• Mary Breakell

Newsflash 17 July 2022 CLOUD response to Gladman Amendments

NEWSFLASH 17 JULY 2022 GLADMAN AMENDMENTS 19/01135/OUT | Outline planning application for the demolition of Low Hill House and the erection of up to 644 dwellings (Use Class C3), a local centre (Use Class E) of no more than 280sq m internal floorspace, a community hall (Use Class F2) of no more than 150sq m internal floorspace, public open spaces including equipped children's play areas, land re-grading, recreational routes, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems and creation of vehicular access from Bailrigg Lane and Hala Hill to the North | Land North East Of Bailrigg Lane Lancaster Lancashire

In December 2019 CLOUD submitted an objection to 19/01135/OUT see link for full objection

On 27 June 2022 all those who had commented previously received a notification that a range of amendments had been made and invited to comment again.

If you still have concerns it is important to comment again by email to dcconsultation@lancaster.gov.uk and by 5 August 2022. If you address the same issues as CLOUD do use your own words.

CLOUD submitted the following objection on Friday 15 July 2022.

Flooding and environmental issues

  • Even with proposed SUDS and other facilities, surface water runoff from the significant number of proposed dwellings and all of the associated hard surfaces would be very great. This would result in significant surcharge to the existing minimal drainage facilities, which have caused flooding to immediately adjacent dwellings in the past, resulting in clear flood risk to existing homes downhill of parts of the proposed development, and the likelihood of even more flooding to homes and highways downstream of the watercourses to be surcharged.

  • The addition of this significant urban sprawl with no meaningful natural buffer between it and the existing built development would have a serious detrimental effect on the existing rich wildlife in the currently undeveloped area.

Traffic and congestion

  • The proposed development envisages a new distributor road through the middle of the development feeding out onto an awkwardly placed junction at the top of Hala Hill. Roads connected thereto - Hala Hill running through an already densely developed area and Bowerham Road which is already supporting increased development and traffic, would become excessively congested and more dangerous. Congestion and traffic loads on the A6 via its junction with Hala Road which is already high, would be exacerbated. Much of the additional imposed traffic load will be destined northwards, into or through central Lancaster, and whether via Hala Hill or Bowerham Road will end up at the Pointer Roundabout, which is already a choked bottleneck. Furthermore, were a junction with Hala Hill to be included then the proposed distributor road would become a timesaving rat run for traffic between Bowerham Road, Quernmore area and East Hala at one end and the university and Health Campus and the M6 j33 at the other.


  • The infrastructure required to support this 1,546 person development does not exist and there are no clear proposals of how it will be delivered unless provided by others as part of significant development elsewhere. The applicant’s proposals appear to accept that significant off-site infrastructure will be required and to assume that this will be provided ancillary to the proposed but yet uncertain Bailrigg Garden Village (BGV). The proposed development, if approved, would encourage the support of the local planning authority and others for the controversial BGV proposals, and the applicant’s assumption of the development of BGV would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without additional infrastructure delivered in connection with BGV this development would be unviable, but that additional infrastructure cannot be anticipated as a certainty at this time, and were it to be provided then it would be a while into the future. This proposed development would therefore be premature at the moment. A case of the cart before the horse.

Health Provision

  • The NHS Clinical Commissioning Group have made a professional calculation of the cost of providing the additional GP capacity to cater for the additional 1,546 residents, amounting to more than a third of a million pounds. Creating the capacity is only theoretical however as the only nearby practice has no ability to expand further, and there are no proposals or funding to construct and staff a new practice within the proposed development. The new patients would have to travel quite a distance, probably north into central Lancaster, to access GP services.


  • Local schools do not have the capacity to accommodate the significant additional number of children proposed to reside in the new development, and it is noted that the great majority of the proposed dwellings will be family homes. Children, both primary and secondary school ages, would have to be spread amongst distant schools to which to commute, either being at risk on foot on more busy roads or adding to increasing congestion by car travel. Local schools, parish councils and the education authority do not support this proposed development without additional school provision, but no provision is proposed by the applicant/developer.

Car dependency

  • Additional traffic congestion and pollution would be created by this extent and density of development as it is clear that most movements will be by car. Plenty of car parking and garaging accommodation is envisaged by the applicant but no enhancement to public transport will be forthcoming. No off-site public transport facilities will be provided in connection with this proposed development and the applicant mentions the opportunity for a ‘bus operator to run a service from a proposed Hala Hill junction through the proposed housing estates, but with no indication of how this will be procured or funded.

Lack of buffer zone

  • Contrary to the City Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD, there is proposed to be virtually no buffer between the proposed built areas and existing developments. New development and distributor road would be constructed with a few metres of existing established development in some parts. In this way the proposed development would constitute just urban sprawl and certainly not an identifiable and separate development.

Planning for South lancaster

  • The Lancaster South Area Action Plan proposes and aspires to rational planning and development of this area, but the proposed development would constitute a piecemeal opportunistic accretion to the built area, independent of and with disregard to the planning of other significant development in the south Lancaster area. In many ways it would detract from the ability to plan for rational development by adding load to infrastructure demands and by assuming contributions by future development. The proposed development would have the effect of constraining rational planning elsewhere and would be parasitic upon it.

In summary

  • The proposed development is excessive, merely extension of the existing built area and most particularly is premature, presupposing and thus adversely affecting rational planning of the greater south Lancaster area, and assumes the provision of additional infrastructure in terms of health and education facilities, highways and drainage with no evidence of nor likelihood of their provision and particularly with no regard to the timing of their provision should they come to fruition.

120 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All