APPENDIX G

Committee: Cabinet Council Date of Meeting: 11 October 2006 17 October 2006 Report Title: Interim Planning Approach to Housing Development (IPATH)

COMMENTS OF CONSULTEES (IN FULL) Of the 153 organisations/individuals who were consulted on the Interim Planning Approach to Housing, 14 responded (R). The full text of the 14 responses is listed below.

DEVELOPERS Acorn Developments (Kendal) Ltd (R) Persimmon Homes (Lancashire) Ltd Briery Homes Ltd Poole Townsend (R) Carigiet Cowan Priory Building (R) Carter Jonas Robert Hughes Ltd (R) David Corrie Associates Russell Armer Ltd (R) Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd Hackney & Leigh (R) TRAC – South Lakes House Builders Federation Ms Margaret Dodgson L & W Wilson (Endmoor) Ltd Mr Philip Marks (R) Mealbank Properties Mr Richard Simm Neil Price Ltd Mr & Mrs A. D. Wood Peill & Co

PLANNING CONSULTANTS Barden Planning Consultants (R) Hanson Walford Marston Derek Hicks & Thew Stephens Associates F.E.R. Consulting Stephenson Halliday

PARISH/TOWN COUNCILS Aldingham Parish Council Levens Parish Council Arnside Parish Council Lower Allithwaite Parish Council Barbon Parish Council Lowick Parish Council Beetham Parish Council Lupton Parish Council

Date: 09/10/2006 Version Number: Amended by: Blawith & Subberthwaite Parish Council Lower Holker Parish Council Burneside Parish Council Mansergh Parish Meeting Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council Middleton Parish Meeting Casterton Parish Council Milnthorpe Parish Council Docker Parish Meeting Natland Parish Council Duddon Parish Council New Hutton Parish Council Egton-with-Newland, Mansriggs & Osmotherley Old Hutton & Holmescales Parish Council Parish Council Firbank Parish Meeting Pennington Parish Council Grange Town Council Preston Patrick Parish Council Grayrigg Parish Meeting Preston Richard Parish Council Helsington Parish Council Scalthwaiterigg Parish Council Heversham Parish Council Sedgwick Parish Council Hincaster Parish Meeting Skelsmergh Parish Council Holme Parish Council Stainton Parish Council Hutton Roof Parish Council Ulverston Town Council Kendal Town Council Urswick Parish Council (R) Kirkby Irelath Parish Council Whinfell Parish Meeting Kirkby Lonsdale Town Council Whitwell & Selside Parish Meeting Lambrigg Parish Meeting

NEIGHBOURING COUNCILS Askam & Irelath Parish Council Millom Parish Council Barrow District Council Millom without Parish Council Broughton East Parish Council North Yorkshire County Council Burrow-with-Burrow Parish Meeting Orton Parish Council Colton Parish Council Priest Hutton Parish Council Craven District Council Sedbergh Parish Council Crosthwaite & Lyth Parish Council Silverdale Parish Council Cumbria County Council (R) Staveley-in-Cartmel Parish Council Copeland Borough Council Staveley-with-Ings Parish Council Dalton Town with Newland Parish Council Tebay Parish Council Dent Parish Council Underbarrow & Bradleyfield Parish Council Eden District Council Upper Allithwaite Parish Council Fawcett Forest Parish Meetings Whittington Parish Council Haverthwaite Parish Council Witherslack, Meathop & Ulpha Parish Council Ireby & Leck Parish Council Yealand Conyers Parish Council Lake District National Park Authority Yealand Redmayne Parish Council Lindal & Marton Parish Meetings Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Longsleddale Parish Meetings

2

HOUSING Cumbria Rural Housing Trust Mitre Housing Association Home Housing Association South Cumbria Housing Forum Home Start South Lakeland South Lakes Housing Impact Housing Association Ltd Two Castles Housing Association

TENANTS COMMITTEES Mr Peter Bland Mr Ian Metcalfe Mrs Jackie Blower Mr & Mrs Pritchard Mr Don Brookes Mr John Short Mrs Joan Chadwick (R) Ms Clare Sinclair Miss Sherralyn Clement Miss Kathy Sykes Mr Brian Lloyd Mr David Wilkinson

STATUTORY & OTHER BODIES Barclays Bank Business Services Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust Church Commissioners National Grid Transco Churches Together in England North West Regional Assembly Cumbria Chamber of Commerce Northwest Regional Development Agency Cumberland Building Society South Lakeland Strategic Partnership Disability Action – South Lakeland South Lakeland Voluntary Society for the Blind Environment Agency (R) United Utilities Furness Building Society Voluntary Action Cumbria Furness Multi-Cultural Community Forum Yorkshire Building Society Head Office Government Office North West

PORTFOLIO HOLDERS & GROUP CHAIRMAN Cllr Bob Barker Cllr Paul Braithwaite Cllr Elizabeth Braithwaite

OTHER SLDC MEMBERS Cllr David Foot (R) Cllr Sonjie Marshall (R)

3 SCHEDULE OF COMMENTS

1 Brian Barden 1. THE STATUTORY BACKGROUND 1.1 PPG12 indicates that a planning authority may produce supplementary planning documents which supplement policies in a development plan document. It sets out various principles that will apply, as follows: • It must be consistent with national and regional planning policies as well as policies set out in the development plan documents contained in the local development framework. • It must be clearly cross-referenced to the relevant development plan document policy which it supplements • The process by which it has been prepared must be made clear and a statement of conformity with the statement of community involvement must be published with it. 1.2 Paragraph 2.44 goes on to state: “Supplementary planning documents may contain policies which expands or supplements the policies in development plan documents. However, policies which should be included in a development plan document and subjected to proper independent scrutiny in accordance with the statutory procedures should not be set out in supplementary planning documents.” 1.3 As you know, central government guidance in PPG3 sets out the nature of affordable housing policies, and in particular refers to Circular 6/98, Planning and Affordable Housing. 1.4 Paragraph 9 sets out the ability to include affordable housing policies in a development plan and paragraph 10 sets out guidance on site size and suitability and the economics of provision. You will see that the general threshold is set at 25 dwellings or one hectare, and the possibility in Inner London of reducing the threshold to 15 and 0.5 ha. There is a different approach to rural settlements of under 3000 and there is also an indication that the Secretary of State considers it may be appropriate, where local authorities are able to demonstrate exceptional local constraints, to seek to adopt a lower threshold between levels A and B as set out in paragraph 10, which would mean between 25 and 15 dwellings. As you know, the case was made in the Structure \Plan that the problems of affordable housing in Cumbria were significant and that a threshold lower than that nationally recommended could be adopted. This was set at 10 dwellings or 0.4 ha and the development industry, and indeed the whole of the community, were consulted on that document and the issue was fully debated at the Examination in Public. 1.5 It is astounding, therefore, to find that before the Structure Plan itself has been formally adopted, the thresholds that are set out in it in relation to affordable housing are totally ignored by the District Council and a new arbitrary figure is pulled out of the air, notwithstanding government advice and the adopted Structure Plan policy. there can be no question of the Structure Plan authorities not realising that there was a particular problem in South and East Cumbria. It is specifically referred to in paragraph 4.12. the District Council was a consultee to the Structure Plan and did appear at the Examination in Public. The idea that long after the period for consultation on the Modifications had expired the District Council can somehow or other persuade the County Council to put some different wording into the Structure Plan is totally contrary to the principles of fair consultation and public involvement. The development industry was aware of the concern about affordable housing and some elements of the industry did respond

4 to the consultation exercise and on the whole accepted the threshold being put forward even though it is lower that that recommended nationally. However, it is not acceptable for that threshold to be discontinued in the policy document on which you are now consulting and I think that as a matter of law your paragraph 2.4 is incorrect. In this paragraph you claim that Policy H19 of the Structure Plan only relates to the Furness area whilst acknowledging in a footnote that it does actually apply to the whole of the County, and there is the clear reference in the preamble to that policy to the problems in South and East Cumbria. The idea, therefore, that it does not apply and should not be the appropriate policy against which any supplementary guidance has to be assessed is simply wrong. 1.6 Assessed against that policy the threshold you are adopting in untenable. The supplementary planning guidance cannot seek to change policy in an adopted development plan and what you are attempting to do is therefore unlawful as well as unwise. 2. THE PRACTICAL EFFECT a. The presumption that somehow or other the development industry can provide housing for people who cannot afford it has gained momentum over the years but there has always been a recognition that the economics of provision are ultimately critical to the delivery of affordable housing. Government guidelines on thresholds are based on viability of sites and they are not simply figures pulled out of the air. b. All the planning guidance, including the recently adopted Structure Plan, sets out priorities for the provision of new housing, firstly by the reuse of existing buildings, secondly by the redevelopment of brownfield land, and only then by the development of Greenfield sites. c. Existing buildings generally speaking have a relatively good residual value in their existing use and in South and East Cumbria the great majority of brownfield sites are also in use and have relatively high residual values. It is not possible therefore for developers to be able to acquire land cheaply on the basis that they have to provide 50% affordable housing irrespective of the size of the site. Economically, those owning the sites will simply not sell them for less than they are worth in their existing use, and there is the additional factor that many of those using existing buildings or occupying existing sites will wish to redevelop and relocate themselves and they also have economic considerations to take into account. d. Those in the building industry with whom I have discussed this matter, and they are many, have unanimously made the same point that they see the new housing policy as leading to them being unable to purchase sites because they will not be able to offer the necessary money to be able to obtain them. They believe that only on Greenfield sites is there any likelihood of them being able to negotiate the purchase of land at a price that would allow the provision of affordable housing on this scale on such small sites. e. I know that a number of the builders will have written to you direct on this matter and I do not propose to go into it in any further detail, but I do believe that this is an extremely serious problem which will make matters worse rather than assisting in the provision of affordable housing. 3. THE INTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY 3.1 My dealings with developers in this area demonstrate to me that they all understand the problems of affordable housing. Many of those involved have children who have experienced the housing difficulty that has led to the adoption of affordable housing policies and they all have employees who similarly experience difficulty. They are anxious to be able to assist but they can only do so where it is made economically feasible for them to assist. They want to open a constructive dialogue with the District Council about the provision of affordable housing and they are extremely disappointed to have had a policy imposed upon them without

5 consultation, particularly as that policy is at odds with the adopted Structure Plan and all the previous information on which they had been consulted as part of the planning process. They feel that this is unhelpful to the provision of affordable housing and a significant threat to their business, to the jobs they provide, and to the ability to provide for the delivery of housing which is much needed in the area. 3.2 They recognise that Policy ST11 of the Structure Plan requires that at least 50% of the housing provided will be servicing evident need for affordable housing, but they also recognise that the total figure will include those exception sites which have been built purely and simply to meet local needs for affordable housing. They believe that the District Council must encourage, if it is to take seriously its stated intentions of providing housing for local needs, the release of significant areas of land outside the small scale limitations now being suggested where housing development on a significant scale would be able to ensure the provision of high levels of affordable housing. The development of sites purely for affordable housing, provided they are sites that would not normally be given planning permission and would therefore potentially be available at much more modest prices, would also be welcome and would make a real impact on the provision of housing for local people. 3.3 Their position can be summarised very succinctly as follows: “We want to help in the provision of housing for local people but we can only do so where it is economically viable.” 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 What is proposed is not in accordance with guidance published by central government, it is not in accordance with the development plan, and it is probably unlawful. It is certainly unhelpful and will not assist in the provision of affordable housing, but rather the reverse. It will also threaten the local development industry. 4.2 It is a very bad document and it ought to be withdrawn. 2 D. M. Nicholson, Russell Armer Ltd Russell Armer Limited have been providing homes in South Lakeland for 45 years. We develop open market sites with an element of affordable homes as well as working in partnership with Housing associations to provide Housing Corporation funded affordable homes. Historically, local people purchase the majority of our homes in South Lakeland. We currently employ 98 people, the majority of whom live in South Lakeland. We understand that this Interim Policy has been adopted in response to the emerging County Structure Plan. Russell Armer Limited, along with others, objected to the counties policies relating to the percentages of affordable homes and local occupancy clauses to be applied in South and East Cumbria. These objections related in the main to viability of sites and the likelihood that reductions in land value would be so great so as to discourage or prevent landowners from selling their land. Possibly as a result of this, the Inspectors of the E.I.P. made some recommendations to change to affordable homes policy wording and to remove the local occupancy requirement for O.M.V. homes. Surprisingly, Cumbria County Council chose to ignore the second recommendation. We expect that the introduction of your policy as written will decimate the provision of new ones and therefore affordable homes by the private sector in South Lakeland. Please be assured that this is not scaremongery but the economic reality of the resulting impact on land values. In order for landowners to be encouraged to sell land, an enhancement in land values is required in the vast majority of cases. The introduction of this policy reduces land values in two ways. Firstly, the blanket requirement for 50% affordable homes at prices set by SLDC

6 reduces land values by approximately 50% of that achieved under the previous policy. This is partly because we cannot build the homes for the prices set by SLDC and they have to be cross subsidised from the land value created by the O.M.V. homes. Secondly, the introduction of local occupancy restrictions on the O.M.V. properties reduces their values and their ability to cross subsidise the affordable homes. Local chartered surveyors advise us that they expect the house prices with local occupancy restrictions to be approximately 15 to 25% lower depending on location and type of dwelling. When combined with the affordable homes policy, this reduces land values to approximately one third of their former values. Whilst there may still be a residual value large enough to encourage a greenfield agricultural landowner to sell, this is very unlikely to be the case on brownfield sites. Firstly, brownfield sites have many complicated and costly issues to resolve, contamination being one of them. These adversely impact on land value. Secondly, we have very few, if any vacant brownfield sites in South Lakeland. They are usually occupied and have a significant commercial value. The impact of your policies in many cases is to reduce the residential land value to less than the commercial value. Clearly in these circumstances the owner will not sell for residential use, resulting in no affordable homes. Lastly, in our recent experience, these sites are owned and operated by local businesses that wish to move to more modern premises in more suitable locations in the vicinity. In order to do this they need to release a critical amount of capital from their existing sites. These policies prevent this happening. The result is a business hampered by being on an unsuitable site and no affordable homes being provided – a lose lose situation. To put all the above succinctly, 50% of nothing ‘is nothing’, so how do we move forward? Firstly, if SLDC is serious about providing affordable homes on a meaningful scale it needs to allocate some Greenfield sites in the major settlements. These are more likely to be viable and come forward under this policy than Brownfield as explained previously. Secondly, officers are asking for 50% off every site. The Cumbria Structure Plan calls for 50% across the district as a whole. As some sites are providing 100% affordable homes, others could provide less than 50% and SLDC still meet its target. Thirdly, the affordable homes ‘tariff’ prices set by SLDC needs to be lifted significantly in order to improve the viability of schemes. This would still meet an affordable need in that many people on incomes too high to qualify for an affordable home are still priced out of the open market. These are people who are important to the socio-economic well-being of the district and are currently being excluded from the local home ownership market. The offer of ‘intermediate’ housing would increase the chances of keeping them in the locality. Fourthly, the threshold level at which affordable homes are required is set too low at four homes. The economics are even more difficult on small sites and the threshold should be in line with national policy of ten or more and Structure Plan policy. Fifthly, wider ‘planning gain’ benefits should be taken into account on a scheme-by- scheme basis, e.g. the relocation benefits to the future viability of a key local employer may take priority over the rigid framework for the provision of affordable homes or all for local occupancy. In conclusion, we believe that this policy will have the opposite effect to its intention, i.e. a reduced supply of affordable homes. It should be radically revised in conjunction with further discussions with the local development industry. To sum up ‘50% of nothing is nothing’! 3 Philip Marks I shall be only too happy for you to record my support for IPATH, and believe that

7 further affordable, and environmentally sensitive housing, is an absolute must for the South Lakeland Area’s survival into the future. I base this on the need to offer the younger population the ability to live in the area of their birth. This ability, as I know you are aware and IPATH highlights, is fast being eroded. The area will, in my view, only become more popular as we go into the future, making young local residency even harder. Also demand for existing and new private housing will increase due to not only the ‘desirability’ of the area, but also increasing life expectancy amongst the retired population. 4 David Corrie, Poole Townsend Ref: 2.1 & 2.2: Should considerations not be given to the release of strategic and sustainable Greenfield sites where quality affordable housing allocations can be economically secured i.e. Quaker Fold and Ulverston? I appreciate this may not be fully in tandem with Government Policy but could be seen to be part of the Economic Regeneration Programme for Cumbria. Ref. 2.3: Can the Council not joint venture with the private sector, with/without grants, to engender the release of suitable sites for affordable housing? Ref. 2.4: Policy H19 – Can this be met by a combination of subsidised rents, shared- home ownership, capped market values or other innovative schemes? Ref. 2.7: The housing need for the Barrow Borough Area would appear to be quality stock at family price levels, £125,000 - £195,000, for labour attraction and retention. This town has plenty of price affordable housing. Ulverston and hinterland area has different housing needs, in terms of accommodating the requirements of first time buyers, single person units, sheltered housing etc. Can a regional planning function for the West Lakes`/Furness Area not co-ordinate these very different demands. ST11 (Appendix A): In my professional experience, this will result land-owners not bringing forward opportunist residential sites. H17 (Appendix A): It is unlikely that the total numbers in the table will generate the release of the required volume number of affordable housing for South/East Cumbria. General Note: Could more negotiated deals per Webbs Garden Centre SL2003/2293 not be accommodated? The locality for affordable housing in Appendix C, page 15, is extremely restrictive and again may not produce the supply of development required from within the private sector. 5 M J D Henry, Robert Hughes Ltd Whilst there is undoubtedly a need for affordable housing in the Lake District, it is our view that the proposed policy will not achieve the desired goals, rather it is more likely to prevent houses being built. The key difficulty is that the threshold is set too low, i.e. at least 50% affordable housing on all developments of four or more houses. This is much more onerous than Policy H19 in the Structure Plan which requires an element of affordable housing on sites of ten or more dwellings. For any housing development to proceed, it is a pre- requisite that the scheme be financially viable. As you are no doubt aware, the value of development land is usually determined on a residual basis, i.e. the balance remaining after all estimated development costs have been deducted from the likely sales proceeds. On sites with a large element of affordable housing the sales revenue will struggle to cover all the development costs and the residual amount (If any) available to purchase the land would be severely limited. Given that most land available for development in this area is brownfield and that it will have an existing

8 commercial value, it is unlikely that housing land can be purchased in this way. If a scheme is not viable, the development will not go ahead and much needed housing will not be built. The Structure Plan states that “evidence from the District Council surveys shows that overall at least 50% of the new housing requirement would be needed to help meet affordable needs”. The word “overall” is key here, because this means that exception sites that are approved purely to provide affordable housing can come into the calculation in assessing whether the overall target of 50% of housing being affordable is to be met. Instead of trying to achieve the target on small mixed open market/affordable developments, it would be more sensible to release more land, probably Greenfield for affordable housing or perhaps a mix of affordable and low cost intermediate housing. The smaller brownfield sites can then be allocated for open market housing, which are more likely to be financially viable. 6 Jeremy Pickup, Environment Agency The Agency has considered the contents of the Interim Planning Approach to Housing Development and in this instance we have no comments to submit regarding the consultation. 7 Steve Dodds, Acorn Developments (Kendal) Ltd The 50% affordable element on sites of 4 or more is in conflict with Structure Plan Policy H19 which has a site threshold of 10 or more units. On economic grounds this lowered threshold is not viable for developers in this part of South Lakeland, bearing in mind the affordable prices that the Council is insisting on and the prices landowners are expecting. The small developer can therefore not help in the delivery of affordable housing and may in some instances go out of business making the situation worse. To achieve the required amounts & types of affordable housing units the Council are going to have to release more green field sites and making a case to Central Government to do this as there are not the sites out there at prices to make it viable for developments to make a positive contribution to providing affordable homes. If it does not, the Council will fail in its obligation of providing affordable homes for local people in the right locations. Releasing more viable plots will allow better provision of the required types of affordable units and not just cramming in apartments which is at present the only way developments can make sites viable and not providing what is required. The Council has just been advertising for industrial land maybe it should be pursuing the same for affordable homes at the same time educating landowners that the days of high prices are no longer available in South Lakeland. Unfortunately the response will probably be “I will sit tight & wait & see”.

The Council talks of being “flexible” in its current approach our experience does not confirm this. Let the RSL’s provide the majority of affordable houses, on land released by the Council for this specific purpose and let the Developer provide a smaller proportion of say up to 25% dependent on the site. We have just achieved this on a site in Holme making it still economically viable. Draft RSS for the North West puts emphasis on deliverability, viability and availability all of which the Council do not appear to be taking into account in this interim approach. It is suggesting increasing the provision of housing by some 60% in Cumbria, how will the Council be able to deliver this increase and does it mean the 50% affordable element will be reduced proportionately for the Council to meet its goal of affordable housing. Is the local occupancy rule, against a persons human rights prohibiting them from buying a new property in the area to live in, even though they work outside the County in commuting distance or may just wish to retire to the area and want a new home with low maintenance costs instead of having to buy older homes. All these people bring

9 income to the area. 8 Robin Sisson, Priory Building Three years ago we were able to purchase land in South Lakeland, develop and sell 75% at open market value plus 25% with Section 106 affordable conditions attached. The profit generated from open market sales subsidised the affordable houses and we were still able to offer enough to the land owner to tempt him to sell at a fair price to all. An example of this was our development at Graythwaite Manor, Grange-over- Sands, where we had 22 open market sales plus 6 affordables. A big success all round, but this project is nearing completion. We now need another site in this area to keep supplying houses for the broad spectrum of purchasers and keep our building team employed. Several sites have been put forward to us, but after cost and selling prices have been calculated, taking account of 50% being sold at affordable prices, the residual land value is much lower than the land owner’s expectation. The land owners around this area do not seem short of funds and are therefore unwilling to take a lower offer for their surplus land/buildings, presumably hoping that longer term there will be some improvement in the ‘planning gain’. Builders need to cover their costs and ever-increasing overheads and be sure they are not going to loose money on the project. A potential profit margin has to be there before taking a development risk. Why can we not return to the original arrangement of 25% affordable or maybe we could stretch to 30% then we can continue to provide new houses for all. 9 Joan Chadwick As far as I can ascertain the council does appear to be working within the guidelines laid down, but with the size of the waiting list/homeless. in the area it is somewhat worrying. It would appear (through the media) that many homes were to be built, down south, John Prescott’s plans. So are they to ruled by guidelines?? I'm not really sure what to make of the Webb's garden centre referral (section 106 agreement) Where the affordable housing from this are situated in yards, rather than on the more desirable site as afore mentioned The document doesn’t say what category of residents different sites will house? Maybe this isn’t required. For the near future I suppose the annual provision limits aren’t really adequate as stated in the guidelines As far as my limited knowledge allows the interim plan does seem reasonable 10 Cllr David Foot As one of the two Ward Members for Low Furness and Swarthmoor, I would like to make the following comments:

• I fully support the principle of managing the supply of affordable housing to meet local needs.(2.2) and that this should be based on evidence of need (2.4).

• I am pleased that the evidence of housing need, based on the 2002 district-wide housing survey (soon to be superseded by the 2006 survey), "suggests that approximately 37% of the overall housing provision in the Furness area should be affordable based on the quotas set in the Structure Plan over the period to 2016".(2.7)

• It is pleasing to note that the Interim policy is of the view that, "the Structure Plan policy H19 gives greater ability to provide a higher proportion of affordable houses in the Furness area than the current South Lakeland Local Plan."(2.7)

• I am concerned that a target of 37% will be hard to deliver because of the constraints imposed by the thresholds applied in H19 (Appendix A, Policy H19), despite the assurance in the Interim Approach (2.7, final sentence) that the policy

10 does not prevent smaller sites from providing affordable housing where there is clear evidence of need. Is the method proposed to achieve this ("the proportion of affordable housing units provided on housing sites will be determined on a case by case basis.."(2.7)) robust enough?

• How is SLDC planning to monitor the achievement of the 37% target? Is this target an average over the period to 2016 or is this an annual percentage?

• Will the results of the new District wide survey have any effect on the targets or methods to achieve the targets?

• How long does this "Interim" Policy last? 11 Cllr Sonjie Marshall As the other ward member of Low Furness & Swarthmoor I support Cllr Foot's comments are also feel the questions posed are very relevant and need answering. In addition I feel too many housing planning applications have been made in this ward for 2/3 bedded semi detached houses to be built and once agreed amended plans have been submitted and agreed to change dwellings to 4 bedded detached homes with reduced smaller housing or none at all, let alone affordable housing. 12 Mike Rogers, Urswick Parish Council The target that 37% of the overall housing provision for the Furness Area should be affordable is good news, but how will the phrase "over the period to 2016" be interpreted. Does this mean at 2016 there will be, or is some sliding scale to be used from the present to 2016? What criterion will be used to decide how many of these homes can be built on any given site and If the 37% allocation is successfully implemented and filled, will there be scope for future affordable housing. Overall these provisions are a good step in the right direction, especially to give young local people a chance to live in their natural environment. 13 Graham Hale, Spatial Planning, Cumbria County Council The SLDC "Interim Planning Approach to Housing Development" would seem to be an appropriate approach to delivering housing at the local level to accord with the Policies contained in the recently adopted (6th April 2006) Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016. The approach is therefore supported and welcomed. We also welcome the references made in the document to the relevant sections of the Joint Structure Plan in Appendix A, the SLDC monitoring reports in Appendix B, and the SLDC definitions of 'local', 'locality' and 'affordable in Appendix C. However we have a couple of additional comments to make on the details of the Interim Approach. First, the document refers to the JSP Policies H17, ST11, and H19 as being the vehicles to deliver the new approach. But the document does not appear to explain how the Structure Plan Policies will be used by Development Control Officers and applicants at a Local District level. It therefore does not add anything further than what is already known in the adopted JSP Policies, nor does it especially interpret the JSP Policies at a local level. In other words, it does not indicate: how the LPA will monitor the number of planning permissions; how the LPA will deliver most new housing to the Key Service Centres and smaller scale development to the Local Service Centres; how it might prioritise the delivery of affordable housing according to identified local need (aside from paragraph 2.7); and how the LPA will phase the provision of new housing so as not to exceed the annualised requirements of Policy H17 over the plan period. Whilst it is accepted that the document is an interim measure, we consider that there ought to be additional paragraphs in Section 2 to explain the implementation of the

11 Plan, Monitor and Manage approach at the local District level. We recognise that there is reference to monitoring, but the document does not bring all the above components together in one or two paragraphs in an explicit and simple way to be really meaningful. Second, we would recommend that you make reference in your Section 3 to the amendment made since November 2005 in paragraph 4.13 of the adopted Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016, which relates to the implementation of Policy H19 and states: "....Where considered necessary to achieve targets set out within the Plan lower thresholds should be incorporated by the LPA in the LDF. This is likely to be required in South and East Cumbria." 14 John Leigh, Hackney & Leigh Whilst I do not propose or feel particularly well qualified to comment in detail, I have some very grave concerns about the Council’s approach to residential development in our area. I would comment as follows: 1. I am aware that government guidelines suggest that proposals relating to affordability and to local occupancy should be for schemes of over ten units, allowing the reasonable market forces to deal with the smaller infill sites, where clearly residential use has become appropriate where some non-competitive commercial or other uses have perhaps previously been in place. I believe that to suggest, as you do, that this should apply to four units and above is not only contrary to government edict, but is also totally impractical, and will simply result in small developments not taking places at all, because of the implications I will refer to later. I would go so far as to challenge South Lakeland District Council and suggest that they should not be going outside government guidelines in this particular area, and that your proposal should only relate to development of ten units and above. 2. The definition of “local occupancy” is, to say the least, a little vague, and whilst I am sure it is done for the right reasons in accordance with government guidelines, I believe that, from a practical point of view, it will be a nightmare for owners of properties with such occupancy restrictions on them when they choose to move on. It is effectively meddling in market forces, and will result in practice in substantial delays in people being able to move jobs when needed, and in some cases will cause, I think, very considerable hardship. I think the rules on local occupancy should be simplified. I do not think there should be stages of testing whether certain categories of people can buy or not, and I would like to get back to the “living and working in Cumbria” regulations that we have got used to in the National Park., and that it should be “living and working in South Lakeland”. Surely we should not restrict people’s ability to move on, even within their own sector, if job opportunities or personal family circumstances change and the need to move becomes urgent. This occupancy restriction will have an effect in the market place, as it is quite rightly intended to, and I believe that it will have a limiting effect on value of perhaps between 10% and 15%, which will of course give local people and local working people a better opportunity to buy than they have at present. 3. When we come to the affordable element, from practical experience, the 80/20 system that we currently deal with on a regular basis in the South Lakeland area, has become easily understood by the owners and prospective purchasers, and works well in a practical fashion, although of course with rising prices, the affordables are getting dearer. It seems to me that a simple system that is understandable is needed from a practical point of view, especially on second sales, where people have forgotten that they got a discount when they bought and that they have a restricted number

12 of prospective purchasers in the market place. It seems to me that it would be sensible to endeavour to review the affordable system, and make it very clear, in practical terms for young people, how it works. To talk in general terms about average wages and so on, is not very good, and the 80/20 or 40/60 or 50/50 or however it might work, would be a better route, especially if it could be designed to be flexible to take account of increasing capital values, to make sure that in real terms the properties were still affordable. If you asked someone in the street in Kendal now about an 80/20, some would be able to tell you how the system works. If you asked anyone, I think, how the future system would work, they probably wouldn’t have a clue, and they certainly wouldn’t know, in simple and easy terms, what “affordable” meant. Is it a two- bedroomed house at £80,000 or is it a three-bedroomed house at £110,000? I think simplicity should be the key to this, because at the end of the day we are dealing with people most of whom have no experience of the property market, and they need to be able to understand the constraints under which they buy, and perhaps more importantly, the constraints under which they will have to sell in the future when their lives start to change and they move on. 5. When you combine your two suggestions of affordability and local occupancy on a 50/50 basis, especially when you add in four units and above, I believe your policy will effectively bring the residential property new-build sector to a standstill. No owner in his right mind would sell land at the present time under the present regime on the figures that the restrictions produce, and equally it is unrealistic to try and engineer such a market place. The affordable element under your present working gives a net negative land value to 50% of the properties, and therefore the other 50% of the properties in any given scheme over four would have to subsidise those affordable elements, and those other plots have already been reduced by 10% or 15% because of the local occupancy requirement. This will make the majority of land owners decide not to sell at all, and either to sit tight or to think of alternative uses if there is a valuable alternative. Would it not be a good idea to divide the two sectors of thinking, and put affordable homes onto land where residential development would not normally be permitted, thus giving an increased value over, say, agricultural value to a land owner, and therefore tempt him to release that land because it would be so much more than be could get for agricultural purposes, but still way off current market trends in residential development values? You could then look at the other sector, of locals only, and deal with that far more sensibly, and make that land equally more available, because it would not be cross-subsidising 50% of the units that might become available in any given situation. 5. Employment I believe your current policies could potentially have a disastrous effect on employment potential for the South Lakeland area, and I genuinely think that a number of builders will not be able to carry on, because (a) no land will become available, and (b) if they were lucky enough to find some sites – offices that were no longer viable, that sort of thing – then the margins that they could achieve would not produce the results to give them a profit and indeed pay their employees’ wages. I really believe that your policy is dangerous in its present form, in market and commercial terms.

13