South Lakeland Local Plan Review - Issues and Options Consultation 2021

Closes 29 Oct 2021

Theme 2: Where Should Development Go? (Questions 11 to 22)

Please read our chapter on where development should go in the Issues and Options report below.

It sets out a range of issues for us to address and presents some policy options and possible approaches.

Once you've read the chapter please answer the questions below.

Your browser does not support inline PDF viewing. Please download the PDF.

To view the above PDF in full screen, click >> at the top right of the window and select 'Presentation Mode'.

11. Which of these policy approaches to reviewing the place hierarchy do you support and why?

Policy Approaches 2.2: Factors to consider in reviewing the place hierarchy

Read the policy approaches here

PA2.2/a: Existing population size

PA2.2/b: Type and range of facilities (within and in close proximity to a place)

PA2.2/c: Identity and character of the place

PA2.2/d: Sustainable travel connections within the place, and to other places

PA2.2/e: Environmental capacity and resilience of a place taking account of matters such as climate change (for example flood risk)

PA2.2/f: Proximity of a place to larger towns and degree of access to them

PA2.2/g: Economic growth potential – extent to which a place can support new job opportunities 

PA2.2/h: Infrastructure and services within a place, capacity of existing provision can support new development, and extent to which additional provision can be readily delivered

PA2.2/i: Scale of opportunity to create new communities, and to strengthen the sense of place/community

PA2.2/j: Housing need and market – extent to which a place can support meeting existing and future needs including affordable housing

PA2.2/k: Regeneration needs and opportunities – extent to which a place can support regeneration and prosperity of existing communities and make them more resilient in the future

PA2.2/l: Availability of land for development, and extent of constraints

PA2.2/m: Community ambitions and objectives including Neighbourhood Plans

12. Taking into consideration the factors listed above, what do you think makes for a sustainable successful place? What criteria should be used to determine where development should be located?
13. Do you have any comments on the services and facilities identified in the Settlement Services and Accessibility Assessment document (below)?
14. Which of these policy options for the place hierarchy do you support and why?

Policy Options 2.2: The Place hierarchy

Read the policy options here

PO2.2/i: Retain the current place hierarchy (the four tiers of Principal, Key and Local Service Centre and smaller villages, hamlets and open countryside) and retain the current criteria used to define which places falls within which tier.

This option may see changes to which places sit within which tier, due to changes to services and facilities provision since the current hierarchy was set in 2010.

PO2.2/ii: Retain the current tiers in the place hierarchy but change the criteria used to define which settlement falls within which tier.

This option may also see changes to which settlements sit within which tier due to changes in services and facilities provision or changes to the criteria.

PO2.2/iii: Adopt a different approach defining a different places hierarchy (different tiers), determined by different criteria.

This option would see bigger changes to the current approach, with different tiers identified, and criteria changed for example taking account of services near as well as in settlements.

15. Which of these policy options for distributing new development do you support and why?

Policy Options 2.3: Distributing New Development – Development Strategy

Read the policy options here

PO2.3/i: Current Local Plan Strategy - continue with current Local Plan Development Strategy.

This option would mean the current Local Plan Development strategy is retained; with most development directed to the Principal and Key Service Centres, but with sufficient development in the Local Service Centres and rural areas to support local needs.

PO2.3/ii: Urban focus - increased proportion of new development in Kendal and Ulverston, with reduced proportion across the villages and rural areas of the district.

This option would ensure a greater amount of development is located in the two largest settlements in the district where there is a higher level of provision of facilities and services, opportunities to support economic growth, with less development in the villages and rural parts of the district.

PO2.3/iii: Rural focus - lower proportion of development in Kendal and Ulverston, and an increased proportion elsewhere particularly across the district’s villages.

This would lead to a more dispersed distribution of development across the district, and support the sustainability of smaller towns and villages.

PO2.3/iv: Economic Growth and Regeneration Focus – focus on development where it would support employment growth and enable regeneration.

This would see more development focused in Ulverston/Furness area supporting the regeneration of the economic prosperity of the Furness area including Barrow-in-Furness.

 PO2.3/v: Sustainable Access - development located where there is good levels of sustainable access (rail and long term bus services, walking) to services and facilities.

This would ensure development is located where it can maximise access to services and facilities by efficient sustainable modes of transport, including walking, reducing reliance on use of the car. Subject to capacity, development would be more focused in places on sustainable transport corridors.  

PO2.3/vi: New focussed, major expansion of existing settlement(s).

This would see either development being focused in a single or series of larger expansions of one or more existing settlements.

The scale of growth proposed for the district and available potential suitable land supply capacity will influence the extent to which this option might be considered appropriate.

16. Which of these policy options for Settlement Development Boundaries do you support and why?

Policy Options 2.4: Settlement Development Boundaries

Read the policy options here

PO2.4/i: Retain current approach to defining Settlement Development Boundaries.

This option would see development boundaries retained for the Principal, Key and Local Service Centres based on existing criteria, which may result in some updates to the current boundaries.

PO2.4/ii: Change the approach to defining Settlement Development Boundaries based on new criteria.

This option would see new criteria for defining Settlement Development Boundaries, likely to result in changes to current boundaries.

PO2.4/iii: Remove Settlement Development Boundaries.

This option would see boundaries removed. It might result in a criteria policy led approach to considering development on the edges of built up areas.

17. If you feel a change to the current development boundaries is needed in a town or village, please indicate on a map what these changes should be (using the file upload facility below).

File Upload: Map of potential changes to current development boundaries

Please make sure your file is under 25MB
18. Which of these policy options for Green Gaps do you support and why?

Policy Options 2.5: Green Gaps

Read the policy options here

PO2.5/i: Retain the principle of green gaps and boundaries of current designations.

This would retain the principle of designating green gaps, and maintain the current position, seeing no changes to the current defined boundaries or policy criteria to determine what development would be supported in such locations

PO2.5/ii: Retain the principle of green gaps and amend current boundaries of designations.

This would retain the principle of designating green gaps, but see changes to the current boundaries based on either/both a different set of policy criteria or other factors and circumstances relating to the development strategy. This option may open up options for new development in some current green gap locations

PO2.5/iii: Remove green gap designations and instead adopt a policy criteria approach to considering development in locations where there is a risk of coalescence.

This would see the existing green gap designations removed, and instead a policy criteria approach adopted to help determine the types of development that may be considered appropriate in locations where there is a risk of coalescence. This approach may open up options for new development in current green gap locations.

19. If you feel changes to the current green gap boundaries are required between two settlements, please indicate on a map what these changes should be (using the file upload facility below).

File Upload: Map of potential changes to current green gap boundaries

Please make sure your file is under 25MB
20. Do you have any comments on the sites suggested for allocation for development in the ‘Call for Sites’ of summer 2020?
21. Do you wish to propose other sites for allocation for development in this further ‘Call for Sites’, which forms part of the current consultation?

If you wish to propose other sites for allocation for development, more information on the further 'Call for Sites' can be viewed here.

22. Which of these policy approaches for selecting sites for allocation for development do you support and why?

Policy Approaches 2.6: Principles for selecting sites for development

Read the policy approaches here

PA2.6/a: Prioritise sites which maximise use of brownfield land and vacant and derelict land and buildings in most sustainable locations with a strong focus on locations within or close to town centres.

PA2.6/b: Promote sites where there are opportunities for re-using under-used facilities within established uses for example garage blocks.

PA2.6/c: Promote sites for higher densities of development in locations with most sustainable access to services and facilities such as town centres and along good public transport corridors, provided the character of the area is not compromised.

PA2.6/d: Avoid sites where environmental constraints cannot be overcome for example where flood risk cannot be mitigated.

PA2.6/e: Avoid sites where environmental harm cannot be mitigated for example where located within a site of nature conservation value such as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

PA2.6/f: Prioritise sites in locations that are closely located to services and facilities by sustainable transport means.

PA2.6/g: Support use of sites for mixed uses where this can deliver community needs and enable employment development to become viable.

PA2.6/h: Allocate strategic employment and housing sites to meet strategic district-wide needs where justified.

PA2.6/i: Prioritise sites which have access to existing infrastructure (example utilities, broadband and electricity), without need for any significant enhancements, ensuring they are future proofed (taking account of future homes standard requirements).

PA2.6/j: Avoid sites that would result in loss of valued local green/open spaces.