North Lancashire Green Belt Review Full Report

Home , Chorley, North West Green Belt, Skerton

NORTH LANCASHIRE GREEN BELT REVIEW

FULL REPORT

NOVEMBER 2016

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

CONTENTS 1. Introduction Overview Purpose of the Green Belt Review Report Structure

2. Green Belt History and Policy within Lancaster District Origins of Green Belt Policy in England Lancaster District Green Belt Local Plan (1991) Lancaster District Local Plan (2004) Regional Spatial Strategy Lancaster District Local Plan (2008) Review of Original Purposes

3. Review of Exceptional Circumstances Overview Need for Growth Meeting Needs – North Lancashire Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Summary

4. Policy and Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (2012) National Planning Practice Guidance (2014) PAS Planning on the Doorstep: The Big Issues – Green Belt (2015) Government Position on Green Belts

5. Methodology Overview Defining the Green Belt Parcels Assessment of the Five Purposes Overall Assessment Consultation on the Draft Methodology

6. Strategic Assessment of the North Lancashire Green Belt

7. Green Belt Parcel Assessment Overview Green Belt Parcel Results

8. Summary and Conclusions

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

APPENDICES A. 1991 North Lancashire Green Belt Local Plan B. Green Belt Parcel Mapping C. Historic England Response to Methodology D. ARUP Report – Verification of Methodology E. General Parcel Assessments (Part One) – Bolton-le-Sands, Carnforth & Halton F. General Parcel Assessments (Part Two) – Lancaster, Morecambe & Slyne- with-Hest G. General Parcel Assessment – Summary Document H. Strategic Parcel Assessment I. Strategic Parcel Assessment – Summary Document J. ARUP Report – Verification of Sample Assessments

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

1. INTRODUCTION Overview 1.1 Lancaster City Council have prepared a Green Belt Review of the North Lancashire Green Belt in order to inform the preparation of the local development plan for the district.

1.2 The purpose of this Green Belt Review is to provide an objective and impartial appraisal of the North Lancashire Green Belt against national Green Belt policy, in particular the five purposes of the Green Belt as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

1.3 The Review assesses the performance of sets against the purposes of the Green Belt. It does not recommend which sites should be released as this is a matter for policy making via the local development plan. Such policy making decisions will consider the results of this Green Belt Review and the weight of exceptional circumstances for the release – including the need for development on Green Belt sites, individual site characteristics and the need for development in particular locations. It should be noted that the higher the performance against Green Belt purposes, the greater the exceptional circumstances that will be necessary to make the case for the release from the Green Belt.

1.4 This Review will assess all land covered by the designation of the North Lancashire Green Belt.

1.5 A non-technical summary has been prepared which accompanies this, which is the main report.

The Need for a Review of the North Lancashire Green Belt 1.6 Lancaster City Council are currently preparing a new local development plan which will seek to allocate land to meet development needs between the periods 2011 and 2031. This includes meeting objectively assessed needs for housing and employment purposes. The Land Allocations DPD will not only look at how development needs will be met but also look at the allocation of land for environmental and community value.

1.7 During the production of the current plan, the Lancaster District Core Strategy1 (published in 2008), it was consider that sufficient brownfield land existed to meet the needs for housing, employment and commercial purposes. As a result the Core Strategy contained Policy SC2 which sets a presumption toward the development of brownfield sites through a policy of urban concentration.

1.8 However, since the publication of the Core Strategy in 2008 there have been many significant changes which have resulted in the approach of urban concentration as no longer being a realistic means of delivering the districts development needs. Firstly, many of the large brownfield sites within the district have now been development, are currently under development or have implementable planning permissions which would allow their regeneration. Secondly, the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework2 in 2012 places a great emphasis on local planning authorities meeting locally evidenced housing needs.

1.9 It is therefore no longer realistic to expect that the development needs of the district can be delivered through the re-use of brownfield sites alone. The national planning policy position needs

1 Lancaster District Core Strategy (2008) http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/planning/local-plan/local-planning-policy/adopted- documents/core-strategy/ 2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) 4

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

to be also considered against the publication of the Lancaster District Independent Housing Requirements Study 20153 published by Turley Consultants in October 2015 which highlights a significant requirement for new housing in the district.

1.10 In order to prepare a robust local development plan it is the responsibility of the local authority to consider and examine all options to meet its objectively assessed needs. This includes reviewing the North Lancashire Green Belt to assess whether it continues to fulfil the roles of the Green Belt as defined in national policy. The findings of such a review will be used in preparing the local development plan to understand how and where such development needs can be met.

1.11 Further to development pressures, the North Lancashire Green Belt Review has been in place for 25 years (since 1991) and has never been reviewed in that time. The National Planning Policy Framework states in paragraph 83 that ‘Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances through the preparation or review of the local plan.’

1.12 Given the City Council are currently preparing a new local plan this represents an appropriate and reasonable opportunity to review our understanding of the North Lancashire Green Belt. Should a review not take place at this time it may be a further 20 years before the next logical opportunity arises – almost 40 years since the original designation.

Report Structure 1.13 Following this introduction, the Green Belt Review provides a background to Green Belts and historic policy on Green Belts at a national, regional and local level (Chapter 2).

1.14 Chapter 3 sets out the current national planning policy position on Green Belts and the latest guidance on the topic.

1.15 Chapter 4 sets out the methodology and approach used to undertake the Green Belt Review, including the outcomes of the consultation which took place on the Draft Methodology which was published in late 2015, results of the independent verification process which was undertaken by external consultant, ARUP and other stakeholder consultation, for example the dialogue which took place between the City Council and Historic England relating to the assessment of purpose 4.

1.16 Chapter 5 sets out a strategic review of the whole Green Belt designation, setting out whether a Green Belt designation is still required in the context of national and local planning policy. Chapter 6 presents a summary of results from the Green Belt Review in terms of general and specific parcel assessment.

1.17 Finally Chapter 7 sets out the conclusions from the Green Belt Review and provides advice on further considerations relating to site selections and safeguarding land.

3 Lancaster District Housing Requirements Study 2015 http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/planning/local-plan/evidence--monitoring-and- information/housing/ 5

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

2. GREEN BELT HISTORY AND LOCAL POLICY IN LANCASTER DISTRICT

2.1 Lancaster District has 1,740 hectares of land which is designated as Green Belt, located on land between North Lancaster and South Carnforth. The North Lancashire Green Belt forms the smallest element of Green Belt in England.

2.2 When undertaking the Review of the North Lancashire Green Belt it is important to consider the origins and rationale behind the Green Belt designation and to appreciate the timescales involved and the extent of previous changes to policy both nationally and locally. Origins of Green Belt Policy in England

2.3 The Greater London Planning Committee proposed the first Green Belt in England in 1935. Subsequently, the Green Belt London and Home Counties Act was published in 1938 and provided the origins of the definitions of what land uses are appropriate in the Green Belt. A ‘Green Belt Ring’ was implemented around London through the 1944 Greater London Plan.

2.4 The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act allowed local planning authorities to control the use of land. Circular 42/554 was published in 1955 and extended the principle of Green Belts beyond London.

2.5 The circular reference the importance of checking unrestricted sprawl of urban areas and safeguarding the surrounding countryside from further encroachment. It invited local authorities to establish Green Belt where desirable to:

a. Check the further growth of a large built-up area; b. Prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; and c. Preserve the special character of a town.

2.6 The circular notes that ‘wherever practical a Green Belt should be several miles wide and that inside a Green Belt approval should not be given except in very special circumstances for the construction of new buildings’.

2.7 The fundamental aims of Green Belt policy as currently set out in the National Planning Policy Framework have changed very little since the original Circular 42/55.

2.8 In 1984, a further circular set out advice on Green Belts (Circular 14/84). It emphasised the importance and permanence of Green Belts and gave advice on defining detailed Green Belt boundaries through Local Plans. The circular noted ‘the essential characteristics of the Green Belt is their permanence and their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead’. In terms of permanence the circular stated ‘Once the general extent of a Green Belt has been approved as part of the structure plan for an area it should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. If such an alteration is proposed the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within the urban area contained by and beyond the Green Belt. Similarly, Green Belt boundaries defined in adopted local plans or earlier approved development plans should only be altered exceptionally’.

4 Circular 42/55 (londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk) 6

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

2.9 In 1988 Circular 42/55 was replaced with Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2)5. Then in 1995 PPG2 was amended to add positive objectives for Green Belt, such as to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population, provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas and to retain attractive landscapes and enhance landscapes near to where people live. PPG2 also identified the need for local planning authorities to promote sustainable patterns of development stating ‘When drawing Green Belt boundaries in development plans local planning authorities should take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development’.

2.10 In 2012 the content of PPG2 was superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework, which is discussed in more detail within Section 4 of this document. Lancaster District Green Belt Local Plan (1991)

2.11 The concept of a North Lancashire Green Belt6 was originally described in the 1981 Lancashire Structure Plan but its formal designation and identification of detailed boundaries only arrived in 1991 through the publication of the North Lancashire Green Belt Local Plan, prepared by Lancaster City Council.

2.12 The Green Belt Local Plan set out the land which was to be contained within the Green Belt and its detailed boundaries. The Local Plan also set out the reasoning for designating a Green Belt in this area stating:

‘During the 1960s and 1970s much of the new house building in Lancaster District took place outside the main urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth. The villages of Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne experienced significant growth during those years. In 1961 there were 4,800 people (1,800 households) living in these villages, today [1991] the population is more than 7,000 with over 3,000 households. Housing development to accommodate this population has taken up around 150 hectares (150 acres) of land. As a result, the originally separate settlements of Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne have grown together, forming an almost uninterrupted area of buildings. In addition, the villages have extended outwards into the surrounding farmland.

Over the same period, new development on the northern edges of Lancaster and Morecambe consumed more than 32 hectares (80 acres) of land while development in South Carnforth also contributed to the loss of open land.

If development in the area between Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth continues unchecked, the urban areas and the villages could eventually join together, with each losing its identity as a separate settlement. The dangers of coalescence are already apparent. The northern edge of Bolton-le-Sands is less than 1 kilometre from the southernmost part of Carnforth, while the built-up area of Morecambe is barely 1.25km from Slyne. The landscape between these settlements contain few significant natural features which could as barriers to development and is visible from many public viewpoints.’

2.13 The North Lancashire Green Belt Local Plan stayed in place until the designation (and its boundaries) where incorporated within the Lancaster District Local Plan, formally adopted by the City Council in 2004.

5 https://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/planningpolicyandlegislation/previousenglishpolicy/ppgpps/ppg2 6 Lancaster Green Belt Local Plan 1991 7

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Lancaster District Local Plan (2004)

2.14 The Lancaster District Local Plan7 incorporated the Green Belt designation as defined in the original Green Belt Local Plan under Policy E1. Policy E1 of the Lancaster District Local Plan stated that ‘In 1991, the City Council designated the land between Carnforth and the northern edge of Lancaster and Morecambe as Green Belt. The purpose of the Green Belt is primarily to prevent the built-up areas of Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth from merging into one urban area losing their separate identities and absorbing Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne. Green Belts should, where possible be permanent and remain protected for the foreseeable future. The settlements within the Green Belt; Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne will be protected from large scale development and will not be allowed to expand beyond their present boundaries into open countryside. Within the Green Belt itself new development will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances’.

2.15 Whilst Policy E1 related especially to the designation of land (and boundaries) for the North Lancashire Green Belt, the Lancaster District Local Plan also included Policy E2 which set out how development proposals (in particular the erection of new buildings and re-use of existing buildings) would be managed in the Green Belt. Policy E2 set a highly restrictive policy towards new development identifying that only buildings for agricultural, forestry, outdoor sports and recreation, cemeteries and the limited alteration / extension and replacement of buildings would be acceptable in Green Belt locations.

2.16 The Lancaster District Local Plan covered the period between 1996 and 2016, although a number of policies (including Policy E1) have been ‘saved’ in perpetuity by Direction from the Secretary of State. These policies will remain in place until such a time that they are superseded by policy within the new local development plan. Policy E2 as described above was not ‘saved’ under this process. Regional Spatial Strategy (2008)

2.17 The North West Regional Spatial Strategy8 was revoked on the 20th May 2013 by ‘The Regional Strategy for the North West (Revocation) Order 2013. Consequently, the Regional Spatial Strategy is no longer part of the statutory development plan for Lancaster District.

2.18 Whilst the Regional Spatial Strategy has now been abolished, it is useful to briefly consider what conclusions were drawn from its evidence base at the time. Policy RDF4 of the Strategy specifically related to Green Belts. Overall, the general extent of the North West Region’s Green Belt was expected to be maintained (over the Strategy period to 2021).

2.19 Within Lancashire, there was no expected need for substantial change to Green Belt boundaries before 2011, and a presumption against exceptional strategic change after 2011. Where exception strategic change was considered necessary, Policy RDF4 required that the Regional Authority together with the relevant stakeholder should investigate the need for change and options for implementation. Any other local detailed boundary changes were expected to be examined via the Local Development Plan process.

2.20 The Regional Spatial Strategy did not envisage any exceptional substantial change would be required to the Green Belt in the North West to 2021 but did recognise that other, more specific detailed boundary changes may be required to meet exceptional circumstance. It should be noted that Regional Spatial Strategy Policy did not take into account the requirements of the National Planning

7 Lancaster District Local Plan (Saved Version 2008) http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/planning/local-plan/local-planning-policy/adopted- documents/local-plan/ 8 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100528142817/http:/www.gos.gov.uk/gonw/Planning/RegionalPlanning/?a=42496 8

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Policy Framework which was published in 2012 (effectively following the abolition of the regional tier of planning). Lancaster District Core Strategy (2008)

2.21 Lancaster City Council published the Lancaster District Core Strategy9 in 2008. The Strategy document did not seek to review or update the position on the North Lancashire Green Belt. The Strategy does not contain any specific policy relating to Green Belts however, there are a number of references to the North Lancashire Green Belt including:

‘The Green Belt will be retained, landscapes protected from inappropriate development; and the coalescence of larger suburban villages prevented.’ (Paragraph 3.20)

2.22 In particular paragraphs 4.9 and 4.10 of the Core Strategy deal with the North Lancashire Green Belt, specifically in providing contextual background and a degree of strategic direction (in combination with the Regional Spatial Strategy). In relation to the Green Belt the Core Strategy states:

‘The North Lancashire Green Belt is one of England’s newest having been designated in 1991. At 17.3 square kilometres it is also one of the smallest, comprising less than 3% of the district’s rural area. It safeguards a small but strategic area of countryside which prevents the coalescence of six settlements (Lancaster, Morecambe, Carnforth, Slyne, Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands). It is less than 900m wide in places. Small scale change can therefore have a significant effect on the purpose of the Green Belt and for this reason, the Green Belt boundary is tight to the urban edge.

The Regional Spatial Strategy states that there shall be no review of the Green Belt until 2011. The Council is not aware of any strategic development needs which could not be sustainably accommodated outside of the Green Belt. There is capacity in rural settlements to meet local needs as well as a significant reserve of previously developed land in Carnforth. Unless there is a significant and unforeseen change both to strategic development needs and urban and non-Green Belt rural capacity there will be not need, either for a review or for changes to the Green Belt during the Strategy period.’

2.23 It is clear that from the Core Strategy that the Green Belt and its boundaries would be protected and retained through the Core Strategy period to 2021 unless significant changes were experienced, either in terms of the need for further development and the opportunities for that development need to be met are not available. Development Management DPD (2014)

2.24 The City Council have prepared a Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD)10 for the district, which sets out a series of generic planning policies which the Council will use to determine planning applications. The DPD was formally adopted by the Council in December 2014.

2.25 The Development Management DPD does not include any spatial planning policies, it does not contain any specific policies relating to the land contained within the Green Belt or its boundaries. However the DPD does set out (in Policy DM11) how any future planning applications for development within the Green Belt will be assessed. The policy specifically relates to applications relating to the re-use and extension of existing buildings in the Green Belt.

9 http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/planning/local-plan/local-planning-policy/adopted-documents/core-strategy/ 10 http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan/local-planning-policy/adopted-documents/development- management-dpd/ 9

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

3. CURRENT POLICY AND GUIDANCE National Planning Policy Framework (2012) 3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework11 (NPPF) was published by the Government in March 2012 with the aim of streamlining the planning system. Its publication replaced the previous guidance found within Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG).

3.2 The NPPF sets out the role and purpose of the Green Belt within England as follows:

‘The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence.’ (NPPF Paragraph 79)

3.3 The permanence of the Green Belt is considered to be an essential characteristic and the NPPF states that ‘once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan’ (NPPF Paragraph 83). The NPPF makes clear that in revising the Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should seek to ensure that the boundaries defined will endure over the longer term and that there may be a need to consider whether land should be safeguarded for development beyond the plan period.

3.4 Where exceptional circumstances exist to consider land within the Green Belt for future housing, employment and infrastructure needs it is important that the areas identified for development do not compromise the aims of Green Belt policy as set out in paragraph 79 or the wider purposes set out in paragraph 80. Therefore, a Green Belt Review is necessary to consider the degree to which areas or parcels of land perform against the following purposes:

Purpose 1: To check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and Purpose 5: To assist urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

3.5 Sustainable development remains an important factor when considering Green Belt boundary changes. Local planning authorities are encourage to ‘take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development’ (NPPF Paragraph 84). This includes considering the consequences of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.

3.6 When applying Green Belt boundary changes NPPF paragraph 85 recommends that local planning authorities apply the following criteria:

 Ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development;  Not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;

11 National Planning Policy Framework http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk 10

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

 Where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period;  Make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time; planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development;  Satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and  Define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.

National Planning Practice Guidance (2014) 3.7 National Planning Practice Guidance12 asks the question ‘Do housing and economic needs override constraints on the use of land such as the Green Belt’? (Paragraph 44). The guidance goes on to state:

‘The Framework [NPPF] is clear that local planning authorities should, through their Local Plans, meet objectively assessed needs 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.’ (National Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 44)

3.8 Such policies include Green Belt designation. The NPPF makes clear that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of a local plan.

3.9 The guidance also states that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) should establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and viability of land to meet identified needs for housing over the plan period and to take account of any constraints, such as Green Belt, which indicate that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an authority to meet its needs.

3.10 This guidance emphasises the strength of Green Belt policy once established within the Local Plan. It also highlights the consideration which should be given to the Green Belt when carrying out assessment of land for potential development.

PAS Planning on the Doorstep: The Big Issues – Green Belt (2015) 3.11 The Planning Advisory Service (PAS) first published an advice note on the Green Belt13 in January 2014 (updated in February 2015) on how the planning process works with Green Belt issues in light of accommodating strategic housing requirements.

3.12 In relation to Green Belt Reviews, the PAS guidance recommends that any review of Green Belt boundaries should involve an assessment of how the land still contributes to the five purposes as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF. The note sets out how the five purposes might be used when assessing the contribution of the land to the Green Belt

12 National Planning Policy Guidance http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/ 13 Planning on the Doorstep: The Big Issues – Green Belt (February 2015) 11

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Purpose 1: To Check the Unrestricted Sprawl of Large Built-Up Areas – The terminology of ‘sprawl’ comes from the 1930s when Green Belts were conceived. Has this term changed its meaning since then? For example, is development that is planned positively through a local plan, and well designed with good masterplanning, sprawl?

Purpose 2: To Prevent Neighbouring Towns from Merging into One Another – Green Belt is frequently said to maintain the separation of small settlement near to towns, this is not strictly what the purpose says. This will be different for each case. A ‘scale rule’ approach should be avoided. The identity of a settlement is not really determined just by the difference to another settlement; the character of the place and of the land in between must be taken into account.

Purpose 3: To Assist in Safeguarding the Countryside from Encroachment – Presumably all Green Belt does this, making the purpose difficult to use to distinguish the contribution of different areas. The most useful approach is to look at the difference between the urban fringe – land under the influence of the urban area – and open countryside, and to favour the latter in determining which land to try and keep open, taking into account the types of edges and boundaries that can be achieved.

Purpose 4: To Preserve the Setting and Special Character of Historic Towns – This purpose is generally accepted as relating to very few settlements in practice. In most towns there are already more recent developments between the historic core, and the countryside between the edge of the town.

Purpose 5: To Assist in Urban Regeneration by Encouraging the Recycling of Derelict and Other Urban Land – The amount of land within urban areas that could be developed will already have been factored in before identifying Green Belt land. All Green Belt therefore achieves this to the same extent.

3.13 On the basis of the above, the PAS advice note identifies types of land that may seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for future development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:

 It would effectively be ‘infill’, with the land partially enclosed by development;  The development would be well contained within the landscape (e.g. with rising land);  There would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality; and  A strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between ‘town’ and ‘country’.

3.14 The purpose of a review is for the identification of the most appropriate land to be used for development, through the local plan. But it is important to note that such ‘appropriateness’ only addresses the issues of Green Belt, wider planning issues must also be taken account as part of the preparation of the local development plan.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Planning Officers Society – We Need to Talk About the Green Belt (2015) 3.15 The Planning Officers Society (POS) published a discussion paper14 in March 2015 in relation to Green Belt policy and Green Belt reviews. It confirms that the Green Belt is not an environmental policy targeted at protecting high quality landscapes. The Green Belt is to prevent sprawl and keep land permanently open which will involve the protection of land which is of high and low value. The discussion paper clearly states that ‘Openness is not the same as landscape character’.

3.16 The paper investigates the circumstances would justify rethinking Green Belt boundaries, POS suggest that the need for review should only arise after all reasonable and acceptable efforts have been taken to maximise the amount of development within the urban area which could include revisiting existing allocations (such as for employment areas) or increasing potential development densities. If, however, the point is reached where capacity of the urban area has been maximised and there are no other deliverable options then challenging decisions will be necessary on the future roles of the Green Belt.

14 http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/Planning-Officers-Society-News/POS-Manifesto-Part-3-Launched---Green- Belt_344.htm 13

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

4. GREEN BELT REVIEW METHODOLOGY

Overview 4.1 This section of the Review provides a detailed description of the methods which have undertaken in undertaking the Green Belt Review. In order to provide the greatest transparency possible this section has provided significant detail on the processes used – as it will become apparent there is no single ‘correct’ method for undertaking a Green Belt Review and therefore this methodology is intended to provide detail and rationale behind each element of the approach which will provide transparency and clarity.

4.2 A draft methodology was published and consulted upon between October and December 2015 which has assisted in shaping the content of the methodology. The consultation process, the comments received and how these comments have shaped the methodology are set out later in this chapter.

4.3 The approach used for the North Lancashire Green Belt Review is made up of 4 stages which are set out below:

Stage 1: Strategic Review of the North Lancashire Green Belt Stage 2: Defining the Green Belt Parcels Stage 3: Green Belt Parcel Assessment for General and Strategic Parcels Stage 4: Conclusion and Recommendations

Consultation on the Draft Green Belt Review Methodology 4.4 The City Council consulted on a Draft Green Belt Review Methodology15 in late 2015 and received a total of 48 comments on its content. Many of the responses received provided suggestions to how the Green Belt Review methodology would be refined and improved. These comments have been used to refine the methodology for use of part of the Green Belt Review. Appendix A of this Report sets out all the comments which were received on the draft methodology, along with an officer’s response to those comments and whether they would be given consideration in refining the methodology.

4.5 Key issues which were raised as part of the consultation of the Draft Methodology included the following:

 That the Green Belt Review remained impartial, not driven by individual interests which is subject to an independent panel.  That assessment of the Green Belt parcel should be done both individual but also in relation to its wider role and function within the locality.  Amendments to be made to the scoring system to provide greater assessment of a parcel’s contribution to the Green Belt.

4.6 The above issues have been taken into consideration in refining the methodology and are reflected in the methodology set out within this chapter. A number of comments were submitted which criticised the principles of undertaking a Green Belt Review however, for the reasons already set out

15 Draft Green Belt Methodology (October 2015) 14

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

this this report, these views do not reflect national planning policy or take into account the responsibilities of the local authority in preparing a robust local development plan.

Verification of the Green Belt Methodology 4.7 A reoccurring issue raised through the consultation responses to the draft methodology for impartiality and to ensure that the assessment took place without acceding to pressure from either development industry or the local community.

4.8 To maintain impartially the City Council remained of the view that they were best placed to undertake the review, but agreed that verification of the process from independent, expert advisors would be highly beneficial. As a result the City Council appointed ARUP to assess the City Council’s decisions on the Green Belt. ARUP have significant experience in the preparation of Green Belt Reviews across the Country and, in particular, within the North West.

4.9 ARUP have been involved in two key stages within the process. Firstly, ARUP have assessed the final version of the Green Belt Review Methodology to comment on whether the approach is robust and consistent one and advising on how it can be amended to reflect best practice from other Green Belt Reviews. Secondly, ARUP have sample checked a series of the City Council’s assessments of both Strategic and General Parcels to see whether they have been assessed in accordance with the defined methodology.

4.10 The verification processes at both stages have been highly beneficial and have ensured that a robust and clear methodology has been established and followed through the assessment process. The verification reports are included as Appendix B and C of this report.

Stage 1: Strategic Review of the North Lancashire Green Belt 4.11 The first element of the Review (covered in Chapter 4) will be to consider the strategic need for the North Lancashire Green Belt as a whole. This will involve considering the reasons to why the Green Belt was designated in the first place and whether these reasons remain valid today. The conclusions of this stage will either be that the Green Belt (in principle) should be retained or that the designation has failed to achieve its purposes and therefore should be removed.

Stage 2: Defining the Green Belt Parcels 4.12 Given the small scale of the North Lancashire Green Belt it has been decided for consistency that the whole designation should be subject to the Green Belt Review given that there are no national or international designations within the area which would warrant exclusion from the process.

4.13 In identifying boundaries and parcels the strongest features available were used and prioritised, in particular roads, railways, canals and rivers. In order to clarify the strength of boundaries this Green Belt Review makes use of the boundary classification used by Cheshire East Council / Arup in their Green Belt Assessment16 published in April 2015.

STRONG Boundaries Reasons for Grading Motorway Strong identifiable boundary with strong permanence Main Road (A-Road, B-Road and Strong identifiable boundary with strong permanence

16 Cheshire East Green Belt Assessment Arup (April 2015) 15

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Unclassified Roads) Railway Line (in use) Strong identifiable boundary with strong permanence Site specific however should provide strong identifiable Rivers, Streams and Canals boundary with substantial permanence. Protected Woodland (TPO) and Ancient Designations provide statutory protection and substantial Woodland degree of permanence. Designations provide statutory protection and substantial Protected Hedges degree of permanence. Hedges have a less identifiable boundary than woodland. Site specific however topography should have prominent Prominent Topography features. Table 4.1: Table showing Strong Boundary Features

MODERATE Boundaries Reasons for Grading Minor Road (e.g. single track or Road should provide a moderate boundary with a moderate unmetalled road) or byway open to all degree of permanence. traffic Residential, employment or other Intermediate built form comprises clear boundary which development with clearly strong and utilises a single feature which clearly could restrict growth definable boundaries within the Green Belt. Site specific however there may be a clearly defined Private Road (maintained) boundary with a substantial degree of permanence if the road is maintained. Prominent field boundaries (i.e. clearly defined and accompanied by continuous Site specific however there may be a clearly defined physical features such as a significant boundary with a substantial degree of permanence. hedge, stone wall, watercourse, line of trees). Prominent public footpath, public bridleway or restricted byway (i.e. clearly defined and accompanied by other Site specific however there may be a clearly defined physical features such as a significant boundary with a substantial degree of permanence. hedge, stone wall, watercourse or line of trees). Disused railway lines (where in cutting or Physical feature would provide an identifiable boundary. on raised embankment). Physical feature would provide an identifiable boundary and Line of protected trees (TPO) protection would provide a degree of permanence. Tree line of mature trees would provide an identifiable Non protected woodlands boundary Brook (where wooded or with steep sides) Physical feature would provide an identifiable boundary. Table 4.2: Table showing Moderate Boundary Features

WEAK Boundaries Reasons for Grading Residential, employment or other Irregular, inconsistent or intermediate built form comprises development with weak or intermediate imprecise or softer boundaries which may not restrict boundaries. growth within the Green Belt. Other public footpaths, public bridleways or restricted byway that is not clearly defined as a physical feature or is Lack of physical features represents a weak boundary. unaccompanied by other physical features.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Disused railway line (where level with the Lack of a physical feature to define the boundary would surrounding area). result in a weak boundary. Open space boundaries Site specific however likely to have inconsistent boundary. Private road (unmaintained) Non-protected hedgerows lack permanence in comparison Non-protected hedges to protected hedgerows; if the hedge is also intermittent or less mature this creates a weak boundary. Non-protected trees lack permanence in comparison to Line of non-protected trees protected trees; if trees are intermittent or less mature this creates a weak boundary. Brooks (non-wooded and level with the Weak boundary due to weak physical features. surroundings).

Culverted Watercourses. Weak boundary due to weak physical features.

Field boundaries (where physical features Site specific however the field boundary will form a weak are lacking or intermittent). boundary if physical features are lacking.

Power lines. Weak boundary. Table 4.3: Table showing Weak Boundary Features

4.14 The use of the above boundary features allowed the City Council to identify specific parcels of land within the North Lancashire Green Belt for assessment. As noted via the consultation on the draft methodology it is important that such parcels are assessed both on their individual contribution but also their wider role and function in the local area.

4.15 To ensure a robust and consistent approach to land within the Green Belt the size of the parcels have, where it is realistically possible to do so, have been kept to a similar size and are no greater than 5 hectares in size. Where possible such parcels have been identified using strong boundary features (as identified in table 1) but where this has not been possible moderate / weak features have been used.

Stage 3: Green Belt Parcel Assessment

4.16 The North Lancashire Green Belt has been assessed against the five purposes of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF which are:

 To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;  To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;  To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;  To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and  To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

4.17 As already mentioned, the Review will not take into account landscape quality or the sensitivity of landscapes to accommodate development because these issues are not relevant to the purposes of the Green Belt set out above and therefore not relevant to the Review. The purpose of the Green Belt is to keep land open – it is not an environmental designation to protect specific landscapes.

4.18 The role of the Green Belt in the ‘countryside’ is explicitly referred to in Purpose 3 of the Green Belt and it is clear from a national planning policy perspective that there is a need for the positive use of land within the Green Belt (NPPF paragraph 81). It is also clear that the North Lancashire green Belt is widely regarded as playing a role in countryside protection for the benefit of the district’s population. Therefore this Green Belt Review will consider the existing positive uses of the North 17

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Lancashire Green Belt, such as formal and informal recreation facilities such as footpath and bridleways in relation to Purpose 3.

Local Approach to the Green Belt Review 4.19 This Green Belt Review will seek to assess the key purposes which are fundamental to the original designation back in 1991. This local approach to the Green Belt Review will ensure that the land contained within the Green Belt continue to fulfil the original purposes of the designation. For the purposes of clarity the important extracts of the Green Belt Local Plan are set out below in relation to the purposes of its original designation.

‘If development in the area between Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth continues unchecked, the urban areas and the villages could eventually join together, with each losing its identity as a separate settlement. The dangers of coalescence are already apparent. The northern edge of Bolton-le-Sands is less than 1 kilometre from the southernmost part of Carnforth, while the built-up areas of Morecambe is barely 1.25km from Slyne. The landscape between these settlements contains few significant natural features which could act as barriers to development and is visible from many public viewpoints.’

4.20 It is clear from the Green Belt Local Plan that the development through the 1960s and 1970s had resulted in the villages of Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne merging into one almost uninterrupted area of buildings. In addition theses villages had extended outwards into the surrounding farmland.

4.21 The Green Belt was designated in this area to ensure that continuing encroachment was curbed, particularly to ensure that strategic green gaps south of Slyne and north of Bolton-le-Sands remained open and free from development. The consequence of this occurring would have led to a continuous ribbon of development from Carnforth to Morecambe / Lancaster.

4.22 As a result the Green Belt Review will focus on these areas, particularly in relation to the assessment of purposes 1 to 3 which relate to openness and encroachment. Purposes 4 and 5 (which relate to the historic environment and urban regeneration) will be assessed as part of this Review however it is clear from reading historical records that these purposes were not part of the reasoning for the original designation.

4.23 Understanding the original reasons for designation also assists in ensure that the assessment of purposes is applied in specific areas of the Green Belt. For instance the assessment of purpose 2 (relating to preventing neighbouring towns merging together) should only be undertaken on land which forms a strategic gap between settlements and not areas of land which is located within the open countryside. Taking a more localised approach will ensure the production of a Review which is proportionate and appropriate to its context.

4.24 The following sections of this chapter set out how each individual Green Belt purpose has been assessed with rationale and definitions of how parcels have been assessed.

Green Belt Parcel Scoring 4.25 In assessing parcels against the five purposes of the Green Belt, the City Council have made use of a four-scale scoring systems which provides a clear differentiation between the degree of role that each parcel plays in relation to each specific purpose. This four-scale system is set out below along with how such scores will be defined within the assessment process.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Strong Contribution: The parcel contributes in a strong and undeniable way whereby the removal of the parcel would detrimentally undermine this purpose of the Green Belt. Moderate Contribution: The parcel contributes to the majority of this Green Belt purpose but does not fulfil all elements. Weak Contribution: Makes a limited degree of contribution to the purpose, as some relationship has been identified between the parcel and the purpose. No Contribution: Makes no contribution to the Green Belt purpose.

4.25 This scoring system will be such for judgements on all scale of parcels (general parcels and strategic parcels) to ensure consistency within the process. It is important to note that there will be an element of professional judgement in applying the scoring system, both to the individual and strategic Green Belt parcels, however the assessment framework which has been provided as part of this methodology will be sufficiently detailed to enable transparency and consistency.

Purpose 1: To Check the Unrestricted Sprawl of Large Built Up Areas 4.26 The first purpose of the Green Belt is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. Key to understanding how land within the Green Belt fulfils such a role is to consider the development patterns both within and surrounding the parcel and the degree of containment which the parcel provides in relation to the surrounding form.

4.27 Given this purpose relates primarily to the relationship between urban and rural areas, the assessment of Purpose 1 will focus on parcels of land which are adjacent to, or in reasonable proximity of, large built-up areas of the district. Looking back at the original designation of the North Lancashire Green Belt, the designation clearly outlined the main urban areas to be Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth, not the villages of Bolton-le-Sands and Slyne-with-Hest

4.28 The scale of development which has taken place in the intervening years since the original designation does not suggest that this position has altered sufficiently to amend this definition. As a result the assessment in to the role of the Green Belt for purpose 1 will focus on land which is adjacent to, or in close proximity of, the large built up areas of Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth.

4.29 Below are the assessment criteria which have been used to determine the value of land within the North Lancashire Green Belt in regard to Purpose 1.

Issues for Consideration Criteria Score and Value Strong Contribution: The parcel has a strong role in preventing ribbon development along two or more sides of a road corridor.  Does the parcel play a role in Moderate Contribution: The parcel has a clear role preventing ribbon in preventing ribbon development along one side development? Ribbon Development of the road corridor.  Has the parcel already been Weak Contribution: The parcel is located on a road compromised by ribbon corridor but does not prevent ribbon development. development? No Contribution: The parcel has no role in preventing ribbon development and is not on a road corridor. Strong Contribution: The parcel contains no  Is the parcel free from development, is free from urbanising sprawl and development? forms an extensive tract of countryside.  Does the parcel have a sense Level of Existing Sprawl Moderate Contribution: The parcel contains of sprawl from urbanising within the Parcel limited development but is parcel of part of a features? wider tract of countryside which mitigates the  Does this land form an urbanising impact of development. extensive tract of land? Weak Contribution: The parcel contains limited 19

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

development but is not part of a wider tract of countryside. No Contribution: The parcel contains significant levels of development which has generated urbanising sprawl and is not parcel of a wider tract of countryside.

Strong Contribution: The parcel is open from development and presents no opportunities for forming a more sustainable settlement pattern. Moderate Contribution: The parcel is open from  How many sides is the parcel development but there are opportunities for surrounded by Opportunities for forming a more realistic settlement pattern. development? Rounding Off of Weak Contribution: The parcel is surrounded by  Do opportunities exist to Settlements development but there are no opportunities for form a more sustainable forming a more realistic settlement pattern. pattern of development? No Contribution: The parcel is surrounded by development on multiple sides and opportunities for forming a more sustainable settlement pattern do exist.

 What is the overall Options include: Strong / Moderate / Weak / No Overall Assessment assessment of the parcel in contribution. relation to this purpose?

Table 4.4: Assessment Criteria used to Assess Green Belt Parcels in relation to Green Belt Purpose 1.

4.30 To add further clarity and understanding to the assessment process a table of definition has been provided which set out the relevant terminology which is associated with the assessment of Purpose 1.

Term Definition The straggling expansion of an urban or industrial area, irregular or straggling form, spread Sprawl out over a large area in an untidy or irregular way.

A Line of buildings which extends along a road, footpath or private land generally without accompanying development of land to the rear. A ‘ribbon’ does not necessarily have to be Ribbon Development served by individual accesses nor have a continuous or uniform building line. Buildings sited back, staggered or at angles and with gaps between them can still represent ribbon development. Road Corridor A main and well used road, this will primarily relate to A-roads and B-roads.

Development Development means any built structure. Table 4.5: Relevant Definitions for Assessment of Green Belt Purpose 1.

Purpose 2: To Prevent Neighbouring Towns from Merging into One Another 4.31 The second Green Belt purpose is to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. A key element of this purpose is to assess whether the land in the North Lancashire Green Belt forms an important gap between settlements and plays a role in ensure that distinctly separate settlements do not merge together.

4.32 The Green Belt Local Plan of 1991 gives clear direction to where the important gaps exist within the North Lancashire Green Belt. Following the merging of the settlements of Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands during the 1960s and 1970s the gaps between Morecambe & Slyne-with-Hest and Carnforth & Bolton-le-Sands were regarded as the key gaps to keep free from future development to ensure that the area between Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth is prevented from joining together.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

4.33 As a result the assessment of purpose 2 will be focused on the land within these key gaps between the settlements of Morecambe & Slyne-with-Hest and Carnforth & Bolton-le-Sands. Other parcels of land may also play a role in preventing the merging of settlements and their value in achieving this should be reflected within the assessment.

4.34 It is important to note that the gaps in these areas should consider not only the distances between settlements but also the topography of the land which may alter the perceptions and importance of the parcel in its role as an undeveloped gap between settlements. It is also important to note the wider contributions that a parcel may play in maintaining a gap.

4.35 Below are the assessment criteria which have been used to determine the value of land with the North Lancashire Green Belt in regard to Purpose 2.

Issues for Consideration Criteria Score and Value Strong Contribution: The parcel represents an essential gap which, if removed from the Green Belt, would result in either a substantial  Does the parcel form an essential, reduction in the distance between (or the largely essential or less essential gap merging of) two distinctly separate settlements. between named settlements? Moderate Contribution: The parcel has makes a  What is the current width of the gap notable contribution in maintaining a gap between settlements? between two distinctly separate settlements. Location of the Parcel  What would the gap between Weak Contribution: The parcel has a limited role settlements be should this parcel be in assisting to maintain a gap between two removed from the Green Belt? distinctly separate settlements.  Would the removal of the gap result No Contribution: The parcel plays no role in in the merging of two distinctly maintaining a gap between two distinctly separate settlement areas? separate settlements. This could be because settlements have already merged together or that the parcel assessed forms part of a much wider countryside area. Strong Contribution: The parcel has strong and uniform boundaries which can ensure that an essential gap can be maintained in the long term. Moderate Contribution: The parcel contains moderate boundaries which can ensure that an important / essential gap can be maintained in  Do natural features or infrastructure the long term. provide a strong physical barrier or Weak Contribution: The parcel contains Boundary Features boundary which maintains the moderate boundaries but are not uniform and presence of the gap between could be vulnerable to future encroachment into settlements? an important / essential gap. No Contribution: The parcel contains weak boundaries which are not robust in preventing encroachment into an important / essential gap or that the parcel does not play an important role in maintaining a gap.  What is the overall assessment of Options include: Strong / Moderate / Weak / No Overall Assessment the parcel in relation to this contribution. purpose? Table 4.6: Assessment Criteria used to Assess Green Belt Parcels in relation to Green Belt Purpose 2.

4.36 To add further clarity and understanding to the assessment process a table of definitions has been provided below which sets out the relevant terminology used in this part of the assessment process.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Term Definition These are settlements which are defined within the settlement hierarchy as set out in the Settlements local development plan.

Refers to the visible openness of the Green Belt and will be derived from the local level of buildings, urban influences and topography which support long views and low levels of Openness substantial vegetation (such as mature trees and hedgerows). Consideration to be given to the actual distances (the distance between settlement and countryside) and perceived distances. Openness should also be assessed from the edge of the settlement outwards.

A land gap between two or more settlements where the loss of the parcel would Essential Gap significantly reduce the gap, or result in the merging of distinctly separate settlements.

A land gap between two or more settlements where the loss of the parcel would lead to a reduction in the gap between settlements. However, such a loss would not lead to a Largely Essential Gap significant and detrimental reduction nor would it result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlements. A land area where the loss of the parcel would not have any impact on the gap between Less Essential Gap distinctly separate settlements. Merging Where settlements combine to form one separate entity / urban form. Table 4.7: Relevant definitions for Assessment of Green Belt Purpose 2.

Purpose 3: To Assist in Safeguarding the Countryside from Encroachment 4.37 The third purpose of the Green Belt is to assist in the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment from surrounding areas and settlements.

4.38 Purpose 3 is the key assessment criteria for judging a parcel’s openness – which is a key criteria for Green Belt value. Accordingly, the assessment of this purpose will cover a wider geographical area than the first two purposes assessment, considering the value and role of all land which is adjacent to (or in close proximity of) all settlements within or on the edge of the North Lancashire Green Belt. To conclude, the assessment of purpose 3 will be applied to all land contained within the North Lancashire Green Belt.

4.39 Below are the assessment criteria which have been used to determine the value of land within the North Lancashire Green Belt in regard to Purpose 3.

Issues for Consideration Criteria Score and Value High Contribution: The parcel has strong boundaries which will contain development and  Does the parcel forms part of the prevent encroachment in the long term. existing Green Belt boundary, if so Moderate Contribution: The parcel contains what does the boundary feature moderate boundary features which will assist in consist of? containing development and preventing  What do the other boundaries encroachment in the long term. Boundary Features consist of? Weak Contribution: The parcel contains  Are there strong and robust moderate boundary features, however these are boundaries to contain considered to be vulnerable to future development and prevent encroachment. encroachment in the long term? No Contribution: The parcel has weak boundaries which will not assist in containing development or preventing encroachment.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

High Contribution: The parcel includes a beneficial land use which will assist in safeguarding the future openness of the Green Belt AND has a strong relationship with the wider  What are the existing land uses in countryside area. the parcel? Moderate Contribution: The parcel has a  Does the parcel serve a beneficial beneficial use which contributes to the long term use of the Green Belt which should safeguarding of the Green Belt but does not have Existing Urbanising be safeguarded? a strong relationship with the wider countryside Features (Openness)  What is the proximity and area. relationship to the settlement Weak Contribution: Whilst the parcel has area? beneficial use but has a strong relationship with  What is parcels relationship to the the settlement area. countryside? No Contribution: The parcel does not have a beneficial use in safeguarding the Green Belt and has a strong relationship with the settlement area. High Contribution: The parcel wholly has a land use which is consistent with the Green Belt and is important to preserving its openness. Moderate Contribution: The parcel predominantly has a land use which is in-keeping  What is the land use within the with the Green Belt purpose and strongly assists parcel? Existing Land Use of the in preserving its openness.  Does the parcel serve a beneficial Parcel Weak Contribution: The parcel has some use of use of the Green Belt which should land which is beneficial to the Green Belt purpose, be safeguarded? however its prominent use is not consistent to the Green Belt. No Contribution: The parcel does not have a land use which is consistent with the Green Belt and does not contribute to preserving its openness.  What is the overall assessment of Options include: Strong / Moderate / Weak / No Overall Assessment the parcel in relation to this contribution. purpose? Table 4.8: Assessment Criteria used to Assess Green Belt Parcels in relation to Green Belt Purpose 3.

4.40 To add further clarity and understanding to the assessment process a table of definitions has been provided below which sets out the relevant terminology used in this part of the assessment process.

Term Definition Encroachment To intrude or advance gradually beyond an acceptable or established limit.

Built environment uses which adjoin or are adjacent to the parcel which are not consistent Urbanising Features with uses which are permitted in the Green Belt. Development arising from farms, forestry uses and outdoor recreation will not be considered to be urbanising uses.

In relation to boundary features, uniformity describes a regular and clearly defined feature Uniformity which is the same for its full length, for example a defined hedgerow or track.

Identified as opportunities to provide access to the countryside; for outdoor sport and Beneficial Uses recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes; to retain and enhance visual amenity; and to retain and enhance biodiversity (as defined in paragraph 81 of the NPPF).

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Strong and Robust See definitions set out in Tables 1 – 3 of this Green Belt Review. Boundaries Table 4.9: Relevant Definitions for Assessment of Green Belt Purpose 3.

Purpose 4: To Preserve the Setting and Special Character of Historic Towns 4.41 The fourth purpose of the Green Belt is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. It is important to note that the original Green Belt designation made in 1991 was not created on the basis of fulfilling Purpose 4 however, it is important for this Green Belt Review to understand whether the Green Belt has evolved into fulfilling this purpose over the passage of time.

4.42 To ensure that the approach to assessing this process is a robust as possible, the council requested the assistance of Historic England to input into the methodology process. A written response (set out in Appendix C) from Historic England was received suggesting a number of minor amendments to how this purpose was to be assessed. These amendments have been incorporated within the finalised methodology and assessment.

4.43 Key to assessing this purpose is to understand what is meant and defined as a historic town. Through both national and local planning policy there is no fixed definition of what represents a ‘historic town’ other than Lancaster being defined as a historic city within the 2008 Core Strategy.

4.44 As a result it is for this assessment to determine what should be considered to be an historic town. Whilst a number of the villages within and on the edge of the Green Belt have historic elements to them (whether this be a Conservation Area or Listed Buildings) these are clearly villages which have local historic importance but should not be and therefore have been discounted from assessment purely on the scale of the settlement.

4.45 This leaves both Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth of sufficient size to be considered as towns. Following this decision the assessment must then consider the historic roles of all three towns to make a further judgement on whether they should be seen in the context of a Historic Town. Clearly all three settlements have historical value. For instance Carnforth is recognised as an industrial town which has significant links to the development of the railway network across the country, Morecambe is also recognised as an important Victorian coastal resort with features such as the Winter Gardens and Lancaster has a large and varied history dating back to Roman times which is widely recognised for features such as Lancaster Castle and the Ashton Memorial.

4.46 Coupled with historical value, it is also important to understand whether the North Lancaster Green Belt plays a role in protecting the setting and character of these historical features. It has been judged that in relation to both Carnforth and Morecambe that the wider Green Belt designation does not play any role in protecting the setting of their historic value. However, this is not the case for Lancaster, with the views from both Lancaster Castle and Ashton Memorial (which are located on elevated ground) affected by the wider role of the Green Belt.

4.47 Table 10 below sets out a summary of the judgements made into which settlements the assessment of Purpose 4 should apply to.

Settlement Scale of Settlement Historic Value and Setting To be assessed Lancaster is of a sufficient scale Lancaster is of sufficient via the Green Lancaster ✓ to be to be considered to be a ✓ historic importance to be Belt Review via town. defined as a historic town Purpose 4.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Morecambe is of a sufficient Discounted on Morecambe ✓ scale to be considered as a ✕ Morecambe Historic Value town Carnforth is not Carnforth is of sufficient scale considered to meet the Discount on Carnforth ✓ ✕ to be considered as a town. definitions of a historic Historic Value town Bolton-le-Sands is not Discounted on Bolton-le-Sands is not of a considered to meet the the Scale of Bolton-le-Sands ✕ sufficient size to be considered ✕ definitions of a historic Settlement & a town. town. Historic Value Slyne-with-Hest is not Discounted on Slyne-with-Hest is not of a considered to meet the the Scale of Slyne-with-Hest ✕ sufficient size to be considered ✕ definitions of a historic Settlement & a town. town. Historic Value Discounted on Halton is not considered Halton is not of a sufficient size the Scale of Halton ✕ ✕ to meet the definitions of to be considered a town. Settlement & a historic town. Historic Value Nether Kellet is not Discounted on Nether Kellet is not of a considered to meet the the Scale of Nether Kellet ✕ sufficient size to be considered ✕ definitions of a historic Settlement & a town. town. Historic Value Table 4.10: Summary of Assessment for Historic Towns and their Settings (Purpose 4)

4.47 Following the consideration of the scale of development and the role the Green Belt may play in protecting the historic setting it has been decided that the assessment of Purpose 4 should only be applied to land which makes up the setting of Lancaster which is considered to be of sufficient scale and size to be considered a town and contains historical assets which may be effected by the future role of the Green Belt.

4.48 Over the page are the assessment criteria which will be used to assess the role of the land to the North of Lancaster in fulfilling Purpose 4.

Issues for Consideration Criteria Score and Value High Contribution: The Green Belt parcel is clearly within the setting of a heritage asset with strong and pronounced views of the historic core of the  Is the nearest settlement to the town. parcel defined as a historic Moderate Contribution: The Green Belt parcel is town? located within the vicinity of the historic town and  Does the parcel have a visual has some visual connection with the historic core Proximity to Historic Town relationship with the heritage of the town. and Heritage Assets asset? Weak Contribution: The Green Belt parcel is  Does the parcel have any other located in the vicinity of the historic town but relationship with a heritage does not have any visual connection with the asset? historic core of the town. No Contribution: The Green Belt parcel is not located adjacent to (or within the setting of) the historic town of Lancaster.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

High Contribution: The Green Belt parcel plays a significant role in preserving the character and setting of the key historical assets in the town. Moderate Contribution: The Green Belt parcel plays some role in preserving the character and  What role does the Green Belt Role in Preserving the setting of key historical assets in the town. play in preserving the setting and Character and Setting of Weak Contribution: The parcel is on a historic special character of the historic the Historic Town route into the town and provides a limited town? contribution towards preserving the setting and character of the historical assets in the town. No Contribution: The parcel does not contribute towards the preserving the setting or character of the historical assets in the town.  What is the overall assessment Options include: Strong / Moderate / Weak / No Overall Assessment of the parcel in relation to this contribution. purpose? Table 4.11: Assessment Criteria used to Assess Green Belt Parcels in relation to Green Belt Purpose 4.

4.49 To add further clarity and understanding to the assessment process a table of definitions has been provided below which sets out the relevant terminology used in this part of the assessment process.

Term Definition The Historic Core relates to the key heritage assets within a historic town and could Historic Core relate to important Conservation Areas or Listed Structures.

The reasons for the historic value of the heritage asset, including specific features and Special Character design, location and

The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. The surroundings in which a heritage asset is situated. The extent of a setting is not fixed Setting and may change as the heritage asset (and its surroundings) evolve. Table 4.12: Relevant Definitions for Assessment of Green Belt Purpose 4.

Purpose 5: To Assist in Urban Regeneration by Encouraging the Recycling of Derelict and Other Urban Land 4.50 The final purpose of the Green Belt is the assistance that protecting greenfield sites can have on the re-use, recycling and re-development of brownfield sites within nearby urban areas. Again, as with the previous purpose relating to historic character and setting, the North Lancashire Green Belt was not designated specifically to fulfil this function.

4.51 The draft methodology set out an approach that all areas of the North Lancashire Green Belt makes some sort of contribution towards urban regeneration within the district through restricting the amount of greenfield available for development and encouraging development to seek out and recycle derelict urban sites.

4.52 In order to assess how the parcels contribute to meeting purpose 5 it is necessary to assess the potential for urban regeneration which are adjoining (or adjacent to) the parcel. To understand the potential for urban regeneration there needs to be an understanding over the supply of undeveloped brownfield sites (in terms of potential housing numbers granted permission but not developed). Such information can be secured from the City Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment – SHLAA (soon to be renamed Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (HELMA). The data within this assessment sets out the realistic opportunities for urban regeneration and the potential levels of development which could arise from such sites.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

4.53 This data, coupled with information of the overall size of settlements will provide a rough guide to whether urban regeneration opportunities exist and the scale to opportunity (capacity). The greater the opportunity, the greater the protection of Green Belt land will serve opportunities for urban regeneration.

4.54 It is important to note that this assessment will be a theoretical exercise as it is an assessment of ‘potential’ and there is no guarantee that restricting development in the Green Belt will result in the development of brownfield sites in urban areas. There are many factors, both within and outside of the planning system, which may hold back the regeneration of urban brownfield sites.

4.55 In order to assess the contribute which the Green Belt may make to assisting with the re-use of urban land a series of thresholds are necessary to conclude what the level of contribution is. Again, looking at other examples of best practice from elsewhere the following thresholds have been applied.

BROWNFIELD CAPACITY THRESHOLDS PURPOSE OF LEVEL 5 CONTRIBUTION 0% No Contribution >0.1% Weak Contribution >1-5% Moderate Contribution >5% Strong Contribution Table 4.13: Urban Capacity Thresholds used for Assessing Purpose 5.

4.56 Below are the assessment criteria which have been used to determine the value of land within the North Lancashire Green Belt in regard to purpose 5.

Issues for Consideration Criteria Score and Value Strong Contribution: The parcel is located in close proximity to an urban area which could make a critical or significant contribution to urban regeneration Moderate Contribution: The Green Belt parcel is  Does the parcel have a located in close proximity to an urban area which relationship with an urban area? could made a moderate contribution to urban Urban Regeneration  What potential does that urban regeneration. Potential area have for regeneration of Weak Contribution: The Green Belt is located in brownfield sites (Capacity)? close proximity to an urban area which could make some contribution to urban regeneration. No Contribution: The Green Belt parcel is located in close proximity to an urban area which makes very limited contribution to urban regeneration OR is not located in close proximity to an urban area,  What is the overall assessment Options include: Critical / Significant / Moderate / Overall Assessment of the parcel in relation to this Limited / No contribution. purpose? Table 4.14: Assessment Criteria used to Assess Green Belt Parcels in relation to Green Belt Purpose 5.

4.57 To add further clarity and understanding to the assessment process a table of definitions is provided below which set out the relevant terminology used in this part of the assessment process.

Term Definition Investment and development to improve the economic, social, physical and environment Urban Regeneration condition of an area.

Brownfield Land An urban site for potential development that has been previously developed.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Potential development from sites located within urban areas (defined as % of the current Urban Potential settlement capacity). Table 4.15: Relevant Definitions for Assessment of Green Belt Purpose 5.

Recommendations of the Review 4.58 To determine the overall assessment, the outcomes of each of the five purposes must be considered and a professional judgement made on the overall contribution the parcel makes to the Green Belt. As each of the five purposes set out in the NPPF is considered to be equally important there will be no specific weighting given to any specific purpose.

4.59 The methodology below sets out a guide for how conclusions for the overall assessment will be reached and how the scoring for the individual purposes will be collated. These guiding principles are set out below:

 No parcels should be assessed as ‘no contribution’ unless each of the five purposes assessment is assessed as ‘no contribution’.  Where there is a 4/1 split the majority contribution should always be applied. The only exception to this is where the majority is assessed as ‘no contribution’ in which case the overall assessment should be ‘weak contribution’. Example MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE NO MODERATE

Exceptions NO NO NO NO MODERATE WEAK

NO NO NO NO STRONG APPLY PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT

 Where there is a 3/2 split the majority contribution should always be applied unless the 2 contributions are assessed as ‘strong contribution’. In this case the overall would be ‘strong contribution’. The exception to this principle would be if the majority were assessed as ‘no contribution’, in this case the overall would be in the minority.

Example MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE WEAK WEAK MODERATE

Exceptions NO NO NO MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

WEAK WEAK WEAK STRONG STRONG STRONG

 Where there was a 2/2 split – the high contribution should always be applied. The exception to this is where the minority contribution is a ‘strong contribution’ in which case professional judgement should be applied.

Example MODERATE WEAK MODERATE WEAK NO MODERATE

Exception 28

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

MODERATE MODERATE NO NO STRONG APPLY PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT

 Where 2 purposes are the same and the remaining 3 are all different the application of professional judgement would be required.

Example WEAK WEAK MODERATE STRONG NO APPLY PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT

4.60 Whilst all five Green Belt purposes should be given equal weighting, the overall assessment is not intended to be a numbers balancing exercise and a certain level of professional judgement must be applied to all of the above rules and particularly where one of the purpose is assessed as a ‘strong contribution’. In order to do this, it is necessary to refer back to the overall aim and purpose of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

‘The fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, the essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and permanence.’

4.61 Paragraph 79 refers to the prevention of ‘urban sprawl’ and keeping land permanently open. These aims are fundamentally subsumed in Purposes 1, 2 and 3 and thus the development of a parcel which would particularly threaten these purposes additional weight should be applied to its contribution to Green Belt purposes. This will be a matter for the professional judgement of the assessor however the justification for the assessment should provide a transparent explanation behind their reasoning.

Stage 4: Conclusions and Recommendations of the Green Belt Review

4.62 The conclusion to the Green Belt Review will seek to summarise the outcomes from the parcel assessments. The Review will make use of choropleth mapping to visually illustrate the assessment results.

4.63 It is important to note the role and influence of the Green Belt Review. It does not form part of the Local Development Plan in its own right but will be a key piece of evidence in informing the plan.

4.64 The Green Belt Review does not recommend which sites should be released as this is a matter for the preparation of the local plan, taking into account all relevant evidence to the process. The National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. It will be for the preparation of the Local Development Plan to understand and justify whether such circumstances exist. Exceptional circumstances could relate to the need to find a sufficient supply of housing for the plan period in the most sustainable locations, or the ability to deliver wider community benefit from a site or the opportunity to deliver other wider strategic objectives of the development plan.

4.65 From the outcome of the Green Belt Review it could be concluded that those parcels which are assessed as making a lower contribution towards Green Belt purposes have the greatest potential to be considered for release should exceptional circumstances for its release be demonstrated. But equally the City Council may consider the release of high performing parcels where it can be clearly demonstrated that the benefits of releasing the site from its designation outweigh its loss from the Green Belt.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

4.66 As a result the outcomes of the Green Belt Review do not entirely rule out the possibility of certain parcels being released, however to achieve this it will be for the preparation of the local development plan to demonstrate that exceptional circumstance exist in doing so.

5 STRATEGIC REVIEW OF THE NORTH LANCASHIRE GREEN BELT

5.1 The North Lancashire Green Belt Local Plan, published by Lancaster City Council in 1991 sets out the reasoning for designating the Green Belt at that time. The Green Belt Local Plan sets out the background for Green Belt designation which is set out below.

‘During the 1960s and 1970s much of the new house building in Lancaster district took place outside the main areas of Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth. The villages of Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne experienced significant growth during these years. In 1961 there were 4,800 people (1,800 households) living in these villages; today [in 1991] the population is more than 7,000 (over 3,000 households). Housing development to accommodate this population growth has taken up around 150 hectares of land. As a result, the originally separate settlements of Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne have grown together, forming an almost uninterrupted area of buildings. In addition, the villages have extended outward into the surrounding farmland.

Over the same period, new development on the northern edges of Lancaster and Morecambe consumed more than 32 hectares of land while development in south Carnforth also contributed to the loss of open land.

If development in the area between Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth continues unchecked, the urban areas and the villages could eventually join together, with each losing its identity as a separate settlement. The dangers of coalescence are already apparent. The northern edge of Bolton-le-Sands is less than 1km from the southernmost parts of Carnforth, while the built-up area of Morecambe is barely 1.25km from Slyne. The landscape between these settlements contains few significant natural features which could act as barriers to development, and is visible from many public viewpoints.’

5.2 The purpose of designation the North Lancashire Green Belt in 1991 was clear. Growth had occurred throughout the 1960s and 1970s in both the district’s urban and rural settlements which had already resulted in the merging together of Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne. The designation of Green Belt in this area would prevent further coalescence and urban sprawl being created between Lancaster and Morecambe to the south and Carnforth to the north. Historic growth, coupled with future development pressures meant that in 1991 there was a strategic planning need for a Green Belt to be designated in this area.

5.3 When considering the continuing need for the North Lancashire Green Belt into the future the City Council must consider the following issues:

i. Has the Green Belt designation been effective in ensuring the urban areas described have not coalesced? ii. Is there still a need to retain a Green Belt to ensure that the urban areas of the district do not coalesce?

5.4 When considering the patterns of urban growth between 1991 and 2015 it is clear that the Green Belt designation has been highly effective in managing and constraining growth in settlements both

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

on the edge of the Green Belt and within the Green Belt. Growth within the villages has been limited to infill development within the settlement and development within the Green Belt has been highly restricted. Equally, further expansions of the district’s major settlements – Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth – have also been checked to prevent coalescence.

5.5 The circumstances set out in the 1991 Green Belt Local Plan remain the same today. National Planning Guidance in relation to Green Belts has changed very little since the 1990s and there remains a need to ensure that development is adequately managed to prevent damage to openness and prevent the coalescence of settlements.

5.6 Whilst there are a number of potential more localised approaches to address this issue (such as the designation of green gaps or open countryside) it is clear from experiences from other local plans elsewhere in England (in particular Cheshire East) that the more effective approach to protection of openness is from a Green Belt designation. As a result it is clear that the most robust and effective method of preventing coalescence is through retaining the North Lancashire Green Belt through the forthcoming plan period.

5.7 The conclusion of this Strategic Review is that the North Lancashire Green Belt has been highly effective in preventing coalescence since its designation in 1991. As identified in national policy there is still a need to protect against the coalescence of urban areas in the district which needs to be addressed through the forthcoming plan period. The retention of the North Lancashire Green Belt is the most effective method of dealing with this issue.

5.8 Whilst it is clear that there remains a strategic need for the overall Green Belt designation to be retained, this does not mean that a review of the land and boundaries which constitute the Green Belt should not take place. Changes to the Green Belt (for example the development of the Heysham / M6 Link Road) and development on its boundaries over the past 25 years may have altered the character, function and purpose of some of land within the Green Belt. Therefore a more detailed review of the land and boundaries which constitute the Green Belt is required in order to make the North Lancashire Green Belt effective and robust through the forthcoming plan period up to 2031 and beyond.

6 DEFINING THE GREEN BELT PARCELS

6.1 Prior to the assessment of the Green Belt, it is important that the land contained within the designation is separated into manageable areas in which an assessment of the 5 purposes can take place.

6.2 The definition of parcels has looked at the variety of definable boundary features that can be found in the Green Belt. This can include very strong, prominent features such as main roads, canals or railway lines but, in some places, has had to make use of weaker features such as tree belts, hedgerows or the rear of residential properties. The full range of potential boundaries (and their relative strengths as boundaries) are set out in Tables 1 to 3 of this Review.

6.3 This has led to the definition of a series of general parcels, which will be used to assess the Green Belt value of that specific element of land, and the definition of series of strategic parcels which will be used to assess the cumulative Green Belt value of series of generic parcels. In total the following number of parcels have been defined within the North Lancashire Green Belt.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

STRATEGIC PARCELS 48 Strategic Parcels BOLTON-LE-SANDS 52 General Parcels CARNFORTH 31 General Parcels HALTON 8 General Parcels LANCASTER 19 General Parcels MORECAMBE 15 General Parcels SLYNE-WITH-HEST 26 General Parcels OPEN COUNTRYSIDE 15 Parcels Table 6.1: Total Number of Parcels created in the North Lancashire Green Belt Review.

6.4 It is important to note that the identification of general parcels has only taken place directly around the settlement areas both within, or directly adjoining the North Lancashire Green Belt. Given the Review has already concluded that the overall need for the Green Belt remains as pertinent today as it did at the point of its original designation then land which is described to be in the wider open countryside has been assessed on its strategic value only. This has led to a more efficient use of time and resource focusing on areas of the Green Belt where there are more likely to have been changes in relation to the purposes of the Green Belt.

6.5 The completed Green Belt parcel mapping, highlighting both general and strategic parcels is set out in Appendices C and D of this Review.

7 GREEN BELT SITE VISITS AND ASSESSMENT

7.1 The North Lancashire Green Belt was visited on a series of occasions throughout the summer of 2016, starting on the 21st July and concluding in mid-September. The Green Belt Site Visits were undertaken through a series of ‘Sessions’ which sought to make use of Public Rights of Way and other publicly accessible routes in order to visit parcels in the most thorough, safe and efficient way possible. Given the small scale of the Green Belt, access via public routes has been sufficient to assess all parcels identified.

ARUP Sample Verification 7.2 To ensure that the assessment work had been undertaken in a consistent manner and in accordance with the finalised methodology the council requested a sample of assessments to be verified by independent consultants ARUP.

7.3 To maximise efficiency and resources, the council requested a sample of 20 general parcels to be assessed.

Finalising the Assessment 7.4 Following the site visits, and making use of the information collected including observations and photographs, the assessment sheets were finalised. The assessment sheets are set out in more detail in Appendix E (assessment for general parcels) and Appendix F (assessment for strategic parcels) which provides an assessment summary each individual parcel against the five purposes of the Green Belt along with an overall summary of how the parcel contributes to fulfilling the purposes of the Green Belt.

7.5 This assessment work and its findings are summarised further in Section 8 of this Review.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GREEN BELT REVIEW

8.1 This chapter of the review provides conclusions and recommendations from the assessment process. It sets out analysis of results from the Green Belt Parcel Assessment with the full details on each parcel assessment provided in Appendices E, F and G.

8.2 The assessment work which has been undertaken has been done making use of the methodology which has been described in Section X of this report. The sample of the assessments undertaken have also been re-assessed independently by consultants at ARUP to ensure that the assessments have followed the methodology as described. The outcomes of the ARUP verification can be read in more detail via Appendix J of this Review.

General Parcel Assessment

8.3 In total the Green Belt Review has assessed 151 general Green Belt parcels which surround the settlement areas of Carnforth, Bolton-le-Sands, Slyne-with-Hest, Halton, Lancaster and Morecambe. Whilst the general parcels have allowed the assessment of the individual value of parcel, the cumulative value has also been assessed by the collation of 48 strategic parcels.

8.4 The assessment of general parcels reflects the localised approach to the Green Belt Review, referring back to the reasons behind the original designation back in 1991 and ensuring that parcels are correctly assessed for the relevant purposes. For example, many of the parcels in the Slyne-with- Hest and Bolton-le-Sands area have not been assessed on the basis of Purpose 1 (i.e. as both settlements are classed as villages – not ‘large built-up areas’) nor have they been assessed under Purpose 4 (i.e. they do not meet our understanding of what is a historic town).

8.5 It is important to note that areas defined as ‘open countryside’ are not considered to be general parcels due to their size and location away from the settlement areas of the district, therefore such land has only been assessed on the basis of the wider strategic importance with the Green Belt. The value of land within the open countryside is described in paragraphs XXX of this review.

8.6 Table 8.1 provides a summary of assessment results for each general parcel, separating out the parcels into whether they have a strong, moderate or weak contribution. No parcel assessment returned an overall recommendation of ‘no contribution’, hence its omission from the table below.

Site Assessment General Parcel Reference Bolton-le-Sands: BLS03, BLS11, BLS12, BLS13, BLS15, BLS17, BLS24, BLS25, BLS26, BLS29, BLS31, BLS32, BLS33, BLS34, BLS35, BLS36, BLS37, BLS39, BLS41, BLS42, BLS43, BLS44, BLS49, BLS50, BLS51 & BLS52. Carnforth: CARN01, CARN02, CARN03, CARN06, CARN07, CARN09, CARN10, CARN12, CARN13, CARN15, CARN16, CARN17, CARN18, CARN19, CARN20, STRONG CONTRIBUTION CARN21, CARN22, CARN23, CARN24, CARN28 & CARN29. Halton: HALT06 & HALT08. Lancaster: N/A Morecambe: MORE01, MORE02, MORE03, MORE05 & MORE09. Slyne-with-Hest: SWH01, SWH02, SWH03, SWH04, SWH05, SWH06, SWH07, SWH08, SWH10, SWH18, SWH19, SWH20 & SWH22. Bolton-le-Sands: N/A MODERATE CONTRIBUTION Carnforth: CARN05, CARN11, CARN14, CARN25, CARN26, CARN27, CARN30 & CARN31.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Halton: HALT01, HALT02, HALT03, HALT04, HALT05 & HALT07. Lancaster: LAN06, LAN07, LAN11, LAN12, LAN13, LAN16, LAN17, LAN18 & LAN19. Morecambe: MORE08, MORE10, MORE11, MORE12, MORE14 & MORE15. Slyne-with-Hest: SWH12, SWH14, SWH21, SWH24 & SWH25. Bolton-le-Sands: BLS01, BLS02, BLS04, BLS05, BLS06, BLS07, BLS08, BLS09, BLS10, BLS14, BLS16, BLS18, BLS19, BLS20, BLS21, BLS22, BLS23, BLS27, BLS28, BLS30, BLS38, BLS40, BLS45, BLS46, BLS47 & BLS48. Carnforth: CARN04 & CARN08. Halton: N/A WEAK CONTRIBUTION Lancaster: LAN01, LAN02, LAN03, LAN04, LAN05, LAN08, LAN09, LAN10, LAN14 & LAN15. Morecambe: MORE04, MORE06, MORE07 & MORE13. Slyne-with-Hest: SWH09, SWH11, SWH13, SWH15, SWH16, SWH17, SWH23 & SWH26. Table 8.1: Green Belt Parcel Assessment Results (General Parcels)

8.7 A significant number of parcels which have a weak contribution to the Green Belt can be found on the coastal side of Bolton-le-Sands. Whilst the landscape in this area is generally open coastal landscape there has been significant urbanising influences which have been generated in this area, in particular the siting of a range of caravan parks (BLS01, BLS08, BLS14 and BLS16). These uses have included the siting of significant levels of static caravans in the locality which are supplemented seasonally by touring caravans. The presence of such features do impact on the wider openness of the area.

8.8 The issues of caravan parks are exacerbated further due to the presence of a range of residential and commercial properties which are particularly prevalent on St Nicholas Lane and St Michaels Lane (BLS05, BLS06 and BLS08). This again adds to the urban character of the locality and devalues the Green Belt in this area.

8.9 In Lancaster, the construction of the Link Road has had a significant effect on the value of the Green Belt, particularly in the assessment of land which lies between the new road and the urban edge of Lancaster (for instance LAN01, LAN02, LAN04 and LAN05). In these location the overall openness of land has been significantly reduced, with land clearly severed from wider tracts of countryside which exist further to the north. The design of the road, which in places runs along an embankment, exacerbate this sense of severance and have resulted in weak values within this Review.

8.10 The Green Belt in the area of Slyne-with-Hest faces a number of challenges which are reflected within the review. Firstly there are a number of pockets of residential development to the south (for instance parcels SWH09, SWH11 & SWH13) which are clearly uses which are not consistent with the Green Belt and reduce levels of openness. The impacts of these pockets of development should however be balanced against the value of maintaining a gap between the settlements of Slyne-with- Hest and Lancaster.

8.11 Secondly the Green Belt to the east of Slyne-with-Hest (for instance parcels SWH15 and SWH16), whilst generally open has significant issues in using definable boundary features in order to maintain a strong and permanent boundary between the urban area and the countryside beyond. At present the boundary features are a range of rear of properties which are clearly vulnerable to future encroachment.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

8.12 A number of other parcels have been scored as a weak contribution due to the boundary features which protect the Green Belt from the adjoining urban area. In a number of cases the boundary features are either arbitrary (i.e. there is no defined feature) or follow the rear of residential properties. These are generally considered to be weak features which could be vulnerable to future changes and encroachment in the future. This reflects the understanding of the relative strength of boundary features which is more fully described in table X of this Review.

8.13 There are also a number of parcels which have strong relationships with the settlement area, this can be clearly identified by parcels are surrounded on multiple sides by existing residential development – this is particularly the case for some parcels in the Bolton-le-Sands and Slyne-with- Hest area (for instance BLS48 and SWH23).

8.14 The parcels which have been assessed as a weak contribution are set out in Table 8.2 below, setting out a summary of the reasons behind why a weak score has been given. For further information on the assessment of each parcel please refer to Appendices E, F and G of the Review.

Parcel General Parcel Overall Assessment Summary Assessment Reference Title Recommendation The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land at Bay View purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel WEAK BLS01 Caravan Park, includes a range of urbanising features, for example CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands Bay View Caravan Park, which has impacted on the openness of this area. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land at Dettern purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel WEAK BLS02 Gate Farm, includes a range of urbanising features surrounding CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands Dettern Gate Farm (including the siting of caravans). This has had an impact on the openness of this area. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Wild Duck Hall, WEAK BLS04 purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel Bolton-le-Sands CONTRIBUTION contains a prominent residential structure which impacted on openness. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land at Bay View purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel WEAK BLS05 Nurseries, includes a range of urbanising features, for example CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands the garden centre at Bay View Nurseries, which has impacted on openness and demonstrates encroachment. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land to the East purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel of St Nicholas WEAK BLS06 includes a range of urbanising features, including Lane, Bolton-le- CONTRIBUTION residential and commercial buildings on the lane Sands itself, which has impacted on openness and demonstrates encroachment. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land the North of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the of Sardside WEAK BLS07 purpose relating to encroachment, whilst the land is Caravan Park, CONTRIBUTION in open agricultural use there are significant impacts Bolton-le-Sands on the urbanising features to the south and the north

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

which creates a strong relationship with the settlement area and reduces wider openness. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Sardside Caravan purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel WEAK BLS08 Park, Bolton-le- includes a range of urbanising features, for example CONTRIBUTION Sands Sardside Caravan Park, which has impacted on the openness of this area. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land to the of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the South of St purpose relating to encroachment, there are a range WEAK BLS09 Michaels Lane, of residential properties on St Michaels Lane which CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands have impacted on openness and demonstrates encroachment from the settlement area. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land at the purpose relating to encroachment, there are a WEAK BLS10 Shore, Bolton-le- number of residential properties at The Shore which CONTRIBUTION Sands have created an urban influence in the locality and reduce levels of openness. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land at Red Bank purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel WEAK BLS14 Farm, Bolton-le- includes a range of urbanising features, for example CONTRIBUTION Sands Red Bank Farm Caravan Park, which has impacted on the openness of this area. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land at of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Morecambe purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel WEAK BLS16 Lodge Caravan includes a range of urbanising features, for example CONTRIBUTION Park, Bolton-le- Morecambe Lodge Caravan Park, which has impacted Sands on the openness of this area. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land at purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel Shorefield WEAK BLS18 includes a range of urbanising features, including a Caravan Park, CONTRIBUTION sewerage works, residential properties and tourism Hest Bank uses, which has impacted on the openness of this area. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land to the of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the North West of purpose relating to encroachment, there is a strong WEAK BLS19 Coastal Drive, relationship with the surrounding settlement area CONTRIBUTION Hest Bank and urbanising features of surrounding land and infrastructure reduced openness. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land at Hatlex purpose relating to encroachment, there are a range WEAK BLS20 Beck, Bolton-le- of structures and poor boundaries which demonstrate CONTRIBUTION Sands encroachment and are vulnerable to further encroachment in the future. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land at Madison purpose relating to encroachment, there are a range WEAK BLS21 Avenue, Bolton- of poor boundary features which are vulnerable to CONTRIBUTION le-Sands future encroachment and has a strong relationship to the settlement area.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

The parcel does not have any function towards four Land to the East of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the of Morecambe purpose relating to encroachment, whilst the land is WEAK BLS22 Lodge Caravan in open agricultural use there are significant impacts CONTRIBUTION Park, Bolton-le- on the urbanising features to the south and the north Sands which creates a strong relationship with the settlement area and reduces wider openness. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land South of purpose relating to encroachment, there are a range WEAK BLS23 Pasture Lane, of poor boundary features which are vulnerable to CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands future encroachment and has a strong relationship to the settlement area. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land to the West of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the of Windermere purpose relating to encroachment, there are a range WEAK BLS27 Road, Bolton-le- of poor boundary features which are vulnerable to CONTRIBUTION Sands future encroachment and has a strong relationship to the settlement area. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land to the of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the South of Rydal WEAK BLS28 purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel is Road, Bolton-le- CONTRIBUTION heavily sub-divided which has reduced openness in Sands this area. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land at Hatlex of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the WEAK BLS30 Bridge, Bolton- purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel is CONTRIBUTION le-Sands heavily sub-divided for the use of horse stabling which has reduced openness in this area. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land to the of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the South of Thwaite purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel is WEAK BLS38 Brow Lane, heavily sub-divided for the use of horse stabling CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands which has reduced openness in this area. Topography in this location also reduces wider openness. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land at Chorley of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the WEAK BLS40 Bridge, Bolton- purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel has CONTRIBUTION le-Sands strong links with the settlement area due to topography. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land at Bolton purpose relating to encroachment, the parcel WEAK BLS45 Turnpike Bridge, includes a range of structures which have reduced CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands openness. The parcel includes a weak Green Belt boundary which is vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the Land South of purpose relating to encroachment, whilst the parcel WEAK BLS46 Bolton Lane, has good openness there is a very poor Green Belt CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands boundary which is vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land to the East of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the WEAK BLS47 of the Nook, purpose relating to encroachment, whilst the parcel CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands has good openness there is a very poor Green Belt

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

boundary which is vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel does not have any function towards four of the five Green Belt purposes. With regards to the purpose relating to encroachment, whilst the parcel Land to the Rear has good openness there is a very poor Green Belt WEAK BLS48 of Church Brow, boundary which is vulnerable to future CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands encroachment. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by development which gives a very strong relationship to the settlement area. The parcel performs weakly in two purposes and moderate in one purpose. There are a number of Land at Hagg WEAK CARN04 residential properties within this parcel which Farm, Carnforth CONTRIBUTION demonstrate encroachment and have reduced the level of openness in the area. The parcel does not have any function towards four Land at Hunting of the five Green Belt purposes. The parcel is highly WEAK CARN08 Hill Sewerage developed as a sewerage works which has introduced CONTRIBUTION Works, Carnforth a significant urbanising feature into the locality. The parcel makes a weak contribution to three Land the West of purposes and moderate contribution against one Endsleigh Grove, WEAK LAN01 purpose. The parcel has a strong relationship with the Skerton, CONTRIBUTION settlement area and is severed from wider tracts of Lancaster open land to the north by the Link Road. Land to the The parcel makes a weak contribution to two North of Barley purposes and moderate contribution against one WEAK LAN02 Cop Lane, purpose. The parcel has a strong relationship with the CONTRIBUTION Skerton, settlement area and is severed from wider tracts of Lancaster open land to the north by the Link Road. The parcel makes a weak contribution to two Lancaster purposes and moderate contribution against one Crematorium, WEAK LAN03 purpose. The parcel has a strong relationship with the Skerton, CONTRIBUTION settlement area and is severed from wider tracts of Lancaster open land to the north by the Link Road. Land to the The parcel makes a weak contribution to three North of purposes and moderate contribution against one WEAK LAN04 Whernside Road, purpose. The parcel has a strong relationship with the CONTRIBUTION Skerton, settlement area and is severed from wider tracts of Lancaster open land to the north by the Link Road. The parcel makes a weak contribution to three Land to the purposes and moderate contribution against one North of Watery WEAK LAN05 purpose. The parcel has a strong relationship with the Lane, Skerton, CONTRIBUTION settlement area and is severed from wider tracts of Lancaster open land to the north by the Link Road. The parcel makes a weak contribution to three purposes and moderate contribution against one Land at purpose. There is a significant level of built Hammerton Hall, development in this parcel which introduces WEAK LAN08 Skerton, urbanising features, demonstrates encroachment and CONTRIBUTION Lancaster reduces openness. The parcel is severed from wider tracts of countryside to the north by the presence of the link road. Land to the The parcel makes a weak contribution to four South of purposes and a moderate contribution to one WEAK LAN09 Hammerton Hall purpose. The parcel has a strong relationship with the CONTRIBUTION Lane, Skerton, settlement area and due to urbanising features to the Lancaster north there are low levels of openness in this parcel. 38

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

The parcel makes a weak contribution to four Land at purposes and a moderate contribution to one Beaumont purpose. There is a significant level of built College / St development in this parcel which introduces WEAK LAN10 Johns Hospice, urbanising features, demonstrates encroachment and CONTRIBUTION Skerton, reduces openness. The parcel is severed from wider Lancaster tracts of countryside to the north by the presence of the link road. The parcel makes a weak contribution to three purposes and a moderate contribution to two Land North of purposes. There is residential development in this WEAK LAN14 Aysgarth Drive, parcel which introduces an urbanising feature into CONTRIBUTION Lancaster the parcel and demonstrates encroachment. The parcel is sever from wider tracts of countryside to the north by the presence of the Link Road. The parcel makes a weak contribution to three purposes and a moderate contribution to two Land at purposes. There is residential development in this WEAK LAN15 Beaumont Hall, parcel which introduces an urbanising feature into CONTRIBUTION Lancaster the parcel and demonstrates encroachment. The parcel is sever from wider tracts of countryside to the north by the presence of the Link Road. The parcel makes a weak contribution to three purposes. The parcel contains a range of residential Land at the VVV and commercial structures which demonstrates WEAK MORE04 Gymnasium, encroachment. The parcel is severed from wider CONTRIBUTION Hest Bank tracts of countryside by topography and the presence of Marine Drive. The parcel makes a weak contribution to three purposes and a moderate contribution to one Land at purpose. The parcel is clearly separate from the wider WEAK MORE06 Morecambe tracts of countryside to the east due to the presence CONTRIBUTION Spur (North) of railway infrastructure. The parcel is also heavily sub-divided and includes structures used for stabling which reduces openness within the parcel. The parcel makes a weak contribution to three purposes and a moderate contribution to one Land at purpose. The parcel is clearly separate from the wider WEAK MORE07 Morecambe tracts of countryside to the east due to the presence CONTRIBUTION Spur (South) of railway infrastructure. The parcel is also heavily sub-divided and includes structures used for stabling which reduces openness within the parcel. The parcel makes a weak contribution to three purposes and a moderate contribution to one Land to the East purpose. Whilst the parcel is free from development WEAK MORE13 of Russell Drive, it is heavily influence by the adjacent link road and CONTRIBUTION Torrisholme has weak Green Belt boundary which would be vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel makes no contribution to three purposes, a weak contribution to one purpose and a moderate Land to the West contribution to one purpose. The parcel has a WEAK SWH09 of Hasty Brow significant level of residential development which CONTRIBUTION Road, Slyne creates an urbanising influence in this locality and demonstrates encroachment. The parcel makes no contribution to three purposes, Land at Beech WEAK SWH11 a weak contribution to one purpose and a moderate Grove, Slyne CONTRIBUTION contribution to one purpose. The parcel has a 39

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

significant level of residential development which creates an urbanising influence in this locality and demonstrates encroachment. The parcel makes no contribution to three purposes, Land at a weak contribution to one purpose and a moderate Lancaster Road / contribution to one purpose. The parcel has a WEAK SWH13 Hest Bank Lane, significant level of residential development which CONTRIBUTION Slyne creates an urbanising influence in this locality and demonstrates encroachment. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the Rear and a moderate contribution to one purpose. The WEAK SWH15 of Slyne Grange, parcel has a weak Green Belt boundary which is CONTRIBUTION Slyne vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the Rear and a moderate contribution to one purpose. The WEAK SWH16 of Ashton House parcel has a weak Green Belt boundary which is CONTRIBUTION Farm, Slyne vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and a moderate contribution to one purpose. The Land at Slyne WEAK SWH17 parcel includes a number of urbanising features, in Caravan Park CONTRIBUTION particular Slyne Caravan Park, which has reduced the openness of the area. The parcel makes no contribution to three purpose, a weak contribution to one purpose and a moderate Land to the contribution to one purpose. The parcel has a strong South of WEAK SWH23 relationship with the settlement area and in Ashworth Drive, CONTRIBUTION surrounded on three sides by residential Bolton-le-Sands development. The Green Belt boundaries in area are weak and vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel makes no contribution to three purpose, a Land to the East weak contribution to one purpose and a moderate of Hanging contribution to one purpose. The parcel has a strong WEAK SWH26 Green Lane, Hest relationship with the settlement area due to the CONTRIBUTION Bank proximity of residential properties and topography which severs openness out of the parcel. Table 8.2: Summary of General Parcels which have been assessed as having a Weak Contribution to the Green Belt

8.15 There are a range of parcel which have scored moderately with the Review, this demonstrates that whilst they have some value within the Green Belt there are clearly issues which have reduce overall value, many of which reflect similar issues as described in paragraphs 8.6 to 8.10 (albeit to a lesser extent).

8.16 There are a number of caravan sites which are situated to the west of Carnforth which have an impact on the character of the land. However, unlike the issues described earlier in Bolton-le-Sands, the caravan parks in this area has set in much more expansive open landscapes which result in much less impact on openness. This, coupled with the lack of wider encroachment result in some parcels in this area securing a moderate score.

8.17 The effects of the Link Road are significant for all land within the gap between the road and the urban fringe, however the positioning of some areas of land do lead to a reduction in the wider impacts on openness. These tend to occur further to the East of the A6 where the openness of land becomes more expansive and the levels of encroachment from development is reduced. This has led to a more moderate contribution to its Green Belt value.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

8.18 The land to the east of Morecambe, surrounding Torrisholme Barrow, does demonstrate a degree of openness – particularly in relation to the Barrow itself where there are extensive views across to the historic core. However, the parcels which surround the Barrow are severed from wider tracts of countryside by the presence of the West Coast Mainline. Furthermore, the boundaries in this location are primarily the rear of residential properties which are vulnerable to future encroachment. These issues, combined with the urbanising influences of the Link Road have led to a number of general parcels in this area being defined as having a moderate contribution to Green Belt purposes.

8.19 There is a pocket of Green Belt to the west of the A6 which includes parcels SWH23, SWH24, SWH25 and SWH26. A number of these parcels have already been described in paragraph XXX as performing weakly. The remainder (parcels SWH24 and SWH25) remains generally open land which is in agricultural use. Notwithstanding this, these general parcels both have a strong relationship with the settlement area to the south, north and west. This issue is exacerbated further by the presence of the A6, which separates the land in this area from the wider tracts of countryside to the east and indeed the topography from the land east of the A6, which rises significantly and obscures any open views towards the countryside to the east. Whilst this area of land does provide some degree of separation between settlements when travelling along the A6 it cannot be ignored that the settlements of Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands have already merged together further to the west.

8.20 The parcels which have been assessed as a moderate contribution are set out in Table 8.3 below, setting out a summary of the reasons behind why a moderate score has been given. For further information on the assessment of each parcel please refer to Appendices E, F and G of the Review.

Parcel General Parcel Overall Assessment Summary Assessment Reference Title Recommendation The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three Land to the purposes. The parcel is predominantly open West of MODERATE CARN05 however there are a number of structures and Carnforth Jnct, CONTRIBUTION caravans which have introduced an urbanising Carnforth feature to the parcel and reduced openness. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose and a moderate contribution to two Land to the purposes. The parcel is open from development but MODERATE CARN11 West of The has some relationship with the settlement area and CONTRIBUTION Drive, Carnforth has a poorly defined Green Belt boundary which is vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to two Land at Marsh purposes. The parcel includes a number of MODERATE CARN14 House Farm, urbanising features, in particular a caravan site CONTRIBUTION Carnforth which has had an impact on openness. This has been mitigated in part by the wider openness the area. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three Land at Thwaite purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. MODERATE CARN25 Gate Farm, The parcel has a positive relationship with the CONTRIBUTION Carnforth settlement area and is visually detached from the wider countryside by the topography. Land to the The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three South of purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. MODERATE CARN26 Lundsfield The parcel has a strong relationship with the CONTRIBUTION Quarry, settlement area and has a weak Green Belt Carnforth boundary which is vulnerable to encroachment. 41

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Land The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three surrounding the purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. MODERATE CARN27 Communication The parcel contains a range of telecommunication CONTRIBUTION Masts, masts and associated apparatus which has Carnforth introduced an urbanising feature into this parcel. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three Land the Rear of purposes. The parcel has a strong relationship with MODERATE CARN30 Windermere the settlement area and has a weak Green Belt CONTRIBUTION Road, Carnforth boundary which is vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three Land to the Rear purposes. The parcel has a strong relationship with MODERATE CARN31 of Windermere the settlement area and has a weak Green Belt CONTRIBUTION Road, Carnforth boundary which is vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three Land at purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. MODERATE HALT01 Shefferlands The parcel has been severed from wider tracts of CONTRIBUTION Lane, Halton countryside by the presence of the Link Road and has reduced openness due to local topography. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. Land at Carus MODERATE HALT02 The parcel has been severed from wider tracts of Lodge, Halton CONTRIBUTION countryside by the presence of the Link Road and has reduced openness due to local topography. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to four Land to the purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. MODERATE HALT05 North of Carus The parcel has been significantly influenced by the CONTRIBUTION Lodge, Halton presence of the Link Road. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to four Land at purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. MODERATE HALT07 Haverbreaks Whilst the parcel is in elevated location it includes a CONTRIBUTION Farm, Halton range of residential properties on Foundry Lane which demonstrates a level of encroachment. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes and a weak contribution to two purposes. Land to the Whilst the parcel is generally free from development North of there remains a strong relationship with the MODERATE LAN06 Shakespeare settlement area and openness has been impacted CONTRIBUTION Road, Skerton, upon by the presence of the Link Road, which has Lancaster severed the parcel from wider tracts of countryside to the north. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three Land to the purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. West of The parcel is free from development but has been MODERATE LAN07 Hammerton heavily influence by the adjacent Link Road which CONTRIBUTION Hall, Lancaster has reduced openness and severed the parcel from wider tracts of countryside to the north. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. Land at The parcel includes some ribbon development along MODERATE LAN11 Geiranger, the A6 and has been heavily influence by the CONTRIBUTION Lancaster adjacent Link Road which has reduced openness and severed the parcel from wider tracts of countryside to the north. Land to the The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three MODERATE LAN12 West of purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. CONTRIBUTION 42

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Geiranger, The parcel is free from development but has been Lancaster heavily influenced by the adjacent Link Road which has reduced openness and severed the parcel from wider tracts of countryside to the north. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. Land to the East The parcel is free from development but has been MODERATE LAN13 of Lancaster heavily influenced by the adjacent Link Road which CONTRIBUTION Road (A6) has reduced openness and severed the parcel from wider tracts of countryside to the north. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes and a weak contribution to two purposes. Land at Howgill The parcel is free from development but has a MODERATE LAN16 Brook, positive relationship with the settlement area. The CONTRIBUTION Lancaster parcel has been severed from wider tracts of countryside by the presence of the Link Road. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to four purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. Land to the The parcel is free from development but has been MODERATE LAN18 West of Green heavily influenced by the adjacent Link Road which CONTRIBUTION Lane, Lancaster has reduced openness and severed the parcel from wider tracts of countryside to the north. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to four purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. Land to the East The parcel is free from development but has been MODERATE LAN18 of Green Lane, heavily influenced by the adjacent Link Road which CONTRIBUTION Lancaster has reduced openness and severed the parcel from wider tracts of countryside to the north. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to four Land to the purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. North of Halton The parcel is free from development but has been MODERATE LAN19 Road Bridge, heavily influenced by the adjacent Link Road which CONTRIBUTION Lancaster has reduced openness and severed the parcel from wider tracts of countryside to the north. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose, a moderate contribution to one purpose Land to the East and a weak contribution to two purposes. The parcel of Hamilton MODERATE MORE08 is generally open but it severed from wider tracts of Road, CONTRIBUTION countryside by the West Coast Mainline. The Green Torrisholme Belt boundary in this area is weak and vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land to the purpose, a moderate contribution to one purpose North of Hasty MODERATE MORE10 and a weak contribution to two purposes. The parcel Brow Road, CONTRIBUTION is generally open but it severed from wider tracts of Torrisholme countryside by the West Coast Mainline. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to two Land at Fair purposes and a weak contribution to two purposes. MODERATE MORE11 View, The parcel includes a residential property which has CONTRIBUTION Torrisholme reduced the levels of openness of this parcel. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to two Land to the purposes and a weak contribution to two purposes. South of Hasty MODERATE MORE12 The parcel is generally open but it severed from Brow Road, CONTRIBUTION wider tracts of countryside by the West Coast Torrisholme Mainline. Land to the The parcel makes a strong contribution to one MODERATE MORE14 West of Powder purpose, a moderate contribution to one purpose CONTRIBUTION 43

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

House Lane, and a weak contribution to two purposes. The parcel Torrisholme is generally open but it severed from wider tracts of countryside by the West Coast Mainline. The parcel’s openness is also influenced by the presence of the Link Road. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to two Land to the East purposes and a weak contribution to two purposes. of Powder The parcel is generally open but it severed from MODERATE MORE15 House Lane, wider tracts of countryside by the West Coast CONTRIBUTION Torrisholme Mainline. The parcel’s openness is also influenced by the presence of the Link Road. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three Land to the purposes. The parcel is generally free from West of Hest MODERATE SWH12 development however the surrounding urban Bank Lane, CONTRIBUTION development to the south and west have an impact Slyne on wider openness. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to two Land to the purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. South of MODERATE SWH14 The parcel is generally free from development Throstle Grove, CONTRIBUTION however the surrounding urban development to the Slyne north and south have an impact on wider openness. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and a strong contribution to one purpose. The parcel Land at Slyne includes a significant residential property which MODERATE SWH21 Hall Heights, introduces an urbanising feature. The parcel is in CONTRIBUTION Slyne part detached from wider tracts of countryside by topography. The parcel makes no contribution to three purposes Land South of and a moderate contribution to two purposes. The Greenwood parcel is well related to the settlement area and is MODERATE SWH24 Drive, Bolton-le- detached from wider tracts of countryside by the CONTRIBUTION Sands presence of the A6 and the topography of land to the East. The parcel makes no contribution to three purposes and a moderate contribution to two purposes. The Land to the parcel is well related to the settlement area and is MODERATE SWH25 North of Manor detached from wider tracts of countryside by the CONTRIBUTION Lane, Slyne presence of the A6 and the topography of land to the East. Table 8.3: Summary of General Parcels which have been assessed as having a Moderate Contribution to the Green Belt

8.21 There are a significant number of parcel which have scored strongly within the Green Belt Review due to their contributions toward one or more Green Belt purposes. This recommendation could be provided due to the value of the general parcel in terms of its land-use, ability to provide a permanent and robust boundary to the Green Belt, the openness of the land, the location of the parcel in terms of maintaining a strategic gap between settlements, the protection of character / setting to a historic town or the ability to promote the re-use of derelict urban land (i.e. brownfield sites) in adjacent settlements.

8.22 The parcels which have been assessed as a strong contribution are set out in Table 8.4 below, setting out a summary of the reasons behind why a strong score has been given. For further information on the assessment of each parcel please refer to Appendices E, F and G of the Review.

Parcel General Parcel Overall Assessment Summary Assessment Reference Title Recommendation

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the North and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS03 of Wild Duck Hall, this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land contributes significantly. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land at Freshfield and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS11 Nursery, Bolton- this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION le-Sands purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land contributes significantly. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the East and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS12 of Pasture Lane, this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land contributes significantly. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the West and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS13 of Pasture Lane, this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land contributes significantly. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land at Red Bank and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS15 House, Bolton-le- this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION Sands purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land contributes significantly. Land to the South The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes of Morecambe and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS17 Lodge Caravan this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION Park, Bolton-le- purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land Sands contributes significantly. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Fishing Lakes off and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS24 Pasture Lane, this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land contributes significantly. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the West and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS25 of Coastal Road, this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land contributes significantly. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land adj. to the and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS26 Rail Line and this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION Pasture Lane purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land contributes significantly. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land at Bolton and a strong contribution to one purpose. Whilst STRONG BLS29 Town End, this parcel does not perform highly in four CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands purposes, the open agricultural nature of this land contributes significantly. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land North of purposes, a weak contribution to one purpose. STRONG BLS31 Whin Lane, This parcel provides strong gap between the CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands settlements of Bolton-le-Sands and Carnforth and is free from development.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to one purpose Land to the East and weak contribution to one purpose. This parcel STRONG BLS32 of Barkers Bridge, provides strong gap between the settlements of CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands Bolton-le-Sands and Carnforth and is free from development. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land at Thwaite purpose, a moderate contribution to two purposes STRONG BLS33 Brow Lane, and weak contribution to one purpose. This parcel CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands provides strong gap between the settlements of Bolton-le-Sands and Carnforth. The parcel makes a strong contribution to three Land to the West purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. of Thwaite STRONG BLS34 This parcel provides strong gap between the Cottage, Bolton- CONTRIBUTION settlements of Bolton-le-Sands and Carnforth and le-Sands is free from development. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land at Mount purpose, a moderate contribution to two purposes STRONG BLS35 Pleasant, Bolton- and weak contribution to one purpose. This parcel CONTRIBUTION le-Sands provides strong gap between the settlements of Bolton-le-Sands and Carnforth. Land to the East The parcel makes a strong contribution to two of Crawstorne purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. STRONG BLS36 Wood, Bolton-le- This parcel provides strong gap between the CONTRIBUTION Sands settlements of Bolton-le-Sands and Carnforth. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Crawstorne purpose, a moderate contribution to one purpose STRONG BLS37 Wood, Bolton-le- and a weak contribution to one purpose. This CONTRIBUTION Sands parcel provides strong gap between the settlements of Bolton-le-Sands and Carnforth. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the East and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG BLS39 of Back Lodge, parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands a wider tract of countryside to the east. Land to the East The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes of Mount and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG BLS41 Pleasant, Bolton- parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION le-Sands a wider tract of countryside to the east. Land to the West The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes of Mount and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG BLS42 Pleasant Lane, parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands a wider tract of countryside to the east. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land at and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG BLS43 Hawksheads, parcel is generally free from development and CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the east. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the North and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG BLS44 of Bolton Lane, parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands a wider tract of countryside to the east. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the West and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG BLS49 of Arncliffe Lane, parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands a wider tract of countryside to the east.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the Rear and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG BLS50 of Slyne Road, parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands a wider tract of countryside to the east. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the West and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG BLS51 of Arncliffe Lane, parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands a wider tract of countryside to the east. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land at and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG BLS52 Inglebrick, parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands a wider tract of countryside to the east. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose and a moderate contribution to one Land at the Keer STRONG CARN01 purpose. The parcel is free from development and Bridge, Carnforth CONTRIBUTION forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose and a moderate contribution to one Land at Galley STRONG CARN02 purpose. The parcel is generally free from Hall, Carnforth CONTRIBUTION development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land to the East purpose and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN03 of Hagg Wood, purpose. The parcel is generally free from CONTRIBUTION Carnforth development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes and a moderate contribution to one Land at Hunting STRONG CARN06 purpose. The parcel is free from development and Hill, Carnforth CONTRIBUTION forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land to the East purpose and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN07 of the Sewerage purpose. The parcel is free from development and CONTRIBUTION Works, Carnforth forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land at purposes and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN09 Edenbrook Farm, purpose. The parcel is generally free from CONTRIBUTION Carnforth development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the north and south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land to the South purposes and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN10 of Hunting Hill, purpose. The parcel is generally free from CONTRIBUTION Carnforth development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the north. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land to the West purposes and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN12 of Marsh View purpose. The parcel is generally free from CONTRIBUTION House, Carnforth development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the north and south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land to the West purposes and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN13 of Edenbrook purpose. The parcel is free from development and CONTRIBUTION House, Carnforth forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the north and south. 47

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land to the South purposes and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN15 of Marsh House purpose. The parcel is free from development and CONTRIBUTION Farm, Carnforth forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the north and south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land to the North purpose, a moderate contribution to one purpose of Bay View and a weak contribution to one purpose. The STRONG CARN16 Caravan Park, parcel is free from development and whilst there CONTRIBUTION Carnforth are some impacts on urbanising features to the south these are considered to be limited. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose and a moderate contribution to three Land at Black STRONG CARN17 purposes. The parcel is free from development and Dike, Carnforth CONTRIBUTION forms a wider tract of countryside to the north and south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to three Land to the East purposes and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN18 of Black Dike, purpose. The parcel is free from development and CONTRIBUTION Carnforth provides a strong gap between the settlements of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands. The parcel makes a strong contribution to three Land to the North purposes and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN19 of Dettern Gate purpose. The parcel is free from development and CONTRIBUTION Farm, Carnforth provides a strong gap between the settlements of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to one purpose Land to the Rear and a weak contribution to one purpose. The STRONG CARN20 of Crag Bank parcel provides a strong gap between the CONTRIBUTION Road, Carnforth settlements of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands. This has been limited by the poor Green Belt boundary to the north which is vulnerable to encroachment. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to one purpose Land to the Rear and a weak contribution to one purpose. The of Crag Bank STRONG CARN21 parcel provides a strong gap between the Crescent, CONTRIBUTION settlements of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands. This Carnforth has been limited by the poor Green Belt boundary to the north which is vulnerable to encroachment. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to one purpose Land at Thwaite and a weak contribution to one purpose. The STRONG CARN22 End Farm, parcel does include a residential property however CONTRIBUTION Carnforth it still maintains an important gap between the settlements of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to one purpose Land off and a weak contribution to one purpose. The STRONG CARN23 Lancaster Road parcel does include a number of residential CONTRIBUTION (A6), Carnforth properties however it still maintains an important gap between the settlements of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land at Thwaite purposes and a moderate contribution to two STRONG CARN24 Cottage, purposes. The parcel does include a residential CONTRIBUTION Carnforth property however it still maintains an important

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

gap between the settlements of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land North of purposes, a moderate contribution to one purpose STRONG CARN28 Thwaite Gate and a weak contribution to one purpose. The CONTRIBUTION Farm, Carnforth parcel is free from development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land to the West purposes and a moderate contribution to one STRONG CARN29 of Back Lane, purpose. The parcel is free from development and CONTRIBUTION Carnforth forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the south. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose, a moderate contribution to three Land to the South purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. STRONG HALT06 of Four Lane The parcel is open and free from development and CONTRIBUTION Ends, Halton occupies and elevated position which provides extensive views, in particular towards the historic core of Lancaster. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose, a moderate contribution to two purposes Land to the North and a weak contribution to one purpose. The STRONG HALT08 of Haverbreaks parcel is open and free from development and CONTRIBUTION Farm, Halton occupies and elevated position which provides extensive views, in particular towards the historic core of Lancaster. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land at purpose and a weak contribution to three STRONG MORE01 Morecambe Golf purposes. The parcel forms part of a strong and CONTRIBUTION Clubhouse important gap between the settlements of Morecambe and Hest Bank. The parcel makes a strong contribution to three purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. Morecambe Golf STRONG MORE02 The parcel forms part of a strong and important Course CONTRIBUTION gap between the settlements of Morecambe and Hest Bank. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to one purpose Land to the North and a weak contribution to one purpose. The STRONG MORE03 of Woodrush, parcel forms part of a strong and important gap CONTRIBUTION Morecambe between the settlements of Morecambe and Hest Bank. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land to the South purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. STRONG MORE05 of Marine Drive, The parcel is free from development and forms CONTRIBUTION Hest Bank part of a strong and important gap between the settlements of Morecambe and Hest Bank. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to two Torrisholme purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. STRONG MORE09 Barrow The parcel is free from development and due to its CONTRIBUTION elevated position provides extensive views, in particular towards the historic core of Lancaster. Land to the South The parcel makes a strong contribution to one STRONG SWH01 of Rushley Drive, purpose and a moderate contribution to one CONTRIBUTION Hest Bank purpose. The parcel is free from development and

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

forms a strong and important gap between Slyne- with-Hest and Morecambe. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land to the North purposes. The parcel is free from development and STRONG SWH02 of Rakes Head forms a strong and important gap between Slyne- CONTRIBUTION Lane, Hest Bank with-Hest and Morecambe. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land to the West purpose and a moderate contribution to one STRONG SWH03 of Sea View Drive, purpose. The parcel is free from development and CONTRIBUTION Hest Bank forms a strong and important gap between Slyne- with-Hest and Morecambe. The parcel makes a strong contribution to two Land to the West purposes. The parcel is free from development and STRONG SWH04 of Brantholme, forms a strong and important gap between Slyne- CONTRIBUTION Hest Bank with-Hest and Morecambe. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land to the South purpose and a moderate contribution to one STRONG SWH05 of Sea View Drive, purpose. The parcel is free from development and CONTRIBUTION Hest Bank forms a strong and important gap between Slyne- with-Hest and Morecambe. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose and a moderate contribution to one Land at Reanes STRONG SWH06 purpose. The parcel is free from development and Wood, Hest Bank CONTRIBUTION forms a strong and important gap between Slyne- with-Hest and Morecambe. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose and a moderate contribution to one Land at purpose. Whilst the parcel does include some STRONG SWH07 Brantholme, Hest residential development, nevertheless it forms a CONTRIBUTION Bank strong and important gap between Slyne-with- Hest and Morecambe. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one Land to the West purpose and a moderate contribution to one STRONG SWH08 of Hest Bank purpose. The parcel is free from development and CONTRIBUTION Lane, Hest Bank forms a strong and important gap between Slyne- with-Hest and Morecambe. The parcel makes a strong contribution to one purpose and a moderate contribution to one purpose. Whilst there is development to the West Land to the North and East of this parcel, it remains open and free STRONG SWH10 of Standerlands from development and has a relationship with the CONTRIBUTION Farm, Slyne countryside to the south. The parcel forms a strong and important gap between Slyne-with- Hest and Morecambe. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the East and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG SWH18 of Bottomdale parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION House, Slyne a wider tract of countryside to the north and south. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the West and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG SWH19 of Arncliffe Lane, parcel is free from development and forms part of CONTRIBUTION Slyne a wider tract of countryside to the north and south. Land at Slyne- The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes STRONG SWH20 with-Hest FC, and a strong contribution to one purpose. The CONTRIBUTION Slyne 50

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

parcel is free from development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the north. The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the North and a strong contribution to one purpose. The STRONG SWH22 of Slyne Hall parcel is free from development and the majority CONTRIBUTION Heights, Slyne of land in this parcel forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the north. Table 8.4: Summary of General Parcels which have been assessed as having a Strong Contribution to the Green Belt

Strategic Parcel Assessments

8.23 The assessment of strategic parcels provides the opportunity to consider the cumulative impact of land on the wider Green Belt, assessing the cumulative strength of a number of general parcels to understand value. This can result in two outcomes, either the collective strength of parcels raise the overall contribution of a strategic parcel or the collective weakness of the parcel reduce the overall contribution.

8.24 In total 48 Strategic parcels have been assessed, 34 strategic parcels which adjoin settlement areas and a further 15 parcels which are identified to be within the open countryside. The identification of strategic parcels make use of the formal Green Belt boundary and other strong and definable features within the Green Belt.

8.25 Many of the outcomes of the strategic parcel assessment reflect similar issues which have been raised as part of the general parcel assessment and are described in more detail below.

8.26 Table 8.5 provides a summary of assessment results for each strategic parcel, separating out the parcels into whether they have a strong, moderate or weak contribution. No strategic parcel assessment returned an overall recommendation of ‘no contribution’, hence its omission from the table below.

Site Assessment General Parcel Reference STRONG CONTRIBUTION SP8, SP9, SP11, SP12, SP13, SP14, SP15, SP19, SP24, SP28, SP29 & SP33. MODERATE CONTRIBUTION SP3, SP4, SP7, SP16, SP17, SP18, SP23, SP26, SP27, SP30 & SP34. WEAK CONTRIBUTION SP1, SP2, SP5, SP6, SP10, SP20, SP21, SP22, SP25, SP31 & SP32. Table 8.5: Green Belt Parcel Assessment Results (Strategic Parcels)

8.27 The strategic parcels to the west of Bolton-le-Sands continue to score weakly at a cumulative level due to the levels of urban development in the area, in particular the levels of caravan development and residential and commercial development. The cumulative assessment highlights that the land which adjoins these developed areas, whilst perhaps open themselves, are impacted upon and reduces their cumulative value to the Green Belt.

8.28 In relation to the land between the Link Road and the urban fringes of Lancaster and similar trend emerges, whilst each general parcel in this area varies in terms of value and openness. When viewed cumulatively the negative impacts on some parcels have impacted on a wider area in terms of the impact on openness. This is couple with the fundamental issues over severance due to the new Link Road.

8.29 Land to the east of Slyne has also been scored cumulatively as weak. This is on the basis of weak and poorly defined Green Belt boundaries and the presence of Slyne Caravan Park which has introduced urbanising features in the locality.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

8.30 The strategic parcels which have been assessed as a weak contribution are set out in Table 8.6 below, setting out a summary of the reasons behind why a weak score has been given. For further information on the assessment of each strategic parcel please refer to Appendices H and I of the Review.

Parcel Strategic Parcel General Parcels Overall Assessment Summary Assessment Reference Title Included Recommendation The strategic parcel makes no Land between contribution to four purposes and Bolton Holmes BLS01 BLS02 a moderate contribution to one WEAK SP1 Farm & Wild BLS03 BLS04 purpose. The prevalent use of this CONTRIBUTION Duck Hall, BLS05 area for the siting of touring and Bolton-le-Sands static caravans have had a significant effect on openness. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and a weak contribution to one Land at purpose. The range of urbanising Sardside BLS06 BLS07 WEAK SP2 features in this parcel, including Caravan Park, BLS08 CONTRIBUTION residential and commercial Bolton-le-Sands structures and caravan park have had a significant effect on openness. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and Land to the a moderate contribution to one West of the BLS16 BLS17 purpose. The northern and WEAK SP5 West Coast BLS18 southern ends of this strategic CONTRIBUTION Mainline, parcel are highly urbanised which Bolton-le-Sands affects general openness significantly. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and Land between a moderate contribution to one the West Coast BLS19 BLS20 purpose. The parcel has a strong WEAK SP6 Mainline and BLS21 BLS22 relationship with the settlement CONTRIBUTION Coastal Road, BLS23 area and has weak boundaries Bolton-le-Sands which are vulnerable to future encroachment. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and a moderate contribution to one Land to the East purpose. The parcel has a strong WEAK SP10 of the Nook, BLS46 BLS47 relationship with the settlement CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands area and has weak boundaries which are vulnerable to future encroachment. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to two purposes, a weak contribution to two Land at Barley purposes and a moderate LAN01 LAN02 Cop Lane, contribution to one purpose. The WEAK SP20 LAN03 LAN04 Skerton, parcel has a strong relationship CONTRIBUTION LAN05 LAN06 Lancaster with the settlement area and has been severed from the wider countryside by the presence of the link road. 52

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

The strategic parcel makes a weak contribution to four purposes and a moderate contribution to one Land at purpose. The parcel has a range of LAN07 LAN08 Hammerton urbanising features within it, has a WEAK SP21 LAN09 LAN10 Hall, Skerton, positive relationship with the CONTRIBUTION LAN11 LAN12 Lancaster settlement area and has been severed from the wider countryside by the presence of the Link Road. The strategic parcel makes a weak contribution to four purposes and a moderate contribution to one purpose. The parcel has a range of Land at LAN13 LAN14 urbanising features within it, has a WEAK SP22 Beaumont Hall, LAN15 LAN16 positive relationship with the CONTRIBUTION Lancaster LAN17 settlement area and has been severed from the wider countryside by the presence of the Link Road. The strategic parcel makes a weak contribution to three purposes, a moderate contribution to one purpose and no contribution to Land at MORE06 one purpose. The openness of the WEAK SP25 Morecambe MORE07 parcel has been significantly CONTRIBUTION Spur reduced due to the presence of rail infrastructure and within the parcel is significant sub-division for the stabling of horses. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and Land to the a moderate contribution to one South of purpose. The parcel includes WEAK SP31 SWH13 SWH14 Throstle Grove, significant areas of residential use CONTRIBUTION Slyne which is not consistent with the Green Belt and impact on openness. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and Land to the East a moderate contribution to one of Ashton SWH15 SWH16 purpose. The parcel has a strong WEAK SP32 House Farm, SWH17 relationship with the settlement CONTRIBUTION Slyne area and has weak boundaries which are vulnerable to future encroachment. Table 8.6: Summary of Strategic Parcels which have been assessed as having a Weak Contribution to the Green Belt

8.29 As described, there are a number of parcels to the west of Bolton-le-Sands which have been affected by a range of urbanising features, in particular significant caravan development. In terms of assessing the effects of such development on strategic parcel groupings the affect is determined on the wider impact on openness. There are a number of strategic parcels where, whilst development has occurred the open character of the wider landscape is more sympathetic and has resulted in a lower level of impact – hence the recommendation of a moderate contribution.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

8.30 The land to the South of Carnforth is considered to score moderately overall. Whilst the land to the south of Carnforth is in agricultural use and is considered to be open, this is not considered to be the case on land which is directly adjacent to the settlement area. Here, the topography of the land reduces the openness of views to the South and the boundaries in this area are considered to be weak and vulnerable to future encroachment. This is considered to reduce the wider contribution of the Green Belt in this location down to a moderate score.

8.31 The strategic parcel to the west of Halton (South of the Link Road) has been identified to provide some contribution towards the fulfilling Green Belt purposes. Whilst it is severed from wider tracts of countryside to the north (as is the case in Lancaster) this area of land provides some degree of separation between Halton and Lancaster which is of some value.

8.32 In relation to the areas of land between the Link Road and the urban edge of Lancaster, many of these strategic parcels have scored weakly and the reasons for such are described in paragraph XXXX. However, the areas further to the east do have a distinctly different and more open character which in more in-keeping with the Green Belt purposes. Notwithstanding this the land remains separated from wider tracts of land and still has some degree of relationship with the settlement area to the south.

8.33 Areas of the South of Slyne have been considered cumulatively to be of moderate value. Whilst there is clear urbanising development in these areas which affect wider openness, the elevation of some areas of land in this area, their views into wider tracts of countryside and the need to maintain a gap between Slyne-with-Hest and Lancaster provide a level of balance towards its Green Belt value.

8.34 Similarly with land which is to the west of Slyne Road, the impacts of its relationship with the settlement area (which surrounds the strategic parcel on three sides), the lack of visual connection with the wider tracts of countryside to the east and the fact that the settlements have already merged to the west cannot be ignored. However, locally the parcels can be considered as open and do provide a degree of distinct separation between settlements when travelling along the A6. Again in balancing these issues the Review suggests a moderate contribution to the Green Belt.

8.35 The strategic parcels which have been assessed as a moderate contribution are set out in Table 8.7 below, setting out a summary of the reasons behind why a moderate score has been given. For further information on the assessment of each strategic parcel please refer to Appendices H and I of the Review.

Parcel Strategic Parcel General Parcels Overall Assessment Summary Assessment Reference Title Included Recommendation The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and a strong contribution to one Land to the East BLS09 BLS10 purpose. There are signs of MODERATE SP3 of Pasture Lane, BLS11 BLS12 encroachment to the north of CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands the parcel, however this only has some impact on the wider openness of this area. Land to the The strategic parcel makes no West of Pasture BLS13 BLS14 contribution to four purposes MODERATE SP4 Lane, Bolton-le- BLS15 and a strong contribution to one CONTRIBUTION Sands purpose. The wider openness of 54

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

the parcel have been affected by the presence of a caravan site at Red Bank Farm, this is partially mitigated by the wider openness of the area. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the and a strong contribution to one BLS24 BLS25 West of Hatlex purpose. Whilst generally open, BLS26 BLS27 MODERATE SP7 Bridge / Bolton the parcel has a positive BLS28 BLS29 CONTRIBUTION Town End, relationship with the settlement BLS30 Bolton-le-Sands area and in places has a weak Green Belt boundary which is vulnerable to encroachment. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes, a weak contribution to Land to the one purpose and no contribution South of CARN24 CARN25 to one purpose. The parcel has a MODERATE SP16 Lundsfield CANR 26 CARN27 positive relationship with the CONTRIBUTION Quarry, CARN28 settlement area and in places Carnforth has a weak Green Belt boundary which is vulnerable to encroachment. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes, a weak contribution to Land to the one purpose and no contribution Rear of CARN29 CARN30 to one purpose. The parcel has a MODERATE SP17 Windermere CARN31 positive relationship with the CONTRIBUTION Road, Carnforth settlement area and in places has a weak Green Belt boundary which is vulnerable to encroachment. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes and a weak Land HALT01 HALT02 contribution to two purposes. surrounding MODERATE SP18 HALT03 HALT04 The parcel is generally open, Carus Lodge, CONTRIBUTION HALT05 despite low-lying topography. Halton The land is severed from wider tracts of countryside due to the presence of the Link Road. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to four Land to the purposes and no contribution to North of Halton one purpose. The parcel is MODERATE SP23 LAN18 LAN19 Road Bridge, generally open however is CONTRIBUTION Lancaster severed from wider tracts of countryside due to the presence of the Link Road. The strategic parcel makes a weak contribution to three Land to the East MORE08 MORE09 purposes, a moderate MODERATE SP26 of Torrisholme MORE10 MORE11 contribution to one purpose and CONTRIBUTION Barrow a strong contribution to one purpose. Some elements of the

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

parcel are highly open (MORE09) however the general parcel is severed from the wider tracts of countryside by the presence of the West Coast Mainline. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to two purposes, a weak contribution to Land to the East two purposes and no MORE12 MORE13 MODERATE SP27 of Russel Drive, contribution to one purpose. The MORE14 MORE15 CONTRIBUTION Torrisholme parcel has a strong relationship to the settlement area and its openness impacted upon by the presence of the Link Road. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to two Land to the purposes and no contribution to West of Hest SWH09 SWH10 three purposes. The parcel MODERATE SP30 Bank Lane, Hest SWH11 SWH12 includes significant areas of CONTRIBUTION Bank residential use which is not consistent with the Green Belt and impact on openness. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to two purposes and no contribution to three purposes. The parcel has a strong relationship with the Land to the settlement area, surrounded by SWH23 SWH24 MODERATE SP34 West of Slyne development on three sides, and SWH25 SWH26 CONTRIBUTION Road, Slyne is severed from wider tracts of countryside by topography and the presence of the A6. There are in places weak boundaries which are vulnerable to encroachment. Table 8.7: Summary of Strategic Parcels which have been assessed as having a Moderate Contribution to the Green Belt

8.36 There are a number of strategic parcels which make a strong contribution to maintaining a strong and definable Green Belt. The definition of strong strategic parcels are focused around their wider openness in the locality, the strength of the Green Belt boundary or their ability to maintain a strategic gap between distinct settlement areas.

8.37 The strategic parcels which have been assessed as a strong contribution are set out in Table 8.7 below, setting out a summary of the reasons behind why a strong score has been given. For further information on the assessment of each strategic parcel please refer to Appendices H and I of the Review.

Parcel Strategic Parcel General Parcels Overall Assessment Summary Assessment Reference Title Included Recommendation Land BLS31 BLS32 The strategic parcel makes a STRONG SP8 surrounding BLS33 BLS34 strong contribution to two CONTRIBUTION 56

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

Thwaite Brow BLS35 BLS36 purposes, a moderate Lane, Bolton-le- BLS37 contribution to one purpose, a Sands weak contribution to one purpose and no contribution to one purpose. The parcel forms a strategic gap between the settlements of Bolton-le-Sands and Carnforth. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the East BLS38 BLS39 and a strong contribution to one of the Lancaster BLS40 BLS41 STRONG SP9 purpose. The parcel is generally Canal, Bolton- BLS42 BLS43 CONTRIBUTION free from development and has le-Sands BLS44 BLS45 a strong relationship with wider tracts of countryside to the East. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land to the East BLS48 BLS49 and a strong contribution to one STRONG SP11 of Church Brow, BLS50 BLS51 purpose. The parcel is generally CONTRIBUTION Bolton-le-Sands BLS52 free from development and has a strong relationship with wider tracts of countryside to the East. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to two CARN01 CARN02 purposes, no contribution to two Land CARN03 CARN04 purposes and a strong surrounding CARN05 CARN06 STRONG SP12 contribution to one purpose. The Hunting Hill, CARN07 CARN08 CONTRIBUTION parcel is generally open and free Carnforth CARN09 CARN10 from development, it forms part CARN11 of a wider tract of countryside to the South. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to two purposes, no contribution to two Land to the East purposes and a strong CARN12 CARN13 STRONG SP13 of Marsh House contribution to one purpose. The CARN 14 CARN15 CONTRIBUTION Farm, Carnforth parcel is generally open and free from development, it forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the South. The strategic parcel makes a strong contribution to three purposes, a moderate contribution to one purpose and Land to the East CARN16 CARN17 no contribution to one purpose. STRONG SP14 of Crag Bank CARN18 CARN19 The parcel is free from CONTRIBUTION Road, Carnforth CARN20 development and assists in maintain a strategic gap between the settlements of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands. The strategic parcel makes a Land between strong contribution to two the West Coast purposes, a moderate CARN21 CARN22 STRONG SP15 Mainline and contribution to one purpose, a CARN23 CONTRIBUTION Lancaster Road weak contribution to one (A6), Carnforth purpose and no contribution to one purpose. The parcel forms a

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

strategic gap between the settlements of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands. The strategic parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes, a strong contribution Land to one purpose and a weak surrounding HALT06 HALT07 STRONG SP19 contribution to one purpose. The Foundry Lane, HALT08 CONTRIBUTION parcel is highly elevated and has Halton a strong relationship with the wider tracts of countryside to the north. The strategic parcel makes a strong contribution to three purposes, a weak contribution to Land at MORE01 MORE02 one purpose and no contribution STRONG SP24 Morecambe MORE03 MORE04 to one purpose. The parcel forms CONTRIBUTION Golf Course MORE05 a strategic gap between the settlements of Morecambe and Slyne-with-Hest. The strategic parcel makes a strategic contribution to two Land South of purposes and no contribution to SWH01 SWH02 STRONG SP28 Rushley Drive, three purposes. The parcel forms SWH03 CONTRIBUTION Hest Bank a strategic gap between the settlements of Slyne-with-Hest and Morecambe. The strategic parcel makes a no contribution to three purposes, a strategic contribution to one Land SWH04 SWH05 purpose and a moderate surrounding STRONG SP29 SWH06 SWH07 contribution to one purpose. The Reanes Wood, CONTRIBUTION SWH08 parcel forms a strategic gap Hest Bank between the settlements of Slyne-with-Hest and Morecambe. The strategic parcel makes no contribution to four purposes Land SWH18 SWH19 and a strong contribution to one surrounding STRONG SP33 SWH20 SWH21 purpose. The parcel is generally Slyne Hall CONTRIBUTION SWH22 free from development and has Heights, Slyne a strong relationship with wider tracts of countryside to the East. Table 8.8: Summary of Strategic Parcels which have been assessed as having a Strong Contribution to the Green Belt

Strategic Parcels in the Open Countryside

8.38 There are 15 strategic parcels which have been identified in open countryside areas which have been assessed as part of this review. The key characters of areas of open countryside is their lack of relationship and interaction with settlement areas. As a result these areas of open country are located with the away from the edge of settlements and are generally agricultural land.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016

8.39 Given the lack of relationship with the more urban areas of the district then the level of assessment against all five purpose is low. The key area of assessment has been how such areas of open countryside reflect against Purpose 3 has been the essential criteria. In all cases the areas of open countryside have been generally free from development and within agricultural use and have therefore scored strongly against this purpose. Given the importance of these areas of open countryside to maintain the integrity of the North Lancashire Green Belt all such parcels have been given a strong contribution overall.

8.40 Further information and detail on the assessment of strategic parcels in the open countryside can be found in Appendices H and I of this Review.

Use of the Green Belt Review in Local Plan Preparation

8.41 It is important to realise that the Green Belt Review is not a formal part of the Local Development Plan, it does not seek to prepare or set policies on the future role of the Green Belt, the land contained within it or its specific boundaries. This review is a piece of evidence which will be used to inform the decisions made on the local development plan along with a range of other relevant pieces of evidence. It will therefore not be available for public consultation.

8.42 It will be for the local development plan to make decisions on the future role of the Green Belt and its land and boundaries, these will be identified via policies within the development plan and through the preparation of a Proposals Map which will identify its allocation. The decisions which are made in the local plan will be subject to public consultation in due course.

North Lancashire Green Belt Review 2016