All references are to SPLA_DPD_Schedule_Modifications_Aug19.pdf

Referring to the Guidance Notes on how to submit a representation and to the questions set out in the Online Representation Form, CLOUD does not wish to submit any representations on grounds of legal compliance (ie Question 2a).  Our representations are on grounds of soundness (Question 2b), which test of soundness (Question 3) and what modifications are needed (Question 4). These are detailed against each of the Main Modifications set out below.  

 

SPLA_ MOD_ 01, Chapter 4, Policy  SO4 p.21.  

We trust that the aspiration in this Main Modification is a commitment to resolute action on air quality.  However, on 9th May 2018, a meeting of the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee approved an application to build 70 houses on a greenfield site at Ward Field Farm on the A6.  This was in spite of objections by, among others, the Council’s own Air Quality Officer. 

Response to Question 2b - not sound. Question 3 - Local Plan is not positively prepared. Question 4 - To adopt a more resolute approach to air quality issues than has hitherto been the case.

 

SPLA_ MOD_ 05, Chapter 9,  Policy SP6, Pages 38-41, Para 9.19    

The reason for this modification is stated as " To provide greater clarity in the Local Plan and to reflect discussions had at the Examination on Days 1,2,3,4 and 9".  On Day 9 Mr Neil McDonald, on behalf of CLOUD, presented evidence to show that housing need was substantially lower than forecast in the Local Plan (this evidence is summarised in documents HS24 and HD62).  Main Modification 05 does not reflect this evidence. It is true that the modification does introduce a "stepped approach" to the annual housing delivery figures, but it retains the same overall total as in the original plan.  In order to provide an accurate summary of what was said at the Day 9 Hearing, the Reason for Change column needs to be rewritten to make it clear that Main Modification 05 does not reflect the evidence and argument presented on behalf of CLOUD. The existing wording gives the impression that the modification addresses and resolves CLOUD's objections to the 522 annual housing target; this is not the case. 

Response to Question 2b - not sound. Question 3 - Local Plan is not justified.  Question 4 - Either amend the Reason for Change column as detailed above or (preferably) carry out a proper reassessment of housing need numbers using the latest available ONS data.

 

.  

SPLA_ MOD_ 8, Chapter 11, Policy SP10, p.48  

These 2 new sentences are welcome, but do not go far enough. Developer contributions need to be secured, not just sought.  We propose amending the end of the 1st sentence to read “....then funding will be sought and secured via developer contributions before development is started.”  

Response to Question 2b - not sound. Question 3 -Local Plan is not effective.  Question 4 - amend the wording as proposed above.

 

SPLA_ MODS_ 9 & 10, Chapter 12,  Policy SG1, pp.49-55   

These 2 Main Modifications are just aspirational in character, with the provision of specific plans being put off to the forthcoming Lancaster South Area Action Plan DPD.  In addition Statement of Common Ground HD08_SoCG (re Policy SG1 - Bailrigg Garden Village) would now permit development in advance of the finalisation of the Lancaster South Plan.  It is unclear how far these developments would be bound by garden village principles or indeed whether they would be in addition to the 3,500 houses already proposed. 

We maintain that this approach is unsound and conflicts with the following advice on the preparation of local plans:

 

“ A Local Plan is an opportunity for the local planning authority to set out a positive vision for the area, but the plan should also be realistic about what can be achieved and when (including in relation to infrastructure). This means paying careful attention to providing an adequate supply of land, identifying what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought on stream at the appropriate time; and ensuring that the requirements of the plan as a whole will not prejudice the viability of development.

​

Early discussion with infrastructure and service providers is particularly important to help understand their investment plans and critical dependencies. The local planning authority should also involve the Local Enterprise Partnership at an early stage in considering the strategic issues facing their area, including the prospects for investment in infrastructure.

 

The Local Plan should make clear, for at least the first 5 years, what infrastructure is required, who is going to fund and provide it, and how it relates to the anticipated rate and phasing of development. This may help in reviewing the plan and in development management decisions…..Where the deliverability of critical infrastructure is uncertain then the plan should address the consequences of this, including possible contingency arrangements and alternative strategies.“

(Source : Department for Communities and Local Government   Part of:  Planning practice guidance and Planning system  published: 19 May 2016  Last updated: 28 July 2017, Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 12-001-20170728)

​

In addition CLOUD objects to these Modifications  on the following grounds :

 

•  We provided clear evidence at the Hearings to show that whatever jobs growth Lancaster University may generate (through the Health Innovation Campus) is going to be across the NW region of England and not within the Lancaster South Broad Area of Growth.

• There is no recognition of Lancaster City Council’s recent climate emergency declaration. We accept that there is reference to minimising the impact of climate change (MOD 10 Proposed Amendment xi), but the revised wording provides little change of substance and fails to address the gravity of the issues raised in the Council’s climate emergency declaration..  This constitutes an abdication of responsibility. Likewise there are references to reducing flood risk from new development, and not to preventing the existing reality of flood risk in South Lancaster (and elsewhere in the city). Reducing the actuality of climate change, of flooding and of air pollution should determine what developments should be allowed and where. 

Response to Question 2b - not sound. Question 3 - Local Plan is not positively prepared.  Question 4 - postpone approval of Bailrigg Garden Village and associated south Lancaster developments until (i) a realistic evaluation of the need for and costs of this development are available and (ii) a proper evaluation has been carried out under the terms of the Council’s climate emergency declaration.