with a higher rate of increase taking place in the first five years of the plan. The previous IOCD proposed the delivery of 2,700 dwellings over the plan period. JMP considers the revised figure of 1,629 units to be a more realistic target when taking into account the continued decrease of the Borough’s population, as set out in paragraph 7.1.7 of the Local Plan. However, JMP advises that Highways England request further evidence regarding the balance of housing and employment sites within the Borough to ensure that enough residential development will come forward to serve the new jobs being created by the proposed employment development. If a balance is not achieved, this will increase in-commuting via the A590 from areas outside the Borough, which will potentially impact on the operation of the SRN. BBC Response-Please see the Housing Land Statement 2016 for details on how the housing requirement has been calculated. The figure has been adjusted to take into account future envisaged employment growth over the plan period to ensure it does not lead to unsustainable commuting patterns.

Rep ID 923/126

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy H1 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy H1: Annual Housing Target The HBF does not consider the policy and annual housing target to be soundly based and recommends a higher housing target be considered. The Council will be aware of our previous concerns outlined in our response to the Issues and Options document. Since this consultation the Council has sought to reduce its housing target from 180dpa to 126dpa in the first five years and 100dpa for the final ten years. This represents an average of approximately 109dpa over the whole plan period, 71dpa less than the previous consultation. The HBF considers that such an approach would constitute planning for decline and failure. It is noted that the Council intends to undertake further modelling work (page 10, Housing Land Statement 2015) and the housing target may be revised to reflect the outputs of this work. It is recommended that the following comments be considered during this modelling work. Policy Wording. The policy wording is not considered to be positive or sufficiently aspirational and may be seen as a ceiling rather than a floor. The HBF recommend that the housing target be identified as a minimum by the inclusion of ‘at least’ prior to the number of dwellings. Demographics. The three most recent sets of sub-national household projections (SNHP) produced by ONS have shown a continued decrease in housing requirements for the area. The 2008 SNHP identified a need for 114 households per annum over the plan period (based upon the What Homes Where model), the 2011 interim SNHP suggested a slight decrease to 108 household per annum (2011 to 2021). The most recent 2012 SNHP identify a dramatic decrease to just 8 households per annum (2012 to 2037). Whilst the HBF is supportive of the utilisation of the most recent household projections as the starting point for identifying objectively assessed housing needs a thorough consideration of the reasoning behind such trends is required, alongside a need to consider whether the continuation of such a trend would be consistent with the Government’s desire for plans to be positively prepared, aspirational and to boost significantly housing supply. Therefore whilst the PPG advocates the use of the most recent household projections as the starting point for identifying housing needs it is also clear that; The household projection-based estimate of housing need may require adjustment to reflect factors affecting local demography and household formation rates which are not captured in past trends. For example, formation rates may have been suppressed historically by under-supply and worsening affordability of housing. The assessment will therefore need to reflect the consequences of past under delivery of housing. As household projections do not reflect unmet housing need, local planning authorities should


90

take a view based on available evidence of the extent to which household formation rates are or have been constrained by supply. (PPG paragraph 2a-015). In the case of Barrow-in-Furness past rates of development are likely to have played a significant role in the lowering of the SNHP over successive iterations. The Council’s 2015 Housing Land Statement identifies (table 13) that between 2003/4 to 2014/15 an average of just 67dpa (net) were completed. This is less than 45% of the housing target set by the former Regional Spatial Strategy (150dpa) over much of this period. In the five years immediately preceding the 2012 SNHP an average of just under 42dpa (net) were delivered, including 2011/12 when a net figure of -71 dwellings was recorded. This five year period is particularly significant as the 2012 SNHP are largely influenced by the preceding five years. The high degree of completions not on allocations also points towards a lack of deliverable sites within the area for a considerable time. These factors will have meant that households either failed to form, remaining concealed, or they moved elsewhere to seek appropriate accommodation. Indeed the Council’s Housing Land Statement (2015) indicates that prior to the NPPF local and regional policy was one of restriction rather than growth. Whilst the low level of refusals in figure 13 and table 15 of the Housing Land Statement (2015) are noted the restrictive nature of the policies is likely to have led to many simply not applying due to the high probability that they would not get permission. This lack of deliverable sites, poor delivery and restrictive policy will inevitably have impacted upon growth and consequently future housing trends. The Council does seek to address these ‘shortfalls’ within pages 32 to 35 of the Housing Land Statement (2015). The HBF agrees that the shortfalls since 2011 should be taken into account and added to the ‘starting point’. However, more fundamentally, the report fails to consider whether the past trends which are influenced by shortfalls over a longer period should be continued and projected forward, as is currently the case. The continuation of a trend which is influenced by previous under-delivery into the future will simply be planning for continued failure. It is therefore suggested that the Council consider sensitivity testing past trends through the alteration of migration assumptions going forward. This is likely to have a positive impact upon the demographic needs of the area. BBC Response – H1 states that “this is the minimum number of dwellings which should be delivered in the Borough over those periods”. Therefore the Council disagrees that the figures are presented as “ceilings”. However the policy has been reworded and is more positively prepared, we have taken on board the comments of the HBF and added ‘at least’ before the target. The Council has not actively ‘sought’ to reduce its housing figure but are conscious that it needs to be based on up to date evidence and has produced a Housing Land Statement in 2016 which calculates the OAN and housing requirement for the Borough over the Plan period based on the most up-to-date evidence available (CLG 2012 household projections). Housing need is also discussed in the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), produced in 2016 by Arc4. CLG 2012 household figures project a continued decrease in the Borough’s population over the period 2011 to 2031. The size of households in the Borough will also continue to decline. This results in a projected growth of only 362 households between 2012 and 2031, which equates to an annual average of 19 additional households. The Council suggest in the Housing Land Statement (HLS) that this figure should be adjusted upwards to take into account future employment growth, future housing vacancies, second homes and previous unmet need which has accrued since the start of the Plan period in 2012 (net additional dwellings against the “target” at the time). Whilst there are several accepted methods available for dealing with unmet need, it is suggested that, given the low starting point, the shortfall be spread over the first 5 years to allow the Council to boost housing more quickly than if it were spread over the full plan period. The HLS identifies a number of options for OAN, however the most realistic of those is considered to be an OAN of 1990 net additional dwellings over the 15 year plan period (a minimum of 105 dwellings per year).

Rep ID 924/126

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H1 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation


91

Economic signals The Housing Land Statement (2015) correctly considers jobs growth and the likely impact of future levels of employment upon the housing requirement. It is noted that further work is to be undertaken to take account of the developments at Waterfront Business Park and nuclear new build in Copeland as well as a clarification of potential developments at BAE Systems. The proposed projections are therefore likely to underestimate growth and as such further upward alterations are likely. The HBF agrees that these are generally ‘policy on’ considerations and awaits the impact of these further alterations with interest. The HBF does not, however, agree with the assertion on page 49 of the Housing Land Statement (2015) that there is no justification for an increase to the objectively assessed housing needs figure based upon previous and predicted rates of economic growth. This is for two reasons, firstly economic models are inherently sensitive to changing inputs and therefore the reliance upon a single run of the Experian Local Economy Model is unlikely to be sufficiently robust. Rather the HBF recommends the Council consider a time-series of runs from the model plus these should be sense checked against other reputable economic models. This will provide the Council with more robust assumptions for the plan. Secondly the baseline forecasts from models are heavily influenced by events occurring a few years previous. In the case of this modelling work this will not only include the national recession but also the large scale job losses experienced at BAE systems. Table 24 (Housing Land Statement 2015), clearly illustrates the impact that these job losses had upon the local economy. Job growth reduced from 476 FTE annually (2001 to 2009) to 179 FTE annually (2001 to 2011). The modelled figures are therefore heavily influenced by a significant economic downturn. However, the projections provided by the Local Economy Model represent a worse scenario of just 168 FTE annually between 2011 and 2031. Given that the 179 FTE figure is inclusive of a period of economic decline and significant job losses within the area the forecast, which is 11 FTE per annum lower, appears unduly pessimistic and should therefore be viewed with caution. The HBF consider that using such an assumed rate of growth is neither positive nor aspirational and will simply lead to further economic decline. The HBF recommend the Council consider to what extent the BAE systems job losses are one-off events which have unduly influenced the economic projections and whether a more positive outlook should be considered for the future consideration and as such should not be used to reduce the objectively assessed housing needs. The HBF recommends that a ‘policy off’ scenario be utilised, any deviation from the policy off scenario within the housing target will need agreement with adjoining authorities through the duty to co-operate. Furthermore robust evidence would also be required indicating how such changes in commuting patterns would be achieved and sustained. Market signals The PPG, paragraph 2a-019, identifies that a range of market signals should be considered in identifying the housing requirement and that a worsening of any signal would warrant uplift upon the household projections. The Housing Land Statement (2015) correctly acknowledges this and considers the different signals in turn. The HBF agrees that in terms of house prices and rents the borough compares favourably with neighbouring areas and whilst there has been a worsening of these indicators over the last 10 years this trend has recently begun to reverse. There does, therefore, only appear to be limited scope to alter the housing requirement upwards due to these factors. The 2014 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identifies a net shortfall of 71 affordable dwellings per annum; this represents over 65% of the proposed housing provision. This may not be a specific target but it does highlight the need in the area. The economic conditions within Barrow in Furness and the need to take account of viability in policy setting 9NPPF paragraphs 173 to 177) mean it is unlikely that the current proposals will be able to meet the affordable housing set out within Policy H14 but the scale of affordable needs does need to be addressed. The 2014 SHMA identifies that overcrowding is most apparent amongst couples with three or more children under 18 and identifies that the highest proportion of need is due to a mismatch of dwelling type (i.e. overcrowding, Table 4.14, SHMA 2014). It is also notable that affordability ratios are relatively low (table 20, Housing Land Statement 2015). It, therefore, stands to reason that an increase in the delivery of market family housing would assist in overcoming a significant proportion of these needs. The PPG (paragraph 2a-029) advocates such an approach advising where affordable needs cannot be met ‘…an increase in the total housing figures in the local plan should be considered. The Housing Land Statement (2015) identifies that 2.8% of properties were second homes and the housing needs has been adjusted upwards to take account of this.


92

The HBF agrees that this is an appropriate adjustment to the housing needs figure. BBC response – National guidance states that the requirement is to be based on up to date evidence and has produced a Housing Land Statement in 2016 which calculates the OAN and housing requirement for the Borough over the Plan period based on the most up-to-date evidence available (CLG 2012 household projections). Housing need is also discussed in the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), produced in 2016 by Arc4. CLG 2012 household figures project a continued decrease in the Borough’s population over the period 2011 to 2031. The size of households in the Borough will also continue to decline. This results in a projected growth of only 362 households between 2012 and 2031, which equates to an annual average of 19 additional households. The Council suggest in the Housing Land Statement (HLS) that this figure should be adjusted upwards to take into account future employment growth, future housing vacancies, second homes and previous unmet need which has accrued since the start of the Plan period in 2012 (net additional dwellings against the “target” at the time). Whilst there are several accepted methods available for dealing with unmet need, it is suggested that, given the low starting point, the shortfall be spread over the first 5 years to allow the Council to boost housing more quickly than if it were spread over the full plan period. The HLS identifies a number of options for OAN, however the most realistic of those is considered to be an OAN of 1990 net additional dwellings over the 15 year plan period (a minimum of 105 dwellings per year).

Rep ID 943/423

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H1 Contact/Organisation Edward Harvey, United Utilities We note that draft Policy H1 of the Local Plan: Preferred Options document identifies a significantly reduced housing target to that proposed in the previous Issues and Options document. The Issues and Options document proposed an overall housing target of 2,700 net additional dwellings over the plan period, equating to 180 net additional dwellings per annum. The current Preferred Options document proposes a vastly reduced housing requirement of 1,630 net dwellings over the plan period, equivalent to an average of 109 net dwellings per annum over the plan period 2016-2031. The current proposed housing requirement for the plan period is set out at Table 7 below: Whilst we did not object to the Issues and Options housing target of 180 net dwellings per annum, we consider the rationale for calculating the housing target in the current Preferred Options document is flawed. We support the Council’s intention to adopt the “Sedgefield” approach to address historic undersupply against housing targets within the first five years of the plan period. However, we disagree with the Council’s decision to write off historic shortfall accrued against housing targets since the beginning of the former Regional Strategy (RS) period. The Barrow SHLAA Review & Interim Housing Land Statement (dated January 2015) stated: “The housing requirement for the period 2003/04 to 2013/14 set out in the former RS was 1650 net additional dwellings (150 dwellings x 11 years). As only 683 net additional dwellings were built during this time, this leaves a shortfall (or under-supply) of 967 dwellings.” The Barrow Housing Land Statement (dated June 2015) states that 116 net dwellings were completed in 2014/15, amounting to a shortfall of 34 dwellings for the year. Taken together, this amounts to a total shortfall for the period 2003/04 to 2014/15 of 1,001 dwellings. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was published in March 2014 to sit alongside the NPPF and aims to provide additional clarity in respect of NPPF policy. The NPPG clearly states that: “Local Authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first 5 years of the plan period where possible” (paragraph 35). Therefore we consider the shortfall of 1,001, dwellings should be addressed within the first five years of the plan period and the housing target should be increased to reflect this. BBC Response – Comments noted. The most up to date information on the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) and housing requirement for the Borough can be found in the Housing Land Statement 2016, including how shortfall is addressed. These figures have altered since the Preferred Options draft as they take into account a


93

number of factors which can change over time.

Rep ID 987/193

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H1 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Pardoe, Amstone Developments Front loading of the acknowledged shortfall from previous years over the first five years period of the plan is supported, as is the inclusion of 20% buffer (in accordance with NPPF guidance). The reliance upon previous trends analysis following a period of global recession is, however, questioned (as it has been by various Inspector's considering this matter). It is considered that further weight should be given to the economic needs of the borough particularly in light of some early economic signals in this respect (such as by BAE Systems). The Council should take a more aspirational approach to develop their housing targets, not least as there are direct and indirect economic benefits associated with this approach). BBC Response – Please see the Housing Land Statement 2016 for details on how the housing requirement has been calculated. The figure has been adjusted to take into account future envisaged employment growth over the plan period, and considers that the target is aspirational based on the low starting figure. This is the minimum number of net additional dwellings which should be built over the Plan period. It is not a ceiling and additional housing will be accepted where it accords with the Development Plan.

Rep ID 1034/219

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H1 Contact/Organisation - Christopher Garner, Holker Estates How Much Housing is Required & Policy H1: Annual Housing Target Holker has commissioned an assessment by Regeneris Consulting Ltd, economic analysts (see attached). Their broad conclusions are that the suggested housing requirement of 1630 dwellings over the 15 year plan period (2016 to 2031) is too low. In their view housing requirements are likely to be in the order of 175 to 200 dwellings per annum i.e. 2625 to 3000 dwellings over the plan period. This is significantly different to the target being proposed of 1630 dwellings. The approach of having a plan period 2016 to 2031 but taking into account shortfalls in provision over the period 2011 to 2016 is a little confusing. The indication that the proposed housing requirement will be reviewed prior to the next draft of the Plan is welcomed. At that time a POGROUP analysis should be undertaken, in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. The Justification to the requirement makes reference to the proposed annual target boosting the supply of housing because it exceeds the previous annual average build rates. It is noted that the proposed rate is below the previous annual rate. A boost to housing supply is only achieved by creating the right environment whereby there is a financial incentive for landowners to release their land for housing development and for house builders to build houses. From the analysis of wages in Section 6 of the Local Plan, it is known that “the average wage of employees working in the Borough is higher than for those living in the Borough: this suggests that a number of higher paid workers live elsewhere.” (6.1.10). It is concluded by that the “Borough attracts high calibre staff from elsewhere” but the fact that those employees are not choosing to live in Barrow should be a concern. The loss of population in the 20-34 age range suggests that there is an out migration to find employment and housing. This trend needs to be addressed by providing for housing needs in the Borough. South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) is intent on bringing forward significant housing and employment growth in the Ulverston area. If Barrow does not provide housing to meet its needs, it will simply mean the current situation of higher paid workers living in South Lakeland and commuting into Barrow. A sustainable approach would be to provide housing closer to the workplace.


94

BBC Response- Please see the Housing Land Statement 2016 for details on how the housing requirement has been calculated. The figure has been adjusted to take into account future envisaged employment growth over the plan period to ensure it does not lead to unsustainable commuting patterns. The Council considers that the target is aspirational based on the low starting figure. This is the minimum number of net additional dwellings which should be built over the Plan period. It is not a ceiling and additional housing will be accepted where it accords with the Development Plan.

Rep ID 1098/184

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy H1 Contact/Organisation - Signet Planning, Moorsolve Self Administered Pension Fund The methodology for calculating the housing figures appears to be robust and the decision to bring the 20% buffer forward within the Plan Period is welcomed. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1112/257

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy H1 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes We do not consider either 1,481 dwellings or 1,630 dwellings to reflect the full objectively assessed housing needs of the Borough. We believe that the assessment of housing needs undertaken by the Borough Council is unsound for the following reasons (see overleaf); The Council fail to recognise that demographic projections are trend based and project forward past failings in housing delivery; The Council ignore the known flaws within demographic projections. For example, the Council fail to apply adjustments to headship rates of certain age groups despite clear evidence of supressed household formation rates caused as a result of the economic recession in the late 2000’s; The Council is dismissive of economic projections and instead apply an arbitrary 10% uplift to the adjusted demographic figure with little justification to support the percentage uplift applied; The Council ignores the Affordable Housing needs of the Borough. The proposed housing requirement is also unsound for the following reasons: The proposed housing requirement fails to deliver a significant boost to housing land supply. The housing requirement is below both the previous local plan requirement and the RSS; The housing requirement fails to grasp the opportunity to develop the Borough’s economy by failing to provide sufficient housing to support projected jobs or planned investment at BAE in 2016; The housing requirement fails to support the objectives and the development strategy of the Plan by providing sufficient houses of the right type and in the right location to counter losses in population and skilled labour force shortages; No consideration is given to the role of market housing in boosting the delivery of affordable housing; The Housing Requirement is not positively prepared. We consider that the full objectively assessed needs are at a minimum 352 dwellings per year. However, there is a pressing need for the Council to revise this evidence in light of more recent economic data. BBC response – The Council has considered these comments and has produced an updated Housing Land Statement which identifies objectively assessed need. Adjustments have been made to the demographic projections and an uplift has been applied to allow for future economic growth. Affordable housing need has been considered in the 2016 SHMA and an additional planning policy has been included in the Publication Draft requiring an element of affordable housing. The Council disagrees that objectively assessed need is a minimum of 352 dwellings per annum and does not believe that there is evidence to support such a figure.

Rep ID 1138/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H1


95

Contact/Organisation Barton Willmore, Story Homes Policy H1 of the Preferred Options establishes the housing requirement for the Local Plan. Story Homes has already expressed an objection to the overall level of housing growth proposed by the Plan on account of evidence used to define the requirement, which we consider to be unsound. We do not agree with the Council’s assessment that the housing requirement achieves a significant boost to housing land supply as required by Paragraph 47 of the Framework. The record of past delivery of housing in the Borough is very poor, averaging at just 86 dwellings per year, once Housing Market Renewal demolitions have been taken into account. This is significantly below the level of housing required to be delivered in this timeframe3. By referencing past delivery, the Council is using previous failures to justify the adoption of a proposed housing requirement that actually supresses housing delivery compared to past requirements. This approach does not reflect a “positively prepared” plan, which is required by the Framework under Paragraph 182 to meet the tests of soundness. The pessimistic approach of the Council towards its housing requirement is therefore unsound. From the evidence that is available currently, we consider that a minimum of 352 dwellings per year represents the full objective assessment of housing needs for the Borough. We are not aware of any land use, environmental or other constraints that would prevent the full delivery of this housing need in Barrow. BBC Response – The Council has considered these comments and has produced an updated Housing Land Statement which identifies objectively assessed need. Adjustments have been made to the demographic projections and an uplift has been applied to allow for future economic growth. The Council disagrees that objectively assessed need is a minimum of 352 dwellings per annum and does not believe that there is evidence to support such a figure.

Rep ID 1187/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H1 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The NPPF is clear that local authorities must identify their annual housing requirement following an objective assessment of needs. This process should have regard to a number of considerations including economic development and employment, demographics, housing availability, affordability and migration. Following such an assessment we note that it is proposed to reduce the current annualised housing target of 150 dwellings, to 126 for years 1 to 5 of the plan period and 100 for the years 6 to 15. We have concerns that such a level of housing is too low. During the issues and options consultation the County Council had supported an annual housing requirement of 180 dwelling pa. This view was informed by a range of evidence including POPGROUP modelling. A further set of POPGROUP scenario work will be prepared during the Autumn and this should take account of all the economic development projects (and likely new job creation) coming forward as identified in the Cumbria LEP Strategic Economic Plan 2014 (SEP). This additional evidence should help with the finalisation of housing target proposed. Given the level of investment, it will be important that Barrow Borough Council is ambitious with its future housing requirement. Therefore, as things stand we have concerns that reducing the annual requirement may conflict with the economic aspirations of the borough which will, in part, rely upon the delivery of an attractive and mixed housing offer. Suggested Changes It is considered the plan’s housing requirement should be subject to review. BBC Response – The Council has considered these comments and has produced an updated Housing Land Statement which identifies objectively assessed need. The revised objectively assessed need figure is now higher than that in the Preferred Options Draft. A further set of POPGROUP figures has not been prepared, however the Council has used its own methodology which is based upon national guidance.


96

Policy H2: Distribution of Housing

10 representations were received for Policy H2.

Rep ID 789/10

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy H2 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Proposed Policy H2 – we support the proposed distribution of housing development including the increased proportions in settlements outside Barrow including in Lindal in Furness. BBC Response- Support noted.

Rep ID 829/131

Status -Comment Policy /Para - Policy H2 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust notes the amended overall housing figures and the proposed distribution of provision between the main settlements. It has no additional observations to make at this stage. BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 944/423

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H2 Contact/Organisation - Edward Harvey, United Utilities Draft Policy H2 seeks to encourage sustainable housing growth by distributing development sites in accordance with a settlement hierarchy whereby: “housing development will be concentrated in the Principal Centre of Barrow (74% or 1,206 dwellings); followed by the Key Centre of Dalton (18% or 293 dwellings); the Local Centre of Askam & Ireleth (6% or 98 dwellings); and Newton and Lindal (2% or 33 dwellings). Support is given to the proposed diversion of development to the Local Centre of Askam & Ireleth. Paragraph 1.4.26 of the Local Plan confirms there is “a lack of choice in the current housing market” to meet the housing aspirations of many existing residents. It is essential that the Local Plan seeks to provide for a good range of housing sites throughout the authority area. However, we consider the Local Plan should support an increased amount of development in Askam & Ireleth. Askam & Ireleth has strong transport links, is well served by road and rail, and already benefits from local services including primary schools, community centre and hall, a petrol station, shops, pubs, employment and a doctor’s surgery. This settlement is identified within the proposed settlement hierarchy to accommodate 6% of housing development, equivalent to 98 dwellings. However, we consider that Askam & Ireleth is a highly sustainable location for future growth and development and could accommodate a higher level of development than currently proposed. BBC response – Comments noted, the Council feels at this time and based on the sites put forward the % of development proposed for Askam and Ireleth -which is a minimum indicative number –is appropriate in line with the Development Strategy set out in Policy DS3.

Rep ID 955/436

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy H2


97

Contact/Organisation Janet Dixon, Oakmere Homes We broadly support the proposed distribution of housing development between the identified principal, key and local centres, but consider that despite some decline in the past decade, Barrow should accommodate 80% of the final net housing provision within the Plan, as it is the most sustainable settlement and offers the most potential (and need) to accommodate a range of housing sites to deliver the Local Plan Vision, including high density urban renewal and Barrow Port Area regeneration in the inner wards; average density suburban infilling and redevelopment in the middle wards, and lower density, aspirational, greenfield development and urban extensions / rounding-off in the outer wards and particularly Hawcoat, as well as some development on Walney Island. This can be achieved without compromising the scope for meaningful housing growth and improved choice in Dalton, Askam and the other centres. BBC Response – Comments noted, however the distribution of housing allocations is linked to the Development Strategy set out in Policy S3.

Rep ID 988/193

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H2 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Pardoe, Amstone Developments The concentration of development within Barrow is supported as it is the principle settlement within the borough - it remains the most sustainable location for housing in terms of employment and services. BBC Response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1029/7

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H2 Contact/Organisation - Lindsay Alder, Highways England Distribution of Housing. ‘Policy H2: Distribution of Housing’ states that residential development in the Borough will be focused in the following locations. (Distribution of housing table reproduced.) Barrow is the most sustainable location for housing within the Borough, with employment opportunities and amenities readily available. Highways England should therefore support a focus on development in these areas, as it will reduce the requirement for vehicle trips across the Borough and in turn, reduce pressure on the SRN. A high distribution (18%) of housing is also proposed in the local centre of Dalton. However, as stated in the IDP, the majority of employment sites (79%) will be located in Barrow-in-Furness. Given these distributions, a significant level of commuting from Dalton to Barrow can be expected, which would potentially increase the level of traffic on the A590 during the network peak. This may impact particularly upon the operation of the A590 / A595 Askam Road Roundabout to the north of Dalton, which as stated in the IDP, is currently over capacity. Again, JMP advises that Highways England request further evidence regarding the balance of housing and employment sites within the Borough to ensure that commuting between local centres via the A590 is not encouraged as a result of the development aspirations in the Local Plan. BBC Response- A number of employment sites are also proposed in Dalton, there will of course remain a level of commuting between Dalton and Barrow. The Council will continue to liaise with Highways England as the Plan progresses.

Rep ID 1035/219

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy H2 Contact/Organisation - Christopher Garner, Holker Estates


98

The majority of housing growth should be directed towards Barrow because it is the most sustainable location for such growth. Housing choice can be improved by the peripheral expansion of Barrow. Holker consider that there is scope to increase housing provision for Barrow and make consequential reductions in housing provision in Dalton and Askam and Ireleth. 85% of new housing development should be concentrated in Barrow. There is a need to provide the right housing to meet the demands of those workers within the Borough. Developments in inner urban areas cater for low to mid-market properties only and it is important that there are a range of sites available to meet market demand. Holker’s sites east of Rakesmoor Lane and east of Holbeck provide the opportunity for high quality housing that could meet the aspirations of higher paid workers, who currently choose to live outside of the Borough. Improving housing choice in this way would help attract those working in Barrow to the town, rather than their housing needs being met elsewhere and commuting into the town. BBC Response – Comments noted, however the distribution of housing allocations is linked to the Development Strategy set out in Policy S3, the strategy is a move away from traditional housing delivery patterns in the borough which has seen relatively little distribution of housing outside of Barrow in % terms. The Council believe this will result in an improved housing offer in the borough in terms of type, location and choice.

Rep ID 1113/257

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy H2 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes is supportive of the proposed percentage distribution of housing needs to settlements located within the Borough. We consider that the proposed split adequately recognises the role, function and sustainable capacity of each settlement within the Borough and is consistent with national policy. BBC response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1139/257

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy H2 Contact/Organisation Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes is supportive of the overall percentage split between settlements proposed by the Council. We consider that this split adequately recognises the role and function of the settlements within the Borough, their capacity for development, and their future needs, and is consistent with the approach of national policy. BBC Response –Support noted.

Rep ID 1188/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H2 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The Local Plan proposes to concentrate future housing development in a hierarchal manner. It is proposed that Barrow-in-Furness would accommodate 1,206 dwelling, Dalton 293 dwellings, Askam & Ireleth 66 dwellings and Newton and Lindal 33 dwellings. Housing outside these settlements listed in the Policy will be limited to infilling or where needed to meet specific requirements. It is considered that the proposed distribution of development does align with the development strategy and the aspiration to support the sustainable growth and renewal of Barrow. BBC Response – Comments noted.


99

Policy H3: Allocation of Sites for Housing Development

16 representations were received on Policy H3.

Rep ID 790/10

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Proposed Policy H3 –we have no comments on the proposed housing site allocations. BBC Response- Comments noted

Rep ID 830/131

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust No specific comments to make at this stage. BBC Response – Comments noted

Rep ID 925/126

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Good, Home Builders Federation Policy H3: Allocations of Sites for Housing Development The HBF does not wish to comment upon the acceptability, or otherwise, of individual allocations. It is, however, noted that the quantum of allocations combined with the broad location provides (based upon the Council’s calculations) sufficient land for 2,012 dwellings. Whilst it is acknowledged that this is greater than the disputed housing requirement identified in Policy H1 it is important that all sites contained within the plan are deliverable over the plan period. To provide the maximum opportunities for delivery discussions should be held between the Council and site promoters / developers so that full appreciations of any barriers to delivery are understood. It is also imperative that the obligations placed upon market housing by plan policies are not unduly onerous so as thwart development coming forward. In the introductory text to the policy it is noted that the Council will be viability testing the deliverability of these sites prior to the next stage of consultation, this is supported. The HBF would be willing to discuss general issues concerning delivery and economic viability further with the Council if necessary. Notwithstanding our concerns regarding the housing target the HBF is supportive of the Council allocating more land than is required; this will provide a buffer of sites. The reasons for the inclusion of such a buffer are two-fold. Firstly the NPPF is clear that plans should be positively prepared, aspirational and significantly boost housing supply. In this regard the housing requirements set within the plan should be viewed as a minimum requirement; this interpretation is consistent with numerous inspectors’ decisions following local plan examination. Therefore if the plan is to achieve its housing requirement as a minimum, it stands to reason that additional sites are required to enable the plan requirements to be surpassed. Secondly, it is inevitable, due to a variety of reasons, some sites will either under-perform or fail to deliver during the plan period. A buffer of sites will therefore provide greater opportunities for the plan to deliver its housing requirement. The HBF recommend a minimum 20% buffer of sites be included within the plan. BBC response – Support and recommendation noted, the council takes on board the comments of the HBF and will continue to liaise with developers and the HBF and


100

other industry professionals as the Plan progresses. The Publication Draft Plan has a 15% buffer of sites over the housing requirement for the Plan period and this is the minimum number of net additional dwellings which should be built. It is not a ceiling and additional housing will be accepted where it accords with the Development Plan. There will also of course be windfall developments approved over the Plan period.

Rep ID 945/423

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation Edward Harvey, United Utilities Draft Policy H3 allocates a number of specific sites for residential development to meet the housing requirement over the plan period. The body of the policy specifically refers to Table 8, which identifies each of the proposed site allocations, together with other details including site size, net developable area, number of dwellings and also site notes. BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 956/436

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation - Janet Dixon, Oakmere Homes We object to this policy on the basis that it omits Land West of Breast Mill Beck Road (Site Ref. REC29) as a preferred allocation for housing development. The site was assessed in the SHLAA Review of January 2015 and scored highly as a developable Broad Location that is unconstrained and occupies an accessible, sustainable location rounding off the northern edge of Barrow. The site received no objections at the Issues and Options stage. It has net capacity for approximately 180 dwellings. Oakmere Homes (Northwest) Ltd. has an interest in REC29 and we consider that it should be allocated in the Local Plan for housing development. The site is accessible to a range of local services and facilities on foot and by cycle, including primary and secondary schools and further education; local health and hospital services and local shops and community amenities. It has direct access to the local road network and is connected to Barrow town centre and beyond by adjacent bus stops on Dalton Lane. The site is suitable for sustainable housing development and forms a logical extension and rounding off to the adjoining built up area of Barrow as the principal and most sustainable settlement in the Borough to which the majority of growth will be directed. A full evidence base of technical and environmental surveys and assessments has been undertaken and demonstrate that there are no physical constraints that will prevent development, and that housing can be accommodated and designed to ensure there will be no unacceptable impacts on local heritage, landscape character and visual amenity, and that adequate separation can be maintained between Barrow and Dalton. The site is connected to the local area and safe and convenient pedestrian and vehicular access can be satisfactorily achieved from Dalton Lane. The site is located in the popular area of Hawcoat in north Barrow and has the potential to accommodate a range of house types, and particularly high-quality large family and executive style homes to help attract inward investment and meet economic aspirations, together with the scale to deliver a supply for several years of the plan period. The site is viable and available in the short term, promoted by a willing land owner and developer. Whilst included in the Issues and Options as a prospective Broad Location for delivery in the later phase/s of the plan period (beyond Year 6+), the site should be identified as a definitive housing allocation to provide certainty and so that its delivery is not unnecessarily delayed, and its full contribution and benefit can be realised as soon as possible and completed within the plan period. BBC Response – The Council is not taking forward site REC29 as a housing allocation primarily for landscape and visual impact reasons and this is detailed in the Non Selected Sites document accompanying the Publication Draft Local Plan.



101

989/193 Policy/Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation - Matthew Pardoe, Amstone Developments The allocation of land at Salthouse Mills (Your Ref: SHL002) for residential development is supported as it will enable the redevelopment of a brownfield site within Barrow for more beneficial purposes. In accordance with the provisions of the Barrow Port Area Action Plan the access arrangements to serve the Salthouse Mills allocation are the subject of current discussions with County to ensure appropriate access arrangements, enabling the site to come forward over the short to medium term. As such, the Council's reliance upon the site to help meet part of its housing requirement is entirely appropriate. BBC Response- Comment noted, however due to lack of evidence that the landowner has been able to resolve access issues to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority the Council is not carrying forward this site into the Publication Draft Local Plan. The Site has instead been proposed as a regeneration Opportunity Area (see Policy DS4) and the site could still come forward as a windfall development should outstanding issues be resolved.

Rep ID 1031/7

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Table 8 Contact/Organisation - Lindsay Alder, Highways England Broad Locations Under ‘Policy H3: Allocation of Sites for Housing Development’, a number of specific sites have been allocated for years 1-5 of the Plan period. For the remainder of the Plan, a ‘Broad Location’ has been identified where it is anticipated that housing development will take place, but no specific sites have yet been allocated. Details of the proposed ‘Broad Location’ are provided below: (Broad Locations table reproduced). The broad location identified above is in close proximity to the SRN, particularly the A590 / Park Road Roundabout, and with proposals for up to 107 dwellings, will likely generate more than 30 two-way trips in the network peak periods. JMP advises that Highways England will require a detailed Transport Assessment for this site, at the earliest opportunity, to fully understand the potential impact on the SRN and any mitigation that may be required. Key Points: •Highways England are advised to request further information regarding the balance of housing and employment sites within the Borough to ensure that in- and out- commuting via the A590 is not encouraged, as this could potentially impact on the operation of the SRN; •Where two or more sites are proposed in close proximity and are cumulatively likely to generate over 30 two-way trips, a cumulative impact assessment should be requested; and •Highways England will require a detailed Transport Assessment to be undertaken at the earliest opportunity for the significant housing sites; Marina Village (650 dwellings) and Salthouse Mills (250 dwellings). BBC Response – Comments noted, the Council will continue to liaise with Highways England as the Plan progresses particularly in relation to significant housing sites.

Rep ID 1036/219

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation - Christopher Garner, Holker Estates Policy H3: Allocation of Sites for Housing Development Policy H1 refers to a housing requirement of 1630 dwellings and Policy H3 identifies 1905 dwellings. The approach of identifying more land to meet the requirement is a sensible one, to allow for those sites that do not come forward for various reasons. Holker do however consider the housing requirement is too low as indicated above. For Barrow specifically the suggested requirement is 1206 dwellings compared to the suggested capacity of sites as being for 1426 dwellings. This allows for a slippage factor of 220 dwellings.


102

Both Marina Village (650 dwellings) and Salthouse Mills (250 dwellings) count toward the supply. Together these account for 900 dwellings (63%) of Barrow town’s suggested supply. This is a high risk strategy. For Marina Village, the assumption is that there will be an average contribution of over 43 dwellings per annum. Given the amount of infrastructure works, the timing of the start of housing completions and the general market, such a rate is high and unlikely to be achieved. At 7.3.3 it is indicated that the Marina Village is a “long term aspiration”. The text in Table 8 indicates that Salthouse Mills that there is not an adequate access, there are doubts over the viability and the developer has indicated the site will not come forward until later in the plan period. There must be concerns over housing completion contributions in the plan period. It would be appropriate to allocate additional land to address the concerns over deliverability. BBC response – The Publication Draft Plan has a 15% buffer of sites over the housing requirement for the Plan period and this is the minimum number of net additional dwellings which should be built. It is not a ceiling and additional housing will be accepted where it accords with the Development Plan. There will also of course be windfall developments approved over the Plan period. The development of Marina Village, a large brownfield site in Barrow, remains a priority for the Council, given its size it is acknowledged it will take time to deliver the full number of dwellings on this site however the Council is working with partners to make progress on the delivery of the site by for example, infrastructure projects such as the creation of a roundabout access at Salthouse Road. The Council is not carrying forward the Salthouse Mills site into the Publication Draft Local Plan as a housing allocation. The Site has instead been proposed as a regeneration Opportunity Area (see Policy DS4) and the site could still come forward as a windfall development should outstanding issues be resolved.

Rep ID 1099/184

Status - Comment Policy/Para -Policy H3 Contact/Organisation Signet Planning, Moorsolve Self Administered Pension Fund As per the previous representation submitted on behalf of site SHL096, it is re iterated that this site is available, suitable and deliverable and therefore would be an appropriate location for growth in the early stages of the Plan Period. BBC Response – Comment noted and addressed in site specific representations document.

Rep ID 1114/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes We believe that the level of evidence and analysis provided by the Council to demonstrate the deliverability of preferred housing sites is inadequate and raises questions over the transparency of the process. We hold significant concerns relating to the deliverability of a large proportion of sites identified by the Council, and believe that many will not deliver in part or in their totality prior to the end of the Plan period. We consider that too much focus is placed upon complex brownfield sites that may be unattractive to the skilled workforce and ineffective in addressing population loss. We believe that the identification of substantive number of further allocations are necessary to secure the delivery of housing needs, and to support economic growth. There is a particular need for the allocation of sites that can contribute to the short term land supply to meet a five year requirement which we consider should amount to 559 dwellings per year in applying the correct minimum OAN for housing. BBC Response – Comments noted, however the Council believes the sites proposed are deliverable and are of a quantum adequate to meet the housing requirement over the Plan period. Please see the Housing Land Statement 2016 for further information, other supporting information is available in the Viability Assessment and


103

Proposed Housing Site Assessments document. Rep ID 1140/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes We have a number of observations regarding the level of detail provided within the Plan and supporting documents related to the allocation of the preferred site options, which in our submission serves to undermine the robustness of the proposed allocations and raises questions over the transparency of the consultation process. In particular; There is a general lack of evidence available that demonstrates the availability and deliverability of preferred sites for housing; For several larger sites it is unclear what assumptions are being applied by the Council relating to their delivery; The Council fails to address issues raised by statutory consultees (on important issues such as Highways and Heritage), constraints, conflict with Local Plan policies and indicators of sustainability; and The Council provides no analysis of each Site beyond that included within Table 8 and Table 9 of the consultation document, which is inadequate. Table 1 Proposed Housing Allocations to add table of story comments to sites provides our most detailed comments at this time on the deliverability of sites preferred as housing allocations. We reserve the right to revise and update these comments as and when necessary in the future. In summary, we consider that the Council fails to provide for a “balanced” housing strategy with too much focus on brownfield sites to deliver the housing requirement. Of the 1,905 dwellings planned to deliver housing needs through Policy H3 (excluding the broad location for growth), 1,181 dwellings are to be delivered on brownfield sites (62%). The concentration of such a significant proportion of growth on previously developed land could lead to future supply problems if past and current viability problems persist, and fails to respond to market signals that illustrate the need for executive housing to attract skilled workers. Further Greenfield sites are required to address both issues. A further problem is the concentration of growth on a single site. As highlighted in Table 1, there are major barriers to the delivery of the Barrow Marina scheme. Should these persist, the delivery of Barrow Marina is likely to continue into the next plan period beyond 2031. Barrow Marina is proposed to be allocated by the Council for 650 dwellings. This represents almost 40% of the proposed total amount of dwellings to be delivered within Barrow Borough to 2031. The failure of the delivery of this Site would represent a fundamental failing of the Plan, unless significantly greater provision is found through further allocations. Whilst the Council has identified an over-supply of potential allocations by 275 dwellings, as well as a further broad location for growth for 107 dwellings, we do not consider this to be sufficient to meet any potential shortfall arising from the Local Plan. In Table 1 above, we identify a possible 1,144 dwellings that may not come forward on account of the issues identified within supporting evidence documents. Earlier in Section 7 we set out our submission which identifies the objectively assessed housing needs of Barrow-in-Furness to be 352 dwellings per annum at a very minimum (559 dwellings per annum over the next five years accounting for undersupply and a 20% buffer). Against this figure and identified additional undersupply of 570 dwellings, there is a significant shortfall of 3,945 dwellings (with 2,795 dwellings required to be delivered over the next 5 years in conformity with Paragraph 47 of the Framework). In light of this finding (and issues identified in Table 1), we consider that there is an urgent need for the Council to identify and allocate further Sites that are sustainable and deliverable in order to maximise the prospect of achieving the full OAN. In Section 11 of these representations we submit two sites (Land at Abbey Road and Land at Manor Farm, Barrow-in-Furness) to the Council for consideration as housing allocations. BBC Response- The Council has produced a Draft Sustainability Report and a Proposed Housing Site Assessments Document which identifies the reasons for taking particular sites forward as allocations. It is considered that the Marina Village site will be developed (although not in full) during the plan period and that there are sufficient greenfield sites being taken forward as allocations to provide a balanced housing offer. The Publication Draft includes a policy (policy H10) which commits the Council to seeking interventions where sites are not being delivered as anticipated. Additional sites are identified in the Council’s Housing Land Statement which are not being taken forward as allocations (primarily because they already benefit from planning permission for housing) will help boost the supply of housing land


104

further. The two sites referred to have been assessed through the Local Plan process (the latter has also been considered on appeal) and are considered to be more suitable as open space than as housing sites.

Rep ID 1189/9

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy H3 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council Detailed technical comments on the proposed housing allocations are provided within Appendix B. Our comments to Policy H1 expressed concern at the levels of housing proposed within the plan. When looking at options to increase supply, it is recommended that consideration is given to the role of larger sites (e.g. 60+ units) that can provide a strong pipeline of short term supply thereby allowing more time for the Marina Village site to emerge. A number of Cumbria County Council sites are also proposed for housing development. With respect to Council owned land, the proposed allocation of the following land is supported: •1.77 ha comprising Thorncliffe South (ref, REC19b) has been proposed as a location for residential development. However it is considered this site can accommodate more than the 19 dwellings indicated. •0.8 ha comprising Land East of Park View School (ref. REC26) has been proposed as a location for residential development. To confirm the availability of access to this site provided below is an marginally increased site area that encompasses further land in the control of Cumbria County Council. In addition to this land, it is proposed that a further: •0.4 ha comprising the remaining part of Furness Business Park can be allocated for employment development. •c.1ha of land can be allocated for residential development to the north of the former Park View school site. Housing here could form part of a wider housing location encompassing the former Park View school site and site REC18. Suggested Changes The plan should look to identify further housing land and incorporate the advice set out within paragraphs 92 and 93 of this document. BBC Response – The indicative housing yields referred to in the Local Plan are for reference only. See footnote 2 on page 142 of the Publication Draft. The boundary of the site East of Park View School (REC18) has been amended to include the piece of land referred to. The remaining part of Furness Business Park has been included as a proposed employment allocation in the Publication Draft as EMR01. Land to the north of the former Park View site already benefits from planning permission for housing, it was therefore not considered necessary to allocate it for housing.

Rep ID 947/423

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Table 8 Contact/Organisation - Edward Harvey, United Utilities Table 8 – Notes As detailed above, Table 8 referred to in the body of Policy H3, contains notes regarding the character of each of the proposed housing allocations. The note against Land East of Saves Lane (Site Ref: REC01) states: “Vacant, greenfield site outside but adjoining the current development cordon. Need for building form to be single or one and a half storey to maintain openness and softer transition.” We strongly object to the inclusion of the second sentence (underlined above) within the note associated with UUPS’ site. Given that there is a specific Local Plan policy intended to influence the design of new development in the Borough, we do not consider it necessary or justified to include a note within Table 8 seeking to restrict building heights at the site to single or one and a half storeys. The appropriate scale, density and height of development on site should be determined


105

through a detailed master planning process which will form part of the planning application preparation, following the proposed allocation of the site. In draft Policy S4 of the Preferred Options document, the Local Plan already contains an overarching design policy. The justification text to Policy S4 states: “The inclusion of an overarching design policy which applies to all development will sit alongside policies for specific aspects of design such as trees, wildlife and heritage”. In order to accord with proposed Policy S4, development proposals are required to demonstrate clearly how they achieve 13 separate criteria including “how they [inter alia]: a) Integrate with and where possible enhance the character of the adjoining built and natural environment; and b) Make the most effective and efficient use of the site and any existing buildings upon it. The proposed inclusion of criterion (a) within the body of draft Policy S4 is sufficient to ensure that any future development proposals at the site respects the character of the local area in terms of scale, form, massing and layout. As such, there is no requirement to include the note within Table 8 stating: “Need for building form to be single or one and a half storey to maintain openness and transition”. In the ‘Justification’ text to draft Policy S4, the Council states the inclusion of an over-arching design policy “will give a steer to developers and those making planning applications of the design principles the Council will expect applicants to address from the outset”. In addition, if it is the Council’s intention to produce separate Development Briefs for each of the proposed housing allocations, as set out at Policy S7, it is not necessary to include notes on “the type of development the authority considers acceptable for the site” at Table 8 of Policy H3. We consider that proposed Policies S4 and S7, coupled with the design policies set out in the NPPF, are more than sufficient to guide the design of new housing development at the site, without the need to set out specific design parameters for individual sites within the Local Plan, or the requirement for site specific Development Briefs. As mentioned above, Paragraph 1.4.26 identifies that “there is a lack of choice in the current housing market to meet the needs of industry to attract the highly skilled workers it requires and meet the housing aspirations of many existing residents”. We believe the proposed inclusion of this note at Table 8 limiting buildings to “single or one and half storey” directly conflicts with the aspirations of the Local Plan, including the objective at Paragraph 2.1.6, which states: “There will be a good choice of good quality housing for current and future residents”. Limiting built development at UUPS’ site to one or one and a half storeys will greatly reduce the size of the market to which the properties will appeal. This will only serve to limit housing choice in the area, to the detriment of the Borough’s residents. Furthermore, by imposing this restriction at UUPS’ site, the Council is restricting its own ability to negotiate the design of development at the site. Appropriate design, including building heights, should be borne out of discussions between the Local Planning Authority and landowner/developer during the planning application process. Including a note limiting building heights at the site will restrict the ability of either party to meaningfully discuss the detailed design of development at this site. This approach is not justified and certainly will not contribute to addressing the lack of choice in the Borough’s housing market. Further to the fact there is no requirement to include a specific note controlling building heights at the site, we strongly disagree with the Council’s assertion that there is a “need for built development at the site to be limited to one or one and a half storey to maintain openness and transition”. Whilst we acknowledge that properties along Ireleth Court Road to the south are single storey, this is not typical of Ireleth. The existing residential estate to the east is characterised by two storey semi-detached properties. There are also a series of two storey detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings along Saves Lane to the northeast of the site. Terraced properties along the A595, south of the site, extend to three storeys in height. The Council asserts that the need for single or one and a half storey buildings at the site is “to maintain openness and transition”. Whilst we acknowledge that UUPS’ site is on the edge of the existing settlement boundary, we strongly believe that openness and transition can be maintained through careful site master planning and design without the requirement to limit built form to single or one and a half storeys. It is important to note there is likely to be a significant distance between the rear elevations of existing properties to the south, and future built development at UUPS’ site. There is an easement running along the southern boundary of UUPS’ site. There is then an access track separating UUPS’ site and the large rear gardens of properties along Ireleth Court Road. Given that separation distances between existing and future properties will be significant, we would argue that circa two storey built development at UUPS’ site can be easily accommodated with no significant impact on openness and transition. Further to the above, we contend that openness and transition can also be achieved through detailed design, rather than simply limiting building heights on site.


106

Table 8 in its current form is unnecessarily prescriptive. It would be more appropriate for detailed design issues to be addressed through negotiations between the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and developer at planning application stage, so as not to stifle innovation at the site, and in the absence of any thorough understanding of site viability and the corresponding design parameters. In considering housing need, Paragraph 7.4.4 of the Local Plan states: “The SHMA shows that there is a need to continue to satisfy household aspirations and expectations, with a particular emphasis on delivering market housing at a range of prices. The development of semi-detached houses and properties with two and three bedrooms is a particular priority”. Limiting built development at UUPS’ site to single or one and a half storeys will directly conflict with the findings of the SHMA and the aspirations of the Local Plan. The inclusion of this note in Table 8 is unduly restrictive and will severely compromise the potential future development of the site. Including this restriction within the Local Plan will significantly reduce the market attractiveness of the site and will therefore impact upon the site’s viability. By including this note at Table 8 of the Local Plan, the Council is being overly prescriptive. This could have a detrimental impact on the ability to bring the site forward quickly. It would be more appropriate to leave the detailed design of development at the site to be guided by actual design policies in the Local Plan, and agreed through negotiation with the Local Planning Authority at planning application stage. This approach would best contribute to increasing choice in the housing market. The inclusion of this restriction on building heights will not prove effective in achieving the objectives of the Local Plan. Rather we believe its inclusion is in direct conflict with the Local Plan, which seeks “to enable communities to grow, ensuring they have access to decent homes in the right locations which are suitable for all their needs” (paragraph 2.1). The inclusion of this note restricting development at the site to one or one and half storeys will act as an impediment to sustainable growth and is therefore contrary to Paragraph 19 of the NPPF. BBC response – Comments noted. The reference to building heights has been removed as it is considered to be overly prescriptive and design can be dealt with through pre-application discussions taking relevant policies into account.

Rep ID 948/423

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Table 8 Contact/Organisation Edward Harvey, United Utilities Table 8 – Net Developable Area. Further to the site notes, Table 8 also includes columns identifying “net developable area” and “number of dwellings” against each proposed housing allocation. The footnotes to Table 8 state that: “The NDA is the area available for development, including roads, infrastructure and open amenity space once adopted and emerging green infrastructure requirements are met”. The overall area of UUPS’ site at Saves Lane is approximately 0.84 hectares. The site currently comprises a green field, with no obvious constraints to development aside from an easement running along its southern boundary. However, at Table 8 the Council identifies the net developable area of the site as just 0.43 hectares. On this basis, the Council considers that only 57% of the site is developable. Having reviewed the Draft Green Infrastructure Study (dated June 2015), we note the Council has identified ‘Green Links’ along the northern, eastern and southern site boundaries. The Study states the Green Link classification is focussed on protecting and developing the existing network of mature hedgerows and small woodland groups in the Borough. Whilst we acknowledge there are hedgerows at the site, it is important to note that these are located along the northern, eastern and southern site boundaries only, are narrow in character, and certainly do not occupy 43% of the site area. It is also important to note that hedgerows could be retained within any future development proposals and therefore the net developable area should be maximised to ensure the effective use of this sustainable site in accordance with the NPPF and to ensure that an appropriate and viable master planning solution can be achieved. We appreciate Table 8 is useful for the Council to gain an understanding of the potential housing land available and number of future dwellings that can be achieved. However we do not consider the inclusion of this information is necessary within the Local Plan. Rather this will only serve to inhibit the achievement of


107

the Borough’s identified housing targets. However, if the Council insists on specifying net developable area and potential number of dwellings associated with each of the proposed housing allocations, it should be explicitly clear that this guidance is purely indicative. Land that is suitable and has the ability to deliver a greater number of dwellings should be acknowledged rather than constrained by the comments in Table 8. By stating this is ‘indicative rather than a capped figure’, gives the Council the benefit of having future flexibility to increase housing yield meaning more control over the supply of new housing to meet their targets within the required timescales. Such details can be discussed at the pre-application stage, when full site constraints, viability and specific local housing needs can be assessed on a site by site basis to suit the Council’s aspirations. It is not clear within the Local Plan or the supporting Green Infrastructure Strategy exactly how the net developable area has been calculated by the Council. As such, we do not consider it justified to specify a net developable area within Table 8 of the Local Plan. BBC Response – Comments noted. The table (now table 6) has been amended with footnotes 1 and 2 making it clear how gross site size and indicative yield have been identified. The size of this particular site has been increased.

Rep ID 1030/7

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Table 8 Contact/Organisation - Lindsay Alder, Highways England The Preferred Option sites for residential development in Barrow are displayed in Table 3 below. (Potential Housing Sites in Barrow reproduced) As noted in JMP’s Issues and Options Draft Review, it is considered that the A590 will be key to the delivery of a number of these sites due to the limited route choice in the Borough. As such, Highways England will need to be mindful of the potential impacts these developments may have on the A590 / Park Road Roundabout, as a number of the proposed housing sites are located within close proximity. The development quantum of number of sites has been reduced significantly since the previous Issues and Options draft, with only two significant potential sites remaining in the Plan. Highways England should generally support the proposed housing sites above, as the majority will generate fewer than 30 two-way trips in the peak periods, and are therefore likely to have a negligible impact on the operation of the SRN. However, where two or more sites are proposed in close proximity and, when combined, are likely to generate over 30 two-way trips, a cumulative impact assessment should be requested. A previous review highlighted the Significant potential housing sites include Marina Village (650 dwellings) and Salthouse Mills (250 dwellings). JMP advises that Highways England will require a detailed Transport Assessment to be undertaken for both sites, in order to fully understand the potential impact of these developments on the SRN. This should be provided at the earliest possible opportunity, as per DfT Circular 02/2013. Dalton The Local Plan identifies the following potential housing sites in Dalton: (Potential Housing Sites In Dalton table reproduced) None of the above sites are considered to be significant on an individual basis. However, as stated above for development in Barrow-in-Furness, where two or more sites are proposed in close proximity, a cumulative impact assessment should be requested. In JMP’s review (Ref: W512009-002a) of the Issues and Options Draft, the Land at Greenhills Farm site was identified as a significant site, with up to 178 proposed dwellings. Development should be encouraged in this sustainable location, close to Dalton centre, although Highways England should welcome the reduction in the proposed number of units at the site, as this will reduce the potential impact on the SRN. Askam & Ireleth The Local Plan identifies the following potential housing sites in Askam & Ireleth. (Potential Housing Sites in Askam & Ireleth table reproduced.) All potential allocated sites located in Askam & Ireleth are relatively small, and it is anticipated that any traffic generated by this level of development will have a negligible impact on the SRN. However, due to the close proximity of the sites to each other, and to the SRN, it is advised that the potential cumulative impact of


108

these sites is considered. Lindal & Newton The Local Plan identifies the following potential housing developments in Lindal & Newton. (Potential Housing Sites in Lindal and Marton table reproduced). The two potential allocated sites in Lindal & Newton have relatively small levels of proposed development. Therefore, JMP advises that Highways England accepts these developments, as it is anticipated that any traffic generated by this level of development will have a negligible impact on the SRN. BBC Response – Comments noted and the the cumulative impact of the developments noted is being assessed through the Barrow Transport Improvements Study. The number of units at Greenhills Farm has been reduced to 69.

Rep ID 1092/419

Status - Support Policy/Para - SHL13b Contact/Organisation - Rob Turley, Menton Trading Please see the comments below submitted on behalf of Menton Trading Ltd. in respect of land at Schneider Road, Barrow. These comments are submitted by Rob Turley Consultancy, in association with Hourigan Connolly, Chartered Town Planners. This land at Schneider Road, Barrow, has the reference SHL 13b and is included at Table 8 on page 124 of the plan as a preferred option site to be allocated for housing. We support this proposed allocation and have also had discussions with Council officers about bringing forward an application for planning permission for housing development in the near future. It is previously developed urban land and the Council have previously granted planning permission for its development for housing. More recently the Council have declined the opportunity to acquire the land to provide a travellers site and instead have now allocated Council owned land immediately adjoining to the north, as an alternative and new traveller’s site. As the land owned by Menton Trading Ltd. is private land it will not under any circumstances be available as a travellers site, and as the Council also recognise that residential development of this land would be beneficial, an application for planning permission for housing will be submitted in the near future. These matters have previously been discussed with Mr.Hipkiss and Mr.Solsby and a response to the most recent correspondence to Mr.Solsby remains outstanding. Hourigan Connolly, Chartered Town Planners, will now be acting on behalf of Menton Trading Ltd. BBC Response – Support noted

Policy H4: Development Cordons (previously covered by questions H3-H10)

1 comment representation was received on Policy H4.

Rep ID 1190/9

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy H4 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The identification of development cordons should not be drawn so tightly that they prejudice the ability to deliver sustainable development.


109

BBC Response – Comment noted. Settlements have been assessed for their accessibility and sustainability and the Development Cordons for the settlements of Askam & Ireleth, Lindal and Newton have been amended to allow for some sustainable development.

Policy H5: Residential development in open countryside


Rep ID 831/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H5 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust In most respects the proposed Policy is supported; however, the following point is noted for consideration: The amended wording now proposed at point 1 is open to misinterpretation as it could be construed that housing for rural workers can only be in the open countryside; it is suggested that the order of the words is amended so as to read: “Proposals for new-build rural workers dwellings in the open countryside will only be permitted where the dwelling…” BBC response – Policy amended as suggested.

Rep ID 1065/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy H5 Bullet 2A Contact/Organisation Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The policy does not provide adequate protection to all heritage assets and their setting as it is omitted from the policy. The policy should be amended to read: "The dwelling is a heritage asset, effects the setting of other heritage assets or makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the open countryside.” BBC Response – Comment noted, policy wording amended as suggested.

Rep ID 1115/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H5 Contact/Organisation Barton Willmore, Story Homes The approach applied by this policy towards development proposals within the open countryside goes beyond that applied towards proposals in the Green Belt and is therefore too onerous. The policy is also in conflict with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Policy is in need of revision. BBC Response – Comment noted, The NPPF states ‘to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located, where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.’ It then goes on to state there are special circumstances where isolated homes in the countryside may be permissible, such as the rural workforce who find it essential to live at their place of work, and this policy is based on the criteria set out in the NPPF.



110

1141/257 Policy/Para -Policy H5 Contact/Organisation Barton Willmore, Story Homes

Story Homes objects to Policy H5. The requirements of this policy provide greater constraint than a Green Belt policy by only enabling the delivery of rural worker dwellings, replacement dwellings, temporary accommodation and conversions outside settlement boundaries. The approach of this policy is highly inflexible, and serves to contradict the presumption in favour of sustainable development as outlined by Paragraph 14 of the Framework and Policy S1 of this plan. In consideration of the findings on sites identified by the Council in Policy H3 of the Local Plan we consider that there is need for the identification of further Greenfield sites, and for the application of a more flexible approach in the determination of applications for housing on sites outside the settlement boundary, particularly given the Council’s historic failure to deliver development. BBC Response – The NPPF states ‘to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located, where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.’ It then goes on to state there are special circumstances where isolated homes in the countryside may be permissible, such as the rural workforce who find it essential to live at their place of work, and this policy is based on the criteria set out in the NPPF. Prior to the NPPF, national policy clearly promoted a ‘brownfield first’ approach to housing land. Development in the Borough has responded to this and over 90% of housing development in the Borough over the past 10 years has been on previously developed sites. Whilst this has brought many benefits, the building of houses in gardens (which prior to the NPPF were categorised as brownfield sites) and the drive for higher densities has resulted in town cramming and a reduction in urban green space in some areas. Whilst a key objective of the NPPF is to encourage the effective use of land by reusing brownfield land (provided it is not of high environmental value), the re-use of previously developed land is not promoted nationally in the way that it was previously. The Council however, believes that this pattern of development remains the most sustainable providing it supports a balanced mix of densities based on a framework of green infrastructure. Greenfield sites will still be needed to help meet the housing requirement as well as in delivering housing choice and easing mobility within the housing market.

Policy H7: Housing Development on Windfall Sites.


Rep ID 832/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy H7 Contact/Organisation Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust notes that several improvements have been made to the detailed wording and confirms that it is content with the revised Policy. BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 926/126

Status - Comment Policy/Para -Policy H7 Contact/Organisation Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy H7: Housing Development on Windfall Sites At Issues and Options the HBF considered option 1 would provide a pragmatic approach to dealing with housing developments upon windfall sites. It was, however,


111

recommended that criterion ‘a’ be deleted, as it effectively prioritised the use of previously developed land, and be replaced by a statement within the policy to indicate that the re-use of previously developed land will be supported. Whilst the wording of criterion ‘a’ has been amended it still appears to prioritise rather than encourage the re-use of previously developed land. It is therefore still recommended this be deleted. The Government is currently considering various ways to promote the redevelopment of previously developed land. Schemes such as the Starter Home Initiative, Local Development Orders, Local Authority Brownfield Land Registers and Housing Zones all promote and incentivise the re-use of previously developed land. The Council should be seeking to build upon such mechanisms to encourage the re-use of previously developed land rather than prioritising its use which could have implications for delivering its overall housing needs. BBC Response – Criterion a) has been removed as requested, however the council still wishes to encourage the re use of previously developed land and therefore the text is retained in the policy but not as a criterion.

Rep ID 957/436

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy H7 Contact/Organisation Janet Dixon, Oakmere Homes We support this policy subject to the minor change to the wording of criteria a) as follows; a) The site makes effective use of previously developed land where relevant and possible. BBC Response – Criterion a) has been removed, however the council still wishes to encourage the re use of previously developed land and therefore the text is retained in the policy but not as a criterion.

Rep ID 1066/4

Status – Object Policy/Para – Policy H7 Contact/Organisation- Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The policy does not provide adequate protection to the historic environment, heritage assets as reference to setting is omitted from the policy. The policy should be amended to include: "The site will not harm the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings" BBC Response – Additional bullet added: The proposal will not harm the historic environment, heritage assets or their setting.

Rep ID 1191/9

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H7 Contact/Organisation- Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The broad approach to the consideration of development on windfall sites is supported. Notwithstanding this support, the policy may be undermined by the absence of a robust link to the strategic approach of plan. This link will assist in considering what scales of development may be appropriate on windfall development sites. Suggested Changes The policy should contain clearer links with the strategic approach set out within the plan. The policy should also be clear that windfall development should be within or adjacent and proportionate to existing settlements and expect that sites are developed comprehensively responding to natural drainage flow patterns.


112

BBC Response – Criterion a) of the policy requires the site to be located within or adjoining existing urban area or within cordon village, and criterion g) requires the development to use sustainable drainage.

Policy H9: Housing Density


Rep ID 833/131

Status – Support Policy/Para – Policy H9 Contact/Organisation- Alan Hubbard, National Trust The proposed wording is noted and supported. BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 927/126

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H9 Contact/Organisation- Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy H9: Housing Density The policy justification sets out that the Council does not intend to be prescriptive and wishes to provide flexibility. The HBF supports this stance as this will enable a developer to react to site constraints, the wider setting of a site, market conditions and economic viability considerations. Unfortunately the policy appears to indicate that the housing density of individual sites will be set within a development brief. The HBF has already expressed our reservations upon the need for such briefs; see our response to Policy S7 above. Unless the development brief only identifies indicative densities, which can be changed, it will inevitably restrict flexibility and the ability of the developer to respond to the issues noted above. This will have the effect of inhibiting some sites from being brought forward. BBC Response – Reference to development briefs removed, sites owned by the council will have briefs prepared and the council will intend developers to produce them for larger sites.

Rep ID 949/423

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H9 Contact/Organisation- Edward Harvey, United Utilities Draft Policy H9 states that density of development on allocated sites will be informed by a Development Brief to determine the most appropriate density on a site by site basis. Rather than relying on a Development Brief for each site, we consider a more appropriate approach would be to set a target minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) and therefore the policy is worded to “seek to achieve a density of 30dph”. It is considered that this approach would encourage the efficient use of land in the Borough, whilst also allowing a level of flexibility whereby density levels are determined by site specific constraints. Ultimately, we consider that the relevant policy within the Local Plan should ensure that, on a site-by-site basis, new housing development achieves an optimum level of density that is appropriate to the site’s character and location, but also makes the most efficient use of land in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF.


113

BBC Response – Reference to development briefs removed, sites owned by the council will have briefs prepared and the council will intend developers to produce them for larger sites.

Rep ID 958/436

Status – Support Policy/Para – Policy H9 Contact/Organisation- Janet Dixon, Oakmere Homes We support this policy. The preferred approach of dealing with development density on a site by site basis and individual merit is welcomed and flexibility will facilitate delivery of greater choice and a range of sites and locations to meet housing needs and aspirations in support of the economic Vision. BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 1039/219

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H9 Contact/Organisation- Christopher Garner, Holker Estates Low density housing may be a reflection on local environmental constraints or the provision of larger housing to meet the particular requirements of those at the higher end of the housing market. High density housing does not necessarily encourage positive interaction as is suggested. Development briefs for every individual housing allocation to determine the density that those sites must be developed at is not considered appropriate. It will delay sites coming forward and where there is mismatch between the aspirations of the owner/developer to meet market requirements and the planning authority’s aspirations for higher density may preclude the development of a site entirely. The experience in South Lakeland District of development briefs is not a positive one. Lengthy and unwieldy documents that lack clarity have, to date, delayed the delivery of housing development to the extent that the planning authority either cannot, or soon will not, be able to demonstrate a five year land supply, less than two years after the adoption of their Land Allocations document. The desire of the planning authority to control the nature of any scheme with development briefs is too restrictive and controlling. BBC Response – Reference to development briefs removed, sites owned by the council will have briefs prepared and the council will intend developers to produce them for larger sites.

Rep ID 1192/9

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H9 Contact/Organisation- Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council This policy proposes leaving the consideration of housing density to development briefs for individual sites. This approach is considered risky given that development briefs are not appropriate for all sites. Moreover the policy does not provide a framework that will enable the consideration of windfall developments. Suggested Changes. It is proposed that this policy should be revised to enable consideration of densities in a flexible manner informed by the characteristics of individual development sites. BBC Response – Reference to development briefs removed, sites owned by the council will have briefs prepared and the council will intend developers to produce


114

them for larger sites. Policy wording states ‘This will allow a range of densities to be developed and applied to best suit the character and requirements of different parts of the Borough and ensure sites come forward in a timely manner.’

Policy H10: Housing Delivery


Rep ID 928/126

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H10 Contact/Organisation- Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy H10: Housing Delivery The policy identifies that sites will be distributed into indicative delivery periods. This seems to conflict with justification section below which suggests that for a site to be brought forward earlier or later than identified this would need to be justified by the applicant. The HBF does not support a phasing of sites nor is it considered consistent with the NPPF. The Council has already identified that the proposed allocations are sustainable and therefore their development should not be artificially constrained. The NPPF indicates that development that is sustainable should ‘go ahead without delay’ (ministerial foreword, paragraphs 14 and 15). To ensure the Council can begin to deliver against its housing targets it is important that it has a wide portfolio of sites which can be delivered by the market in current conditions. This may well require sites identified to be brought forward later in the plan period to be brought forward within the first five years. The HBF therefore recommends any delivery assumptions be retained as indicative only. The HBF supports the policy requirement to bring forward additional allocations, over and above those identified in the plan, if delivery targets are not being met. This is considered a pragmatic solution; it is recommended that appropriate triggers for this to occur be identified within the plan. BBC Response – The first part of the policy referring to ‘indicative periods’ is removed as t is acknowledged this is against the thrust of the NPPF. The Council considers delivery of sites will manage itself and that all the sites allocated are not likely to come forward at the same time. This policy is amended to reflect the intention that it should be a monitoring policy and should the delivery of housing not meet targets the council will intervene.

Rep ID 959/436

Status – Objection Policy/Para – Policy H10 Contact/Organisation- Janet Dixon, Oakmere Homes We object to this policy on the basis that phasing of the housing allocations is not necessary and cannot be justified. Whilst the Council objective is presumably to bring forward a mix of all types of housing across a range of locations at all times throughout the plan period, seeking to control this by a phasing mechanism carries the risk of having an unintended consequence; limiting delivery in the early part of the plan period when it is most needed and market conditions are favourable, and resulting in under-delivery. It is essential that housing of any type is delivered to significantly boost supply from the outset, given the historic under- performance and current shortfall, and that development of sites which are suitable, available and viable and offer the most certainty of delivery, is able to begin when market conditions and circumstances permit and is not needlessly supressed. The objective must be to boost delivery and provide market choice at all times, and anticipated delivery must be factored into the housing trajectory with sufficient flexibility and headroom to provide contingency in the event that allocated sites and other sources of supply do not deliver when expected. There is also no reason to assume in principle that larger


115

greenfield sites will incur a longer lead-in period and take longer to deliver than previously developed sites. This is not the case as initial infrastructure requirements may be limited for the first phase of development and greenfield sites often have the advantage of being in single ownership, readily available and less constrained. Larger sites can therefore contribute to Year 0-5 supply and must also be able to begin delivery as soon as possible, so that maximum benefit can be derived from their potential over as much of the plan period as possible. Housing supply must be boosted and the Borough should plan to maximise delivery in the first half of the plan period when new growth will have most benefit, rather than risk creating a deficit in the early phases of the plan that is likely to escalate and prove difficult to remedy. A wide range of sites must be allocated from the outset of the plan therefore and there is no justification for phased release. BBC Response – The first part of the policy referring to ‘indicative periods’ is removed as t is acknowledged this is against the thrust of the NPPF. The Council considers delivery of sites will manage itself and that all the sites allocated are not likely to come forward at the same time. This policy is amended to reflect the intention that it should be a monitoring policy and should the delivery of housing not meet targets the council will intervene.

Rep ID 990/193

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H10 Contact/Organisation- Matthew Pardoe, Amstone Developments Given the impact of the recession upon housing trends to date, namely by restricting activity within the market and the provision of units, along with the slow return of developers to the local market (and the potential lead-in times of some of the larger sites), it is suggested that sites should not be phased. It is noted that reference is made to 'indicative' delivery periods, but the interpretation of this wording could potentially affect a tentative local market in a negative fashion. It is therefore suggested that this policy should be deleted in order to achieve the stated objective of delivering housing in a timely manner across the borough. BBC Response – The first part of the policy referring to ‘indicative periods’ is removed as t is acknowledged this is against the thrust of the NPPF. The Council considers delivery of sites will manage itself and that all the sites allocated are not likely to come forward at the same time. This policy is amended to reflect the intention that it should be a monitoring policy and should the delivery of housing not meet targets the council will intervene.

Rep ID 1040/219

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H10 Contact/Organisation- Christopher Garner, Holker Estates The intention of the planning authority is to preclude the delivery of sites at an earlier stage than the proposed phasing period. The reference to a “doughnut effect, where greenfield sites at the edge of settlements are developed, leaving brownfield sites within settlements undeveloped, causing urban blight” (7.3.1) implies an intention to preclude the development of greenfield sites on the edge of settlements until brownfield sites are developed. This implied strategy could mean that very few sites come forward at all. We know that Marina Village and Salthouse Mills are already considered most likely to produce completions later in the plan period. Any delay in the development of greenfield sites until sites such as these come forward would mean sustainable housing sites, capable of providing the very housing choice the authority seeks, will not deliver housing. A phasing policy simply prevents sites that could come forward from coming forward. What a phasing policy can never do is make a landowner or developer bring forward a site they do not wish to bring forward at that time. The authority seeks justification from landowners as to why a site should be developed earlier than its relevant phasing and justification for later development. One is far better allowing sites to come forward when the prevailing economy allows development to deliver new housing, rather than preventing sites coming forward in good economic times and hoping the phased release does not coincide with less positive economic times where competitive returns for landowners and developers are not sufficient to bring sites forward. In recent years it has never been a problem that ‘too much development takes place too soon’, quite the opposite.


116

The suggestion that there is a causal link between the development of greenfield edge of urban sites and urban blight is not agreed. High quality residential development on the edge of towns such as Barrow will assist regeneration by providing housing choice and retaining local workers within the Borough, rather than encouraging commuting in from nearby towns in South Lakeland. Housing delivery should indeed be monitored but the suggestion that the authority will intervene if annual targets are not met, is not realistic. The only intervention mentioned is the allocation of additional sites, after a review every five years, which would then take several years to take through a Local Plan review. BBC Response – The first part of the policy referring to ‘indicative periods’ is removed as i t is acknowledged this is against the thrust of the NPPF. The Council considers delivery of sites will manage itself and that all the sites allocated are not likely to come forward at the same time. This policy is amended to reflect the intention that it should be a monitoring policy and should the delivery of housing not meet targets the council will intervene. The Plan will be kept under review and monitored on an annual basis once adopted.

Rep ID 1100/184

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H10 Contact/Organisation- Signet Planning, Moorsolve Self Administered Pension Fund As set out above, site reference SHL096 is available for development within years 0-5 of the Plan Period and it is requested that it is recognised as such in any phasing proposals provided as the Local Plan progresses. BBC Response – Comments noted, phasing periods are not identified however the Council notes that this site is available for development within the timescales indicated.

Rep ID 1116/257

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H10 Contact/Organisation- Barton Willmore, Story Homes The controlled phasing of development sites over the plan period should only occur as a result of identified infrastructure or technical issues. Development that is sustainable and deliverable now should not be delayed unnecessarily (see Paragraph 14 of the Framework). The Council does not provide sufficient clarity on how this policy will be applied. It is also unclear as to which sites are affected by its implementation. Clarity is needed on these points at this stage in order to understand the justification for the proposed phasing strategy. BBC Response – The first part of the policy referring to ‘indicative periods’ is removed as t is acknowledged this is against the thrust of the NPPF. The Council considers delivery of sites will manage itself and that all the sites allocated are not likely to come forward at the same time. This policy is amended to reflect the intention that it should be a monitoring policy and should the delivery of housing not meet targets the council will intervene.

Rep ID 1142/257

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H10 Contact/Organisation- Barton Willmore, Story Homes The phasing of sites should only be applied on account of constraints or infrastructure issues (such as utility capacity or roads) which mean that the development cannot be realised now. The implementation of a phasing strategy that prevents the delivery of suitable and sustainable sites fails to accord with the presumption in favour of sustainable development in Paragraph 14 of the Framework that outlines that “proposals for the delivery of sustainable development should be permitted without delay”. The phasing of sites for reasons that do not accord with this approach should be removed from the Plan. A Council with such a clear record of under


117

delivery should not be planning unnecessary barriers to housing delivery. It is unclear exactly how the Council propose to implement this phasing approach and what it will mean for sites included within the preferred options. The Council has failed to provide an indication as to which sites this policy applies to and for what reason. We have already highlighted above our concerns over the lack of transparency provided in the process with the lack of published evidence to demonstrate the deliverability of sites chosen to be allocated by the Council. Further clarity on this issue is required. BBC Response – The first part of the policy referring to ‘indicative periods’ is removed as t is acknowledged this is against the thrust of the NPPF. The Council considers delivery of sites will manage itself and that all the sites allocated are not likely to come forward at the same time. This policy is amended to reflect the intention that it should be a monitoring policy and should the delivery of housing not meet targets the council will intervene.

Rep ID 1193/9

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H10 Contact/Organisation- Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council It is important that the local plan is properly monitored and in this respect the policy is supported. Nonetheless, it is considered important that the local plan phasing of sites should not prevent otherwise deliverable sites from emerging. Suggested Change It is proposed that the policy is revised to highlight that the indicative phasing attributed to a site does not act to delay appropriate delivery. BBC Response – The first part of the policy referring to ‘indicative periods’ is removed as t is acknowledged this is against the thrust of the NPPF. The Council considers delivery of sites will manage itself and that all the sites allocated are not likely to come forward at the same time. This policy is amended to reflect the intention that it should be a monitoring policy and should the delivery of housing not meet targets the council will intervene.

Policy 11: Housing Mix


Rep ID 929/126

Status – Support Policy/Para – Policy H11 Contact/Organisation- Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy H11: Housing Mix The amended policy wording provides flexibility enabling development to respond not only to the needs of the area but prevailing market conditions. This is considered to generally accord with our comments at Issues and Options. BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 991/193

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H11


118

Contact/Organisation- Matthew Pardoe, Amstone Developments The Council’s aspiration of achieving a mix of housing, along with its desire not to stifle the housing market is appreciated. Whilst larger sites normally have a greater

ability to provide a mix of types and sizes, undue weight should not be given to prescribed standards (as it could also stifle the market). In this respect, the market responds to changing needs whilst taking cognisance of a site's characteristics and relationship with its surroundings. BBC Response – Comments noted, the Council feels this policy addresses the comments raised.

Rep ID 1041/219

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H11 Contact/Organisation- Christopher Garner, Holker Estates It is a concern that the planning authority will seek to impose their view of the appropriate mix of housing on an owner/developer. Developers will not build what they do not think they can sell. Only if the housing requirements cannot be accommodated in and on the edge of Barrow should a greater proportion of housing be considered in Dalton and other areas. BBC Response –The policy has been amended and requires a developer to demonstrate how they have considered certain criteria including the latest SHMA. This is to ensure that the housing that is built goes some way towards meeting the housing need.

Rep ID 1101/184

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H11 Contact/Organisation- Signet Planning, Moorsolve Self Administered Pension Fund Although it is recognised that a mix of housing needs to be provided, it must be recognised that on smaller sites, it is not feasible to deliver a mix that would be perhaps expected on a larger scale development and therefore, a flexible approach should be adopted so as not to stifle development by setting prescriptive guidance on the mix that is expected. To a large extent, this needs to be market led so that future development can respond to the changing needs of the Borough. BBC Response – The policy has been amended and requires a developer to demonstrate how they have considered certain criteria including the latest SHMA. This is to ensure that the housing that is built goes some way towards meeting the housing need.

Rep ID 1117/257

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H11 Contact/Organisation- Barton Willmore, Story Homes This policy represents a missed opportunity for the Council to address key identified strategic issues such as population loss and the lack of a skilled labour force. The Council should think how achieving the correct housing mix from developments could help address these problems, and consider planning applications that respond to this need positively. BBC Response – The policy has been amended and requires a developer to demonstrate how they have considered certain criteria including the latest SHMA. This is to ensure that the housing that is built goes some way towards meeting the housing need.

Rep ID 1143/257

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H11 Contact/Organisation- Barton Willmore, Story Homes


119

Insufficient certainty is provided by this policy to clarify the Council’s expectation of the housing mix requirements within the Borough. Whilst the Policy provides some flexibility to allow for changing market conditions, the absence of guidance will only result in the delay of approving submitted planning applications. Story Homes considers that the policy misses an opportunity to address one of the Borough’s key identified issues and that is to attract a higher paid skilled workforce. The Policy should promote the delivery of larger homes to retain this workforce and reduce inward commuting rates. The shortage of executive housing is identified by the 2014 SHMA (see Page 46). The shortage of a skilled workforce is identified by the Council as a key issue for the Plan and is a central component to the achievement of sustainable development within the Borough yet the Council’s proposed housing allocations will fail to respond to this need. Story Homes consider that there is an urgent need for the Council to respond to this need and identify further Greenfield allocations that would be attractive to this workforce. In addition we also consider that any planning application submitted to the Council that delivers housing to meet this need should, as a result of this context, be treated positively by the Council and approved, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. BBC Response – The policy has been amended and requires a developer to demonstrate how they have considered certain criteria including the latest SHMA. This is to ensure that the housing that is built goes some way towards meeting the housing need. Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan (not just one specific policy within it) unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Rep ID 1194/9

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H11 Contact/Organisation- Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The approach requiring developers to bring forward a mix of housing that reflects the needs of the community is supported. Through this approach it will be important that explicit regard is had to the needs of the disabled and the elderly. Suggested Change Within the policy it is considered that explicit reference should be made to the needs of the disabled and elderly. BBC Response – The policy has been amended and requires a developer to demonstrate how they have considered certain criteria including the latest SHMA. This is to ensure that the housing that is built goes some way towards meeting the housing need, including housing for the disabled and elderly.

Policy H12: Lifetime Homes


Rep ID 930/126

Status – Support Policy/Para – Policy H12 Contact/Organisation- Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy H12: Lifetime Homes The HBF is supportive of providing for the needs of older people and other specialist groups. The needs of such groups are not, however, homogeneous and as such a ‘one size fits all’ policy response would be inappropriate. In this regard the Council’s policy response to encourage rather than require specific provision is supported.


120

The policy is unclear which ‘space standard’ within the Building Regulations is being referred to, this should be clarified. It is presumed this relates to the new standards under part M. The Council will note that there are two optional standards above part M; requirement M4 (2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings), and M4 (3) (wheelchair user dwellings). Requirement M4 (2) most closely relates to the former Lifetime Homes standard. To implement either of the optional standards the Council would need to justify the inclusion of any optional standard, not least in terms of viability. The PPG paragraph 56-007 provides the relevant guidance. Given the viability issues within Barrow-in-Furness it is considered that the current policy stance strikes the correct balance. BBC Response – Comments noted, reference made to Part M of the Building Regulations in the supporting text (para. 7.10.8 of Publication Draft). The policy has been amended as there is no evidence to justify the inclusion of any optional standard above the Building Regulations requirements.

Rep ID 1195/9

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H12 Contact/Organisation- Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The NPPF highlights the importance of ensuring that the housing requirements of those with special requirements are met. Specialist housing and house designs that can be adapted to meet residents’ needs over their entire lifetime are important in helping to maintain the independence of occupiers in their homes. We do not consider the proposed policy will promote designs that can encourage the through life resilience of new housing. The proposed policy simply requires that new homes meet the requirements set out through building regulations. Rather, the proposed Policy should encourage developers to promote resilient designs over and above the requirements of building regulations. Homes that have the right design features are easier to adapt to enable people with disabilities to continue to live there. Adaptations to properties that are not designed with a view to accessibility often fall short of achieving their full impact. Poorly adapted properties can contribute to increased levels of dependence which impact on the wellbeing of the individual, their carers and families and ultimately the provision of social care support. The most frequently requested adaptations are stairlifts and level access showers, usually both facilities. Housing designs that incorporate sufficiently wide and straight staircases to accommodate a stair lift without significant alteration and reinforcement (Lifetime Homes Criteria 12 Part A – with a requirement that the stairs also be straight) and sufficiently large entry level WC facilities that can easily incorporate a level entry shower (Lifetime Homes Criteria 10) will significantly aid the provision of the most frequently requested adaptations in a most cost effective way. The second element of this policy which offers support to delivery of specialist housing including extra care housing. The County Council’s Extra Care Strategy highlights a need for a stepped increase in the delivery of Extra Care Housing and we recognise the importance of our authorities working together to secure the delivery of this essential housing. Suggested Changes The design aspects of this policy need to be significantly enhanced and reliance of building regulations to secure the designs needed be removed. BBC Response – The Council currently has no evidence to justify the inclusion of any optional standard above the Building Regulations requirements.

Policy H13: Regenerating the Housing Stock

1 comment representation was received on policy H13.


121

Rep ID 1196/9

Status – Support Policy/Para – Policy H13 Contact/Organisation- Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The need to deliver the effect regeneration of Barrow is recognised as an important priority. Given this, we support the inclusion of this policy within the Local Plan. BBC Response – Support noted

Policy H14: Affordable Housing

7 representations were received on policy HI4.

Rep ID 931/126

Status – Support Policy/Para – Policy H14 Contact/Organisation- Matthew Good, Home Builders Foundation Policy H14: Affordable Housing The HBF is supportive of this policy which seeks to encourage rather than require affordable housing provision. This is considered a pragmatic response to the viability and deliverability problems experienced within Barrow-in-Furness and the low affordability issues. BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 950/423

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H14 Contact/Organisation- Edward Harvey, United Utilities We note the Local Plan: Preferred Options introduces a new policy in respect of affordable housing. Draft Policy H14 states the Council “will encourage the development of a percentage of affordable dwellings on allocated or windfall sites”. The body of the policy states affordable housing will be encouraged “when appropriate sites are available and conditions dictate that the development would be viable”. If the Council is to carry forward an affordable housing policy within its Local Plan, it is essential the wording of the policy is sufficiently flexible to ensure the viability and deliverability of potential development sites is not prejudiced. BBC Response –Policy H14 has been amended in light of the 2016 SHMA and the Viability Study. The policy is sufficiently flexible to ensure that where viability is affected a lower proportion of affordable housing may be considered.

Rep ID 992/193

Status – Support Policy/Para – Policy H14 Contact/Organisation- Matthew Pardoe, Amstone Developments Recognition of the importance of viability to the housing market itself is supported, particularly on brownfield sites where other costs potentially could affect proposals.


122

It is trusted that these representations will be taken into account during the drafting of the next version of the Local Plan, but please do not hesitate to contact me if any specific aspect should need clarification. In the meantime, I look forward to being kept informed of future consultation exercises. BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 1102/184

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H14 Contact/Organisation- Signet Planning, Moorsolve Self Administered Pension Fund At this stage, no targets appear to have been set in terms of the threshold at which affordable housing is to be provided, nor the level of affordable housing that would be sought. Due to the depressed nature of the housing market within the Borough, it is suggested that the threshold should be set at least 15 dwellings and that the level to be provided should be relatively low and with the ability to consider each site in its own merits based upon overall viability. BBC Response – Policy H14 has been amended in light of the 2016 SHMA and the Viability Study. The threshold is set at 10 dwellings rather than the requested 15, however the policy is sufficiently flexible to ensure that where viability is affected a lower proportion of affordable housing may be considered.

Rep ID 1118/257

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H14 Contact/Organisation- Barton Willmore, Story Homes The Policy is ineffective in securing the delivery of identified affordable housing needs. Paragraph 174 of the Framework is clear, requiring local authorities to set out affordable housing standards in the Local Plan. The approach taken by the Council fails to reflect this policy of the Framework and furthermore fails to provide any certainty, and could lead to delay in the determination process as parties negotiate over the percentages of affordable provision to be provided. BBC Response – Policy H14 has been amended in light of the 2016 SHMA and the Viability Study. The policy is sufficiently flexible to ensure that where viability is affected a lower proportion of affordable housing may be considered.

Rep ID 1144/257

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H14 Contact/Organisation- Barton Willmore, Story Homes The lack of any defined percentage (including a range or zone), or tenure split fails to provide sufficient certainty to developers or the community on what the requirements of the Council are likely to be or what level of affordable housing will be delivered within the Borough over the coming plan period. Whilst the proposed approach is written in the aim of providing flexibility to secure the delivery of development due to viability concerns, the lack of direction provided by the policy will only delay projects due to the need for negotiations. The approach taken by the policy at present is not effective, as it fails to secure the delivery of affordable housing to meet identified needs (outlined as 71 dwellings per year by the 2014 SHMA) and fails to provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency as required by Paragraph 17 of the Framework. The policy should set a percentage, and/or range of percentages based on up-to-date and robust evidence of viability to ensure affordable housing needs can be addressed in order to comply with Paragraph 174 of the Framework. BBC Response – Policy H14 has been amended in light of the 2016 SHMA and the Viability Study. The policy is sufficiently flexible to ensure that where viability is affected a lower proportion of affordable housing may be considered.

Rep ID Status – Comment


123

1197/9 Policy/Para – Policy H14 Contact/Organisation- Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council We understand that evidence now indicates the need for affordable housing to meet the housing requirements of the borough. While it is appreciated that there is a desire to prevent affordable housing from prejudicing the sustainability of development, we have concerns that it is too vague and may struggle to deliver its requirements. It is also considered that extra care housing could be included as part of affordable housing mixes, especially in the case of larger sites. Suggested Changes It is recommended that the policy be revised to state that subject to the viability of individual developments, a proportion of affordable housing would be sought on development sites above a certain threshold. The policy should make reference to the potential for extra care housing to be secured as part of the dwelling mixes on sites. BBC Response – Policy H14 has been amended in light of the 2016 SHMA and the Viability Study. The policy is sufficiently flexible to ensure that where viability is affected a lower proportion of affordable housing may be considered.

Policy H15: Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation

1 comment representation was received on policy HI5.

Rep ID 791/10

Status – Comment Policy/Para – Policy H15 Contact/Organisation- Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy H15-Gypsies and Travellers – it is not clear from the policy if the proposed site will also meet evidenced need transit pitches as well as for permanent accommodation. BBC Response – the policy has been amended and reference to transit pitches has been added.


124

Representations received on Chapter 8: Retail

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 12 representations on the Retail Chapter, of these representations 4 have been categorised as comments, 1 support and 2 objections.


General Comments on the Retail Chapter

5 representations were received on the chapter in general including 3 comments and 2 objections. A number of amendments are proposed to the supporting text in response to the comments received from consultees and these are detailed below.

Rep ID 965/509

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Retail Chapter Contact/Organisation - Jayshree Astley, Standard Life Investments Preferred Options – Consultation Draft (the draft plan) is submitted on behalf of Standard Life Investments (Standard Life). Standard Life is the owner of Hollywood Retail and Leisure Park (HRLP). HRLP is a large real estate asset, making Standard Life a key stakeholder in the town. These representations are focused on enhancing the vitality and viability of Barrow to ensure it remains of regional significance and can compete with neighbouring regional centres. In particular, these representations are focused on Chapter 8: Retail. In summary, we do not support the draft plan in its current form without amendments. The town centre boundary does not reflect the existing, established retail provision in Barrow. In addition, we do not support the draft retail policies as they are contrary to the aims and policies provided in the NPPF. Our reasons and proposals are set out at Sections 4 and 5 respectively. Background The site. Standard Life Investments is the owner of Hollywood Retail and Leisure Park on Hindpool Road, Barrow-In-Furness (Barrow). The park comprises a number of large format retail warehouses which are occupied by operators requiring relatively large format premises. The park is located 500m to the south-west of the town centre, on Hindpool Road. Hindpool Road has a number of large format retail warehouse parks, supermarkets and other commercial uses which cannot be accommodated in the town centre. Figure 2.1 shows the operators within Hollywood Retail and Leisure Park and the wider retail and commercial area. (Nb Figure 2.1 not fully reproduced in representation) Standard Life’s aspiration is to create a vital and viable retail park which, together with the wider Hindpool Road area, contributes to the vitality and viability of Barrow as a whole. The retail park is an important asset to Barrow. It provides a specific function and role which enhances Barrow’s ability to attract investment. The large format premises ensure that the requirements of large format operators are able to be accommodated in Barrow, rather than the town losing the operators due to lack of suitable premises in the town centre.


125

Benefits of the retail and leisure park HRLP provides a range of economic and social benefits, including: • The provision of eight large format units to meet the various and evolving needs of operators in an accessible location close to the town centre; • On full occupation, a significant number of employment opportunities. These jobs Investments generate earnings which go back into the local economy; • The jobs provided at the park are flexible and comprise a range of full-time and part-time positions. The availability of part-time positions ensures there are opportunities for local people who can’t work full-time because of other commitments; • The retail park also makes a significant contribution to Gross Value Added, supporting the local economy. In summary, the retail park is an important asset in Barrow. It provides a format of retail and leisure premises that are not available in Barrow town centre. The role and function of the retail park and wider commercial area should be recognised in the Local Plan for the contribution it makes to the vitality and viability of Barrow. Retailing and economy in Barrow-in-Furness The retail hierarchy Barrow town centre is the largest town and the regional centre of the Borough. It is a historic centre which is tightly constrained by area of housing, with little room for expansion. The centre serves Barrow Borough and the rural areas to the north, within the South Lakeland and Copeland administration boundaries. To ensure Barrow remains a vital and viable location, its retail offer must reflect its position at top of the retail hierarchy. To ensure Barrow does not lose trade to Kendal or other centres, and to increase its own vitality and viability, Barrow needs to ensure it remains a competitive retail location. Venue score Javelin Venue score provides an indication of the health of retail centres across the country. Venue score takes into account the number of national retail multiples in a town amongst an array of other health indicators. The higher the Venue score rank of a centre, the more attractive and viable the centre is perceived to be. The table below shows the rank of Barrow and the other centres in the area. Barrow and Kendal are the key retail locations in the South Lakes. Table 3.1 Venue score of relevant centres Centre Venue score rank 2011/2012 Venue score rank/2014/2015 Change 2011/12-2014/15 Barrow-in-Furness Town Centre 252 208 +44 Kendal Town Centre 199 201 -2 Windermere Town centre 2,029 1,531 +498 Ulverston Town Centre 1,373 1,361 +8 Lancaster 140 142 -2 Preston 29 52 -23 Table 3.1 shows that Barrow has increased its ranking over the past three years, which suggests that the centre has become a more attractive investment opportunity. However, Barrow is still not ranked as highly as Kendal town centre. In comparison, Lancaster City Centre is ranked 142 and Preston City Centre is ranked 52. These centres have a range of sizes and formats of premises in order to ensure that the retail requirements of modern retailers can be accommodated. Barrow must strive to accommodate new investment to ensure its vitality. The dynamic nature of retailing The Barrow Retail and Town Centre Uses Study 2013 recognise (at paragraphs 2.10-2.13) the changing nature of retailing in recent years. Key considerations


126

highlighted in the study include: • Traditional high street stores are seeking large out-of-centre premises, for example Next ,Boots, TK Maxx and Poundstretcher; • Sports clothing and equipment retailers are expanding into larger premises e.g.Decathlon; • The demand for premises within the bulky sector, i.e. furniture, carpets, electrical and DIY goods is particularly weak; and • Smaller traditional town centre units are becoming less attractive to new occupiers. In light of retail market changes, Barrow needs to have a good enough selection of retail units to ensure that it can meet the changing operational requirements of existing retailers, as well as new retailers seeking to increase their representation in Barrow. Barrow must be able to accommodate the operator demand in order to remain a competitive, viable centre. Retail matters in the adopted Barrow Local Plan Review 1996-2006 The adopted Barrow Local Plan Proposals Map 2002 The adopted Barrow Local Plan defines four distinct areas making up Barrow town centre. These areas are: • Barrow Shopping Core; • Other Barrow Town Centre Shopping Areas; • Mixed Areas around Barrow Town Centre; and • Edge of Centre Area. The four distinct areas relate to the council’s aspirations for the use of the town centre. The proposals map recognises HRLP as an ‘Edge of Centre Area’ under policy C4. An extract of the proposals map is shown at Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Extract of Adopted Barrow Local Plan Proposals Map (nb not reproduced in representation) Retail policies within the adopted local plan The retail polices governing development within the Borough are set out at Chapter 4 of the adopted plan. Policy C4 relates to the ‘Barrow Town Centre Edge of Centre Area’ and allocates the area as an edge of centre area for retail developments. The policy recognises the need to cater for large format developments that are incapable of being physically fitted into the town centre. The retail and commercial area is considered an edge-of-centre area rather than an out-of centre area, recognising its proximity to the town centre and its complementary role and function. The policies within the adopted local plan recognises the need to allocate an area near the town centre for large format retailing as it cannot physically fit into the town centre. This approach is logical in accordance with paragraph 23 of the NPPF and should be continued within the new Local Plan. BBC Response – Comments noted. When the current proposals map was drawn up the distances used to define the edge of centre were different. The NPPF definition of edge of centre is 300m from primary shopping area, previously this was a larger distance, the NPPF also states the edge of centre should also be well connected to the primary shopping area. Large format stores that are not capable due to their size of being located in the primary shopping area will be brought out through the sequential test. These issues are dealt with in more detail in subsequent representations to the retail chapter policies.

Rep ID 966/509

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Retail Chapter Contact/Organisation - Jayshree Astley, Standard Life The proposed Local Plan proposals map The proposals map accompanying the draft plan is included at Appendix B of the Preferred Options Consultation Draft.


127

Appendix B is supported by Appendix K, which provides a plan of the proposed town centre boundary incorporating the primary shopping area (PSA). Appendix L of the Draft Local Plan provides a detailed plan of the proposed Primary Shopping Area. The plans are included at Appendix 1 of these representations. An extract of the proposals map, is shown below Figure 4.1: Extract from Appendix B Preferred Options Draft Proposals Map Paragraph 23 of the NPPF provides guidance to ensure the vitality of town centres and requires local planning authorities to: “define the extent of the town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres”. A secondary shopping frontage area has not been defined by the council in accordance with the Framework. This is required by national policy and is needed to ensure the plan is specific and sound. Paragraph 23 of the NPPF also states that local planning authorities should: “allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites” The NPPF also states that local planning authorities should: “Allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre where suitable sites and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge-of-centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre.” Paragraph 21 provides guidance to ensure a strong, competitive economy. Paragraph 21 recognises that policies need to be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan and allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances. The draft proposals map makes no provision to allocate suitable sites to meet the retail and leisure development need in full. Furthermore, no provision has been made to identify appropriate edge-of-centre sites that are well connected to the town centre in accordance with the NPPF. The proposals map, as currently defined, will not ensure the vitality and viability of Barrow. Barrow is a historic town centre with a large number of small format and older premises. It also has a number of physical constraints, including the retail core being tightly restricted by residential areas. The housing within the residential area is allocated to be safeguarded. As identified at paragraph 2.13 of the Retail and Town Centre Uses Study 2013, it is likely that operators will require larger more modern premises. No provision has been made for this on the proposals map. Additionally, there is little room for expansion immediately adjacent to the town centre. To ensure Barrow remains competitive and able to accommodate changing retailer requirements, it needs to identify edge-of-centre sites to accommodate main town centre uses. The existing ‘edge of centre area’ identified within the adopted Local Plan is a suitable, well connected, accessible location which, if retained in the new local plan, would ensure the Local Plan meets the requirement of the NPPF. This area is a suitable location to ensure the need for retail, leisure and other main town centre uses can be met in full. It is currently designated as an edge-of-centre area, which shows that it is already considered well connected and accessible from the town centre. In its current format, the proposals map and defined town centre boundary shown within Appendices B, K and L are fundamentally unsound as they are not in accordance with national planning policy which seeks to ensure the vitality of town centres. We do not support the defined maps as currently defined. Our proposals for their alteration are set out at Section 5 and Appendix 2. The proposed retail policies The proposed retail policies are set out in chapter eight of the draft Local Plan. The aim of retail policies is to ensure the vitality of town centres as set out at in section 2 of the NPPF. Retail policies should support the growth of the town centre and ensure that they remain vital and viable locations. Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should: “promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres”


128

BBC Response- Edge of centre sites is illustrated on the Proposals Map along with secondary frontage, primary shopping area which has been amended.

Rep ID 970/509

Status - Comment Policy /Para -Retail Chapter Contact/Organisation - Jayshree Astley, Standard Life Summary In summary, the proposals map and polices as currently drafted cannot be supported. They are not sound in their current format. The policies are not in accordance with the aim of national policies to ensure the vitality of town centre and the creation of a competitive economy as set out in the NPPF. The plan and policies would frustrate and delay development rather than ensure the vitality of the town centre. They would hinder new investment into Barrow by providing inappropriately onerous planning policy requirements which are not supported by the NPPF. Section 5 provides a summary of our proposed changes. The amendments sought would enable the retail policies in the plan to be supported. BBC Response – Comments noted, specific comments to proposed amendments dealt with separately in subsequent representations to retail chapter policies.

Rep ID 971/509

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Retail Chapter – Proposals Map Contact/Organisation - Jayshree Astley, Standard Life The proposed Local Plan proposals map As set out at Section 4, the proposals map and town centre boundary at Appendices B, K and L are not appropriate or in accordance with the NPPF. To ensure that they are in accordance with national planning policy, we propose the following changes: i. identification of secondary frontages – to be defined by the council ii. Inclusion of the edge-of-centre area for retail and purposes as identified in the adopted Local Plan within the draft Local Plan – as shown at Appendix 2. Paragraph 23 of the NPPF requires councils to allocate appropriate edge-of-centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre. The edge-of-centre area suggested at Appendix 2, as defined in the adopted Barrow Borough Local Plan, is an established retail area which has been recognised as an accessible and appropriate location for accommodating large format retail units which would not fit into the town centre. The amendment to the proposals map would ensure that the complementary role and function of the Hindpool retail area is recognised within the Local Plan. Its incorporation would also ensure that the proposals map would be in accordance with national planning policy. BBC response – When the current proposals map was drawn up the distances used to define the edge of centre were different. The NPPF definition of edge of centre is 300m from primary shopping area, previously this was a larger distance, the NPPF also states the edge of centre should also be well connected to the primary shopping area. Large format stores that are not capable due to their size of being located in the primary shopping area will be brought out through the sequential test.

Rep ID 973/509

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Retail Chapter Contact/Organisation Jayshree Astley, Standard Life Summary The above proposals seek to ensure the vitality of the town centre whilst balancing the dynamic requirements of the retail sector. It is imperative that Barrow is able


129

to accommodate changing retailer requirements. This would ensure that it remains a competitive, vital and viable centre. The council is required to recognise the role Hollywood Retail and Leisure Park and the wider Hindpool retail and commercial area fulfils within Barrow. It provides complementary retail formats to the restricted formats available within the town centre. The area provides a significant contribution to the range of goods and services available in Barrow. It also provides a significant number of flexible, high quality jobs and ensures that Barrow can successfully adapt to the changing requirements of the retail market in order to retain and attract new investment. BBC Response – Comments noted. The Council recognises the role of Hollywood Retail and Hindpool Park in the provision of retail offer in Barrow, supporting text in the introduction to the character has been amended to reference this out of centre offer.

Policy R1: The Vision for Barrow and Dalton town centres

2 representations were received on Policy R1 including 1 comment and 1 support.

Rep ID 792/10

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy R1 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy R1 – The Vision for Barrow and Dalton Town Centres. Welcome this policy; new vision. BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 1198/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy R1 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry. Cumbria County Council It is considered that the vitality of Barrow and Dalton town centre will be essential to the sustainable development of Barrow. The recognition of this principle within this and subsequent policy is important. Going beyond this, it is considered the plan should be explicit in its support for proposals that enhance the town centre and its cultural, leisure, night time economy and retail offer. Complementing this, there would be merit in the plan identifying the potential of individual town centre sites and how these may support new transformative development. Suggested changes The Local Plan should be more explicit in its support for attractive new development in the town centre. There should be an additional policy considering specific opportunity sites within the town centre. BBC Response- Comments noted, the Council considers the vision supports the creation of attractive new development in the town centre, text amended to support this. The Central Barrow Masterplan will identify specific opportunity sites within the town centre.


130

Policy R2: Barrow Town Centre

1 objection representation was received on Policy R2.

Rep ID 967/509

Status - Objection Policy /Para - Policy R2 Contact/Organisation - Jayshree Astley, Standard Life Policy R2 refers to the defined town centre as proposed in Appendix K. For the reasons set out at 4.3-4.11 above, we do not support policy R2 or the proposed town centre boundary in Appendix K. The edge-of-centre area suggested at Appendix 2, as defined in the adopted Barrow Borough Local Plan, is an established retail area which has been recognised as an accessible and appropriate location for accommodating large format retail units which would not fit into the town centre. Policy R2 is required to acknowledge the existing edge of centre area as set out above. BBC Response – The Council disagrees with this representation. Whilst the uses in the edge of centre area are predominantly occupied by main town centre uses as defined in the NPPF the retail parks contain these uses but are not within or adjacent to the primary shopping area. The NPPF goes on to state that existing out of centre developments, comprising or including main town centre uses, do not constitute town centres.

Policy R3: Barrow`s Primary Shopping Area

1 comment representation was received on Policy R3

Rep ID 972/509

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy R3 Contact/Organisation - Jayshree Astley, Standard Life We recommend that option (c) is brought forward in relation to Question R3. BBC response – Comments noted.

Policy R4: Sequential test for new retail developments, including proposals which remove restrictive goods and conditions on existing units.

1 comment representation was received on Policy R4.



131

968/509 Policy/Para - Policy R4 Contact/Organisation Jayshree Astley, Standard Life Policy R4 requires the application of the sequential test to proposals for edge-of-centre and out-of-centre developments. The policy requires sequential assessments for new development and proposals to remove or vary restrictions on the types of goods sold. The proposed policy refers to the NPPF definition of the edge-of-centre (up to 300m from the Primary Shopping Area). In Barrow this area could not accommodate retail and main town centre uses which would be well connected to the town centre but would not physically fit into it. The policy does not make any reference to the existing edge-of-centre retail area, which is an established retail and leisure area close to the town centre. This edge-of-centre area should be identified as an edge of centre area for sequential assessment purposes given the established nature of the area, its location and its role in Barrow. We suggest the following amendment to Policy R4:“ …. An edge of centre site is one which is within 300m of the primary shopping area boundary. The edge of centre area for large-format retail proposals includes the edge-of-centre as defined on the proposals map.” BBC Response – When the current proposals map was drawn up the distances used to define the edge of centre were different. The NPPF definition of edge of centre is 300m from primary shopping area, previously this was a larger distance, the NPPF also states the edge of centre should also be well connected to the primary shopping area. Large format stores that are not capable due to their size of being located in the primary shopping area will be brought out through the sequential test.

Policy R8: Impact Assessments – Retail in Barrow

1 comment representations was received on Policy R8

Rep ID 969/509

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy R6 Contact/Organisation - Jayshree Astley, Standard Life This section relates to Policy R6: Impact Assessment. This section does not relate to policy R6: Non-retail uses in Dalton Town Centre. The impact assessment policy is likely to be Policy R8 and has been numbered incorrectly. Policy R6 seeks to set a local floor space threshold of 1,000sqm for the requirement for an impact assessment for proposals in out and edge-of-centre locations. The policy applies to both new floor space and existing floor space in respect of which there is a proposal to remove or vary conditions restricting the types of goods that can be sold. The policy also seeks a statement from the proposed retail operator in out and edge-of centre locations stating their firm intentions to occupy the floor space if planning permission is granted. The purpose of an impact assessment is to identify whether a development would be likely to result in a significant adverse impact upon the town centre. It should be proportionate to the development proposed and required only where proposals may have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. Floor space threshold The proposed floor space threshold was recommended by NLP within the Retail and Town Centre Uses Study 2013 (at paragraph 9.4, Section 9). NLP suggests that the impact assessment threshold for proposal in Barrow should be 1,000sqm.


132

It is not clear how the proposed threshold was arrived at. For example, it is unclear what the impact on the town centre would be if either a lower or higher threshold was adopted. In particular, there is no evidence that the specific circumstances pertaining in Barrow require a different threshold to the one considered appropriate in the NPPF (ie 2,500sqm), 2,500sqm is relatively large for a retail warehouse and it is therefore understandable that the NPPF considers anything of this scale or larger should require an impact assessment. 1,000sqm, however, is not large but commonplace on retail parks and the introduction of a threshold at this level would present another obstacle to retailers and frustrate and delay, and possibly discourage, investment. Statement of intention from the proposed operator. There is no requirement in the NPPF for an applicant to provide a statement from the proposed operator stating their firm intention to occupy a unit. This requirement is contrary to national policy and entirely inappropriate. The requirement elevates the significance of the identity of the occupier (similar to instances in which a personal planning permission is considered appropriate). However, such restrictions are seldom appropriate, as set out at paragraph 0.15 ref. 21a-015-20140306 of the National Planning Policy Practice Guidance (NPPG). It is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition. Planning permissions can control the types of goods permitted to be sold but it is rarely appropriate to control the identity of the occupier (not least because merger and acquisition activity in the retail sector means that identities can quickly change). The identity of the operator is a commercial factor and not a planning consideration. In any event, it is not always known which company will occupy a unit. Landowners frequently require planning permission in order to canvass interest in existing vacancies or units where a lease is due to expire. This is especially prevalent in places and types of retail park where demand is weak (as described in the Retail Study at paragraph 2.12). The current policy wording would not allow landlords to effectively manage their assets in anticipation of letting agreements and would reduce the marketability and value of the units. Furthermore, the need for confidentiality during negotiations about new leases means this requirement could frustrate and delay investment decisions. The policy as currently drafted will be likely to deter investment in Barrow and serves no purpose in ensuring the vitality of the town centre. The policy is not in accordance with national planning policy and should not be retained in its current form. We suggest the following amendments to Policy R6: Impact Assessments: “Applications for development which creates new retail floor space over 2,500sqm gross (including conversions) outside of the Primary Shopping Area must be accompanied by a Retail Impact Assessment. Applications will be refused if the development will prejudice the vitality and/or viability of the town centre as a whole…” BBC Response – The figure of 1000m2 was taken from the Retail and Town Centre Uses Study, the Council feel that due to the size of the town and the size of footprint of retail stores, the figure of 2500m2 is inappropriate in the case of Barrow.

Policy R17: Conversion of upper floors to residential units within the town centre.

1 objection representation was received on Policy R17.

Rep ID 1067/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy R15 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should


133

be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. For clarity when referring to external alterations reference should be made to both "character and appearance" of town centres, in particular as parts may be covered by conservation area designation. The policy should be amended to read "...must not harm the character and appearance of the town centre" BBC Response- Comments noted, policy amended in line with the suggestion of Historic England.


134

Representations received on Chapter 9: Heritage & Built Environment

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 14 representations on the Heritage Chapter 5, of these representations 5 have been categorised as comments, 4 as support and 5 objections.


General Comments on the Chapter and introductory text

Representations were received on the chapter in general and information set out in the introductory text. A number of amendments are proposed to the supporting text in response to the comments received from consultees and these are detailed below.

Policy HE1 Heritage Assets and their setting

5 representations were received on Policy HE1.

Rep ID 834/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy HE1 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust confirms its support for this Policy, including the small change now proposed to the final paragraph relating to archaeological considerations. BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 1068/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy HE1 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. The NPPF requires that Plans should contain strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally (Para 15). The policy as drafted does very little to detail what elements of the Barrow Borough will be conserved and enhanced including specific references to its historic environment. The policy needs to be amended to detail the key elements which contribute to the distinct identity of Barrow and will be conserved and enhanced in the future. Some of this has been mentioned in the Plan (and section 1 of the Heritage Impact Assessment report) including industrial heritage, conservation areas, religious sites, key cultural assets etc.


135

Historic England does support the Council’s intention to produce a local list, deal with heritage at risk, promote opportunities for learning and THI initiatives and this is a welcomed part of the policy. Paragraph 3 of the policy appears to sit within a strategic policy for the historic environment when it is in fact a development management policy as to what should be submitted when submitting an application affecting the historic environment. This would better sit elsewhere. The policy should be expanded to detail what elements of the Borough's historic environment which make it special will be conserved and enhanced, some of which has already been identified within the Plan and within the heritage impact assessments - Section 1. BBC Response- Policy HE1 has been re- written to include a list of key elements which contribute to the distinct character and identity of Barrow. An additional policy has been added (Policy HE2) identifying what information should be submitted as part of an application involving historic assets.

Rep ID 1199/9

Status - Support Policy /Para - Policy HE1 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The proposed approach to heritage assets including Scheduled Ancient Monuments (policy HE4) is supported. Suggested Changes In paragraph 9.1.5 the figure “635 listing” should be replaced by “865”. The Local Plan is a statutory document, and as such it should be underpinned by a Strategic Environmental Assessment. No such assessment is apparent with the consultation information. Suggested Changes A Strategic Environmental Assessment should be prepared to support the Local Plan. BBC Response – Number amended as requested. An SEA has been carried out and is incorporated into the Draft Sustainability Report which has been made available for consultation alongside the Draft Local Plan.

Rep ID 1070/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para – Para 9.1.15 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England Historic England welcomes the Council’s intention to produce conservation area appraisals. This should be included in Policy HE 1in the bulleted list of intentions. BBC Response- the Council’s intentions regarding Conservation Area appraisals is noted in paragraph 9.1.15 and policy HE4 of the Publication Draft.

Rep ID 1072/4

Status - Support Policy/Para - Cons Areas Contact/Organisation Emily Hrycan, Historic England Historic England welcomes the intention to consider reviewing and designating (where appropriate) conservation areas. This would sit well within the strategic policy HE 1, which lists other similar intentions. BBC Response – the Council’s intentions regarding Conservation Area appraisals is noted in paragraph 9.1.15 and policy HE4 of the Publication Draft.


136

Policy HE2: Listed Buildings (now Policy HE3)


Rep ID 835/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy HE2 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust Amendments noted and welcomed. BBC response – Support noted

Rep ID 1069/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy HE2 Contact/Organisation Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. For clarity and consistency, (within the Plan) and to assist those who are submitting applications for historic interest and setting. Listed buildings, could be simplified to reflect the significance will be requirements of the NPPF and what the starting position will be in terms of harm to listed buildings. This will be in line with the requirements of the NPPF and the 1990 Act. Should be amended to read: Proposals for works to listed buildings including alterations, extensions or change of use and development affecting setting should not cause unacceptable harm to its significance including those elements which contribute to their special architectural or historic interest and setting. Opportunities to enhance and better reveal their significance will be supported. BBC Response – Policy is now HE3. Policy amended in line with suggestion.

Rep ID 1119/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy HE2, HE3 and HE4 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Policy HE2, HE3 and HE4 These policies fail to provide any certainty on how the Council will respond to development proposals nearby to heritage assets. The Policies fail to consider how new development can improve the significance of heritage assets as set out within national policy. BBC Response – These policies are now numbered HE3, HE4, HE5. The policies have been re-worded taking the above comment into account.

Policy HE3: Conservation Areas (Now policies HE4 and HE5)


137


Rep ID 836/131

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy HE3 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The revised approach to this Policy and its detailed wording is noted; overall it is considered that it adequately addresses the matters raised by the Trust in it response to the Issues and Options consultation. BBC Response – Comments noted

Rep ID 1071/4

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy HE3 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive In strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. For clarity and consistency, (within the Plan) and to assist those who are submitting applications for listed buildings, the bulleted list could be expanded to present a checklist of requirement. The second half of the policy is concerned with demolition. It would be helpful, for the Council to state their position in respect of the demolition of a building which makes a positive contribution to the conservation area and that it needs to meet the national policy tests which would be in line with the requirements of the NPPF and the 1990 the Act: In particular it should: In particular proposals will be required to: Respect, preserve and enhances features which contribute positively to the areas character and appearance including: The character of existing architecture and any historic associations by having due regard to positioning and grouping of buildings, form, scale, enclosure, detailing and the use of traditional materials. Respect Retain and enhance existing hard and soft landscape features including open spaces, trees, walls, hedge, surfacing. Where this is not possible any replacement should match the original. Not have an unacceptable impact on traditional historic street patterns, plot widths, plot boundaries, roof space and open spaces. Not have an unacceptable impact on significant views into within or out of the area. Not result in the loss of public and private open space that contributes positively to the character and appearance of a conservation area including setting. Proposals for the demolition of a building in a conservation area must demonstrate one of the following criteria. That it is unrealistic for the building to contribute its existing use and a suitable alternative use cannot be found. The building is in poor structural condition and the cost of repairing and maintaining it would be disproportionate to its importance and value. The demolition would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. Proposals for the demolition or substantial loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to the special character and appearance of a conservation area will not be permitted. Demolition or other substantial loss will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the tests in national policy can be met.


138

BBC response: The policy relating to Conservation Areas is now HE4. An additional policy HE5 has been added which relates to demolition in Conservation Areas. The wording suggested above has been used in the two policies.

Rep ID 1145/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy HE3 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes The approach of this policy fails to reflect Paragraph 137 of the Framework which urges Local Planning Authorities to look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or reveal their significance. The policy should be revised to accord with this approach. BBC Response – Policy (now HE4) has been amended and an additional sentence has been added relating to opportunities for new development to enhance or better reveal the significance of Conservation Areas.

Policy HE4: Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Assets (now Policy HE6)

3 representations were received on Policy HE4 including 2 comments and 1 objections.

Rep ID 837/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy HE4 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust It is noted that an additional paragraph is now proposed for this Policy regarding ‘known remains’ and ‘potential unknown remains’; National Trust supports this additional text (and also remains content with the original text). BBC Response- Support noted

Rep ID 1073/4

Status - Objection Policy /Para - Policy HE4 Contact/Organisation - Emily Hrycan, Historic England The NPPF requires that Plan policies contain a positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The historic environment should be considered in delivering a number of other planning objectives. Scheduled monuments of the highest significance and therefore, it should be made clear in the policy that any harm to them or their setting will not be acceptable. The policy does not deal with the different impacts (harm) on an asset which may result from a development proposal. It also does not distinguish between assets of national significance and those of local archaeological interest. It is suggested that paragraph be simplified as the two sentences appear to repeat each other. The policy {paragraph 2) is drafted in a way that harm to a scheduled monument is acceptable if the mitigation preservation in situ. This does not accord with the requirements of the NPPF and legislation. Development will not be permitted where it which would lead to the loss of, or cause unacceptable harm to a scheduled ancient monument, a non designated asset


139

of national importance and their settings should be wholly exceptional. Development that would affect a scheduled ancient monument and/or archaeological asset should preserve or enhance the asset including its setting and any features of archaeological interest. Proposals that affect no designated asset will be assessed on the significance of the assets and the scale of likely harm to establish whether the development is acceptable in principle. Where this is the case, the council will seek to ensure the mitigation of archaeological damage through the preservation of the remains in situ as a preferred solution. When in situ preservation is not justified, the developer will be required to make adequate provision for the excavation and recording of assets by the developer to a level that is proportionate to their significance and to the scale of the impact of the proposal. Where possible, opportunities should also be taken to promote and provide interpretation of archaeological assets. Where there is knowledge that there are archaeological remains or where there are reasonable grounds for the potential of unknown assets of archaeological interest to be, proposals should be accompanied by an assessment of the significance of the asset and how it will be affected by the proposed development including where their significance, extent and state of preservation is not clear. The level of information required will be proportionate to the asset's significance and to the scale of the impact of the proposal, and may require, where necessary, archaeological desk-based assessment and field evaluation. BBC Response – Policy amended in line with the comments above.

Rep ID 1146/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy HE4 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes The comments submitted in relation to Policy HE2 also apply to Policy HE4. BBC response – Policy amended.


140

Representations received on Chapter 10: Natural Environment

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 17 representations on the Natural Environment Chapter, 15 of these representations have been categorised as comments, 2 as supports and 0 objections.


General Comments on the Natural Environment Chapter

2 representations were received on the chapter in general.

Rep ID 1090/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Nat Env Chapter Contact/Organisation - Kate Wheeler, Natural England We welcome recognition of the requirements of the NPPF, including the need to protect and enhance biodiversity, including designated sites, landscape and open space, water quality, air quality and to address climate change. The NPPF also includes requirements to protect and enhance public access and best and most versatile soils BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 1091/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Nat Env Chapter Contact/Organisation - Kate Wheeler, Natural England Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). At the time of consultation Natural England has not received the Habitats Regulations Assessment or Sustainability Appraisal. As stated in our previous response at the earlier Issues and Options stage it is important to ensure that the plan and HRA run parallel and ensure local relevance, for example with coastal policies that they are clearly cross referenced. The plan now provides strong references to the designated sites these being Morecambe Bay SAC, Morecambe bay SPA, Morecambe bay Ramsar, Morecambe Bay SSSI and South Walney & Piel Channel Flats SSSI. Possibly also include reference to the marine SPA extension. BBC Response- Comments noted, the extension to the Duddon Estuary SPA is located outside of the borough and the maps in Figure 17 show the extent of the designation within the borough boundary.

Policy N1: Conserving and enhancing landscape character


141

2 comment representations were received on Policy N1.

Rep ID 838/131

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Para 10.2.1 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The amendments to the text regarding the relationship with the Lake District National Park, and in accordance with the Trust’s previous comments, are noted and supported, thank you. Policy N1 – National Trust welcomes and supports the new paragraph relating to the setting of the Lake District National Park in accordance with its previous submissions. It also notes and agrees the changes to first paragraph of the Policy which it considers are also well-founded and appropriately worded. BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 795/10

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy N1 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC For proposed Policy N1 the default setting should be to protect and enhance. Accepting harm to landscape character (as opposed to landscape / view impacts) and requiring mitigation or compensation should be allowed only in particular circumstances which should be identified. The Policy needs to be clear what ‘robustly evidenced’ will mean and what and how compensation should be achieved. Many landscape features and assets are difficult to compensate loss of or harm to. BBC response – Policy amended: “reflect and conserve…” replaced with “protect” to address comments. The policy wording has been amended to clarify what we mean by ‘robustly evidenced’.

Policy N2: Safeguarding and improving soils

4 comment representations were received on Policy N2.

Rep ID 839/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy N2 Paras 10.3.4 & 10.3.5 Contact/Organisation Alan Hubbard, National Trust Policy N2 and Paras 10.3.4 & 10.3.5 - The two amendments to the text regarding Sandscale Haws and soil erosion impacts, and in accordance with the Trust’s previous comments, are noted and supported, thank you. Similarly the change to the first part of Policy N2 accords with the Trust’s earlier comments and is supported (as is the addition of the final paragraph in accordance with Option 2 at the Issues and Options stage). BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 796/10

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy N2


142

Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy N2 requires a soil resource survey seeking development over 50 dwellings to include an area for growing food. It’s suggested that the Policy consider a size requirement for this area, to avoid developers delivering only token areas. Has viability testing been considered for this policy? Will the area for growing food form part of the open space requirements for a site? Would a contribution to improving nearby allotments be acceptable? (link to allotments policy). BBC Response –Comments noted, the policy has been amended to include the suggestion that improvements to nearby allotments would be considered in place of providing growing areas. The Council has considered a size requirement for the growing area but considers it would be too prescriptive for developers, this policy is intended to encourage developers and residents to safeguard soils and promote food growing and this can be brought out through discussions with developers at the pre application/application stage. Policy wording amended from ‘should’ to ‘encourage’.

Rep ID 1120/257

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy N2 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes There is insufficient evidence provided to justify the requirement for developments of 50 dwellings or more to provide areas suitable for growing foods within a residential scheme. The policy is also unclear as to how this provision will be secured by the Council and whether it would be considered to form part of open space requirements. BBC Response – Comments noted, the policy has been amended to include the suggestion that improvements to nearby allotments would be considered in place of providing growing areas. The Council has considered a size requirement for the growing area but considers it would be too prescriptive for developers, this policy is intended to encourage developers and residents to safeguard soils and promote food growing and this can be brought out through discussions with developers at the pre application/application stage. Policy wording amended from ‘should’ to ‘encourage’.

Rep ID 1147/257

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy N2 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes This Policy requires developments of more than 50 dwellings to include areas within the development to provide suitable areas for food growing. It is unclear from the supporting text what justification there is for the implementation of this policy. The Policy is also unclear on the scale of provision of this requirement within the development proposals, leaving unanswered questions on how the Council intend to implement this policy and what it means for developers. Critical questions for the Council include: Is the area to be provided to meet this requirement a static, or proportional to the number of dwellings delivered? Will the areas be communal or private use? If communal, does this contribute to open space provision provided on site? Can financial contributions be made to off-site provision? The Policy is unsound as it lacks sufficient justification, and is ineffective. Clear evidence is required to demonstrate the needs for the delivery of this policy on proposals of more than 50 dwellings. The Council needs to make clear what provision it seeks from this policy requirement and how it will be delivered. BBC Response – Comments noted, the policy has been amended to include the suggestion that improvements to nearby allotments would be considered in place of providing growing areas. The Council has considered a size requirement for the growing area but considers it would be too prescriptive for developers, this policy is


143

intended to encourage developers and residents to safeguard soils and promote food growing and this can be brought out through discussions with developers at the pre application/application stage. Policy wording amended from ‘should’ to ‘encourage’.

Policy N3: Protecting biodiversity and geodiversity

8 representations were received on Policy N3.

Rep ID 1085/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Para 10.4 Contact/Organisation - Kate Wheeler, Natural England Natural England welcomes the very detailed section: 10.5 on International designations and: 10.6 on National designations and the accompanying maps. We do recommend this information is summarised in the early part of the plan, clearly setting the scene in terms of designations. The overview of Local and National designations is very helpful. BBC response – Comments noted, the Council do not agree that lists of designations be repeated elsewhere in Plan

Rep ID 1088/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Para 10.6 Contact/Organisation Kate Wheeler, Natural England Impact Risk Zones for Sites of Special Scientific Interest Natural England has published a set of mapped Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). This helpful GIS tool can be used by LPAs to help consider whether a proposed development is likely to affect a SSSI and determine whether they need to consult Natural England to seek advice on the nature of any potential SSSI impacts, their avoidance or mitigation. The dataset and user guidance can be accessed from the gov.uk website. BBC Response – Natural England have discussed the GIS tool with the Council and the information has been passed to our Development Control Team.

Rep ID 884/398

Status – Comment Policy/Para - 10.6.4 Contact/Organisation - Sylvia Woodhead, Cumbria Geo Conservation Group p205 Local Designations Please note that Cumbria RIGS Group is now known as Cumbria GeoConservation Group, and that designated sites are now known as Local Geological Sites (LGS), formerly RIGS. Please add Dalton by-pass to the LGS list BBC Response – Relevant sections amended

Rep ID 885/398

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Para 10.6.4 Contact/Organisation - Sylvia Woodhead, Cumbria Geo Conservation Group


144

10.6.5 Please amend this paragraph as follows Whilst nationally important geodiversity sites are protected by SSSIs, locally important geological sites are protected by designation as Local Geological Sites (formerly Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS). The Cumbria Wildlife Trust (not Group) and Cumbria GeoConservation (formerly Cumbria RIGS Group) have designated the following LGS sites for their important rocks of different ages, structures, minerals or fossils. BBC Response- Relevant sections amended

Rep ID 797/10

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy N3 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy N3 – Protecting biodiversity and geodiversity: With reference to the second paragraph of proposed Policy N3, is this policy concordant with the Habitat Regulations? BBC Response – Comments noted, the policy is in line with Habitats Regulations and has been amended in line with representations from environmental bodies at Issues & Options Stage, no further comments have been received at the Preferred Options Stage.

Rep ID 840/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy N3 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust notes and supports the amendments to the wording of this Policy as a result of feedback from other parties, in particular from Natural England. BBC response – Support noted

Rep ID 1084/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy N3 Contact/Organisation Kate Wheeler, Natural England Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity. While protective wording in the policy may mitigate some adverse effects upon the environment, it will be important to ensure the potential adverse impacts of the proposed level of growth on the built and natural environment are fully understood, and that appropriate avoidance, mitigation and, where necessary, compensation measures are in place to off-set adverse impacts. BBC Response – Comments noted, this is the thrust of Policy N3.

Rep ID 1089/2

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Figure 20 -protected species Contact/Organisation - Kate Wheeler, Natural England Protected species is referred to and Natural England has produced standing advice that you will find helpful, it is available on our website Natural England Standing Advice to help the local planning authorities to better understand the impact of particular developments on protected or BAP species should they be identified as an issue. The standing advice also sets out when, following receipt of survey information, the local planning authority may need to undertake further consultation with Natural England.


145

BBC Response – Paragraph amended to state that further consultation with Natural England may be required.

Policy N4: Protecting other wildlife features

1 supporting representation was received on Policy N4.

Rep ID 841/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy N4 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard/ National Trust Changes noted and supported. BBC Response- Support noted


146

Representations received on Chapter 11: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 20 representations on the Green Infrastructure Chapter, of these representations 9 have been categorised as comments, 7 as supports and 4 objections.


General Comments on the Green Infrastructure Chapter and introductory text

2 supporting representations were received on the chapter in general, and information set out in the introductory text. A number of amendments are proposed to the supporting text in response to the comments received from consultees and these are detailed below.

Rep ID 874/157

Status - Support Policy/Para - GI Chapter Contact/Organisation - Charles Ecroyd, Cumbria Local Access Forum The CLAF supports the intentions expressed in the Green Infrastructure chapter, to ‘improve access to countryside and open space’, but there is need to say that the PROW network is in fact synonymous with the concepts of Green wedges, Green corridors and Green links mentioned. BBC Response –Page 10 Green Routes – The comment is noted and agreed with additional wording provided to reflect the ongoing role and contribution of PROW to the principles of Green Infrastructure.

Rep ID 1086/2

Status - Support Policy/Para - Green Infrastructure (GI) Contact/Organisation - Kate Wheeler, Natural England Natural England welcomes the GI section and associated suite of policies. It is recommended that the Coastal access path is included within this section. As you will be aware work is well underway on the England Coast Path - a new National Trail around England’s entire coast. The associated link for more information and maps is attached: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/england-coast-path-improving-public-access-to-the-coast BBC Response-Page 10 Green Routes – The comment is noted and agreed with additional wording provided to reflect the sub-regional and national importance of this Strategic route.


147

Policy GI1: Green Infrastructure 2 comment representations were received on Policy GI1.

Rep ID 842/131

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy GI1 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust National Trust continues to support the approach as set out in this Policy, including in principle the amendments since the Issues and Options stage. However, there is a significant issue of principle around the definition of Green Infrastructure and how it is being interpreted in the current work on Green Infrastructure. This concern is exacerbated by a) the relationship of the Preferred Options document to the emerging Barrow Green Infrastructure Strategy, and b) the limitations of that Strategy [see separate response below]. The NPPF defines Green Infrastructure as follows: “Green infrastructure: A network of multi-functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities.” (Our emphasis by underlining) Attention is also drawn to the specific references to Green Infrastructure, including in the context of Plan preparation, at paragraphs 99 and 114 of the NPPF. It is apparent from the Plan at Appendix N that it does not fulfil the function of identifying all the Borough’s Green Infrastructure; in particular it is largely concentrated on Green Wedges around and within urban areas as opposed to including water courses/bodies, rural locations, or adequately considering linkages or wider benefits such as those associated with bio-diversity. Sandscale Haws provides a good example of an area of Green Infrastructure given its varied habitats, footpath connections, wildlife linkages to other sites and contribution towards the provision of eco-systems services – yet it is not shown on the plan. Whilst the Policy wording is appropriate and can be supported that is only in the context that the Borough’s Green Infrastructure is considerably more extensive, especially in the rural areas, than shown by the plan at Appendix N. It is considered that the Plan should be fully reviewed to identify the true extent, existing and potential, of Barrow’s Green Infrastructure. (It is also noted that something appears to have gone wrong with the editing of the text in bullet points c) and e) of Policy GI1 where the wording “(delete)” appears; it is assumed that this will be re-edited next time around.) BBC Response – The comment is noted and understood. The Green Infrastructure approach focuses intentionally on those areas most vulnerable to change, especially the settlement edge. The important and inseparable relationship between the Green Infrastructure approach and the wider undeveloped asset of the Borough in terms of landscape, amenity and biodiversity is fundamental. The response is twofold; firstly to better explain the need for both the Green Infrastructure Chapter and the Natural Environment Chapter to be read in conjunction with the other. The Natural Environment Chapter identifies the Borough’s overarching asset by referencing its broad landscape character with the formal designations that protect its essential characteristics. Secondly, it is proposed to extend the mapping as suggested to incorporate watercourse and waterbodies. By separating the more operational scale of Green Infrastructure from its broader environmental context was to provide a level of detail that would highlight the importance of the issue to developers and decision-makers alike regarding the assimilation of development within a locally distinctive landscape at a tangible level of detail for development control purposes.

Rep ID 1200/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy GI1


148

Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The inclusion of a Green Infrastructure Plan is welcomed, in particular the links made to the delivery of sustainability objectives and the need to increase the areas resilience to a changing climate. Notwithstanding this, we are suggesting that a number of minor changes to the supporting paragraphs will positively amplify the important contribution of SUDs in green infrastructure. Nevertheless, we consider it important for the Council to consider whether this Green Infrastructure Plan sufficiently capture all relevant green infrastructure elements of the borough, including in areas away from the main urban areas. Suggested Changes Within the Key Facts on Green Infrastructure (pg. 212) we suggest the addition of the following to emphasise the potential contribution to Green infrastructure from SuDS when incorporated into development: “SuDS features can make a significant contribution to Green Infrastructure by providing the mechanisms for improved amenity and biodiversity.” To Paragraph 11.1.15 we suggest the addition the following addition: “…it will be important that Green Infrastructure, SuDS and other objectives…” There should be consideration of whether there is scope of the strategy should be widened. BBC response – Comments Noted. Key fact change has been made. The reference to SuDS has been incorporated into a re-worded bullet point. The comment regarding scope is noted and understood. The Green Infrastructure approach focuses intentionally on those areas most vulnerable to change, especially the settlement edge. The important and inseparable relationship between the Green Infrastructure approach and the wider undeveloped asset of the Borough in terms of landscape, amenity and biodiversity is fundamental. The response is twofold; firstly to better explain the need for both the Green Infrastructure Chapter and the Natural Environment Chapter to be read in conjunction with the other. The Natural Environment Chapter identifies the Borough’s overarching asset by referencing its broad landscape character with the formal designations that protect its essential characteristics. Secondly, it is proposed to extend the mapping as suggested to incorporate watercourse and waterbodies. By separating the more operational scale of Green Infrastructure from its broader environmental context was to provide a level of detail that would highlight the importance of the issue to developers and decision-makers alike regarding the assimilation of development within a locally distinctive landscape at a tangible level of detail for development control purposes.

Policy GI2: Green Wedges 4 representations were received on Policy G12 including 2 comments and 2 objections.

Rep ID 843/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy GI2 Contact/Organisation Alan Hubbard, National Trust The latest version of the Policy suitably addresses the comments made previously by National Trust. BBC Response – Comments noted.



149

960/436 Policy/Para - Policy GI2 Contact/Organisation - Janet Dixon, Oakmere Homes We object to this policy on the basis that the proposed classification of the Rakesmoor and Abbey Road Green Wedge is not justified in principle and detail. Landscape character assessment relies solely on the Cumbria County Council's Landscape Classification Study. There are no other references to baseline information in the Green Infrastructure Strategy apart from the Barrow Borough Council Green Wedge Review and Saved Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006. There is no detailed visual analysis and limited photographic evidence to support the classification of the Green Wedge. There is limited potential visibility of development on land covered by the proposed Rakesmoor Green Wedge around the western fringe of Dalton due to the screening of woodland in the Vale of Nightshade and local topography. Land to the north of the proposed Rakesmoor and Abbey Road Green wedge is potentially more visible from parts of the western edge of Dalton than land covered by the Green Wedge. It is likely that development on land to the north of the proposed Rakesmoor and Abbey Road Green Wedge would create similar local landscape impacts (due to similar changes in land use), to those predicted for the Green Wedge. The wooded valley landscape previously protected as a Local Landscape Area in the Barrow-in-Furness Local Plan Review 1996-2006 is one of the most distinct and important tracts of landscape in the Borough. It is the single most important wildlife corridor in the Borough and an important part of the landscape infrastructure which serves to maintain visual and physical separation between settlements. Its protection, conservation and management should be one of the cornerstones of the GIS and Green Wedge Strategy seeking to restrict future piecemeal development which could erode its landscape character and visual integrity and its value for nature conservation. The classification of this landscape as Green Wedge would be more effective in achieving the stated aims of the Green Infrastructure Strategy than the proposed Green Wedge at Rakesmoor and Abbey Road. Additional detailed representations are made in the attached Review of the Draft Green Infrastructure Strategy and the Rakesmoor and Abbey Road Green Wedge, prepared by PDP Associates on behalf of Oakmere Homes (Northwest) Ltd. BBC Response – The proposed designation of the site as a Green Wedge is justified in the REC29 Non-Selected Site Document to accompany the publication draft plan. The suggested importance and contribution of the Vale of Nightshade to the locally distinctive landscape is recognised and agreed. It is for this reason that maintaining an appropriate buffer around it is being sought so that its contrasting and distinctive form can be appreciated within its landscape context and setting. The wider context for the Green Infrastructure Chapter is provided by the Natural Environment Chapter which continues to identify the strategic role of Local Landscape character.

Rep ID 1121/257

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy GI2 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, The Council should ensure that this designation is not used to refuse sustainable development. We object to the identification of land to the west of Abbey Road and south of Dalton Road as forming part of a Green Wedge. We do not consider that development of this Site would lead to the coalescence of Barrow with Dalton.


150

BBC Response- The purpose of the Green Infrastructure Initiative is to ensure that development is sustainable by examining the landscape carrying capacity of sites in terms of the sites ability to accommodate development that is itself designed to optimise landscape as setting in presenting development that is identifiable and responsive to local context visually and in terms of association. The proposed designation of the site as a Green Wedge is justified in the REC29 Non-Selected Site Document to accompany the publication draft plan. The suggested importance and contribution of the Vale of Nightshade to the locally distinctive landscape is recognised and agreed. It is for this reason that maintaining an appropriate buffer around it is being sought so that its contrasting and distinctive form can be appreciated within its landscape context and setting. The wider context for the Green Infrastructure Chapter is provided by the Natural Environment Chapter which continues to identify the strategic role of Local Landscape character.

Rep ID 1148/257

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy GI2 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes We object to this policy on the basis that the proposed classification of the Rakesmoor and Abbey Road Green Wedge is not justified in principle and detail. Landscape character assessment relies solely on the Cumbria County Council's Landscape Classification Study. There are no other references to baseline information in the Green Infrastructure Strategy apart from the Barrow Borough Council Green Wedge Review and Saved Barrow Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006. There is no detailed visual analysis and limited photographic evidence to support the classification of the Green Wedge. There is limited potential visibility of development on land covered by the proposed Rakesmoor Green Wedge around the western fringe of Dalton due to the screening of woodland in the Vale of Nightshade and local topography. Land to the north of the proposed Rakesmoor and Abbey Road Green wedge is potentially more visible from parts of the western edge of Dalton than land covered by the Green Wedge. It is likely that development on land to the north of the proposed Rakesmoor and Abbey Road Green Wedge would create similar local landscape impacts (due to similar changes in land use), to those predicted for the Green Wedge. The wooded valley landscape previously protected as a Local Landscape Area in the Barrow-in-Furness Local Plan Review 1996-2006 is one of the most distinct and important tracts of landscape in the Borough. It is the single most important wildlife corridor in the Borough and an important part of the landscape infrastructure which serves to maintain visual and physical separation between settlements. Its protection, conservation and management should be The Council needs to ensure that the implementation of this policy is not consistent with that of a Green Belt policy or used to prevent sustainable development from coming forward. We note that through the consideration of preferred sites for housing development, the Council has chosen several sites located within areas defined as Green Wedges by the Green Infrastructure Strategy. We hope that the Council applies the same flexible approach when considering development proposals that are not proposed for allocation. Story Homes object to the identification of land west of Abbey Road and south of Dalton Road by the draft Green Infrastructure Strategy as a Green Wedge. The treatment by the Council of the land west of Abbey Road together with the land parcel north of Dalton Road provides for an inaccurate assessment of the character and contributions of land west of Abbey Road towards meeting the objectives of the Green Wedge. Examining land west of Abbey Road in insolation it is clear that Development of the Site would not lead to the coalescence of Barrow-in-Furness with Dalton, and would retain the existing gap between settlements, with the settlement edge of Dalton, over 1 mile from the far eastern boundary of the Site, and obscured by local topography and existing (and retained) vegetation. Land west of Abbey Road is almost enclosed by existing development to the south and east, west and north, with


151

the Furness General Hospital a prominent feature. This differs to land north of Dalton Road, which if developed would bring the settlements of Barrow and Dalton much closer together and therefore occupies a critical area of land for preventing the coalesce of the two settlements. The landscape here is much more rural in character, exhibiting long and broad views to the distant Lake District. In light of substantial objectively assessed housing needs and evidential housing and supply problems (see Section 7), the Council cannot afford to implement blanket restrictive policies on areas of the open countryside where the evidence to support its designation is broad brushed and far from convincing. Land West of Abbey Road should be removed from the proposed Green Wedge. BBC Response – The proposed designation of the site as a Green Wedge is justified in the SHL095 Non-Selected Site Document to accompany the publication draft plan. The suggested importance and contribution of the Vale of Nightshade to the locally distinctive landscape is recognised and agreed. It is for this reason that maintaining an appropriate buffer around it is being sought so that its contrasting and distinctive form can be appreciated within its landscape context and setting. The wider context for the Green Infrastructure Chapter is provided by the Natural Environment Chapter which continues to identify the strategic role of Local Landscape character. The policy does not propose a contiguous Green Belt identifying only those landscape components that are important to maintaining settlement identity and separation. Development of the SHL095 site would bring development sufficiently close to be defined by Abbey Road such that built form would be the defining landscape character fundamentally changing the semi-rural character of this section to being urban reducing the experiential quality of the route that is a significant visual component of the exit route eastwards in particular in addition to the loss of setting supporting the institutional character of Furness general Hospital a key component of Barrow’s settlement edge character.

Policy GI3: Wildlife Corridors 3 representations were received on Policy GI3 including 1 support and 2 objections.

Rep ID 844/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy GI3 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust The revised wording of this Policy is noted; it is considered that this appropriately strengthens the Policy and it is supported. BBC response – Support noted.

Rep ID 1122/257

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy GI3 Contact/Organisation Barton Wilmore, Story Homes We object to the identification of land to the west of Abbey Road and south of Dalton Road as forming part of a wildlife corridor. There is no material evidence to justify the designation of this site as part of a wildlife corridor.


152

BBC Response A key purpose of the Green Infrastructure Initiative is to ensure that biodiversity is able to be assimilated as a key part of sustainable development which means maintaining a framework of connectivity between built up areas and adjacent areas including adjacent existing strategic wildlife corridors now consolidated within the Natural Environment Chapter. The quieter setting around the Furness General Hospital and the cover provided by the topography associated with the Dane Ghyll watercourse. During the production of the SHL095 Non-Selected Site Document Deer were seen on two occasions during the day highlighting the importance of this area to wildlife in terms of movement foraging and habitat.

Rep ID 1149/257

Status - Objection Policy/Para - Policy GI3 Contact/Organisation - Barton Willmore, Story Homes Story Homes object to the inclusion of land west of Abbey Road, and south of Dalton Road as a wildlife corridor by the proposals map. The Site is currently comprised of a single field used for agriculture and is neither identified as, nor near, an ecological designation of international or national importance. The Site is not known to be used by any protected species and its development would not prevent the migration or foraging of species, with open countryside in existence to the east. There is no justification for the designation of this site as a Wildlife Corridor and its development would have little impact on local ecology. The policy is therefore unsound. BBC Response – A key purpose of the Green Infrastructure Initiative is to ensure that biodiversity is able to be assimilated as a key part of sustainable development which means maintaining a framework of connectivity between built up areas and adjacent areas including adjacent existing strategic wildlife corridors now consolidated within the Natural Environment Chapter. The quieter setting around the Furness General Hospital and the cover provided by the topography associated with the Dane Ghyll watercourse. During the production of the SHL095 Non-Selected Site Document Deer were seen on two occasions during the day highlighting the importance of this area to wildlife in terms of movement foraging and habitat.

Policy GI4: Green Corridors 1 support representation was received on Policy GI4.

Rep ID 845/131

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy GI4 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust It is noted that the Policy wording has been amended, mostly supplemented, from the previous consultation stage. Generally this has improved the Policy and the Trust continues to support it. BBC Response- Support noted


153

Policy GI5: Green Spaces 1 supporting representation was received on Policy GI5

Rep ID 846/131

Status - Support Policy /Para - Policy GI5 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust Changes to the Policy are noted, National Trust continues to support the Policy. BBC Response – Support noted

Policy GI6: Green Routes 3 representations were received on Policy GI6 including 1 support and 2 comments.

Rep ID 798/10

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy GI6 Contact/Organisation - Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy GI6 - Green Routes: The concept of ‘green routes’ would benefit from further clarification. Are they existing roads that already have trees and open space along / next to them, or something more? What about their enhancement as well as protection? BBC response – An introductory paragraph has been added to provide further clarity with regard to the role of Green Routes.

Rep ID 847/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy GI6 Contact/Organisation Alan Hubbard, National Trust The more detailed guidance on Green Routes as now set out in this Policy is noted and generally agreed. BBC Response – Comments noted

Rep ID 982/139

Status - Support Policy/Para - Policy GI6 Contact/Organisation - Stuart Baines, British Astronomical Society We welcome your recognition of Light pollution as an issue which needs to be addressed and your draft policy to combat its effects.


154

One small point in GI6 Green routes needs correction, item (c) remove "aimed upward lighting". Upward lighting is something to avoid as it is the worst form of pollution, and should no longer be considered acceptable. We would hope your Light pollution policy is adopted in the final version of the Local plan. The United Kingdom is currently struggling to supply power to everyone without contingency measures to regulated supplies. Warnings about Power cuts have been issued for this winter. A thoughtful approach to our lighting can only help us avoid such dire consequences into the future. BBC Response – “aimed upward lighting” removed from sentence.

Policy GI7: Green Links 1 comment representation was received on Policy GI7

Rep ID 1204/9

Status – Comment Policy/Para - Policy G17 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council It is considered that it would be possible to establish links between this policy and the delivery of SUDs. Suggested Changes We suggest the addition of the following to supporting Paragraph 11.2.15: - “These areas could provide space for SuDS to support adjacent infrastructure”. BBC Response- Comment noted and agreed. An additional paragraph setting out the relationship between areas of Green Corridor `hosting’ SuDS and Green Links supporting the movement of water away from the site and into appropriate watercourses.

Policy GI8: New Woodland 2 representations were received on Policy GI8 including 1 support and 1 comment.

Rep ID 848/131

Status -Support Policy /Para - Policy GI8 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust Changes noted and supported. BBC Response – Support noted

Rep ID 1205/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy GI8


155

Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council It is considered that it would be possible to establish links between this policy and the delivery of SUDs. Suggested Changes We suggest the addition of the following to supporting Paragraph 11.2.20.: “Trees can also provide a valuable mechanism for reducing local flood risk through lowering soil saturation levels.” BBC response – Additional sentence added as requested.

Policy GI10: Private Garden Boundaries 1 comment representation was received on Policy GI10

Rep ID 799/10

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy GI10 Contact/Organisation Elizabeth Scott Clarke, SLDC Policy GI10 – Private Garden Boundaries: It is suggested that Policy G10 may need to consider how the policy could address the issue of benefits potentially being lost when people begin to exercise their right to alter their fencing. Could the requirement be incorporated in to a biodiversity policy? BBC Response – Comment noted. Additional wording to Policy GI10 added.


156

Representations received on Chapter 12: Promoting Healthy Communities

During the consultation on the Preferred Options Draft Local Plan which closed in September 2015 we received 9 representations on the Promoting Healthy Communities Chapter, of these representations all 9 have been categorised as comments.


General Comments on the Promoting Healthy Communities Chapter

Policy HC1: Health and Wellbeing

2 representations were received on Policy HC1

Rep ID 849/131

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy HC1 Contact/Organisation - Alan Hubbard, National Trust Changes noted – no additional comments at this stage. BBC Response – Comments noted.

Rep ID 1201/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - HC1 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council The recognition of health and wellbeing within policy is welcome. Notwithstanding this the policy fails to adequately address the importance of inclusive design in meeting the requirements of residents both in the home and away from it. Suggested Changes The policy should include specific reference to the needs for all design to consider the needs of those with mobility challenges. BBC Response- Additional bulletpoint added.

Policy HC4: Access to buildings and open spaces

1 representation was received on Policy HC4


157

Rep ID 875/157

Status - Comment Policy /Para - Policy HC4/ Contact/Organisation - Charles Ecroyd, Cumbria Local Access Forum Access to Buildings and Open Spaces overly stresses access by car. This policy needs to add pedestrian and cycling routes. BBC Response – Comments noted, bullet point c) amended to include reference to walking and cycling.

Policy HC6: New Leisure Facilities

1 representation was received on Policy HC6

Rep ID 854/132

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy HC6 Contact/Organisation - Fiona Pudge, Sport England New Leisure Facilities. There is no mention within the policy or reasoned justification that the type and location of leisure facilities should be based on an up to date and robust assessment of need as required by paragraph 73 of NPPF. Although part b) requires the location to be sustainable the policy doesn’t require the facility to be sustainable i.e. the facility is of a type and size that meets an identified need. It should also be noted that town centre locations for many sports venues are not appropriate because of the amount of land required or noise generated. However, they do need to be accessible by all forms of sustainable transport. Again, the location of sports venues should be informed by the relevant evidence base. However, this element duplicates policy HC8. It is suggested the reasoned justification makes it clear leisure facilities does not include sports facilities and this is covered in policy HC8. Suggested amendment: It is suggested that the sport venue element is a duplication of HC8 and that the reasoned justification should make it clear leisure facilities do not include sports facilities. Insert a cross reference to policy HC8 within HC6. BBC response – Comments noted, policy text amended to state that outdoor sports facilities are not included and a cross reference to HC8. Supporting text amended to include reference to needs assessment.

Policy HC7: Loss of playing fields, sports pitches or facilities

2 representations were received on Policy HC7

Rep ID 855/132

Status – Comment Policy/Para - Policy HC7 Contact/Organisation Fiona Pudge/ Sport England Loss of playing fields, sports pitches or facilities


158

Clarification is required to define what is meant by facilities? Does it refer to ancillary facilities located on a playing field that supports the main use of the site as a playing field e.g. changing rooms, equipment stores etc.; or does it refer to sports facilities in general? In part a) the word satisfactory is not precise and open to interpretation. Both paragraph 73 of NPPF and Sport England require “robust” assessments of need. The NPPG references Sport England guidance on the production of Playing Pitch Strategies and Built Facility Strategies (Assessing Needs and Opportunities Guidance). The guidance advises LA’s to consult with SE in the preparation of these assessments to ensure they will be robust and fit for purpose. Assessments of need endorsed by Sport England can be submitted as part of the Local Plan evidence base to demonstrate the policies are based on robust and up to date assessments of need. Suggested amendment: remove the word satisfactory from part a) and replace with robust. The wording of the policy is slightly confusing because the policy states it is dealing with playing fields and pitches but within the policy text there are references to open space. Open space is a generic term for a number of open space typologies many of which are covered by the Green Infrastructure policies. The Council needs to be clear whether this policy relates purely to playing fields and pitches or covers all open space typologies. Suggested amendment: remove references to open space and replace with playing field Part b) states “quantity or quality”. This wording is contrary to paragraph 74 of the NPPF and SE policy which requires “quantity and quality” Suggested amendment: change the wording of part b) from “quantity or quality” to “quantity and quality. “Part c). If the “development” referred to within this part is of a non sporting nature it would be contrary to both paragraph 74 of NPPF and SE policy. Any planning application of this nature would trigger an automatic objection form Sport England. Please note Sport is a statutory consultee on all planning applications that affect playing fields used within the last 5 years or allocated in a development plan. SE does not accept enabling development unless it is on a part of the site that cannot form a pitch or any part of pitch. As the forms of development that comply with paragraph 74 of NPPF and SE policy and contained within parts d), e) and f) of the draft policy it is recommended part c) is deleted. Suggested amendment: delete part c) BBC Response – Comments noted, bullet point a) satisfactory replaced with robust, bullet point b) amended, bullet point c) removed in line with NPPF and SE guidance. Policy wording amendments to remove reference to open space.

Rep ID 1202/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy HC7 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council It is considered important that school playing fields not included as part of playing fields as defined by this policy. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as amended by the Education and Inspections Act 2006, gives protection to school playing fields used by maintained schools in the last 10 years. The Act defines a maintained school as a school which is maintained by a Local Authority, which includes community schools, foundation schools and community and foundation special schools. The Act gives the following protection: ‘Where an area of playing land has not been used by a foundation, trust or voluntary school, or any of its pupils for educational or recreational purposes for a period of more than 10 years, its disposal would fall to be considered under the same procedures that apply to non-playing field land (set out in Schedule 22 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as amended by Schedule 4 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006)’. In practice both areas of legislation mean that for local authorities, governing bodies, foundation bodies and trustees in order to dispose or change the use of playing fields used by schools, they must seek the permission of the Secretary of State. It should also be noted that Section 77 (4) refers to changes of use (this is not a change of use in relation to planning permission as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987) that do not need to be referred to the Secretary of State. This includes if a local authority, governing body, or foundation body wishes to build permanent classrooms or install mobile classrooms on playing fields. Also included is the building of an indoor leisure centre for use by the school or community, or both.


159

In November 2012 the Department for Education updated Guidance entitled ‘Advice on The Protection of School Playing Fields and Public Land’. The purpose of the Guidance is to ensure that existing school playing fields are protected to provide for the future needs of schools and their communities, and to protect the land that is needed for the purposes of an academy. The Guidance explains that in order for local authorities, governing bodies, foundation bodies and trustees to dispose or change the use of playing fields used by schools, they must seek the permission of the Secretary of state. It is important to note that applying for planning permission is a separate process concerned with the development of land, whereas Section 77 is concerned with the protection of school playing fields for indiscriminate disposal or change or use. Education ministers do not have any statutory powers to influence the future development of land; this is a matter for the local planning authority. However, it is expected that where Section 77 applies, the consent of the Secretary of State is sought before a planning application is submitted. It is noted that the potential Policy would restrict the partial or total loss of open space. It is acknowledged that the NPPF states that playing fields should not be built on unless a number of criteria are met. However, it is considered that school playing fields should be recognised as being exclusively for school use, and should not be considered available for any other use or access without the consent of the governing or other controlling body. It is considered that the legislation detailed above will provide sufficient protection to school playing fields. Consequently it is therefore considered that the potential Policy relating to the loss of school playing fields should be amended to take account of the schools operational needs in the first instance. Suggested Changes The text supporting this policy should be clear that school playing fields are not effects by this policy. BBC Response – The Council considers that it is not appropriate to add the wording suggested by the county council on this occasion, the provisions for school playing fields set out in the act provide adequate guidance and does not require repetition in Local Plan policy.

Policy HC8: New outdoor sports facilities

1 representation was received on Policy HC8.

Rep ID 856/132

Status – Comment Policy/Para - Policy HC8 Contact/Organisation - Fiona Pudge, Sport England New outdoor sports facilities. There is no reference to ensuring the sports facility itself is sustainability. The type, size and location of sports facilities should be informed by an up to date and robust assessment of need. Suggested amendment: add a new point to ensure the type, size and location of sports facilities should be informed by an up to date and robust assessment of need. BBC Response- Comments noted, bullet point f) added in line with the suggestion of Sport England.

Policy HC9: Multi-use games area.


160


Rep ID 857/132

Status - Comment Policy /Para -Policy HC9 Contact/Organisation - Fiona Pudge, Sport England Multi Use Games Areas Clarification required: does this policy include the provision of sport specific Artificial Grass Pitches for hockey, football or rugby? If so please include. Suggested amendment: in the reasoned justification include the need for sports lighting assessment and scheme to be submitted to demonstrate there will be no adverse impact on local residents. Also include the following wording within the policy: “…and sports lighting assessment demonstrates residential amenities would not be adversely affected.” BBC Response – Comments noted, the provision of sport specific artificial grass pitches is included in policy HC8, we have removed the phrase ‘all weather kickabout area’ from the policy as this could be confused with a pitch, when this policy is solely related to MUGA’s. Wording on sports lighting assessments added as requested.

Policy HC15: Education Provision


Rep ID 1203/9

Status - Comment Policy/Para - Policy HC15 Contact/Organisation - Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council New housing development may increase the number of children in a location beyond what some schools, in their present form, will be able to accommodate. So while the general approach of this policy is welcome we consider that it should give a clear recognition of the role of developer contributions in addressing the effects of development. The identification of education requirements of individual developments will need to take place during the determination of individual applications. Alongside this, we are happy to support the development of infrastructure evidence relating to this. Moving forward Cumbria County Council will continue to work closely with Barrow Borough Council to quantify the effects of development. Where more school places are required to address the effects of development, it will be expected that developer contributions would be used to fund their delivery. Suggested Changes Insert a new policy stating: Proposals for the development of new educational facilities as well as for the expansion, alteration and improvement of existing educational facilities will be supported where they are well related to the catchment they will serve. Where there is a need for a new educational site, the location should be close to the intended catchment in order to minimise travel in line with sustainable development principles. Specifically in relation to primary and secondary school provision, Barrow Borough Council will continue to work with the Education Authority to identify what new


161

demand will be generated from development as well as helping to identify suitable new education sites should this be required. To assist in the delivery of additional school places, where required, to meet the needs of development, contributions will be sought. BBC response – Comments noted, Policy HC15 has been amended to include the policy wording as requested by the County Council and the reference to locating within existing sites where possible.

Documents

Representations received on Preferred Options Draft Local Plan...Network Rail will be required to undertake an assessment of how best to mitigate this risk. In the event that mitigation