LDNPA-LDF

Lake District National Park: Local Development Framework (LDF)

April/May 2010:

Development Plan Documents (DPDs) consultations

Allocation of Land: See May 2010 - Roadshow venues

In connection with the LDF we have now received details about a consultation on two development plan documents (DPD’s) – i) Allocation of Land and ii) General Development Policies. DPD’s make up the LDF. This consultation lasts until 1 June.
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) consultation

We should shortly also receive details and a separate consultation on a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Housing Provision. An SPD provides greater depth of information in relation to specific forms of development guided by the DPD’s.

For both of the above, there will be a series of ‘roadshow events’ where you can find out more. The details of these will be included in the letter we should receive with the SPD above, and will be posted here shortly.

All of this information can also be found on the LDNPA LDF website at: www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/index/planning/planning_policies/ldf.htm
A Management Plan for the Lake District

Finally, details on the Management Plan for the Lake District 2010-2015, will also soon be publicly available. This was last reviewed in 2004, and is being produced by the Lake District National Park Partnership (LDNPP) not just the LDNPA. The consultation period for this will be 24 May – 2 July. There will also be the opportunity to ask the LDNPP questions about the plan, at two public events. These will be 14 June (Skiddaw Hotel, Keswick) and 17 June (Lake District Visitor Centre, Brockhole) – 7-9pm.

March 2010:

Cllr Potts attended the pre-hearing meeting in Kendal on 12th March.
He will be attending one of the Core Strategy Examination hearing sessions with the independent planning inspector on 12th May to discuss Colton's concerns (see Colton's response to the LDF Core Strategy final consultation document).

See the LDNP website for details and documents on the examination hearings : http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/index/planning/planning_policies/ldf/ldf-corestrategy/ldf-corestrategy-examination.htm

January 2010:

On Thursday 14 January 2010 the Lake District National Park Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State. The soundness of the document will be tested through a public examination led by an independent Planning Inspector.
A pre-hearing meeting with the appointed Planning Inspector is scheduled to take place on Friday 12 March.
A number of hearing sessions will take place in May.
See http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/index/planning/planning_policies/ldf/ldf-corestrategy.htm

October 2009: Final consultation on LDF Core Strategy Draft Policies - See Colton's Response

May 2009: The Lake District National Park Authority wants to know if it is: 'On the right track'? It is inviting everyone to comment on the 'Core Strategy: Draft Policies' - by 5th June. A series of public open days are being held at the end of May/start of June: click on the thumbnail poster below right to bring up readable version.

See their website:

http://www.lake-district.gov.uk/index/planning/planning_policies/ldf/ontherighttrack.htm

for further details.

July 2008:

The Lake District National Park Authority's Local Development Framework Preferred Options for 'Minerals and Waste' and 'Core Strategy' have been out for consultation during June and July 2008. More details are available at the LDNPA-LDF website: www.lake-district.gov.uk/ldf. Your Parish Council sent the following response:

Colton Parish Council

Response to the Lake District National Park

Local Development Framework Consultation, July 2008:

A: Minerals and Waste

General comments. We have limited interest in the bulk of this document. Our only concern is that of the disposal of radioactive waste (Preferred Option 3).

Preferred Option 3. We feel strongly that it is entirely inappropriate for radioactive waste to be disposed of within a national park and, bearing in mind the current emphasis on adjacent areas ('buffer zones'), we oppose the disposal of such material anywhere within Cumbria. Underlying our objection is a strongly held belief that the technology has not yet been developed to dispose of radioactive waste safely and permanently.

B: Core Strategy

General comments.

In general, we are supportive of much of the content of the document (except where specific comments are made below). We note that some of the preferred options are worded in a somewhat woolly (imprecise) way (e.g. on nuclear power 'we will work with partners to ensure that the best solution for Cumbria and the rest of the country is achieved'') and we might have had more concerns if specific proposal had been outlined. Thus we endorse the document but with reservations ('the devil may be in the detail'). We note that there is to be a further consultation period in 12 months and hopefully, by then, some more specific policies will be outlined.

We were disappointed that there were so few consultation responses. The National Park has a resident population of about 40,000 and so the number of respondents was far from representative. Care should be taken when using this source of information as an evidence-base.

Lastly, we understand that this document was assembled at considerable cost and we are disappointed at the general standard of presentation, specifically:

· it would have been helpful to match the numbering of issues and preferred options (where there is more than one issue per option, then sub-numbers could have been used).

· the document needs properly proof-reading; there are mistakes in spelling (e.g. 'widely' at bottom of page 10; 'mange' in 2.10; 'sparial' in 3.34; 'beeen' in 3.67 etc etc), and poor grammar and punctuation. This seems unacceptable in a document of this standing.

· some Figures (e.g. Figure 2) do not appear to be referenced in the text (so why include them?).

· although generally written in an easy-to-understand format, there are still too many jargon words (e.g. "saved beyond adoption", "mainstream" (as a verb), "the quality of offer".

· some words which are used differently in different contexts need an explanation of their exact meaning in the report e.g. 'sustainable' (the glossary is not adequate) and 'exceptional circumstances' (which is used frequently and smacks of get-out clauses).

· we could find no reference to water quality in the plan (and the need for it to improve in the major lakes, and rivers). This is surprising given the need to pay regard to the European Water Directive. There are planning implications here.

· there is scope for greater consideration of the planning consequences of renewable energy. We would suggest that wind turbines have no place in the Park, or immediately adjacent to the park (see Crossing Boundaries section).

Specific comments

Page	Reference point	Comment
7	2.10	Why "local communities versus tourism"? They could be made compatible through partnerships.
12	2.19 onw.	The four themes of the LDNP are totally interdependent and there is no logical order of priority. They should be presented in alphabetical order (and this should be stated).
15	3.9	Is this the first reference to PPS? If so, it should be spelled out in full.
16	Option 2	"we will require all development to aspire to provide the highest quality design appropriate to its surroundings" - what does this mean?
17	Option 2 (cont)	"sustainable building techniques" - such as what? Very motherhood and apple-pie statement.
17	3.14	"We do not agree that no development" confusing double-negative.
20	Figure 3	While recognising the difficulties of defining regional identities and, especially giving names to the resulting units, your suggestions are undermined by having areas of the 'Central Lakes' which are further south than areas within the 'South' area. We would suggest that Coniston and Hawkshead have a greater affinity with the Central Lakes than do rural areas between Grange and Kendal and would suggest that lines are re-drawn accordingly.
25	Option 5	Why not introduce the concept of 'buffer zones'?
25	3.51 (line 3)	Word missing between 'character' and 'improve'
37	Table 3.3	Haverthwaite is shown as a 'rural service centre' - it is about to lose its permanent Post Office to be replaced by an outreach service - will it still qualify?
37	3.90	In response to the specific question, we are not aware of any other communities which meet the criteria in the table (in our area).
49	3.111	Examples of possible criteria would be helpful.
51	Lakeside	We are surprised that the Aquarium of the Lakes is not mentioned.
58	3.154	A review of the BAP would be inexpensive - why not do both?
59	3.160	While we generally support the concept of small-scale, local hydro-electric units (in suitable locations), we urge caution over the biodiversity and aquatic habitat implications.
61	Option 10	"We will adopt a variety of measure" - this is another example of particularly imprecise wording which makes it very difficult for consultees to comment.
64	Option 11	There ought to be some work on the insulation of older properties (lots in the park), not just focus on new build.
80	Traffic	There is no specific mention of Unclassified County Roads. We believe that all UCRs should be closed to recreational vehicles until money can be found to effect necessary repairs.
82	Option 16	We support these proposals and, particularly, would like to see simplification of speed limits so that there is not more than one speed limit in a village (e.g. Finsthwaite has 20 mph and 30 mph zones).
82	Option 16	We question whether quiet lanes can be effectively policed.
83		It ought to be made clear that, because the housing market has been hiked up so far, affordable housing can only be for rent, not for purchase.
88	Option 17	Yet more very woolly wording - it is impossible to comment on it because we don't know what it means in reality.
103	Option 23	We would argue that high quality design is expensive and that there are more pressing priorities for the money that would be needed.
114	Option 27	We are particularly supportive of this option, both as an alternative to tourism, and as a way of keeping local people in the area.
118	Options 28-30	We are very supportive of these options. However, it should be noted that with increased concern about global market dependencies, and the consequences of long-distance freighting, local agricultural produce may need more support in the near future. The balance should not swing too far towards farm diversification.
127	Visitor Experience	Much is made of the economic value of tourism in Cumbria. Three points: (1) While tourism undoubtedly brings money into the county, there are also costs to local people including (a) direct costs such as services for tourists which are paid for through local rates and (b) indirect costs such as pollution, traffic congestion and nuisance (especially in rural areas). More should be done to levy income to offset these costs. (2) We note that much of the income from tourism remains within a relatively small business sector, often comprising 'off-comers' (e.g. we are told that all tourist facilities in Grasmere are owned by people who have lived in the area for 5 years or less). More effort should be made to encourage long-term residents and 'indigenous' peoples to be part of the industry, perhaps through partnerships approaches. (3) Also, with regard to tourism, we would like to see more emphasis on the Tourism & Conservation Partnership, promoting visitor payback schemes.
132	Option 34	This is very important and we agree strongly with the sentiments expressed.
134	Option 35	While agreeing with the principles, this will be difficult to achieve. Landscape characterisation is a 'black art'.
142	Option 38	New ROWs should only be implemented where there is a clear need and after proper consultation with local communities.
146	Option 39	[See comments re Option 35]
163	Option 44	While supporting the concept, we doubt whether this can be enforced.
175	Table	We assume that Ownership figures are percentages? If so, this should be stated.
179	Appendix 4	What is this list and why don't the area numbers tie up with the appropriate figures (e.g. Figure 14)?

[Top] [Home]