PLANNING CUMBRIA

CUMBRIA AND LAKE DISTRICT JOINT STRUCTURE PLAN 2001 - 2016 EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC REPORT OF THE PANEL

Important note:

The report of the Panel who conducted the ‘Examination in Public’ of the ‘Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan’ was received on 21 December 2004. Before it could be published, further clarification was sought on some points contained within the ‘Overview’ section.

The following letters provide the clarification - one is the letter seeking clarification, the other is the response from the Planning Inspectorate.

The ‘Overview’ section of the report should be read with both of these letters.

Our full response to this ‘Overview’ section and the Planning Inspectorate’s letter will be included with our response to the whole report in due course.

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

6 January 2004 Dear Mr Smith

CLARIFICATION OF PANEL REPORT

Thank you for providing us with the Panel’s report following the Examination in Public of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 which we received on 21 December 2004.

You will now be aware that I have had a conversation with Frank Hewson about Item 4 in the Overview section of the report.

Whilst we think we understand the context of what is presented in this section, we are concerned that it remains somewhat ambiguous to us and other readers. And in allowing too broad an interpretation of what the panel meant, we feel this is potentially damaging to the whole Structure Plan process.

We would therefore request some supporting information or an explanatory note which we hope will clarify any ambiguity and misunderstanding. We feel that in providing answers to the questions below, we will be able to present a clearer picture of what is meant when we publish the report.

1. Comments in Item 4 could be interpreted as directed solely to this Authority. If this is accurate, why has the Lake District National Park Authority been identified for special comment in this way? Is this normal practice? The approach to the Joint Structure Plan has been in accordance with the title of the document – joint. The paragraphs could imply a problem with the way this Authority has handled its approach which we feel is unfair. We need confirmation that your comments are directed to both this Authority and Cumbria County Council. If however, you feel that this Authority has not performed appropriately at the EIP then we need real evidence or recommendations to enable us to improve? 2. When you refer to ‘an absence of vision for its future’, what exactly do you mean? What is the actual evidence? Forward planning is a very broad subject area, especially in the context of the National Park purposes. If you really do mean we do not have any vision for the National Park then we feel you may have misinterpreted the overarching vision which is established in the National Park Management Plan. If however you feel that the vision for the National Park is not clear in the Deposit Joint Structure Plan then we need confirmation that you understand it is a joint responsibility for both Cumbria County Council and this Authority to resolve this together. 3. The second paragraph on page 9 does not refer to the Authority but it could be implied that the comment made is targeted to us. Would it be more useful to identify the need for all stakeholders to increase understanding, work in partnership and share a vision for sustainable development in the National Park? This is, after all, what we are all required to do.

We hope you can help us by providing the clarity we and our partners need in Cumbria and look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Bob Sutcliffe Community Development Manager Lake District National Park Authority

2 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

The Planning Inspectorate Room 406 / Kite Wing Direct Line 0117-372 8948 Temple Quay House Switchboard 0117-372 8000 2 The Square Fax No 0117-372 6241 Temple Quay GTN 1371-8948 Bristol BS1 6PN e-mail: [email protected] http://www.planning- inspectorate.gov.uk

Mr Bob Sutcliffe Community Development Manager Your Ref: Lake District National Park Authority Murley Moss Our Ref: DP 515 Kendal LA9 7RL Date: 10 January 2005

Dear Mr Sutcliffe,

Clarification of the Cumbria and the Lake District Joint Structure Plan EiP Panel Report

Thank you for your letter of 6th January, which I am responding to as chairman of the EiP Panel in the absence of Simon Gibbs who is out of the country for a number of weeks.

Let me first explain why we included an overview within our report, and why we regard it as important. A number of broad concerns spanning the separate issues we considered emerged during the course of the EiP. We were concerned about the effect of RPG13 on Cumbria particularly in relation to housing policy. The overview brings out our main conclusions regarding RPG13 in points one and three, they are set out in a way that we hope will help the Joint Authorities and others address these key matters during the forthcoming preparation of Regional Spatial Strategy. It is perhaps unusual for a Panel Report to be as critical of RPG, now RSS, as we have been, but we considered that the interests of Cumbria would be best served by stating our views clearly and openly.

We also had two broad concerns about the content of the Plan itself, expressed in points two and four of the overview. Point two deals with economic development and says that while the Plan’s policies provide a good framework for supporting the economy, in our view it fails to adequately communicate the importance attached to attracting new economic investment to the county. Point four brings together a number of concerns about the policy content of the Plan which is specific to the Lake District, and which we consider to have a number of significant shortcomings. Having made recommendations covering a number of separate topics we considered it important to set out our overall impression, which we expressed as “a feeling” based on our experience at the EiP as we examined the relevant policies in detail.

The specific points that gave rise to our impression are set out in our report. I do not believe it is necessary, nor is it possible, to provide any further detailed supporting information. However the sources of our impression are referred to in point four of the overview and include the following: a) The failure of the Plan to identify key service centres within the National Park, although they are specifically and properly dealt with in the rest of the county. (We deal with this in paras 2.1.18 to 2.1.29 of our report). b) The failure of the Plan to identify, within the National Park, Landscape Types which provide the basis for character assessment, while in contrast there is detailed guidance for the remainder of the county both within the Plan and in a number of companion

3 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

documents. (We deal with this in paras 5.2.20 to 5.2.29 of our report). c) The failure of the Plan to include a coastal zone designation within the National Park (We deal with this in paras 5.3.4 to 5.3.18 of our report). d) The failure of the Plan to “provide a particularly positive message welcoming tourism development;” (our report para 3.3.29); the failure to identify key tourism projects and initiatives (our report paras 3.3.19 to 3.3.36); and the lack of linkage between tourism and regeneration within the National Park (our report para 3.3.14 to 3.3.18).

Our comment in point four of the overview is directed to the National Park Authority because it is responsible for strategic planning in the Lake District. Our concern was to highlight what we felt to be a general problem of lack of vision exemplified by the policies we examined. I would wish to stress that our criticism is not directed at any of the Authority’s officers who appeared before us, nor does it relate to any of the Authority’s other functions.

In response to your point three, it is absolutely clear that the penultimate paragraph of our overview is addressed to all the significant landowners within the National Park and is not targeted at the Authority.

While I appreciate your point about the nature of the Joint Structure Plan and the shared responsibilities between the Authority and Cumbria County Council our concerns expressed in point four of our overview, as I have explained above, are primarily focused on those polices in the Plan which are specific to the National Park. It is now the responsibility of the Joint Authorities, acting together, to take forward a vision for Cumbria and the National Park, and I trust that our report in both its affirming and critical comments will contribute to this process.

Yours sincerely

Adrian Smith Panel Chair

4 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

CUMBRIA AND LAKE DISTRICT JOINT STRUCTURE PLAN 2001 - 2016

EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC

REPORT OF THE PANEL

2004

5 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

6 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

CONTENTS Page

Introduction 9

Overview 11

Recommendations 15

Issue 1 The Approach to Sustainability and Development 25

Issue 2.1 The Approach to Promoting a Sustainable Spatial Strategy The Rural - Urban balance 43

Issue 2.2 The Approach to Promoting a Sustainable Spatial Strategy Ensuring development supports the needs of communities in different parts of the County 55

Issue 3.1 The Approach to Supporting the Economy Ensuring an appropriate supply of employment land 71

Issue 3.2 The Approach to Supporting the Economy Employment development in rural areas 85

Issue 3.3 The Approach to Supporting the Economy Tourism development 93

Issue 4.1 The Approach to Providing Housing Scale of housing development 107

Issue 4.2 The Approach to Providing Housing Affordable housing 123

Issue 4.3 The Approach to Providing Housing Housing renewal 135

Issue 5.1 The Approach to Caring for the Environment Areas of national and international conservation importance 141

Issue 5.2 The Approach to Caring for the Environment County landscapes 145

Issue 5.3 The Approach to Caring for the Environment Coastal Zones 150

Issue 6 The Approach to Renewable Energy 155

Appendices 173

7 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

8 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

INTRODUCTION

The Deposit Edition of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan was the subject of public consultation in 2003. Following representations on these documents Proposed Changes to the Deposit Edition were published for public consultation in 2004.

During 2004 a number of Issues were identified by the Joint Authorities where it was felt a discussion at an Examination in Public would lead to conclusions which would assist the Joint Authorities in their preparation of the final version of the Joint Structure Plan. These Issues were agreed with the Panel which had been appointed to conduct the Examination in Public. The Panel comprised Mr Adrian Smith appointed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as Chair, and Mr Simon Gibbs from the Planning Inspectorate.

At the same time a list of participants for each Issue was drawn up, again agreed between the Joint Authorities and the Panel, and invited to take part in the Examination in Public. Participants were chosen on the basis of the contribution it was envisaged they could make to the discussion of Issues at the Examination in Public seeking a full range of views on each Issue. All participants were given the opportunity to submit a further written statement relevant to the issue they were invited to, but not repeating representations already made. Following receipt of these further statements the Joint Authorities prepared a response for each Issue which also included briefing material requested by the Panel.

All of the relevant further statements and responses were circulated to the participants in each Issue to provide the background to the discussion of Issues at the Examination in Public. A preliminary meeting to explain procedures and outline the programme and timetable for the Examination in Public, to which all participants were invited, was held on 10 June 2004. The Examination in Public was held at the Lake District National Park Authority offices in Kendal between 28 September and 8 October 2004. The discussion of each Issue was led by the Panel on the basis of question and answer with the background papers referred to above taken as read.

This report is the Panel’s view of the discussion on each Issue and their conclusions after due deliberation, together with recommendations to the Joint Authorities for changes and additions to the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.

A full transcript of proceedings was taken and a précis of the transcript for each Issue is included as a separate volume of this report.

9 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

10 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan

Examination in Public 2004

Important Notes for reference throughout the document: a) Statutory Instrument 2004 No.2206 Town and Country Planning England published on 28 October 2004 introduced the Town and Country Planning [Initial Regional Spatial Strategy (England)] Regulations 2004. From that date all references to RPG (Regional Planning Guidance) 13 became RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy) for the North West of England. Similarly, the Partial Review of RPG 13 became Partial Review for the North West. All references to RPG 13 in the Report means RSS for the North West. b) Unless specifically mentioned otherwise all references to policies and text in the Report are those in the Proposed Changes version of the Structure Plan (Brown Volume, June 2004).

OVERVIEW

1. Sub regional strategies in forthcoming Regional Spatial Strategy

The North West is geographically extensive and diverse in character, but within the region Cumbria is unique. Cumbria is predominantly rural; synonymous, in public perception, with the exceptional qualities of the Lake District that lie at its heart. Even outside the National Park, a high proportion of the County is covered by national and international designations which recognise and seek to protect its landscape and other environmental assets. In contrast nineteenth and twentieth century urban development in Cumbria has left a legacy of relatively small and remote towns, most of them in coastal locations. Being located on the periphery of a border county gives them an increased sense of remoteness and isolation. Finally, Cumbria is isolated from the North West Metropolitan Area, so much so that when looking for higher order services that are not available within Carlisle the northern and western parts of the County tend to look first to Newcastle.

During the course of the EiP it became clear to us that RPG13, (the current expression of Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West) does not do full justice to Cumbria’s distinctiveness. RPG13 has a particular focus on the regeneration of the North West Metropolitan Area and its specific references to the equivalent needs of Cumbria are limited. Even more importantly we have found that the reduced targets placed on new housing development in RPG13 as finally issued are having consequences for local decision making that we believe were not foreseen and not intended. By acting as a very severe constraint on the level of development to be permitted over the remainder of the plan period, we consider that this will conflict with the broad strategic objectives for Cumbria set out in paragraph 3.20 of RPG13.

The preparation of future RSS provides an important opportunity to address some of the shortcomings at the regional and sub-regional planning level that we have identified in this report. We note that PPS11 requires Regional Planning Bodies to address sub-regional strategic policy deficits. We trust that our report will provide material which will assist the North West Regional Assembly and the Joint Authorities in the task of ensuring that in the future Cumbria’s needs are

11 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

given sufficient weight and prominence in the regional context.

2. Supporting the Economy

The Plan’s policies provide a good framework for supporting the economy. In particular we were impressed by the way in which Policy EM12 addresses the provision of sufficient employment land across a range of market sectors using a flexible “rolling” mechanism that should prevent excess allocations.

Unfortunately the positive approach that the Plan takes towards encouraging economic development does not seem to have come across to all the participants at the EiP, particularly those with a responsibility for attracting investment into the county. To some extent this is a consequence of the way in which planning policies have to be framed. Whilst recognising that the Plan is more about regulation than promotion, there is still plenty of scope for getting the bigger vision for the county across, and we consider that this could be assisted by including greater reference to flagship economic and tourism projects.

3. Housing

Housing issues were an important focal point of discussions at the EiP. In session after session, there were points raised about the inadequacy of housing allocations, particularly by the District Council representatives. The levels of housebuilding envisaged within RPG13 are a significant reduction on historical levels and these cut-backs are being imposed in a top-down manner.

The EiP was a significant forum for articulation of local concern on this issue and the single most important message that we heard during the two weeks of the EiP was that the size of the housing “cake” being distributed across the County was inadequate. We note that the Government Office and the North West Regional Assembly are alive to some of the concerns that District Councils have raised but we want to flag up the importance and urgency of this issue.

The recommendations in our report relate to how this matter should be addressed within the Joint Structure Plan but it may well be that there is also a need for a separate response at the regional level. The EiP can be regarded as having played a “monitoring role” in relation to the District Council's experience of moving toward the implementation of the approach to housebuilding set by RPG13. Our view of the outcome of that “monitoring” is that reconsideration needs to be given to the approach set at regional level as a matter of urgency.

4. Lake District National Park and its relationship to the Joint Structure Plan

While the Lake District National Park lies at the heart of Cumbria, all too often in this Joint Structure Plan the National Park is represented by a blank space. This is particularly evident in Figures 8 and 9 and the approach taken to key service centres.

We are left after our experience of the EiP with a feeling that there is a lack of commitment from the National Park Authority itself to forward planning in the National Park and an absence of vision for its future. Given the significance of the Lake District in the genesis of the Romantic Movement, for pioneering

12 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

contributions to the protection of cherished landscapes and as a candidate World Heritage Site, we consider this a serious disappointment.

A notable feature of the Lake District is the extent to which the “land resource” is owned by bodies that have a direct interest in and (generally) a commitment to careful management of natural resources. Taken together, in the region of 50% of the land and water area in the Park is in the ownership of the National Trust, United Utilities (water supply), Forest Enterprise and the National Park Authority itself. We do not see evidence that opportunities for taking forward a vision for the Park with these and other local interests committed to advancing sustainable development will be promoted by the policies of the Joint Structure Plan.

We hope that our recommendations will assist in remedying at least some of these omissions.

13 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

14 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

RECOMMENDATIONS

This section sets out the Recommendations of the Panel in order as they apply to the Joint Cumbria and Lake District Structure Plan itself. Each recommendation is referenced to the Issue it was discussed under and by the relevant paragraph in the report.

The Panel recommends:

POLICY ST 1

Issue 1 1.30 That the phrase “measures that, in combination, advance the four objectives of sustainable development and achieve” be added after the phrase “sustained through” in Policy ST1.

Supporting Text

Issue 1 1.9 That additional text be added which provides a link to the intentions expressed in the Partial Review of RPG13 Policy DP5 and to policies in the Joint Structure Plan which are particularly relevant such as C42 & 43 and R44 & 45. The additional text should make it clear that the Joint Authorities are aware of the potential local threats as well as the global threats posed by climate change and the importance ascribed by the Government to the implementation of relevant practical measures through the planning system.

1.14 That a specific reference to RPG13 Policy DP2 be included in paragraph 2.5 together with a brief explanation of the way in which “capital” has been dealt with in the Joint Structure Plan.

Issue 3.1 3.1.18 That the suggestions made in the three paragraphs above are followed through into the Joint Structure Plan text, in particular:

(a) Paragraphs 2.1 & 2.2 should make it clear that growth and environmental protection can be advanced in tandem;

(b) A further paragraph which makes an explicit reference to RPG13 paragraph 3.20 should be added after 2.2 highlighting the importance of regenerating West Cumbria and Furness and of promoting further development of the City of Carlisle;

POLICY ST3

Issue 1 1.54 That the first sentence of criterion 1 in Policy ST3 be modified as follows: “seek locations consistent with policies ST5 and ST6 which will assist in reducing the need for travel, and then…”

1.57 That “landscape character” is substituted for “landscapes” in what will become criterion 6. 15 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Supporting Text

Issue 1 1.42 That the wording of paragraph 2.7 i put forward at the EiP be substituted into the Plan;

1.43 That a new second sentence “It is not intended that application of the policy should require householder and other proponents of small scale development to carry out an extensive examination of alternative sites or alternative schemes.” be added to paragraph 2.8 of the Plan.

1.46 a) That the penultimate sentence of paragraph 2.8 of the Plan be amended to read: “For some types of development including mineral extraction and renewable energy, the search sequence described in criterion 1, will not be appropriate”.

b) That the final sentence of the Proposed Change to paragraph 2.8 be deleted.

1.84 That the above text (paragraph 1.82) be added to paragraph 2.7 of the Joint Structure Plan

POLICY ST4

Issue 1 1.74 a) That Policy ST4 – Criterion 4, be redrafted in the light of paragraph 22 of PPS7;

b) That the final paragraph of Policy ST4 be amended to read “For the purposes of this policy ‘major development’ is defined as that which has potentially significant environmental effects and has an importance which extends well beyond Cumbria.”

POLICY ST5

Issue 2.1 2.1.29 a) That Policy ST5 be retitled ‘New Development and Key Service Centres outside the Lake District National Park’

NEW POLICY

Issue 2.1 2.1.29 b) That a new policy be added ‘Development within Key Service Centres in the Lake District National Park’.

c) That the following wording be adopted for the new policy:

“Keswick, Ambleside and Windermere/Bowness are key service centres for the Lake District National Park. Development in these centres will be permitted where it:

16 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

• Provides a service for the local community and is in scale with the local service to be provided; • Helps sustain a range of services in the centre or supports local businesses; or • Meets other identifiable needs of the locality.

Development must also accord with the requirements of Policy ST11 and be compatible with existing settlement character.”

POLICY ST6

Issue 2.1 2.1.17 That Policy ST6 be worded as proposed in EIP Doc 13, paragraph 2.20.

General Comment

Issue 2.1 2.1.44 That the implications of Policies ST5, ST6 and the new policy for key centres in the Lake District National Park for small scale adaptive and organic change within the rural parts of the County be monitored.

POLICY ST9

Issue 2.2 2.2.15 That the amendment to Policy ST9 set out in paragraph 2.51 of EiP Doc 13 be incorporated in the Policy.

POLICY ST10

Issue 2.2 2.2.72 a) That Policy ST10 be worded as follows:

“The priority for new development in South and East Cumbria will be to ensure that the needs of local people are met. In particular there is a need for further provision of affordable housing. To enable this new housing required by Policy H17 will be located within the key service centres with a significant proportion of affordable housing promoted on large sites. The economic and service needs of rural areas will be addressed with rural businesses including tourism supported. The role of key service centres as the focus of retail, leisure and employment opportunities will be promoted.”

Supporting Text

Issue 2.2 2.2.72 b) That Paragraph 2.27 be rewritten accordingly.

POLICY EM12

Supporting Text

17 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Issue 3.1 3.1.18 c) In chapter 3 highlight more "flagship" economic projects, as well as Kingmoor and Westlakes which are already referred to, to provide a clear message that major economic investment is required and welcomed in the county.

3.1.46 That the Joint Structure Plan specifically refers to the need for additional sites to be brought forward in the Local Development Documents for South Lakeland and Eden Districts to deal with the deficiencies in the Business/Science Park category of employment land provision.

POLICY EM13

Issue 3.1 3.1.58 That Policy EM13 be replaced with the following revised version:

"Policy EM13: Development of employment land for other purposes

Outside the Lake District National Park, the development of existing employment sites, premises and land allocations for non-employment or mixed uses will be considered where it can be demonstrated that over the Structure Plan period either:

a) the site or premises is likely to remain unsuitable for employment purposes; or,

b) the retention of the site or premises in employment use is not needed to meet the requirements of Policy EM12 including the requirement that each key service centre retains an appropriate supply of land within the Local Employment Site Market Sector.

Within the Lake District National Park, permission will not be given for the redevelopment or use for other purposes of land and buildings with an established business use or of land identified for employment use in a Local Plan or Local Development Documents, unless it can be demonstrated to be unsuitable for business purposes or, exceptionally, viable alternatives are readily available in the locality."

Supporting Text

Issue 3.1 3.1.59 That the opening sentence of paragraph 3.14 include the phrase "and prepare the way for the proper application of Policy EM13" after "EM12" and in the same paragraph revert to the wording of the Deposit Version of the Plan in the sentence referring to Policy UR5 of Regional Planning Guidance.

POLICY EM14

Issue 3.2 3.2.13 That Policy EM14 be amended by:

a) The removal of the words “in particular, where such developments” from

18 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

the first paragraph and the substitution of “will encourage such developments where they:”

b) Expressing point 1 as a criterion worded as follows:

“utilise existing well-suited buildings, especially traditional structures that make a positive contribution to landscape character”

3.2.29 That the final paragraph of Policy EM14 be deleted.

Supporting Text

Issue 3.2 3.2.13 c) Removing points 3 & 4 from the policy and including them as a new sentence in paragraph 3.19 on the following lines: “Such developments will contribute to diversification of the local economy and can assist in the maintenance of traditional landscapes and buildings.”

POLICY EM15

Supporting Text

Issue 3.3 3.3.52 That a new paragraph be added to the tourism section describing the issues faced by Cumbria’s seaside towns. Grange over Sands, Silloth, and St Bees should be identified as towns where tourism development, of an appropriate scale and character would be welcomed.

3.3.60 That paragraph 3.22 of the Plan be amended to include reference to what has already been achieved and what further action is needed to encourage tourism in Cumbria’s towns and the City of Carlisle. In particular the regeneration of Whitehaven’s centre and harbour/waterfront should be celebrated, and the long term proposals for Barrow in Furness referred to. Other relevant proposals should also be included.

POLICY EM16

Issue 3.3 3.3.18 That the second paragraph of Policy EM15 be reproduced, in full, as the second paragraph of Policy EM16.

3.3.45 That “be based on” be deleted from the second line of Policy EM16 and replaced with “not prejudice”.

Supporting Text

Issue 3.3 3.3.64 That reference be made in the text of the tourism section to the Government’s support for the Lake District becoming a World Heritage Site.

3.3.70 That the words “and quieter periods” be deleted from the fourth line of paragraph 3.26 of the Joint Structure Plan. Text should be added to the

19 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

introductory paragraphs of the tourism section which describe the widening of the tourism season in positive terms and as something to build on with the provision of year round facilities, attractions and integrated transport, and all year employment.

CONSOLIDATION OF POLICIES EM15 & 16

Issue 3.3 3.3.77 The Panel recommend that Policies EM15 and EM16 be consolidated as follows:

Policy EM Tourism

“New tourism facilities will be directed to key service centres and to locations that enable the economic and physical regeneration of an area, where they bring benefit to the local community. Proposals outside key service centres will be assessed on the basis of Policy EM14.

Tourism development will be permitted where this does not prejudice visitor’s enjoyment and understanding of Cumbria’s distinctive environmental, cultural and historic character. The emphasis should be on sustaining these attributes and adding quality.

Within the Lake District National Park changes of use or conversions…

continue from this point to the end of Policy EM16 and then add as a final sentence:

In addition tourism proposals in AONBs will only be permitted where the statutory purposes of the designated areas are not contravened.”

Supporting Text

Issue 3.3 3.3.36 That the wording of paragraphs 3.21 to 3.26 of the Joint Structure Plan be recast to present a more positive approach to tourism development, and that reference be made to a number of key projects and initiatives, at different stages in their development, that exemplify the positive approach the Joint Structure Plan is seeking to promote towards tourism related development that is in accord with overall Structure Plan strategy.

POLICY H17

Issue 4.1 4.1.61 That the following amendments should be made:

a) In the Table, within Policy H17, revert to the figures set down in the Deposit Version of the Joint Structure Plan;

b) In the Text following the figures, insert “sufficiently high to meet the objectives of Policies ST7 to 10 and are broadly” before “compatible with Regional Planning Guidance”;

20 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

c) Delete the penultimate paragraph of Policy H17 relating to South and East Cumbria;

d) Delete the reference to the Lake District National Park from the Table in Policy H17 and replace the text “and it will be regarded as additional to the zero annual requirement” with “in line with Policy ST11. No specific level of provision is set within the National Park but any permissions that are granted within the Park will not be counted against District Council targets”.

Supporting Text

Issue 4.1 4.1.61 a) In paragraph 4.2 and 4.4 of the supporting text revert to the Deposit Version;

POLICY H19

Issue 4.2 4.2.36 That Policy H19 follow the wording of the Deposit Version (H16) with the first part of the policy modified as follows:

“Affordable housing to meet proven local need will be provided through:

1) the provision of an element of affordable housing as part of residential or mixed use development of sites of more than 0.4 hectares or 10 or more dwellings, or

2) the development of affordable housing in rural sites….”

Supporting Text

Issue 4.2 4.2.37 That the text of paragraph 4.14 follow that in paragraphs 4.12 and 4.13 of the Deposit Version with the replacement of the words “on large sites, as defined in national guidance” by “on sites of more than 0.4 hectares or in developments of 10 or more dwellings” in the first sentence of paragraph 4.12 and the deletion of the last two sentences of paragraph 4.13.

4.2.54 That the approach to be taken to “locality” put forward in paragraph 5.12 of EIP Doc 19 be added to paragraph 4.15 where it should replace the last sentence.

POLICY H20

Supporting Text

Issue 4.2 4.2.35 That the Heading above paragraph 4.16 be altered to “Affordable Housing in the Lake District National Park for Local Needs”.

21 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

POLICY T25

Issue 2.2 2.2.47 Insert “regeneration or” into criterion 1 of Policy T25 before “through traffic”.

POLICY E34

Issue 5.1 5.1.6 That Policy E34 be worded as set out in EIP Doc 21.1

POLICIES E36 AND E37

Supporting Text

Issue 5.2 5.2.19 That further text supporting Policies E36 & E37 should be added which includes reference to the Countryside Agency Study, and the intention to issue guidance on preparing landscape policies in Local Development Documents to district councils. In addition it should be explained that the Policies do not represent alternative approaches but will be applied in tandem, in other words the approach to assessing the effects on landscape character set out in Policy E37 will be applied within the Landscapes of County Importance covered by Policy E36 as well as the rest of the county.

5.2.29 That Figure 8 and its associated table be removed from the Joint Structure Plan, and a reference to the relevant source documents be inserted in their place. In addition further text should be included describing the steps that will be taken by the Lake District National Park Authority to achieve an approach to landscape character assessment which is consistent across the whole of Cumbria.

POLICY C41

Issue 5.3 5.3.17 That the following sentence be incorporated at the beginning of Policy C41:

“Developed and Undeveloped Coast are shown on Figure 9 which also provides an indication of the Immediate Coastal Zone and the wider Coastal Landscape Zone.”

Supporting Text

Issue 5.3 5.3.19 That supporting text be included referring to the principles underlying Integrated Coastal Zone Management which are to be taken forward in Local Development Documents.

POLICY R44

Issue 6 6.65 That the first paragraph of Policy R44 be deleted and replaced as follows:

22 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

“Outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs proposals for renewable energy including any ancillary infrastructure and buildings will be favourably considered if:”

6.76 That Policy R44 criterion four be deleted and replaced in the Policy by the following text:

“In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in this plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight.”

6.101 That Policy R44 criterion 5 be deleted.

6.103 That Policy R44 be redrafted as follows:

“Policy R44: Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs.

Outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs proposals for renewable energy developments including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings will be considered favourably if:

1. there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure;

2. there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways, aircraft operations, or telecommunications;

3. the proposal takes all practical measures to reduce any adverse impact on landscape, environmental, nature conservation, historical, and local community interests.

In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in this plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight.

There are additional requirements in the following cases:…..”

(Continue to the end of the policy with 6, 7 and 8 as set out in the Proposed Changes document, page 63/64).

POLICY R45

Issue 6 6.55 That the final paragraph of Policy R45 be amended as follows:

a) the first sentence to be deleted;

b) the second sentence to be amended to read:

“In the case of wind energy the development of more than one turbine or of a

23 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

turbine with a ground to hub height of 25 metres or more is unlikely to be acceptable.”

POLICIES R44 AND R45

Issue 6 6.23 That the renewable energy targets for Cumbria established by the Partial Review of RPG 13 Policy ER15 should be included in the Joint Structure Plan.

Supporting Text

Issue 6 6.39 That additional text should be included within the renewable energy section of the Joint Structure Plan describing the content of the revised supplementary planning guidance.

6.66 That additional supporting text should be included to explain the importance of renewable energy as one measure that is relevant to the issue of climate change, and to state that Policies R44 and R45 should be applied in order to achieve, and if possible exceed, the renewable energy targets to be set in Policy ER15 of the Partial Review of RPG13.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Issue 6 6.38 That revised supplementary planning guidance for Wind Energy Development should be prepared as a matter of urgency to be completed no later than the end of 2005 to coincide with the likely time of the Joint Structure Plan’s adoption.

FIGURES AND DIAGRAMS

Issue 2.2 2.2.48 Correct inconsistencies in the representation of the Strategic Network between the Key Diagram and Figure 7.

Issue 5.2 5.2.29 That Figure 8 and its associated table be removed from the Joint Structure Plan.

Issue 5.3 5.3.18 That Figure 9’s identification of Developed and Undeveloped Coast be amended in line with paragraph 2.4 of EIP Doc 23 and an indication of the Immediate Coastal Zone and of the Coastal Landscape Zone within the Lake District National Park be included on Figure 9.

GLOSSARY

Issue 4.2 4.2.53 That the definition of affordable housing in paragraph 5.12 of EIP Doc 19 be added to the glossary

24 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

TUESDAY 28 SEPTEMBER 2004

ISSUE 1

THE APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT

Issues addressed:

a) Are there inconsistencies between Policies ST1-4, Government Policy and RPG13?

b) Are there aspects of Policies ST1-3 which require clarification, or need to be given greater or lesser emphasis?

c) Is there a need for additional material to add substance to Policies ST1-3?

d) Does the Plan provide the right balance of policies to meet the Governments objectives for sustainable development?

e) Should the Plan take forward a ‘net gain approach’?

f) Is the strategy the appropriate place to identify targets for sustainability objectives?

25 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 1

Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Barrow Borough Council Ms C Savage Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Mr P Ridgway Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Ms J Findley Representing Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes Broadway Malyan Ms S Wright Representing Countryside Agency English Nature Mr I Soane Environment Agency Mr P Swain Friends of the Earth - South Lakeland Ms M Sanders Friends of the Lake District Mr G Hale National Trust Mr A Hubbard Rural Regeneration Cumbria Mr R Pealing Stephen Abbott Associates Mr A Skelton Representing Church Commissioners

Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend:

North West Regional Assembly North West Development Agency Copeland Borough Council Barden Planning Consultants E.ON UK Renewables Furness Enterprise Stanwix Rural Parish Council West Lakes Renaissance WRG Waste Services Ltd

26 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

THE APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT

1.1 The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan overall development strategy is set out in Policies ST1 to ST11. Policy ST1 contains the Joint Structure Plan’s vision and aspirations, Policy ST2 deals with the need to assess the impact of certain developments on sustainability, Policy ST3 then lists a series of detailed principles applying to all forms of development, and Policy ST4 deals with major developments. Policy ST5 deals with new development and key service centres and Policy ST6 covers rural communities. The remaining Policies ST8 to ST11 then apply the earlier policies to four Sub-County Areas and to the Lake District National Park.

a) Are there inconsistencies between Policies ST1-4, Government Policy and RPG13?

ST1 Policy or Aspiration?

1.2 It was generally accepted that Policy ST1 is a statement of aspiration structured to provide a context for the remainder of the Plan and to assist the preparation of Local Development Documents. Carlisle City Council questioned whether it would be better to have the bullet point aspirations in the text rather than in policy, however the preference of the Countryside Agency and English Nature was to retain them as policy to give them greater status. Later in the debate the Countryside Agency asked for a more integrated approach to achieving sustainability objectives to be included in Policy ST1.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.3 Policy ST1 provides a sufficient introduction to the following sustainability policies and the Joint Structure Plan as a whole. Placing the bullet points in the text would not assist in delivering subsequent policies. Reading the policy along with the supporting text indicates that an integrated approach towards sustainable development is being taken. We do not therefore recommend any changes.

Climate Change

1.4 The Partial Review of RPG13 has introduced a new Policy DP5 on Climate Change. A number of participants were concerned that the Joint Structure Plan does not specifically refer to climate change in policy. PPS12 Annex B sets out the need for policies in Local Development Documents to both reduce atmospheric emissions that contribute to climate change and prepare for possible impacts. A suggestion was made that a bullet point be added to Policy ST1 on the lines of “taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” A further suggestion was the inclusion of a catch-all phrase at the end of Policy ST1 on the lines: “having particular (or appropriate) regard to climate change.”

1.5 The Government Office for the North West were more interested in the way in which policies throughout the Plan follow through the Government’s priorities for climate change. They are generally satisfied that the Plan is taking the correct approach on a range of relevant issues including renewable energy, drainage, and transport, and this was seen as being more important than having an

27 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

overarching policy on climate change which already exists at a national level and is now being put forward at the regional level.

1.6 The Joint Structure Plan Authorities consider climate change to be adequately covered in the Plan in the Policy Context Diagram, figure 2, and in the text. They see Policy ST3 and its detailed list of principles as being the key to delivering action in relation to climate change. In addition Policies C42 and C43 deal with flooding as a consequence of climate change.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.7 We agree with the Joint Authorities that it would be difficult to introduce either a policy bullet point or a concluding phrase on climate change into Policy ST1. That policy already expresses the main thrust of the Government’s intentions for sustainable development, and its detailed aspirations are directed to enhancing life in both urban and rural communities. Adding a reference to climate change would make that policy less coherent, and as recognised earlier it has an important role in providing a context for much of the rest of the Joint Structure Plan.

1.8 A greater degree of recognition of the significance of climate change would however be appropriate. This could best be achieved by either adding to paragraph 2.4 or including a new paragraph on this subject.

RECOMMENDATION

1.9 That additional text be added which provides a link to the intentions expressed in the Partial Review of RPG13 Policy DP5 and to policies in the Joint Structure Plan which are particularly relevant such as C42 & 43 and R44 & 45. The additional text should make it clear that the Joint Authorities are aware of the potential local threats as well as the global threats posed by climate change and the importance ascribed by the Government to the implementation of relevant practical measures through the planning system.

Enhancing Capital

1.10 RPG13 Policy DP2 states: “Enhancing the quality of life requires the enhancement of economic, social and environmental capital…”. The Joint Structure Plan does not use the term “capital” which the Joint Authorities regard as being less clearly understood than the word “assets” which is used throughout the document when describing Cumbria’s many and varied qualities and resources.

1.11 The Panel sought to understand if there was any policy difference between the Joint Structure Plan and RPG13 on this point or whether different words were being used to describe essentially the same concept. The Joint Authorities said that Policies E34 & 35 listed Cumbria’s key environmental assets but not social and economic ones which are considered as part of the Joint Structure Plan’s approach to sustainable communities.

1.12 Government Office did not see any conflict between the Joint Structure Plan

28 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

and RPG13 and suggested that the concept of “capital” could become more relevant as district authorities begin work on their Local Development Documents.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.13 The Joint Structure Plan deals with the requirement in RPG13 Policy DP2 to enhance “capital” through its policies covering environmental, economic and social matters. Schedule 1 of the Joint Structure Plan provides cross references between policies and RPG13. However a reference in the text would help to avoid confusion.

RECOMMENDATION

1.14 That a specific reference to RPG13 Policy DP2 be included in paragraph 2.5 together with a brief explanation of the way in which “capital” has been dealt with in the Joint Structure Plan.

Environmental Capacity

1.15 Throughout their submissions Friends of the Lake District refer to the importance of “environmental capacity.” Friends of the Lake District put forward a methodology which in broad terms begins with an assessment of the social, economic and environmental assets of the county, followed by an evaluation of social and economic needs. These assessments would then be brought together with a description of the sensitivity of specific landscape character areas to particular types and scales of development. Completion of these steps would in Friends of the Lake District’s opinion allow a view to be taken on the capacity of a given area to absorb development without compromising its character. Their submissions recommend the adoption of such a process as a foundation for the preparation of the Joint Structure Plan, but they also recognised during the debate that the Joint Structure Plan was nearing completion and could not be restarted from scratch.

1.16 During the EiP debate Friends of the Lake District pointed out that landscape sensitivity was not always a constraint on development, but they agreed that in practice it was a key factor in determining environmental capacity and therefore the amount and type of development acceptable in a given area. They agreed that their approach was fine grained and involved building up a county picture from quite small building blocks. Because of the high quality of Cumbria’s landscapes they consider that landscape character should be at the heart of the Joint Structure Plan.

1.17 The Joint Authorities told the EiP that they had used the concept of environmental capacity in preparing the Joint Structure Plan, but their definition was broader than that of Friends of the Lake District, and was not so focused on landscape. They described the Plan as fulfilling an enabling role for districts as they prepare their Local Development Documents. It is not seen as a detailed “master plan” but one which provides a policy framework which has sustainable development at its heart. Both the Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency supported the approach taken in the Plan but argued for a broad definition of environmental capacity.

29 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

1.18 The District Councils together with the Joint Authorities agreed that the concept of environmental capacity was particularly applicable at the local level and should be used in the preparation of Local Development Documents. The Joint Authorities are not currently intending to prepare guidance on the use of environmental capacity as a tool in preparing Local Development Documents but were willing to consider the possibility if so requested by the Panel.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.19 Friends of the Lake District’s approach to environmental capacity would require a fresh start to the structure plan process, which is not a practical possibility. The fine grained methodology for assessing environmental capacity would not sit comfortably alongside the broad strategic approach required of a structure plan. They appear to acknowledge this point and have argued for countywide guidance on environmental capacity to assist the Local Development Document preparation process.

1.20 The EiP discussion on Issue 5.2 “The Approach to Caring for the Environment” has a bearing on the Panel’s views on this suggestion (see paragraphs 5.2.1 – 5.2.19). As Local Development Documents are prepared there will be a progressive transition from the use of Policy E36 Landscapes of County Importance to the use of Policy E37 Landscape Character criteria. This is seen by PPS7 as a less rigid approach to assessing the impact of development on particular areas. The Joint Structure Plan was prepared prior to the finalisation of PPS7 which confirmed a shift away from defined Landscapes of County Importance, and seems to have “hedged its bets” by including both policy approaches.

1.21 It is essential to ensure that the transition from Landscapes of County Importance to any other approach such as landscape character criteria policies is managed in ways that continue to give Cumbria’s landscapes appropriate levels of protection. It may be helpful if some guidance is prepared to assist this process but this should focus on what is specifically required for Cumbria. There will be considerable advice on Local Development Documents preparation forthcoming from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) - PPS12 on its first page already lists four documents currently available. The EiP debate unearthed a degree of willingness on behalf of the Joint Authorities and the District Councils to explore what guidelines might be prepared to assist in taking forward finer grained environmental studies into the Local Development Documents preparation process.

1.22 The County Council has published detailed information on Cumbria’s landscapes outside the National Park; this is largely descriptive and does not deal with methodology to be used in preparing Local Development Documents. At the most basic level a working paper exploring the concepts of environmental capacity and enhancing capital, together with the use of tools such as landscape character and sensitivity analysis, could help to provide a bridge between RPG13, the Joint Structure Plan and Local Development Documents preparation.

1.23 Although we were not convinced of the need for the level of detail advocated by

30 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Friends of the Lake District in their methodology for considering environmental capacity at the structure plan level, we are fully supportive of the need for consistency and joint working. The Panel notes that the Joint Authorities are willing to prepare in consultation with the District Councils, guidelines which will ensure that the environmental policies in the Joint Structure Plan are followed through into Local Development Documents. The Panel does not wish to make a specific recommendation but would endorse the Joint Authorities’ intentions.

1.24 The Joint Authorities Response Statement (EiP Doc 12) paragraph 2.17 sets out changes to paragraph 2.5 of the Plan which were accepted by participants at the EiP. The Panel is content with these changes. b) Are there aspects of Policies ST1-3 which require clarification, or need to be given greater or lesser emphasis?

Policy ST2

1.25 Policy ST2 deals with the assessment of the impact of proposed development on Cumbria’s environmental, social and economic assets. In paragraph 2.17 of their Response Statement (EiP Doc 12) the Joint Authorities propose that a sentence be added to paragraph 2.6 of the Plan saying that “further guidance will be published on how to undertake these assessments in partnership with the relevant agencies.” This guidance will cover Strategic Environmental Assessments, sustainability assessments, and relate to sustainability targets. The purpose is to clarify what is required in a range of different circumstances and see if assessments are required which go beyond the scope of current regulations. Participants generally welcomed the proposal, providing the proposed guidance is prepared with sufficient consultation.

1.26 The National Trust was pleased to see recognition in paragraph 2.4 of the Plan that sustainable development is about advancing all four of the Government’s objectives rather than trading them against each other. They were concerned however that in contrast Policy ST2 proposes the assessment of benefits and disbenefits. The Trust put forward an amended wording for Policy ST2 in its Further Statement which stressed the importance of an integrated approach to sustainable development. The Environment Agency suggested that a similar result could be achieved by inserting the first sentence of paragraph 2.4 into the beginning of Policy ST1, this found favour with the Joint Authorities and was acceptable to the National Trust.

1.27 Allerdale Borough Council pointed out that Policy ST2 was important where not all sustainability objectives could be achieved by a particular proposal and where the development control process was required to weigh benefits and disbenefits. In this context Policy ST2 as drafted was seen as suitably expressed.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.28 Policy ST2, as drafted, does not imply the process of trading the benefits to one objective against disbenefits to another. The Policy refers to the need to assess benefits and disbenefits in relation to the County’s varied assets. Policy ST2 has a specific job to do in introducing the statutory processes governing various

31 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

assessments as well as providing a useful context for development control, and we do not recommend that any changes be introduced.

1.29 However we agree that the significance of advancing all four sustainable development objectives together could be given greater prominence and that the suggestion made by the Environment Agency would be an appropriate way of achieving this.

RECOMMENDATION

1.30 That the phrase “measures that, in combination, advance the four objectives of sustainable development and achieve” be added after the phrase “sustained through” in Policy ST1.

Policy ST3

1.31 Policy ST3 sets out a series of sustainability principles which are intended to act as a checklist against which particular developments can be assessed.

Criterion 1: Sequential Test

1.32 It was generally accepted that this criterion is consistent with national guidance (PPG3 and PPS1) in that seeking locations that satisfy the spatial strategy of the Plan should come before consideration of priorities accorded to the reuse of previously developed land etc. The requirement to reuse existing buildings ahead of previously used land is stated in RPG13 Policy DP1. It does not appear in those terms in national planning guidance. The need for flexibility in relation to local circumstances (referred to in DP1) was discussed and it was pointed out by the Joint Authorities that paragraph 2.6 i of the Plan acknowledges that not all previously developed land and buildings will be suitable for development. In addition the criterion opens with a requirement to “seek” rather than saying “must”. The Church Commissioners also considered the criterion to be adequately qualified by reference to buildings that are worthy of retention, which gives discretion for local decision making. Carlisle City Council has found the priority accorded to reusing buildings to be useful in practice.

1.33 Discussion focused on two areas where it was felt that criterion 1 was unclear and would lead to difficulties in interpretation and application through the development control process. The first area of uncertainty concerned the application of the search sequence and whether developers would be required to demonstrate that there were no suitable unused buildings within a given area before being allowed to bring forward a proposal on a brownfield site in the same area. The Joint Authorities confirmed that the first test is conformity with Policies ST5 and ST6, in other words the location proposed for development. The second test is more specific and would require that sites brought forward satisfy criterion 1 of Policy ST3.

1.34 The second topic of uncertainty concerned the application of policy in rural areas. In the light of the EiP discussion the Joint Authorities prepared revised text for criterion 1 and paragraph 2.7 i which explains how Policy ST3 criterion 1 will be applied. This text was circulated during the EiP session (EiP Doc 12.1)

32 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

and discussed. The suggested text is as follows:

Criterion 1 “seeking locations consistent with policy ST5 and ST6 and then sites in the following order of priority:

a) the appropriate use of existing buildings, including the reuse or conversion of empty buildings, followed by…” (items b) and c) unchanged)

Paragraph 2.7 i

“Minimising the take up of Greenfield land: There will be a continuing emphasis on securing economy in the use of land and buildings consistent with national guidance and Policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance. This means developers and local plans should follow a sequential approach to the location of new development. The approach first seeks sites for development consistent with Policies ST5 and ST6 which focus development on key and local service centres. Local Planning Authorities should define the boundaries of these settlements within Local Plans. Boundaries should respect landscape character and environmental capacity. Not all previously developed land and buildings will be suitable for development. Some greenfield development particularly within, or as an extension of service centres may be necessary and boundaries should be drawn to include such areas within the settlement. This will enable the reuse of land and buildings and minimise the take up of greenfield land. It will make unused, underused or derelict land and buildings more attractive to the development industry and enable them to be brought back into beneficial use. It will help upgrade the environment and improve overall investor confidence. Additional measures may be needed such as land reclamation or compulsory purchase to ensure that previously developed land is available for re-use.”

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.35 The suggested wording above retains the earlier reference to Policies ST5 & 6 which seek to provide a sustainable spatial policy framework by directing the majority of development towards key and local service centres. The addition provides a stronger link to RPG13 Policy DP1. In addition the word “sites” has been introduced into the second line of criterion 1 to make it clear that Policy ST3 is focused upon site selection once the issue of general location has been dealt with.

1.36 The word “local” has been added to the paragraph 2.7 text to make clear the reference to local service centres to be identified in Local Development Documents. Policy ST6 makes it clear that the Plan envisages that the majority of development within rural areas will be focused on key and local service centres.

1.37 The main addition to the paragraph 2.7 text is the phrase at the beginning of the second sentence “This means developers and local plans should follow a sequential approach…” This makes it clear that criterion 1 applies both to the preparation of Local Development Documents and the development control process. This is not something that is explicit in the wording of RPG Policy DP1.

33 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

1.38 The suggested revision to paragraph 2.7 i does not deal with some of the detailed possibilities discussed during the EiP. For example, the extent to which developers may be required to demonstrate that there are no unused buildings “worthy of retention” that should take precedence over a proposed brownfield development, or the effect of the presence of disused buildings which are uneconomic to convert on other more viable brownfield projects within the same area.

1.39 It would not be appropriate for the Joint Structure Plan to try and anticipate and provide instructions for dealing with every eventuality, inevitably some would still be left out.

1.40 The Panel considers that criterion 1 as drafted, along with the explanatory text does provide a sufficient level of guidance, which by virtue of RPG13 Policy DP1 already goes further than national policy. The intention is clear and it is up to Local Development Documents to apply the criterion in varying local circumstances.

1.41 The Panel considers that the revised text for paragraph 2.7 i circulated by the Joint Authorities at the EiP is helpful, in that it clarifies what Policy ST3 sets out to do. However, we are concerned that applicants for planning permission could be asked to carry out a detailed examination of alternatives, even in relation to small scale proposals where such a requirement could be unnecessarily onerous. Additional wording should be added to paragraph 2.8 in order to reduce the danger of this.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.42 That the wording of paragraph 2.7 i put forward at the EiP be substituted into the Plan;

1.43 That a new second sentence “It is not intended that application of the policy should require householder and other proponents of small scale development to carry out an extensive examination of alternative sites or alternative schemes.” be added to paragraph 2.8 of the Plan.

Criterion 1: renewable energy

1.44 Friends of the Earth pointed out that PPS22 paragraph 16 specifically exempts renewable energy projects from the sequential test. The Joint Authorities accept this point and propose to add renewable energy to mineral extraction in paragraph 2.8 as examples of development which fall outside the criterion 1 search sequence.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.45 We concur with the Joint Authorities proposal to recast the penultimate sentence of paragraph 2.8 to acknowledge that the search sequence is not applicable to all forms of development. However, the final sentence of the paragraph goes without saying and its inclusion adds nothing of substance.

34 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.46 a) That the penultimate sentence of paragraph 2.8 of the Plan be amended to read: “For some types of development including mineral extraction and renewable energy, the search sequence described in criterion 1, will not be appropriate”.

b) That the final sentence of the Proposed Change to paragraph 2.8 be deleted.

Criterion 2

1.47 Criterion 2 seeks to ensure that sites for new development are made accessible by public transport walking and cycling. A number of participants were concerned that this does not address the additional objective expressed in PPG13, paragraph 4, and RPG13 Partial Review Policy SD9 and DP5, of reducing the need for travel. The Joint Authorities consider that the Plan’s references to the importance of choosing accessible sites adequately dealt with the requirements of national policy.

1.48 The Countryside Agency would prefer the use of the phrase “can” be made accessible, rather than the Proposed Changes “will”. The National Trust support “will” because in rural areas the deliverability of improved public transport may require the completion of a number of small developments.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.49 Discussion of this detailed topic introduced a discussion of a broader topic – how the Joint Structure Plan approaches the issue of reducing the need to travel. This is not a topic that receives explicit coverage within the Plan.

1.50 Government guidance in PPG13 distinguishes between the overarching objective of reducing the need to travel and the more practical imperative of ensuring that new development has good public transport, walking and cycling accessibility. It is interesting to note that RPG13 Partial Review Policy DP5 lists reducing the need to travel as a measure relevant to addressing the challenge of climate change.

1.51 The strategy of the Joint Structure Plan addresses the issue of reducing the need to travel in its spatial development policies through Policy ST5 which focuses new development in key service centres. By definition these already have a range of facilities and employment opportunities available. Under Policy ST6 small scale development would be permitted to help sustain local service centres as defined by Local Plans. Explicitly referring to “reducing the need to travel” in the Plan would help to explain and justify these policies.

1.52 It would be more logical to include a reference to reducing the need to travel in criterion 1 leaving criterion 2 to deal with the issue of site specific accessibility. In putting forward this amendment the Panel are not anticipating that it will generally act as an additional test, in most cases it will be self evident that

35 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

development in a key or local service centre will reduce the need for travel. There may however be instances when development comes forward under Policy ST6 where this test may be usefully applied.

1.53 The Panel agree with comments made by the National Trust to the effect that “will” implies commitment to something coming forward at a later date whereas just about anywhere “can” be made accessible. The Panel consider that the Joint Structure Plan takes the correct approach in allowing development to come forward in advance of access improvements in certain circumstances, but requiring commitment to those improvements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.54 That the first sentence of criterion 1 in Policy ST3 be modified as follows:

“seek locations consistent with policies ST 5 and ST 6 which will assist in reducing the need for travel, and then…”

Criterion 5

1.55 The Joint Authorities Response Statement (EIP Doc 12), paragraph 2.17 proposes to divide criterion 5 into two parts. Criterion 5 would be limited to nature conservation issues and the new criterion 6 would cover all the other issues currently listed in criteria 5, that is landscapes, buildings, etc. The reasons for this separation include the achievement of greater consistency with RPG13. Friends of the Lake District’s Further Statement (EiP Doc 1) made a case for greater prominence to be given to landscape considerations in Policy ST3 and during the EiP they suggested some cross referencing to Policy E37 and the insertion of landscape character rather than landscapes. The Joint Authorities emphasised that the Plan should be read as a whole and cross- referencing should be limited.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.56 The Panel do not object to the subdivision of criterion 5 as proposed and accept the comments made by the Joint Authorities about reading the plan as a whole and limiting the number of cross references. However, we consider that ‘landscape character’ provides a better link to Policy E37 than the simple use of the word ‘landscapes’.

RECOMMENDATION

1.57 That “landscape character” is substituted for “landscapes” in what will become criterion 6.

Criterion 10

1.58 This criterion deals in part with service infrastructure, with explanation provided in paragraph 2.7 x. The Environment Agency referred to the problems associated with septic tanks in rural areas. The Agency requested a reference in paragraph 2.7 x to the relevant DTLR Circular 3/99 "Planning Requirement in respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage incorporating Septic Tanks in New

36 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Development". The Agency consider that such a reference would make a difference to the development control process and lead to the provision of more appropriate facilities.

1.59 Allerdale Borough Council said that their local plan contained a reference to Circular 3/99 and it was regarded as a material consideration.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.60 While appreciating the points made by the Environment Agency on the problems that can be caused by septic tanks, particularly those in sensitive locations, the Panel do not believe there would be any value in adding a reference to Circular 3/99. The Panel notes that a proposed change to paragraph 2.7 x emphasises the importance of early discussions between developers, local planning authorities and regulatory bodies such as the Environment Agency to ensure that services are provided properly. In the Panel’s view this issue is adequately covered within the Joint Structure Plan, further detail would be more appropriately left to Local Development Documents.

Policy ST4 Major Development proposals

1.61 PPS7 paragraph 22 sets out a series of tests to be applied to major developments coming forward within designated areas. Policy ST4 applies to the whole of the County but it contains a paragraph, four, that relates specifically to the Lake District National Park and the county’s AONBs. The final paragraph of the policy defines major developments as those which have significant environmental effects and are more national than local in character. PPS7 also defines major development as including those that raise issues of national importance.

1.62 The Joint Structure Plan lists examples of what might constitute major developments which include energy and water supply infrastructure, prisons, and mineral workings. The Joint Authorities said that this policy had been carried forward from the adopted plan and had played an important role in relation to Cumbria’s nuclear industry. It was also seen as embodying the “Silkin Test” as to whether development is absolutely necessary and in the national interest, and there is no practical alternative.

1.63 The Joint Authorities have considered Policy ST4 in the light of PPS7 and while they believe there is consistency they are aware of differences also.

1.64 The Government Office were concerned that the phrase “more national than local in character” as part of the definition of major development was difficult to understand. An alternative was discussed using the phrase “beyond Cumbria” to encompass developments that meet wider needs be they regional, national or international.

1.65 Friends of the Lake District wished to widen the definition of what constitutes major development in paragraph 2.9 of the Plan by adding large scale housing, retail and employment projects. The Joint Authorities consider that what might normally be considered modest scale developments outside the Lake District

37 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

National Park might be considered major inside the Park because of their potential effect on an area of national significance. The cases quoted in paragraph 2.9 are examples, other forms of development could be considered major if they were sufficiently large in character and effect. The Church Commissioners pointed out that widening the list of potential major developments risked drawing projects into a more rigorous testing process unnecessarily.

1.66 Policy R45 states that in the case of wind energy the development of more than one turbine, or a turbine with a hub height of 25m or more will be treated as major development within the Lake District National Park and the AONBs. The Joint Authorities said that this was an example of a relatively modest development which could have a major impact in designated areas. The North West Regional Assembly Further Statement on Issue 6 (EiP Doc 11.3) suggested an alternative test to be applied to wind projects in designated areas, that proposals should be required to demonstrate that the objectives of designation will not be compromised by the development. The Government Office were concerned that the tests applied to major development in PPS7 paragraph 22 would be too onerous as it is always possible to provide energy in a different way. The Joint Authorities prefer to be specific and give a clear indication of the threshold of acceptability.

1.67 The introduction of a reference to the effect of major developments on the settings of designated areas was raised by a number of participants. The Joint Authorities pointed out that the protection of settings is covered in Policies E34, and ST11 which is specific to the Lake District National Park. The National Trust referred to RPG13 Policy DP3 which says that new development must respect its setting, and requested the inclusion of a reference to settings in Policy ST3 criterion 5 (now proposed to be 6 – see paragraph 1.55 above) which deals with landscapes, historic parks and gardens etc.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.68 Some of the ground covered in Policy ST4 is also covered in paragraph 22 of PPS7. Both contain criteria for assessing major developments in designated areas. In the Panel’s view the criteria in paragraph 22 of PPS7 are more broadly based and better structured than those within ST4 criterion four.

1.69 Regarding the definition of Major Development: the current wording leaves a “gap” in that certain developments might be considered major but only in a regional rather than a national context. For example a new prison in Cumbria seems unlikely to be of national significance but it could be particularly important to the region. The Government Office suggestion which substituted a phrase along the lines – “significant effects beyond Cumbria”, for “more national than local in character” has merit and is considered to be more appropriate.

1.70 The Panel notes that the list of examples of major developments in paragraph 2.9 could be added to if for instance a retail or leisure project came forward within the National Park which had major environmental implications. The Panel consider it is better to keep the list the way it is rather than risk putting a wider range of projects through the Policy ST4 tests unnecessarily.

38 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

1.71 The question of wind turbine development in designated areas is considered again in relation to Issue 6 (paragraph 6.40 – 6.55). We are satisfied that specifying a height and number of turbines ceiling is appropriate and consistent with PPS22 paragraph 12, and this seems preferable to the use of a general statement about not compromising the objectives of designation. However we are not convinced that the development of more than one turbine or a single turbine above 25m hub height constitutes major development. In our view it would be better to rely on advice in PPS22 rather than confuse the application of Policy ST4 by including development that is manifestly modest in scale within its remit.

1.72 Policy E34 deals with the setting of areas and features of international or national importance on a county wide basis. Under this policy the effect of development outside a designated area which affected the setting of the designated area would be a material consideration to be taken into account by the local planning authority. Policy ST11 provides an additional reference in relation to the Lake District National Park. The effect of a development on the setting of a designated area can be adequately assessed under Policy E34. The Panel do not support the introduction of a reference protecting settings into Policy ST4.

1.73 The National Trust made a related but different point, requesting an “overarching” reference to settings in Policy ST3 criterion 5. Again we do not consider this to be necessary. Criterion 5 applies to the landscapes, historic parks etc. of Cumbria as a whole and can therefore be interpreted to take account of impact on settings of any particular area or building within the county. The only settings not covered would be those outside the county. The Panel understand and support the importance of settings but consider them to be adequately dealt with by the Plan as drafted. Settings were considered further in relation to Issue 5 (paragraphs 5.1.22 – 5.1.30).

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.74 a) That Policy ST4 – Criterion 4, be redrafted in the light of paragraph 22 of PPS7;

b) That the final paragraph of Policy ST4 be amended to read “For the purposes of this policy ‘major development’ is defined as that which has potentially significant environmental effects and has an importance which extends well beyond Cumbria.”

c) Is there a need for additional material to add substance to Policies ST1-3?

Local needs

1.75 Friends of the Lake District requested a reference in Policy ST3 to meeting the needs of local communities for housing and employment which would require an evidence based approach to quantifying needs. Once identified, needs could be used to establish a development ceiling. In contrast the Church

39 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Commissioners considered that need was adequately covered in Policies ST5 & 6 which direct development of an appropriate scale to key and local service centres.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.76 It is important that local needs are adequately catered for. The Panel believe the Joint Structure Plan has a well rounded set of policies and supporting text to ensure that this will be achieved. Policy ST1 does not use the word “need” but it is concerned to sustain urban and rural communities through a wide range of measures which are followed through elsewhere in the Plan. Paragraph 2.3 sets out the Government’s four objectives for sustainable development and social progress which include meeting “the needs of everyone”. The Plan does contain policies, for housing and the economy for example, which are intended to meet the specific needs of different parts of the county.

1.77 Friends of the Lake District argued for a more quantified approach in which local need could in certain circumstances act, along with environmental capacity, as a development ceiling. The Joint Structure Plan does not take this approach, it does however consider needs and it does include policies to safeguard the environment. The Panel’s view is that the Plan deals properly with the issue of local needs, Policy ST1 provides sufficiently comprehensive treatment of this subject and nothing would be gained by adding a reference to meeting local needs in Policy ST3.

1.78 Local needs are also considered in relation to housing (see paragraphs 4.2.8 – 4.2.37).

Light Pollution and Noise

1.79 The National Trust requested that reference be made in Policy ST3 to soils, noise and light pollution. The Joint Authorities Response Statement (EiP Doc 12) paragraph 4.7 agrees to add a further criterion to Policy ST3 to read: “ensure minimal levels of light pollution and noise.” In response to discussion as to whether the term “light leakage” was more accurate the National Trust subsequently circulated a paper (EiP Doc 1.2) indicating that national guidance in PPGs 12 & 23 and RPG13 Policy ER1 refers to light pollution.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.80 The Panel welcome the additional Policy ST3 criterion proposed by the Joint Authorities dealing with noise and light pollution.

d) Does the Plan provide the right balance of policies to meet the Government’s objectives for sustainable development?

1.81 English Nature were concerned about the structure and content of the Joint Structure Plan with regard to nature conservation. They asked that the Key Diagram be amended to show designated areas of nature conservation significance and the Joint Authorities agreed to include this information in a

40 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

separate diagram. The Joint Authorities are to prepare further guidance on how to undertake the assessments required under Policy ST2, and will involve relevant agencies such as English Nature in this process. Under Issue 5 changes to Policy E34 were considered which place greater emphasis on nature conservation and the relevant safeguarding statutory provisions (paragraphs 5.1.1 – 5.1.6).

1.82 The Joint Authorities have agreed to separate nature conservation into a separate criterion in Policy ST3 (see paragraph 1.55). In this context the Panel suggested that together with English Nature they should agree some additional supporting text that would further deal with English Nature’s concerns. The following new paragraph was submitted to the EiP during the second week (EiP Doc 21.2) as an agreed form of words from English Nature and the Joint Authorities to be added to the text of paragraph 2.7:

“Nature conservation. In addition to the guidance set out above, development should take account of the UK and Cumbria Biodiversity Plans and the regional targets for habitat maintenance, restoration and expansion. Opportunities should also be taken for re-establishment of habitats and species. Where these may be lost or damaged consideration will be required of replacement in the locality. This will help to achieve no net loss in the value of the biodiversity resource. Where development is proposed attention should be given to preventing and reversing, where appropriate, habitat fragmentation and species isolation and ensuring the appropriate management of this resource.”

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.83 The Panel considers this new text above to be a useful addition to the Joint Structure Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

1.84 That the above text (paragraph 1.82) be added to paragraph 2.7 of the Joint Structure Plan

e) Should the Plan take forward a “net gain approach”?

1.85 The Countryside Agency’s publication “Planning for Tomorrows Countryside” puts forward the concept of “net gain”. This means moving away from the idea of “balance” in making planning decisions towards finding solutions which mitigate or compensate for adverse impacts so that there should always be a “net gain” arising from development. The Joint Structure Plan does not currently refer to the concept of “net gain” and the Joint Authorities would be opposed to any approach which involved trading off benefits and impacts of development.

1.86 The Countryside Agency considers that the Plan is working towards a “net gain” approach without actually using the term. They were concerned to ensure that the new guidance referred to earlier by the Joint Authorities in relation to the application of Policy ST2 should be passed down to the district councils. The Joint Authorities confirmed that the proposed guidance will be prepared in

41 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

conjunction with the district councils and other bodies. (See paragraph 1.25).

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.87 We agree with the Countryside Agency and the Joint Authorities that there is no need to specifically mention the “net gain” approach in the Joint Structure Plan. To do so might cause some unnecessary confusion when the Plan is in effect doing the job.

f) Is the strategy the appropriate place to identify targets for sustainability objectives?

1.88 The Joint Authorities outlined their approach to monitoring which includes the preparation of an annual report and which could relate to specific points of policy. They were concerned however about widening the approach to cover for example the targets within Action for Sustainability, the North West’s Sustainable Development Framework, as many of its targets fall outside the control of the Joint Structure Plan.

1.89 Friends of the Lake District and the National Trust were concerned about the extent to which objectives and the effect of policies are to be monitored. The Joint Authorities said the annual report would measure performance against the bullet points in ST1.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

1.90 Renewable energy targets are discussed under Issue 6 (see paragraph 6.23 for our recommendation). Those apart, given the intended scope of the annual monitoring report, the Panel is not persuaded that any specific targets should be added to the Joint Structure Plan.

42 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

WEDNESDAY 29 SEPTEMBER 2004

ISSUE 2.1

THE APPROACH TO PROMOTING A SUSTAINABLE SPATIAL STRATEGY

Issues addressed:

The rural-urban balance (Policies ST5-6)

a) Does the Plan provide an appropriate balance between urban and rural areas and does this enable the social and economic viability of both urban and rural communities to be fostered in a sustainable way?

b) Does the Plan provide an adequate guide to the scale of development required to support the RPG13 Policy SD3?

c) Is there a conflict between the general thrust of Policies ST5 and ST6 and the specific locational guidance in Policies ST7 –11?

d) Should the larger towns and villages in the National Park area be identified as key service centres, in particular: Keswick, Windermere/Bowness, Ambleside and Coniston?

e) Are there other large villages outside the National Park which should be identified as key service centres, in particular: Shap, Askam and Arnside (and should there be others specifically identified as local service centres)?

f) Does focusing development on key service centres work to the disadvantage of other settlements and result in an undesirable degree of infill pressure within the service centres themselves?

g) Should the Plan be more positive and encourage new initiatives in rural areas?

43 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 2.1 Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber North West Regional Assembly Mr M Gallagher Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Barrow Borough Council Ms C Savage Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Ms J Findley Representing Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes

Broadway Malyan Ms S Wright Representing Countryside Agency

Cumbria Rural Enterprise Agency Ms C Crawshaw Cumbria Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mr V Dodd Cumbria Inward Investment Agency Mr J Stopforth Friends of the Lake District Mr G Hale/Mr J Ellerby Grange Over Sands Town Council Mr R Leach Keswick Town Council Miss E Barraclough Rural Regeneration Cumbria Mr R Pealing Stephen Abbott Associates Mr A Skelton Representing Church Commissioners South Lakeland Gateway Project Mr R Read Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend:

Ambleside and District Chamber of Trade North West Development Agency Copeland Borough Council Barden Planning Consultants Friends of the Earth - South Lakeland Kirkbride Parish Council National Farmers’ Union West Lakes Renaissance

44 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

THE RURAL-URBAN BALANCE (Policy ST5 and Policy ST6)

Introduction

2.1.1 Policy ST5 is entitled “New Development and Key Service Centres” and expresses a major element of the Joint Structure Plan’s strategy which is that new development will be focused on the settlements identified as key service centres.

2.1.2 The approach taken to identification of key service centres outside the Lake District National Park is described in Technical Paper 2 (CD7). A minimum population of 1500 was taken as a threshold. Retail floorspace in excess of 2,000m2, primary and secondary schools, doctor’s surgery, post office and library were seen as further minimum requirements.

2.1.3 Policy ST5 provides a matrix that identifies key service centres and categorises them into 3 separate groups. In effect this is producing a settlement hierarchy with future patterns of development intended to reflect and enhance the hierarchy. Barrow and Carlisle, with populations in excess of 59,000 and 69,000 respectively, appear in the category “major development of regional towns and cities”. Six towns with populations between 11,000 and 27,000 come in a category “sustained development of large towns”. There are 16 settlements in the third tier “moderate development appropriate to the scale of the town”. The smallest of these, Kirkby Lonsdale and Kirkby Stephen, have populations of around 1,800.

2.1.4 Policy ST6 guides development in areas that are not key service centres. Local planning authorities are accorded discretion to identify towns and villages in Local Plans for small scale development to help sustain local services. The main towns of the National Park come within this policy on the basis that they do not have the capacity or requirement for development anticipated for key service centres. Areas outside the key and local service centres are considered to be open countryside where development is to be resisted.

2.1.5 In their Responses to Further Statements (EiP Doc 13) the Joint Authorities give a revised form of Policy ST6. This says that “Local Service Centres” are to be defined in Local Plans. The background to this change is explained in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.70 to 2.74 of the Joint Authorities’ response which also contains a correction to paragraph 2.15 to remove text, repeated in error when the Proposed Changes were printed.

2.1.6 The main issues considered at the EiP in relation to Policies ST5 and ST6 were the overall strategic approach to the spatial distribution of development that the policies represent and the detailed list of settlements included as key centres. The overall strategic approach is addressed in the next section of this report which takes questions a), b) and c) together. Question f) is also dealt with under this heading. Issues relating to the omission of particular places from the list of key settlements are covered under questions d) and e) below. Question g) raises a somewhat different question, related to the ability of the Joint Structure Plan’s policies to respond positively to initiatives in rural areas. This is dealt with at the end of this chapter.

45 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004 a) Does the Plan provide an appropriate balance between urban and rural areas and does this enable the social and economic viability of both urban and rural communities to be fostered in a sustainable way? b) Does the Plan provide an adequate guide to the scale of development required to support the RPG13 Policy SD3? c) Is there a conflict between the general thrust of Policies ST5 and ST6 and the specific locational guidance in Policies ST7 –11? f) Does focusing development on key service centres work to the disadvantage of other settlements and result in an undesirable degree of infill pressure within the service centres themselves?

2.1.7 Policy SD3 of RPG13 sets out the spatial development framework for the whole of the North West outside the metropolitan area. Development is to be concentrated in named key towns and cities, a list that includes Barrow and Carlisle. West Cumbria and Furness are identified as Regeneration Priority Areas with a need for development and redevelopment. Smaller towns and villages able to provide a range of services and with public transport potential are to meet “most other development requirements” and this is “to deliver an enhanced quality of rural life”. Such towns and villages are to be identified as key service centres in structure or local plans.

2.1.8 There was support from Carlisle City Council for Policy ST5 and support from the Church Commissioners for the revised form of ST6 in EIP Doc 13 with its recognition of local service centres. The general consensus was that the overall balance between urban and rural needs established in ST5 and ST6 is about right.

2.1.9 At the same time as supporting the approach in Policies ST5 and ST6, Allerdale Borough Council expressed a view that was shared by the other District Councils and by many others present at the EiP that the housing target set in RPG13 is regarded as a constraint on achieving rural/urban balance and meeting the overall aspirations of the Joint Structure Plan.1 At the EiP the discussion used the analogy of a “cake” with the District Councils objection not being to the proposed division of the cake but to the inadequate size of the cake. This theme was one to which debate reverted on a number of occasions.

2.1.10 Friends of the Lake District were almost a lone voice as a locally based organisation suggesting a note of caution in relation to the professed inadequacy of the size of the cake. Friends of the Lake District want to see the “scale of development” in any particular centre specifically geared to “local need”. An explicit quantitative and qualitative assessment of local needs being a requirement would then lie at the heart of the Joint Structure Plan.

1 Various comments were made on the potential harm to rural areas – these are dealt with under item g) below. 46 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

2.1.11 The balance expressed in Policy ST5 is to focus development in larger settlements. These are at the same time identified as key service centres. We share the view of parties at the EIP that Policy ST5 is a clear exposition of policy and one that gives a strong statement of overall intent in line with RPG13 and Government policy on sustainable development.

2.1.12 A corollary of the approach taken in Policy ST5 is that in relative terms there will be less additional development in rural areas, including in those settlements that have not been identified as key service centres. Policy ST6 as proposed in EIP Doc 13 paragraph 2.20 makes provision for local service centres to be identified in Local Plans and we consider that this is an appropriate way of making it possible to sustain local services and make some provision for local needs and rural businesses.

2.1.13 In our view the structure and broad strategy of the two policies is appropriate to the needs of Cumbria, outside the Lake District National Park, and we also consider that the level of detail at which the policies are set out is suitable for a Structure Plan.

2.1.14 Where we do have concern is over the level of development that it is proposed to spread between Policies ST5 and 6. This is a matter to which we shall revert in relation to Issue 4, on Housing. In many ways it is an issue of “scale“ of development but it is not one that necessarily has to be addressed within the terms in which Policies ST 5 and 6 are expressed. To do so would be unduly ambitions, seeking to incorporate both overall strategic direction and a more detailed level of control into these two policies.

2.1.15 We do not consider that referring to “Local Need” within Policy ST5 would help. It does not necessarily clarify the scale of development that is required in a particular settlement and raises more questions than it resolves. We recognise that, with the diversity of issues facing the various settlements in Cumbria, it is important that decisions are taken with an understanding of the local situation. However, this is not necessarily the same as basing all decisions on perceptions of “local need” and we therefore do not support express reference to local needs in this strategic policy. (See also our views on local needs in paragraphs 1.75 – 1.77).

2.1.16 In this report we take account of the broad intent of Policies ST5 and ST6 when we consider the wording of Policies ST7 to ST11 and any changes proposed to Policies ST7 to ST11 are dealt with in the relevant places in later sections. We do not consider that any change is needed to the wording of Policies ST5 (as worded in the Proposed Changes) and ST6 (as worded in EIP Doc 13) to make them compatible with the wording of the subsequent sub-area policies ST7 to ST11.

47 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

RECOMMENDATION

2.1.17 That Policy ST6 be worded as proposed in EIP Doc 13, paragraph 2.20. d) Should the larger towns and villages in the National Park area be identified as key service centres, in particular: Keswick, Windermere/Bowness, Ambleside and Coniston?

2.1.18 A strong view that emerged at the EiP was that the larger settlements that have a service role for people living within the National Park should be identified in the Joint Structure Plan. This view was expressed by the North West Regional Assembly, the Government Office, District Councils, national and local agencies and local associations. Almost the only dissenting voice was that of the National Park Authority itself.

2.1.19 The National Park Authority’s concern is over the fact that under Policy ST5 the key centres are identified as the focal points for new development. However for the towns in the Lake District National Park, the need is to manage change not to seek high levels of growth. Development in these towns should be dealt with under Policy ST6.

2.1.20 A point made by Keswick Town Council and the Countryside Agency was that in planning service provision, agencies and authorities would have regard to the identification of “key service centres” in the Structure Plan. This might include, for example, those responsible for decisions on the location and retention of medical facilities serving the local community. If settlements in the Lake District are not included as key service centres this may mean that they suffer from cut backs in service provision.

2.1.21 Rural Regeneration Cumbria are engaged in the Market Towns Initiative Programme. While Ambleside, Windermere and Keswick need new development and economic diversification it was recognised that Coniston is not of the same level of importance as a service centre. South Lakeland District Council wants to see Ambleside and Bowness/Windermere identified as key service centres but not Coniston.

2.1.22 We put it to the National Park Authority that their input on a suitable way of recognising that the larger Park settlements do in fact have roles as service centres, would be helpful to us in formulating our recommendations. In particular we asked whether they thought that such a change should be made by adding to Policy ST5 or by introducing a new policy.

2.1.23 A briefing note on this point was provided for us on the closing day of the EiP (CD32). It was not the subject of discussion and had not, as far as we know, been circulated to other parties beforehand. It is accepted that in making this suggestion, the National Park Authority has not shifted from its position that none of the settlements in the park should be identified in Policy ST5 as key service centres.

48 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

2.1.24 The Lake District National Park’s Briefing Note accepts that Keswick, Ambleside and Windermere/Bowness do function as service centres but states that the requirements of Policy ST5 are not seen as being appropriate to the National Park. The National Park Authority’s view in the Briefing Note is that the most appropriate way to deal with the situation would be to look at developing a separate policy to deal with Key Service Centres within the National Park.

2.1.25 Policy ST5 would be renamed “New Development in Key Service Centres outside the Lake District National Park” and a new policy, “Development within Key Service Centres in the Lake District National Park”, would be added between policies ST5 and ST6. The suggested wording for the new policy is:

In the Lake District National Park, Keswick, Ambleside and Windermere / Bowness have been identified as Key Service Centres. Within these settlements, small scale development will be permitted where it: • Helps sustain a range of local services and/or supports local businesses; • Meets the identified needs of the locality; and • Complements existing settlement character. Development must also accord with the requirements of Policy ST11.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

2.1.26 The omission of larger settlements in the National Park, that provide services for residents of the Park, from Policy ST5 has created a serious gap in the Joint Structure Plan. A very large geographical area is shown as without “key service centres”. This is not a reflection of the actual position and it is noteworthy that Keswick, Ambleside and Windermere/ Bowness which have all the criteria that apply to the other settlements selected as “key service centres” are in fact named on the key diagram.

2.1.27 We recognise that the constraints applying to development within the Park should apply to these settlements but do not consider that this is sufficient reason for not recognising the role that they perform and should continue to perform as key settlements. We regard the approach put forward in the National Park Authority’s Briefing Note (CD32) to be an appropriate way to take this matter forward. Accordingly it is our view that Policy ST5 should relate to key service centres outside the National Park and a new policy be introduced for key service centres within the Park. This recognises that there are settlements that are key service centres but that they are not put forward as foci of new development.

2.1.28 We have accepted the suggested new policy as a basis for our recommendation but have made some changes in detailed wording. Our wording will ensure that the scale of development is appropriate for what is needed in relation to the service to be provided. It would not necessarily be small scale. We have also sought to make it plain that the bullet points relate to alternative types of development that might fit within the terms of the policy. The new policy would apply to Keswick, Ambleside and Windermere/ Bowness but not to Coniston which is not of the same order of significance as a key service centre. Our conclusion is that the Joint Structure Plan should recognise that 49 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

there are settlements within the National Park that are key service centres but that they are not put forward as foci of new development. This is best achieved by a new policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1.29 a) That Policy ST5 be retitled ‘New Development and Key Service Centres outside the Lake District National Park’ b) That a new policy be added ‘Development within Key Service Centres in the Lake District National Park’. c) That the following wording be adopted for the new policy:

“Keswick, Ambleside and Windermere/Bowness are key service centres for the Lake District National Park. Development in these centres will be permitted where it: • Provides a service for the local community and is in scale with the local service to be provided; • Helps sustain a range of services in the centre or supports local businesses; or • Meets other identifiable needs of the locality. Development must also accord with the requirements of Policy ST11 and be compatible with existing settlement character.” e) Are there other large villages outside the National Park which should be identified as key service centres, in particular: Shap, Askham and Arnside (and should there be others specifically identified as local service centres)?

2.1.30 The Joint Authorities resist the inclusion of more key service centres in Policy ST5 as this will dissipate the focus of development intended by the select list in the policy. The modified wording for Policy ST6 put forward in EIP Doc 13 (see paragraph 2.1.12 above) makes provision for the identification of local service centres in Local Plans. Barrow Borough Council and Eden District Council are satisfied with the proposed change to ST6 and with the potential that this gives for identifying Askam in Furness and Shap as local service centres.

2.1.31 Barton Willmore put forward a case for inclusion of Arnside on the basis that it meets most of the criteria covered in Technical Paper 2 (CD7) in terms of minimum population and retail floorspace and has a railway station. South Lakeland District Council regard Milnthorpe which has a secondary school as the key service centre for this locality. Friends of the Lake District and Rural Regeneration Cumbria support the District Council in their opposition to Arnside’s identification as a key service centre.

50 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

2.1.32 The settlements included in Policy ST5 have been selected on the basis of a number of factors. Apart from centres within the Lake District National Park (addressed in the previous section 2.1.18 – 2.1.29), there is a remarkable degree of agreement about the list of settlements included as key service centres in Policy ST5. The case for Shap and Askam in Furness was not pressed at the EiP. The selection of Milnthorpe as a key service centre in preference to the nearby settlement of Arnside is a reasonable approach for the Joint Authorities to have taken and is supported by the relevant District Council.

2.1.33 As long as the key service centres within the Lake District National Park are given adequate recognition through their inclusion in a separate policy, we do not consider there to be any need to add or subtract any settlements from the list of key service centres that have been included in Policy ST5.

g) Should the Plan be more positive and encourage new initiatives in rural areas?

2.1.34 At the EiP a number of organisations expressed concern that many development control decisions are unresponsive to new proposals that would help to secure rural diversification objectives. This is seen by some as part of a wider issue, related to the rural-urban divide and a pre-occupation with some unrealistic rural idyll.

2.1.35 Rural Regeneration Cumbria drew attention to the inclusive sweep of Policy RU2 in RPG13 which is concerned with diversification of the Rural Economy and was concerned that the Joint Structure Plan does not give sufficient weight to this aspect of regional policy. As a result there are restrictions on diversification for example through a tightening up on proposals for re-use of existing rural buildings in the wording of Policy EM14. Cumbria Chamber of Commerce and Industry are concerned at the local development control interpretation placed on Structure Plan policies and Cumbria Inward Investment Agency referred to Cumbria’s innate conservatism. Cumbria Rural Enterprise Agency made a plea for loosening up in the application of policy. Keswick Town Council said that there was a grave danger of fossilising the National Park and supported calls for innovation, including in relation to architecture

2.1.36 Looked at from the regional perspective, the Government Office does not view the approach taken in Joint Structure Plan policies as being unduly restrictive. Friends of the Lake District and the Joint Authorities drew attention to policies in the Employment Chapter that address the points raised by objectors.

2.1.37 Much of the concern raised is not to Policies ST5 and ST6 in themselves but to how they will operate in combination with the overall quantum of development envisaged through other policies of the plan, in particular the level of housing development. The City of Carlisle and Allerdale Borough Council indicated that the emphasis on promoting new housing in urban centres coupled with the intention from regional policy to cut back on overall housebuilding numbers

51 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

brings very high restraint levels in some localities. Eden District Council expressed a concern that local building firms would suffer disproportionately as a result. The Church Commissioners supported the view that rural settlements are being squeezed as a result of the restraint on development being imposed.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

2.1.38 Many of the concerns raised at the EiP reflect familiar arguments and reflect tensions that are inherent when novel or unfamiliar forms of development are proposed. It was however interesting that the same type of comments were made by a range of different local organisations and this gave credibility to the criticisms that proposals for rural diversification face many obstacles despite broad expressions of support such as that in RPG13 Policy RU2.

2.1.39 However the criticisms were not directly related to the wording of Policies ST5 and ST6 and do not lead us to recommend any changes to those policies. One point that we have specifically considered is the reference in Policy ST6 to new development in the open countryside being “the exception”. The Joint Authorities accepted that this expression might need clarification. Having looked into this, our view is that the supporting text in 2.23 does give further guidance and the level of detail contained is sufficient at Structure Plan level.

2.1.40 We have taken the suggestion that policies have a negative slant into account in our consideration of the Lake District National Park Authority’s suggested wording for a new policy related to key service centres in the National Park. In particular it is because we are concerned to avoid a grudging tone in policies that we have not used the phrase “small scale development” in our wording for the new policy.

2.1.41 We do share a lingering concern that the overall strategy embodied in Policies ST5 and ST6 could operate in a manner that would work against the long term vitality of rural parts of the County. The problem is not the result of the policies themselves but arises from the combined effect of the policies and increased restraint of the quantum of development envisaged as taking place across the County as a whole.

2.1.42 Taking the analogy of the cake, there was a feeling expressed at the EiP that the overall size of the cake was too small and that having divided the cake so that settlements listed in Policy ST5 can have a slice of development that is “appropriate” to their place in the hierarchy there will be very little cake left to be shared amongst the local service centres to be identified through Policy ST6. These local centres and the remaining rural areas could be left, at best, with “crumbs” from the cake. This could lead to an unduly cautious application of policies for example for the conversion of existing buildings. As well as having negative effects for local building companies, as alluded to by Eden District Council, the effect that this could have on what one might call “organic” processes of change within small settlements could lead to slow decay and fossilisation.

2.1.43 We are not saying that this is what will happen. We are saying that we are concerned that it may be happening now and that with the introduction of interim policies such as that presented to us by Allerdale District Council (CD171)

52 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

perverse and harmful consequences may result. There is no requirement for any change in the way that the policies are expressed but there is a need for monitoring that looks at the effects of policies in broad terms, with corrective action being taken where it is shown that perverse or harmful consequences are flowing from an unnecessarily negative application of policies.

RECOMMENDATION

2.1.44 That the implications of Policies ST5, ST6 and the new policy for key centres in the Lake District National Park for small scale adaptive and organic change within the rural parts of the County be monitored.

53 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

54 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

THURSDAY 30 SEPTEMBER 2004

ISSUE 2.2

THE APPROACH TO PROMOTING A SUSTAINABLE SPATIAL STRATEGY

Issues addressed:

Ensuring development supports the needs of communities in different parts of the County (Policies ST7-11)

a) Are the Sub County Areas an appropriate interpretation of RPG13 Policy SD3 and should AONB’s and the Heritage Coast be separate Sub County Areas?

b) Is sufficient weight given to the role of Carlisle and Barrow as regional towns and cities reflecting RPG13 Policy SD3?

c) Is sufficient weight given to the emphasis in RPG Policy SD3 on Regeneration Priority Areas in Furness and West Cumbria?

d) Is sufficient weight given to the distinct problems faced by West Cumbria and Furness and to the solutions that need to be identified?

e) Should more detail be provided in the Plan describing measures to improve east-west transport communications between Barrow-in-Furness and West Cumbria and the rest of Cumbria, and should the key diagram draw attention to these transport corridors in the same way as RPG13 key diagram?

f) Does the Plan adequately ensure that local housing needs are given priority in South and East Cumbria consistent with the intention of RPG Policy SD3?

55 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 2.2

Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber North West Regional Assembly Mr M Gallagher Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Barrow Borough Council Ms C Savage Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Copeland Borough Council Mr B Hellier Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Mr P Ridgway Barden Planning Consultants Mr B Barden Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Ms J Findley Representing Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes Cumbria Inward Investment Agency Mr J Stopforth Eden Housing Association Ms K Doran Friends of the Lake District Mr G Hale/Mr J Ellerby Impact Housing Association Mr M Muir Rural Regeneration Cumbria Mr R Pealing West Lakes Renaissance Mr A Smith Mr R Wilson

Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend:

North West Development Agency Countryside Agency Furness Enterprise

56 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

ENSURING DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTS THE NEEDS OF COMMUNITIES IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTY (POLICIES ST7-11)

Introduction

2.2.1 Policies ST7 to ST11 apply to distinct geographical sub-divisions of the County for which different policy approaches have been identified. These policy based sub-areas are prominent features of the Key Diagram.

2.2.2 The Lake District National Park is identified as one of the sub-divisions and is covered by Policy ST11. However, the other areas, while having regard to sub- division boundaries, are not co-incidental with boundaries of individual planning authorities. Policy ST7 is addressed to the City of Carlisle itself, a more tightly drawn area than Carlisle District. The remaining parts of Carlisle District, together with the eastern part of Allerdale, form North Cumbria and this largely rural area is covered by Policy ST8. Policy ST9 relates to the regeneration priority areas of West Cumbria and Furness, including Barrow. Policy ST10 relates to South and East Cumbria, covering Eden District and most of South Lakeland District.

2.2.3 The wording of Policies ST7 to ST11 reflects different approaches toward new development. ST7 recognises the importance of Carlisle’s role as a regional centre while Policy ST8 sees a much lesser scale of development in the surrounding area. ST9 seeks measures that will achieve regeneration. ST10 is a policy of restraint and ST11 of firm restraint to protect landscape, wildlife and cultural heritage.

2.2.4 The Joint Authorities’ response to further representations on Issue 2.2 (EiP Doc 14) contains an overview which explains that:

1.1 The approach has been defined on the basis of SD3 as well as on the approach that is required as a result of the communality of spatial issues and opportunities within Cumbria. The defining characteristics of Cumbria - its remoteness from large urban areas, its rural nature with significant urban areas in the west, its low population density and its considerable scale of high quality environmental assets - sets significantly different sustainability issues from those elsewhere in the region.

1.2 The Lake District itself has been identified nationally as a separate planning area requiring its own authority precisely because of its special qualities which require a different planning approach.

a) Are the Sub County Areas an appropriate interpretation of RPG13 Policy SD3 and should AONB’s and the Heritage Coast be separate Sub County Areas?

2.2.5 There is widespread backing for the sub-area policies reflected by Policies ST7 to ST11 and for the geographical sub-division of the County that they represent. Allerdale and Copeland Borough Councils expressed support for the definition of West Cumbria and Furness on the Key Diagram of the Structure Plan, noting that it is more extensive than the “Regeneration Priority Areas” identified on the

57 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Key Diagram in RPG13. Mr Wilson is concerned that there is a policy void in relation to issues affecting rural Furness and that there could be inappropriate housing development.

2.2.6 Friends of the Lake District do not seek to change the separate sub-areas in the Structure Plan but are concerned that equal status should be given to protection of AONBs and the National Park. This would lead to consistency in treatment between these areas in relation to development for housing and employment. This in their view requires that some equivalent to Policy ST11 be devised that would apply to the designated AONBs. The Joint Authorities do not accept this suggestion. Barden Planning Consultants pointed out that the geographical pattern of the AONBs means that the approach adopted for the National Park cannot be readily extended to them.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

2.2.7 In this first section of our report addressing Issue 2.2, the focus is on the identification of separate geographical sub-areas which are the subject of particular policies that are differently expressed. The specific manner in which individual policies have been expressed is addressed under the later questions raised under Issue 2.2 and also in relation to the Housing topic area.

2.2.8 The identification of geographical sub-areas that are distinct but between them cover the whole County works well for the Joint Structure Plan area. It is remarkable how little dissent has been expressed over the actual boundaries even where certain areas in adjoining Districts have been linked together. In relation to Furness, the one area where some concern was expressed, there is substantial potential benefit in addressing regeneration issues in a manner that associates Barrow with the remainder of the Furness peninsula. Although the historical pattern of development has meant that Barrow and the adjacent peninsula have evolved with very different socio-economic characteristics, we consider that they will need to see their future more inter-dependently. We are not persuaded that any change should be made.

2.2.9 While identifying the Lake District National Park as one sub-area is a suitable response to the particular characteristics of the Park, we do not see that the same approach would work for AONBs. They are dispersed around the periphery of the county and it would be a misunderstanding of this part of the Joint Structure Plan’s approach to planning of sub-areas to suggest that AONBs should be hived off into a separate sub-area policy. Landscape character issues in AONBs are appropriately and adequately addressed in Policy E34.

2.2.10 At the EiP, no-one sought to argue that the Heritage Coast should be a separate policy area. We address the issue of coastal designations further in relation to Policy C41 under Issue 5.3.

2.2.11 We conclude that the geographically separate areas that have been identified as subject to Policies ST7 to ST11 are appropriately defined in relation to local circumstances within the Joint Structure Plan area. At the same time they are a sensible and suitable reflection of the strategic priorities set out in Policy SD3 of RPG13.

58 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004 b) Is sufficient weight given to the role of Carlisle and Barrow as regional towns and cities reflecting RPG13 Policy SD3?

2.2.12 Carlisle City Council welcomed Policy ST7 as a reflection of their aspirations for the City in terms of its future economic growth and performance of a regional role.

2.2.13 Barrow Borough Council referred to the concern that they had had over the wording of the first sentence in the second paragraph of ST9. This introduced Barrow in the same sentence as Maryport, Ulverston, Whitehaven and Workington and it was felt that this was not a full reflection of the status accorded to Barrow in Policy SD3 of RPG13. The amended wording of ST9 in paragraph 2.51 of the response statement produced by the Joint Authorities (EIP Doc 13) involves breaking up this sentence. This is in recognition of Barrow’s status as a key town and the change satisfies Barrow Borough Council’s concern. The change is also supported by Allerdale Borough Council who identified an additional advantage in that it serves to reflect the fact that Barrow and West Cumbria are economically and physically separate entities. Copeland Borough Council point out that in terms of regeneration needs there is no distinction in the relative significance of Barrow and West Cumbria.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

2.2.14 With the change introduced to ST9 in EIP Doc 13 Policies ST7 and ST9 are a satisfactory expression of the regional roles of Carlisle and Barrow as foci of growth as envisaged by Policy SD3 of RPG13. Explicitly reflecting this status in Policy ST9 does not mean that in terms of regeneration needs Barrow has any greater claim than West Cumbria.

RECOMMENDATION

2.2.15 That the amendment to Policy ST9 set out in paragraph 2.51 of the EiP Doc 13 be incorporated in the Policy.

c) Is sufficient weight given to the emphasis in RPG Policy SD3 on Regeneration Priority Areas in Furness and West Cumbria? d) Is sufficient weight given to the distinct problems faced by West Cumbria and Furness and to the solutions that need to be identified?

2.2.16 In this session of the EiP, Policy ST9 acted as a starting point for a more widely ranging discussion associated with the key concern of securing and supporting regeneration in Furness and West Cumbria. The two West Cumbrian authorities, Allerdale and Copeland both expressed support for Policy ST9 and were satisfied that the wording of the policy is an adequate reflection of the importance to be attached to regeneration.

2.2.17 However, some participants do not see the Structure Plan, taken as a whole, as carrying through the commitment to the regeneration of Furness and West Cumbria that is expressed in Policy ST9. Views of this kind were expressed by

59 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Allerdale, Barrow and Copeland Borough Councils and by West Lakes Renaissance. West Lakes Renaissance, an urban regeneration company which is a local delivery arm of the Regional Development Agency, has concerns in relation to employment land and housing and transport issues.

2.2.18 The problem is seen as having arisen from a top-down approach to planning which constrains responses at District level. This constraint is particularly evident in the housing numbers within RPG13, the consequences of which are being manifested in Interim Housing Policy documents that District Councils are adopting as supplementary planning guidance.

2.2.19 In addition to issues over housing numbers there are concerns about policies that constrain the character of the new housing being built, including policies on density. Impact Housing Association has stressed the need for an understanding of the way that the housing market in a locality behaves and for selective intervention appropriate to that housing market. This approach has come out of a Housing Corporation financed study of local housing markets in six towns and villages in West Cumbria and the Lake District National Park reported in “Housing Markets, Preparing for Change” (CD136).

2.2.20 For Copeland, the demands of regeneration are both for the replacement of low demand housing and for an increase in the provision of high quality new housing that will be an incentive to in-migration and meet the needs of in- migrants. The Borough Council is conscious of a window of opportunity associated with the coming of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency. Housing policy should have a renewal strand and a strand that addresses opportunity by looking at some building in rural areas, including building at lower densities than are sought in PPG3.

2.2.21 Copeland Borough Council’s position received support from the Cumbria Inward Investment Agency. The Agency envisages radical change in the economy of West Cumbria over the next 10 or 15 years and seeks to avoid constraints in the Structure Plan that would inhibit this. Allerdale Borough Council drew attention to the reliance on pre-1919 dwellings, particularly in Workington, which results in a skewed housing market and a perception of a dearth of modern housing enabling people to move up the housing ladder. Both RPG13 and the Joint Structure Plan are viewed as a constraint on that aspiration.

2.2.22 The North West Regional Assembly regard the strategy set out in RPG13 as established and unchallengeable. Regional Spatial Strategy provides scope for bringing forward sub-regional strategies for various parts of the region which can take account of changed circumstances, including the arrival of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency. West Cumbria may be remote but each district will have an impact on the adjoining district and none can be seen in isolation from the rest of the region.

2.2.23 Policy DP3 of RPG13 provides a context for addressing the issue about quality of housing. The fourth bullet is about encouraging the provision of an appropriate range of sizes and types of housing to meet the needs of all members of society - whatever is needed in that district taking account of all sections of the market. Policy UR6 of RPG 13 deals with housing renewal and clearance and the comprehensive approach to the priority regeneration areas

60 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

and UR7 deals with the range of housing and how that can be met. This emphasises the need to adapt policies to particular situations and is the opposite of a “one size fits all” policy. There is no need for the Structure Plan to say any more on those issues as it would simply be repeating regional policy.

2.2.24 The Government Office supported the position taken by the Regional Assembly. In relation to PPG3, it was pointed out that, although development at a density below 30 dwellings per hectare should be avoided, PPG3 does not forbid low density development. The Government Office do not rule out lower densities in local policies in specific circumstances as long as the injunction to use land more efficiently is being followed. Policy should not be too loose in that respect.

2.2.25 The Joint Authorities, reflecting on Barrow Borough Council’s further submission, acknowledged that the role of housing in regeneration had perhaps not been adequately identified in Policy ST9.

2.2.26 Barrow Borough Council raised a particular issue in relation to the level of new housing proposed for the Furness area of South Lakeland and regeneration initiatives in Barrow itself. South Lakeland District Council referred to draft supplementary planning guidance on housing supply issues that had put forward a much more relaxed attitude to housing permissions within Furness. They were now considering the application of local occupancy conditions and affordable housing requirements that are the same as for the rest of the District outside the National Park.

2.2.27 While such an approach attracted support from Mr Wilson and Friends of the Lake District, Barden Planning Consultants pointed out that it would change the whole basis behind the sub-area approach that puts Barrow and adjoining parts of the Furness peninsula together.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

2.2.28 Although Policy ST9 is a forceful expression of support for measures to secure regeneration of Furness and West Cumbria, we share the view that this commitment which has backing from Policy SD3 of RPG13 is not fully supported in other parts of the Structure Plan. It is evident that numerical limits on housebuilding that have been cascaded down from regional policy guidance are setting up constraints on new housing provision.

2.2.29 The extent and effect of these constraints is apparent from additional restrictions being brought forward by District Councils in the form of supplementary planning guidance.2 We are concerned that such constraints may inhibit provision of new housing that could contribute directly and indirectly to regeneration objectives. We note that it is clear from paragraph 3.20 of RPG13 that the economic development of Barrow and West Cumbria should not be constrained and that Policy UR6 looks for housing policies that are based on an understanding of local and sub-regional housing markets.

2.2.30 We note that the Government Office accept that regeneration is a key priority and that it is not intended that regional housing policies should have perverse

2 Allerdale Borough Council’s Interim Housing Policy is CD171. 61 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

consequences. Our concern is that the broad statements of RPG policy and particularly the commitment to regeneration as a priority are being submerged and suppressed because housing provision figures that are expressed as particular numerical targets are treated as being of greater significance in the application of policy. Compliance with a numerical target is easy to assess whereas securing an objective of “regeneration” is a less tangible and therefore less measurable concept.

2.2.31 Despite the North West Regional Assembly’s claim that RPG13 is not intended to be a “one size fits all” policy, it appears to us that this is precisely what is happening in practice. A restrictive housing policy has been imposed from above via RPG13 and is being given additional force through the Joint Structure Plan. The danger is that the “low ceilings” on new housebuilding that have resulted from the restrictive policy will inhibit the development of housing policies that are informed by the local housing context and are designed to provide the scale and type of new housing investment that is needed to contribute to regeneration objectives. This is a concern to which we return in our evaluation of Issue 4.1 Housing numbers (paragraph 4.1.23).

2.2.32 Locally based regeneration strategies should be a key focus of the Local Development Documents being promoted by Allerdale, Barrow and Copeland Borough Councils and the approach to housing policies brought forward within these documents should be informed by their local housing context. This would be in line with Policy UR6 of RPG13. It is our view that the issue of undue constraints imposed by Policy UR7 of RPG13 should be addressed directly within the context of preparing detailed regeneration strategies.

2.2.33 It appears to us that for West Cumbria and Barrow one significant area for achieving reconciliation between a new housing programme that reflects the need to promote the opportunities for providing a greater quantity of higher quality new housing and the figures in Policy UR7 is through the key fact that the figures for annual average rate of housing provision are net of clearance. On this basis there would be scope for upping the rate of new building on the back of a programme for raising the rate of clearance.

2.2.34 However it is important that a clearance programme is not promoted simply as a way of dodging a problem of a housing ceiling that may have been imposed on the area inappropriately. While there may be areas where there are identifiable problems of low demand for certain types of housing that are in relative over- supply and where a clearance programme should be part of the response appropriate to that local housing market, this does not necessarily apply. For example it was put to us that in Allerdale, the problem of a mismatch between the housing stock and latent demand for housing is not accompanied by low demand leading to abandonment.

2.2.35 The key point at issue is the nature of the housing target for areas like Barrow and West Cumbria. The North West Regional Assembly considers that there should be a limit on house building in these western districts because of inter- connections across the Region. However this assumes that there is an identifiable regional housing market and one that, despite the acknowledged geographical isolation, includes Barrow and West Cumbria. We consider that these assumptions are unsubstantiated. We are not convinced that there is any

62 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

point in imposing housing ceilings in these exceptionally isolated localities where regeneration is properly regarded as the priority issue. We note that the Regional Assembly is worried that if an exception is made for West Cumbria and Furness it might be argued as a precedent by other district councils within the Region. However, there are particular reasons for making exceptions for these areas that are based on particular circumstances, including considerations that are rooted in paragraph 3.20 of RPG13.

2.2.36 We suspect that the wider regional dimension has, for a series of complex reasons, become an unnecessary and artificial constraint on the development of policy that in line with RPG 13 Policy UR6 is informed by “an understanding of local and sub-regional housing markets”. Our view is that in formulating housing policy for the Furness peninsula and separately for West Cumbria the strategy for housing, and any associated intervention in the local housing market, should be driven by regeneration objectives that are rooted in a thorough understanding of the local housing market and the manner in which new house building can contribute directly and indirectly to those regeneration objectives. We consider that this is fully consistent with the commitment in paragraph 2.3 of the Joint Structure Plan to the Government’s four sustainable development objectives.

2.2.37 The debate about distinctive issues facing Barrow raised some illuminating points. One of these was the proper focus for the development of regeneration strategies. The Structure Plan associates Barrow with Furness and combines this area with West Cumbria in Policy ST9. It is noteworthy that on the Key Diagram there is a distinct separation between a southern part of the ST9 area which includes Furness and also the area around Millom and a more northerly part that includes most of West Cumbria. This separation does help to distinguish between the two areas which require distinctly different approaches to regeneration.

2.2.38 It was notable that the approaches taken by Barrow Borough Council and by South Lakeland District Council involve a tight focus on their individual administrative areas. In our view there is positive value in addressing regeneration issues affecting the Furness peninsula as a whole. For example the suggestion that there is a particular need for affordable and “locals only” housing in rural Furness would appear to ignore the potential for solutions that involve houses within Barrow providing housing for those relatively local needs at an affordable cost. This is an illustration of how too narrow a view can bring forward policies that seen from a broader perspective are inappropriate and unnecessarily complex.

2.2.39 While some work has been undertaken to secure an understanding of changes within the Barrow housing market and to develop ideas for the port and the town centre (CD127-132), further work building on that already done is required to address the future and to re-invent the town. This in our view needs to take full account of relevant critical features of Barrow, including its relative isolation, its relationship to the Furness peninsula and its proximity to the Lake District National Park.

2.2.40 The questions as to whether the Joint Structure Plan gives sufficient weight to the emphasis on Regeneration Priority Areas and to the distinct problems faced

63 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

by West Cumbria and Furness did not provoke any substantial criticism of the sub-area policy set out in Policy ST9. We conclude therefore that no changes are needed to that policy, other than that covered in the previous section of our report (see 2.2.15). There was nevertheless interesting discussion of the interrelationship between this policy and other aspects of the Joint Structure Plan, notably the approach to housing. Our findings in that area have informed our assessment of other parts of the Plan. There is as yet little detail on how regeneration is to be secured.

e) Should more detail be provided in the Plan describing measures to improve east-west transport communications between Barrow-in-Furness and West Cumbria and the rest of Cumbria, and should the key diagram draw attention to these transport corridors in the same way as RPG13 key diagram?

2.2.41 In EIP Doc 14, (paragraph 6.1) the Joint Authorities point out that the role of the Structure Plan in relation to transport investment decisions is limited. At the EiP we were advised that the regional transport strategy is that set out in RPG13 of March 2003 (CD108). More recent changes put forward in the context of the partial review have been withdrawn and will be brought back into the process of producing Regional Spatial Strategy. Discussion related to Policies T24 to T32 and focused around Policy T25 and the reference to improving communications in Policy ST9.

2.2.42 For Barrow Borough Council access is an important issue in relation to attraction of inward investment and to provide impetus to regeneration, in particular this means the A590. The addition of a reference to this in paragraph 5.7 was welcome but this could also be reflected as a criterion in Policy T25. Copeland Borough Council agrees and looks for greater highlighting of the A66/A595. West Lakes Renaissance supports the inclusion of an additional criterion and the Government Office indicated that such an approach would be reasonable.

2.2.43 Friends of the Lake District pointed out that the roads referred to are trunk roads with investment decisions made by the Highways Agency and Department of Transport informed by the review of regional transport strategy through the Regional Spatial Strategy process.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

2.2.44 We recognise that for Barrow and West Cumbria remoteness is a particularly significant characteristic which has to be faced up to in relation to strategies for regeneration. The need for improved east-west communications is referred to in Policy ST9 in general terms and in our view there would be benefit in including a reference to regeneration in Policy T25. We consider that this is most suitably achieved by including a reference to regeneration within criterion 1. The reference is then subject to the various considerations listed in that criterion.

2.2.45 The Structure Plan cannot go much further on this issue of road improvements and regeneration strategies and it would not be appropriate to refer to detailed proposals at this time. The issue of measures to reduce the adverse effects of

64 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

the remoteness and isolation of regeneration areas in Furness and West Cumbria should be addressed within the context of preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategy. We note that a study, “Access to Furness and West Cumbria”, has been jointly sponsored by the North West Regional Assembly and the North West Development Agency.

2.2.46 In relation to a matter of relative detail, it has come to our notice that there are numerous inconsistencies between Figure 7 and the Key Diagram in the representation of the roads shown as part of the Strategic Network.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2.2.47 Insert “regeneration or” into criterion 1 of Policy T25 before “through traffic”.

2.2.48 Correct inconsistencies in the representation of the Strategic Network between the Key Diagram and Figure 7.

f) Does the Plan adequately ensure that local housing needs are given priority in South and East Cumbria consistent with the intention of RPG Policy SD3?

2.2.49 The only direct reference to overall policy for South and East Cumbria within RPG13 is at the beginning of paragraph 3.20:

"Further north in Cumbria housing provision should be based on meeting local needs and reducing in-migration to the Lake District National Park and its southern and eastern hinterland and other nationally designated areas."

2.2.50 In the Proposed Changes published in June 2004, the Joint Authorities made substantial and significant alterations to Policy ST10 as it appeared in the Deposit Version of the Plan. The policy, initially expressed as being to “ensure that the needs of local people are met”, was redrafted to indicate that occupancy of new housing would be “restricted to people with a local connection to the area”. In addition the original policy which had referred to “need for further provision of affordable housing” was re-expressed as requiring “at least 50% ... for affordable housing”.

2.2.51 The Joint Authorities set out the background to Structure Plan policy towards South and East Cumbria in EiP Doc 14 (paragraphs 7.1 – 7.2). The area has a buoyant housing market and has been attractive to in-migration. Policy ST10 has been brought forward in the context of a housing requirement set in Policy H17 that is below house building trends experienced in recent years. RPG 13 looks to housing provision that meets local needs and to reducing in-migration. Structure Plan policy is based on a recognition that there is no way that people can be prevented from moving into existing houses in the area.

2.2.52 As a means of addressing issues of competition for new housing, conditions limiting occupancy to people with a local connection have been introduced. Revisions to the policy have also been brought forward in response to proposed

65 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

changes to PPG3 that would involve changes to the “exceptions” approach to the provision of affordable housing and within EiP Doc 14 (paragraph 7.13) the Joint Authorities have put forward additional and amended text to be inserted into paragraph 2.27of the Plan.

2.2.53 South Lakeland District Council support the approach taken in Policy ST10 and Barton Willmore whilst welcoming the above mentioned changes to paragraph 2.27 expressed concern that site development cost could in some circumstances make it unviable to achieve 50% of affordable housing.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

2.2.54 This debate introduced what we regard as one of the most controversial aspects of the Joint Structure Plan: the introduction at the Proposed Changes stage of a “locals only” housing policy in South and East Cumbria. Debate on this issue overlapped significantly with Issue 4 on Housing. Indeed because of the way that Policies ST10 and H17 interact it is desirable to consider the two together (see also paragraphs 4.1.34 – 4.1.48).

2.2.55 For some participants at the EiP, RPG13’s reference to “meeting local needs” is seen as sufficient justification for the expression of Policy ST10 in a manner that gives explicit and exclusive attention to the housing needs of local people. There is we believe a fundamental confusion here that falsely assumes an equivalence between local needs for housing and the housing needs of local people.

2.2.56 We have been impressed by the research report conducted by Impact Housing Association and reported in “Housing Markets, Preparing for Change” (CD136 & CD137). One of their conclusions is that local plans and local development documents should be tailored to local situations addressing the specific conditions of local housing markets. This was an approach that found widespread local support from EiP participants and we note that for example Friends of the Lake District support the collection of evidence at local level and the feeding back of such evidence to regional level.

2.2.57 While Government policy refers to taking account of local needs for housing, this is not the same as saying that planning need go no further than examining what housing is required on the basis of locally arising need. That confusion was also encountered in relation to the interpretation placed by some, notably what we understand to be the position of Friends of the Lake District, in relation to references to housing need in PPG3.3

2.2.58 There is important guidance on the appropriate and inappropriate use of housing occupancy conditions in the Annex to Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. Paragraph 9 of the Annex says that “development plans should specify the policies which the authority propose to implement regularly by means of planning conditions”. Under the heading

3 Paragraph 11 of PPG3 reads “Local authorities should take account of assessments of local housing need in determining the type and size of additional housing for which they should plan” but read in the context of PPG3 this is not set out as an exclusive task.

66 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Domestic Occupancy Conditions, paragraph 96 reads as follows:

“Subject to the advice about affordable housing, staff accommodation, agricultural dwellings, and seasonal use, if the development of a site for housing is an acceptable use of the land there will seldom be any good reason on land- use planning grounds to restrict the occupancy of those houses to a particular type of person (eg. those already living or working in the area). To impose such a condition is to draw an artificial and unwarranted distinction between new houses or new conversions and existing houses that are not subject to such restrictions on occupancy or sale. It may deter housebuilders from providing homes for which there is a local demand and building societies from providing mortgage finance. It may also impose hardship on owners who subsequently need to sell. It involves too detailed and onerous an application of development control and too great an interference in the rights of individual ownership. In the view of the Secretaries of State, such conditions should therefore not be imposed save in the most exceptional cases where there are clear and specific circumstances that warrant allowing an individual house (or extension) on a site where development would not normally be permitted”.

2.2.59 This authoritative guidance indicates that local occupancy conditions should in no sense be regarded as an easy option. Reference was made at the EiP to situations where such conditions have been introduced via Development Plans, including of course the local example of the Lake District National Park. Local occupancy conditions on certain categories of new housing are a feature of planning within the National Park, backed by the Local Plan that was adopted in May 1998 (CD21) and by Policy 42 of the Joint Structure Plan 1991-2006 (CD27).

2.2.60 The case for stringent restraint on new development to protect the special character of the Park is long established and widely supported. Arguments in favour of local occupancy conditions derive from this stringent restraint and derive from arguments based in the locality. In paragraph 5.1, the Lake District National Park Local Plan (CD21) comments that “the popularity of the Lake District as a holiday and retirement area continues to place exceptional pressure on the local housing market…”. The case that is made is principally for housing that is both local and affordable.

2.2.61 However the case for introducing local occupancy conditions within the Policy ST10 policy sub-area has no such basis. The Joint Authorities presented the argument for local occupancy conditions as a response to RPG13’s emphasis on controlling in-migration and as a pragmatic approach to addressing the problems that RPG’s reduced housing requirement is going to lead to. It is clear that the circumstances that have led to proposals for a “locals only” policy in relation to new housing within Eden District and South Lakeland District outside the Park are very different from those that pertain within the Lake District National Park.

2.2.62 We sought information from the Lake District National Park on their experience of the operation of local occupancy conditions (CD25). Information supplied indicates that out of 924 units of accommodation permitted between 1998 and 2002 specific local occupancy conditions had been applied in 37% of cases. We were not provided with any formal reports on the effectiveness of the policy or

67 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

consequences that it has had. There is no suggestion that the introduction of the policy has actually resolved difficulties that local people and locally employed people have in securing housing within the Park at prices that relate to local earning levels. Given the local supply and demand situation in relation to housing, it is unrealistic to think that it could except for a small number of individual households.

2.2.63 We were not presented with any evidence that the introduction of local occupancy conditions in relation to new housing within South and East Cumbria will have identifiable beneficial effects. From elementary economic principles and from what we have been told about house price increases in areas around the National Park, the main effects of applying restrictive policies in an area of high demand are to increase the pressure on the existing supply within that area, including pressures for change of use, and to raise demand in adjoining areas that may be seen as substitutes. The Executive Summary of Housing Markets, Preparing for Change (CD137) describes the process of displaced demand in Cumbria as having “taken the form of a ripple moving first from the Lake District to the south of the County, and then spreading east and west”. While the ripple effect may be an outcome with positive benefits for some areas, it would seem that it is now regarded as having negative consequences for South and East Cumbria.

2.2.64 We note the views of Brian Barden, a planning consultant whose working life has been involved in the National Park and adjacent areas. He considers that local occupancy conditions do not make access to housing any easier for local people. We are concerned that a further extension of highly restrictive policies would simply mean an increasingly complex planning regime without any good evidence that there would be beneficial consequences for anybody. The concerns that we have are clearly set out in the extract from Circular 11/95 quoted above (see 2.2.58).

2.2.65 Our view is that in expressing policy for South and East Cumbria in the manner put forward within the June 2004 Proposed Changes, the Joint Authorities are adopting an approach that is understandable in the light of the housing figures that have been cascaded down from RPG13. These figures which reflect a substantial reduction on the levels of housebuilding experienced in recent years are accompanied by an unachievable injunction to reduce in-migration. Faced with an intractable problem, the Joint Authorities have brought forward what seems to be an easy option but will in fact be an increasingly complex set of planning controls. We consider that such complex and, probably, ineffective controls are not warranted in the local context of South and East Cumbria which in comparison with the Lake District National Park is relatively unconstrained.

2.2.66 The fact that the response is understandable and is driven by RPG13 does not mean that it is any less short-sighted and misguided. The only rational answer is to re-examine the figures imposed via RPG13.

2.2.67 In expressing the need for a re-examination of the figures in RPG13, we are fully conscious of advice in paragraph 3.4 of PPG12. Taken as a whole, this paragraph reinforces our view that in the particular circumstances of RPG13 there is a strong case for re-examining the validity of housing figures that are set at unrealistically low levels and are creating unnecessary problems for Eden

68 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

and South Lakeland Districts.

2.2.68 Paragraph 3.4 of PPG12 refers to the objective of making RPG an effective policy framework for development plans in which issues which need to be addressed at a regional or sub-regional level are resolved. It goes on to say that since regional planning bodies, work with other regional stakeholders, to prepare the draft RPG and that there are “open and transparent procedures for debating the content of RPG before it is finalised, this should mean that the regional strategy, including priorities and targets, will command greater ownership within the region”. The advice continues to say that the “Secretary of State will expect RPG prepared on this basis to be taken fully into account in structure plans and unitary development plans as effective regional planning depends upon consistent implementation by local planning authorities”. The point that we have to stress in the context of this Structure Plan is that the housing numbers in RPG13 were not arrived at in the way that paragraph 3.4 assumes they will be.

2.2.69 Devising a sub-area planning strategy for South and East Cumbria that takes account of the locally buoyant housing market and responds to it in a sensible and sustainable manner is not an easy thing to do. However we do not consider that the emphasis within the Proposed Changes Version of Policy ST10 is a proportionate one that reflects planning constraints that arise within the locality. These are low density, rural districts containing a range of settlements that will be attractive to in-migration and are not so constrained as to be incapable of absorbing growth at levels similar to those experienced in the recent past. A general application of local occupancy conditions would not affect in-migration but would be a discriminatory and disproportionate response with unpredictable and probably undesirable consequences.

2.2.70 We do not endorse the locals only occupancy condition contained in the Proposed Changes Version of the Policy ST10 but consider that the Deposit Version is a more suitable expression of the degree of priority to be accorded to local needs issues. The issue of ensuring that local needs are met must be set against a full understanding of how the local housing market works and a re- examination of the overall housing numbers taken from RPG13. At the present time those numbers are creating planning problems in the delivery of suitable numbers of housing rather than contributing to the emergence of well thought out and soundly based policies for housing.

2.2.71 Our conclusion is that the first part of Policy ST10 should follow the wording of Policy ST7 in the Deposit Version of the Joint Structure Plan. This establishes a focus on development in the key service centres with a significant proportion of affordable housing. The reference to housing “outside key service centres” as an “exception to policy” detracts from the force of this policy and is a potential source of confusion. We note that the sentence starting “Outside key service centres” was deleted from the Proposed Changes and agree that it should not be included. All but one word of the final two sentences are common to both versions of the policy and have not raised controversy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2.2.72 a) That Policy ST10 be worded as follows:

69 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

“The priority for new development in South and East Cumbria will be to ensure that the needs of local people are met. In particular there is a need for further provision of affordable housing. To enable this new housing required by Policy H17 will be located within the key service centres with a significant proportion of affordable housing promoted on large sites. The economic and service needs of rural areas will be addressed with rural businesses including tourism supported. The role of key service centres as the focus of retail, leisure and employment opportunities will be promoted.”

b) That Paragraph 2.27 be rewritten accordingly.

70 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

FRIDAY 1 OCTOBER 2004

ISSUE 3.1

THE APPROACH TO SUPPORTING THE ECONOMY

Issues addressed:

Ensuring an appropriate supply of employment land

a) Is the amount of land identified for employment purposes appropriate and does its distribution across the County address the needs of Cumbria?

b) Does the Plan adequately reflect RPG13 Policies EC1-6?

c) Does the provision made for employment land address specific deficiencies?

d) Is the provision of land for port related development at Barrow and elsewhere appropriate?

e) Taken together are the requirements of Policy EM13 excessively restrictive?

f) Does Policy EM13 need to be made more specific to the varying pressures for change out of employment use experienced in different sub-areas of the County?

71 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 3.1

Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Barrow Borough Council Ms C Savage Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Copeland Borough Council Mr B Hellier Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Mr P Ridgway Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Ms J Findley Representing Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes Cumbria Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mr V Dodd Cumbria Inward Investment Agency Mr J Grainger Cummersdale Parish Council Mr T Allison De Pol Associates Ltd (for Northern Trust) Mr A De Pol Friends of the Lake District Mr G Hale/Mr J Ellerby HOW Planning (for Kingmoor Properties) Mr R Woodford Kendal Town Council Mr E H McClorry National Trust Mr A Hubbard West Lakes Renaissance Mr D Humphrey

Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend:

North West Development Agency North West Regional Assembly Ambleside and District Chamber of Trade Fuller Peiser (for Associated British Ports) Furness Enterprise Mr D Brockbank

72 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

ENSURING AN APPROPRIATE SUPPLY OF EMPLOYMENT LAND

Overview of Cumbria's Economy

3.1.1 The Panel asked Cumbria Inward Investment Agency to introduce a report published by the Cumbria Economic Intelligence Partnership, "An Economic Assessment of Cumbria 2004." (CD 111)

3.1.2 The Partnership brings together most of the local authorities in Cumbria together with agencies such a Business Link, and the Learning and Skills Council.

3.1.3 The strengths and weaknesses of Cumbria's economy are set out in the report.

Strengths include:

• Low rates of unemployment generally throughout the county with only "pockets" of deprivation in the urban areas. While there is rural deprivation the majority of Cumbria's rural poor do not consider themselves to be disadvantaged; • A high quality environment and relatively uncongested roads.

Weaknesses include:

• An above average dependence on manufacturing coupled with anticipated decline within two of the major planks of the economy Sellafield and the Barrow shipyards; • A residue of industrial dereliction together with poor and indifferent housing stock in West Cumbria and Furness; • An absence of economic clusters which have strong growth potential, including significant financial and business services; • An important tourism sector that faces strong competition; • No major university in the county.

3.1.4 The Cumbria Economic Intelligence Partnership considers that the effect of the above factors is to "constrain Cumbria's growth rate to a level below the average for the North West Region and of England”. A choice is put forward between accepting continued low growth or attempting to generate a more dynamic wealth-creating environment. The planning implications of seeking significant economic growth are seen to include "major" relaxation of policies to allow population growth in areas (outside the Lake District National Park) where people would be attracted to live, stimulating the development of expanded and new settlements, and improvement of road access to Furness and West Cumbria.

3.1.5 The Panel asked participants to discuss whether the Joint Structure Plan was holding back or enabling economic growth to take place in Cumbria. A variety of comments were made.

3.1.6 Allerdale Borough Council wish to see the proposal to regenerate the substantial site at Broughton Moor given some prominence in the Joint

73 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Structure Plan, this might help to counter a perception that the Plan is not sufficiently positive. There is a degree of geographical separation between areas needing regeneration and the county's environmental assets. The Joint Structure Plan has the right approach to regeneration and protection; the issue is delivery.

3.1.7 Delivery at the local level was also raised as an issue by South Lakeland District Council and Kendal Town Council. Copeland Borough Council consider that the Joint Structure Plan does not follow through its strategy into effective action, particularly as regards improving the strategic road network.

3.1.8 Friends of the Lake District regard the high quality of the landscape as the county's greatest asset, an emphasis on sustainable development could provide an advantage over other locations.

3.1.9 HOW Planning for Kingmoor Properties think that the Joint Structure Plan sits on the fence in allowing for a reasonable amount of growth, but should be rather more proactive. Cumbria Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that planning must not cater for slow growth and relative decline.

3.1.10 The Government Office said that the Joint Structure Plan should act as a positive, flexible instrument encouraging and guiding development. The use of strong planning controls in environmentally sensitive areas will not necessarily hold back growth.

3.1.11 The Joint Authorities believe that the Joint Structure Plan addresses the need for growth and regeneration in rural as well as urban areas and does not constrain the ability of the Cumbrian economy to grow.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.12 A number of useful points emerged from the above, and subsequent, discussion about Cumbria's economy and the content and role of the Joint Structure Plan:

• No participant is arguing that the development of the county's economy should be held back for environmental protection or other reasons; • Cumbria's environment is one of its chief economic assets and needs to be protected to assist the economy as well as in its own right; • Regeneration initiatives and environmental protection policies can be applied in tandem; • Environmental resources should not be regarded as a constraint; • The Joint Structure Plan is not in a position to deliver all the practical action needed to achieve its aspirations for the economy, in particular improved road access to West Cumbria and Furness is dependant upon Government resources; • Other constraints arising from RPG13, in particular housing allocation figures, are seen as having the potential to hold back regeneration and economic growth initiatives; • There is a perception that the Joint Structure Plan is more about protection and is negative towards growth.

74 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

3.1.13 The subsequent discussion of Policy EM12 and its proposals for allocation and monitoring of land for economic purposes showed that in fact most participants are satisfied with the scope for development provided for in the Joint Structure Plan. It is possible that the perception of the Joint Structure Plan as a protectionist, low growth plan arises from the general remit given to structure plans. They are key policy instruments for a wide range of environmental protection measures, and policies are of necessity carefully framed often with detailed criteria to prevent undesirable development. The number and wording of such policies can give structure plans a negative feel. In contrast agencies responsible for economic regeneration set out their approach almost entirely in positive, proactive terms.

3.1.14 Even where the Joint Structure Plan is making positive statements, for example concerning the improvement of transport infrastructure, it is only one mechanism amongst many. It has a particular job to do in terms of enabling development to take place within a sustainable policy framework. The importance of partnership between local authorities, developers and regeneration agencies is referred to in paragraph 3.9 of the Plan.

3.1.15 The Panel were concerned to hear that the Joint Structure Plan is seen by some in a negative light as this in itself could work against the best interests of the county's economy. There are positive messages in the Joint Structure Plan, the section on the economy opens by talking about the relationship between economic growth and quality of life. The difficulty may be linked to the fact that any plan has to be divided into separate topics. The first two paragraphs of section 2 of the Joint Structure Plan "Strategy" introduce the challenges faced by the county and the importance of ensuring that development protects and enhances the environment. There is an opportunity here in the opening paragraphs for a more positive development led perspective making it clear that growth and protection can be advanced together and are not necessarily in conflict. We would also suggest some additional text which highlights the problems of West Cumbria and Furness and the need for development that will secure the regeneration of both these areas and further promote the City of Carlisle. This would follow through paragraph 3.20 of RPG13 which is clear that development in these areas should not be unnecessarily constrained.

3.1.16 We would also invite the Joint Authorities to seek to generally shift the balance of the "feel" of the Joint Structure Plan towards a more positive approach to economic development. We are not suggesting any watering down or relaxation of environmental protection policies, but we consider that the positive, enabling measures and policies that are already in the Joint Structure Plan could be presented more clearly in ways that dispel current perceptions.

3.1.17 A further suggestion is to give greater prominence to some of the county's key economic projects and opportunities. We heard that some of the major obstacles in the way of development at Kingmoor Park are being resolved. As the only Regional Investment Site specifically listed in relation to RPG13 Policy EC5 there is a case for giving it a greater degree of prominence. A similar case could be made in respect of Westlakes Science and Technology Park which is identified as a Strategic Regional Site by the North West Development Agency. This site already presents itself in very positive terms and seems well placed to attract further investment. Other longer term developments could also be

75 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

flagged up, for example the Barrow Docks Masterplan; the decision to locate the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in Cumbria; the Broughton Moor/ Derwent Forest project; and the Lancaster Canal restoration project. Some of these projects are identified in paragraphs 3.8 and 3.10 of the Plan, but not in a way that captures the imagination or gives an impression of the scale of what is happening and required. By describing more fully a number of current major projects, and ideas at an early stage, the Joint Structure Plan could create a much stronger impression that its policies are moving towards practical outcomes which will benefit the economy of the county and future employment prospects.

RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1.18 That the suggestions made in the three paragraphs above are followed through into the Joint Structure Plan text, in particular:

a) Paragraphs 2.1 & 2.2 should make it clear that growth and environmental protection can be advanced in tandem;

b) A further paragraph which makes an explicit reference to RPG13 paragraph 3.20 should be added after 2.2 highlighting the importance of regenerating West Cumbria and Furness and of promoting further development of the City of Carlisle;

c) In chapter 3 highlight more "flagship" economic projects, as well as Kingmoor and Westlakes which are already referred to, to provide a clear message that major economic investment is required and welcomed in the county.

a) Is the amount of land identified for employment purposes appropriate and does its distribution across the County address the needs of Cumbria?

3.1.19 Policy EM12 breaks down the provision of employment land by Sub-County Areas and by Employment Land Market Sectors. It also divides the plan period into three bands with allocations of land for each and unused land from one period can be rolled forward into the next period. Paragraph 3.11 allows additional land to be brought forward if the existing supply does not meet user requirements or take up rates. In their Further Statements most of the district councils were satisfied with the employment land provision allocated in Policy EM12.

3.1.20 Friends of the Lake District were concerned that Policy EM12 would lead to an oversupply of employment land and that greenfield sites such as Westlakes Science and Technology Park were being put forward for development when there are sufficient brownfield sites available in the county.The Joint Authorities explained that the Joint Structure Plan sought to bring forward a portfolio of sites catering for different needs and that while brownfield economic development is a priority Westlakes is seeking to accommodate organisations requiring a high quality environment, and has a regionally significant role.

3.1.21 The National Trust were concerned that the allocations in Policy EM12 were

76 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

excessive when compared with past take up rates and there seemed to be little by way of new initiatives or investment to justify this. Friends of the Lake District were also concerned that provision should be related to identified needs and sustainable development principles.

3.1.22 Cumbria Inward Investment Agency want to be sure that there are sufficient sites available for development and that there is flexibility so that Cumbria can compete effectively for investment. Allerdale Borough Council are satisfied with the supply and flexible approach applied to their Borough. West Lakes Renaissance said that the rolling review mechanism in the Joint Structure Plan meant that precise allocation figures should not be a focus of concern.

3.1.23 The Joint Authorities put considerable weight on the flexibility and monitoring process built into Policy EM12. The phasing mechanism in Policy EM12 is designed to prevent over supply by a process of "rolling release" of employment land. At the end of each five year period whatever supply has not been used is carried forward to the next period. If land has not been developed, no more needs to be allocated. It is not the case that the Joint Structure Plan allocates the full amount of land immediately, it is brought forward as required in relation to take up. The key point is to ensure that land is available when required. Cumbria County Council will be preparing an annual review of employment land.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.24 Concerns about oversupply of employment land expressed by Friends of the Lake District and the National Trust are based on a misunderstanding of the way in which Policy EM12 will operate. The Panel are impressed by the Joint Structure Plan's innovative and positive approach to the provision of employment land. In particular it is a flexible system that is well suited to the challenges faced within Cumbria. At the same time the use of three periods and a roll forward mechanism should prevent the accumulation of excessive employment land while ensuring that sufficient is available for development when needed.

3.1.25 We also note the general level of agreement on the figures in Policy EM12 and do not recommend any changes.

Westlakes Science and Technology Park

3.1.26 Copeland Borough Council said that they could justify a larger allocation of 40ha at Westlakes Science and Technology Park, and referred to the likely investment and new employment resulting from the decision to locate the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in Cumbria. The Authority is seen by the Cumbria Inward Investment Agency as the most important economic investment in the county in the last 25 years which could lead to Cumbria being established as a centre of excellence in this field. Copeland Borough Council submitted to the EiP for information a paper (CD168) which contains a view on the impact of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on investment in West Cumbria. The Joint Authorities confirmed that flexibility within the Joint Structure Plan would ensure that development associated with the Nuclear Decommissioning

77 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Authority would not be held back.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.27 The Joint Structure Plan is sufficiently flexible to allow for more than 30ha to be brought forward at Westlakes if required and we do not think that an amended figure is called for at this point in time.

Lake District National Park Allocation

3.1.28 Policy EM12 allocates just 3ha for employment land provision within the Lake District National Park for the whole of the plan period. The use of five year roll forward periods is not put forward, because the figure is so small.

3.1.29 The Joint Authorities pointed out that they work closely with a wide range of agencies in meeting their obligation to foster the social and economic well being of communities within the Park. Many of the economic development proposals in the Park come forward through the conversion of buildings on an ad-hoc basis rather than via land allocations. The 3ha in Policy EM12 would however represent new allocations, which would be in addition to conversion opportunities currently with permission.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.30 The Panel recognise that constraints within the Lake District National Park are such that it will only be possible to allocate a very modest area of additional land for employment.

Kingmoor, Carlisle

3.1.31 Cummersdale Parish Council pointed out recent job losses in the Carlisle area and stressed the importance of development at Kingmoor Park. Carlisle City Council explained that they were working closely with Kingmoor Properties and the North West Development Agency to secure the development of Kingmoor. Poor access will be significantly improved by the Carlisle Northern Development Route, electricity supply is being resolved.

3.1.32 Kingmoor Properties said that the site, a former MoD base, had only been available for development for a few years. To date there have been few completions but land take up is now running ahead of expectations. The increase in the allocation figure in Policy EM12 was welcomed and may need to be increased again in the later time periods. Improvements to access are expected to increase the site's attractiveness.

3.1.33 Cumbria Inward Investment Agency also expect the site to become more attractive but there are still considerable development challenges to be overcome on parts of the site.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.34 The Panel is pleased to note that some of the major obstacles to the

78 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

development of Kingmoor are being overcome. We agree with West Lakes Renaissance and the Joint Authorities that the rolling forward mechanism in Policy EM12 means that it is unnecessary to further amend the figures in that policy.

b) Does the Plan adequately reflect RPG 13 Policies EC1-6?

3.1.35 Policies EC1-6 are concerned with strengthening the regional economy, catering for the needs of industry and business, and bringing the benefits of economic growth to areas of acute need – regeneration priority areas.

Regeneration Priority Areas

3.1.36 The Regeneration Priority Areas shown in the Joint Structure Plan Key Diagram relate to the same general areas as those indicated in the RPG13 Key Diagram, but cover a wider area. The Joint Authorities explained that this is because the areas requiring regeneration are not confined to the larger settlements.

Access by rail and water

3.1.37 RPG13 Policy EC1 says that development plans should support a greater shift of freight from road to rail and water. This requirement is picked up by Policy T28 of the Joint Structure Plan which encourages the use of rail and water transport. Kingmoor Park has the potential for rail access but it is not available at present.

3.1.38 Friends of the Lake District referred to Carlisle Airport and Westlakes neither of which have the potential for rail or water access. Allerdale Borough Council pointed out that an area of port related land in Workington has both rail and water access. Land at Barrow Port also has potential for rail access. Copeland Borough Council said that Westllakes would not generate significant freight.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.39 Most participants in their Further Submissions were satisfied with the degree of consistency between the Joint Structure Plan and RPG13 as regards economic development. Of the two points raised, the difference between the coverage of the two Regeneration Priority Area maps does not seem to be an issue. Within Cumbria's portfolio of employment land there are sites which have either or both rail and water access, and sites which have neither. The Panel share the generally held view that the Joint Structure Plan is consistent with RPG13 Policies EC1-6.

c) Does the provision made for employment land address specific deficiencies?

3.1.40 In paragraph 4.3 of their Response Statement (EiP Doc 15) the Joint Authorities’ indicates that there are current employment land deficiencies for Business/Science Parks in the Sub-County Areas of Furness and West Cumbria in South Lakeland District and in South and East Cumbria in both

79 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Eden and South Lakeland Districts.

3.1.41 Both South Lakeland and Eden District Councils said that the identification of these specific deficiencies would assist them in preparing their Local Development Documents. The Government Office wanted to be sure that there would be consistency with the priorities specified by the North West Development Agency in their Regional Economic Strategy.

3.1.42 During the EiP the problems of availability of employment land in South Lakeland District were mentioned by a number of participants. It has proved difficult to find suitable employment sites in and around Kendal in particular. In addition the District Council believes that the availability of a number of small, and unattractive for development, sites masks the extent of their problem.

3.1.43 The Joint Authorities prefer not to be specific about current deficiencies in supply as these will change over time, they prefer to leave this level of detail to Local Development Documents.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.44 The Panel acknowledge the point made by the Joint Authorities regarding the level of detail appropriate to structure plans. However the Joint Structure Plan does contain a useful detailed breakdown of employment land in Policy EM12 by type and sub area. As discussed above it also has sufficient flexibility to ensure that deficiencies can be dealt with and to avoid the build up of excessive allocations.

3.1.45 In this context the Panel believe that it would be helpful for the Joint Structure Plan to draw attention to the deficiencies flagged up in paragraph 4.3 of the Joint Authorities Response Statement (EiP Doc 15). We agree with the two district councils in question that this could assist them in preparing their Local Development Documents, especially as difficult choices may have to be brought forward.

RECOMMENDATION

3.1.46 That the Joint Structure Plan specifically refers to the need for additional sites to be brought forward in the Local Development Documents for South Lakeland and Eden Districts to deal with the deficiencies in the Business/Science Park category of employment land provision.

d) Is the provision of land for port related development at Barrow and elsewhere appropriate?

3.1.47 An earlier disagreement regarding the amount of port related land in Barrow included within Policy EM12 has now been resolved. It is possible that rather more land may come forward in the Strategic Employment Site category but these are still early days in the delivery of the Barrow Port Masterplan, and further detailed work may affect the way in which the area is developed. It was recognised that Policy EM12 would allow further land to be brought forward as

80 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

and when necessary.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.48 These issues have been resolved within the context of Policy EM12 and the Panel has nothing to add.

e) Taken together are the requirements of Policy EM13 excessively restrictive?

Consistency with ODPM Consultation re PPG3 draft paragraph 42a

3.1.49 Policy EM13 deals with the development of employment land for other uses and sets three tests that must be satisfied before changes will be permitted. PPG3 consultation draft paragraph 42a deals with changes from employment and other uses to housing, and requires local planning authorities to give sympathetic consideration to such changes where the land in question is no longer required for the allocated use. Paragraph 42a also sets out three tests which concern suitability for housing, possible over-provision and the realistic possibility that the site will be required for the allocated purpose.

3.1.50 Barton Willmore think that neither Policy EM13 nor the explanatory text in paragraph 3.14 provides the level of flexibility that PPG3 draft paragraph 42a is seeking to achieve. Additionally there is nothing to assist companies wishing to relocate to more suitable premises where this can only be facilitated by the disposal of the existing site for another purpose.

3.1.51 The Government Office said that PPG3 draft paragraph 42a had been put forward to facilitate development in areas where there is an oversupply of employment land and an undersupply of land for housing. Within the North West, in areas of high demand for housing, there are instances where good quality employment sites are being brought forward as brownfield housing land, in Cumbria this is not a significant problem, other than in South Lakeland.

3.1.52 The practice of deliberately running down industrial areas in order to present them as brownfield housing sites was also referred to, this was considered to be a problem in parts of West Cumbria.

3.1.53 In response to a question from De Pol Associates the Joint Authorities said that criteria to be used in testing the suitability of employment land were set out in paragraph 3.13 of the Plan, and additionally local planning authorities would bring forward factors they considered to be relevant.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.54The Panel considers that Policy EM13 has been brought forward against the background of a general understanding of key messages within PPG3, including the need to give priority to the use of brownfield land. It is against this background that Policy EM13 seeks to establish whether particular employment sites and buildings are still required for that purpose. If a site passes the Policy

81 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

EM13 tests then it can be considered for a range of possible uses. If housing is the intended use then the tests in PPG3 draft paragraph 42a can be brought into play to ensure that the site is a suitable candidate for housing. There is some overlap between the final test in PPG3 draft paragraph 42a, which concerns the realistic prospect of land being developed for economic purposes, and the final test in Policy EM13 which requires the unsuitability of a site over the plan period to be demonstrated. In the Panel's view this "overlapping" question would be dealt with first by Policy EM13 so that viable employment sites would not come forward for testing under PPG3 draft paragraph 42a.

3.1.55 The Panel has considered the particular circumstances put forward by Barton Willmore whereby an industrial relocation could be facilitated by the sale of the original site for a different purpose. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to construct a structure plan policy which covered all the steps outlined by Barton Willmore, however the scenario put forward at the EiP could be dealt with in the context of Policy EM13. If, for example, an existing site were considered to be unsuitable for ongoing employment use because it was regarded as a bad neighbour to surrounding activities, this could be a material consideration in applying the third test in Policy EM13 as drafted. If the site in question passed the Policy EM13 tests it could be brought forward for further testing against PPG3 draft paragraph 42a and other relevant structure and local plan policies in relation to the proposed new use. The key to progressing through the policy tests would be establishing unsuitability. What would not be possible under Policy EM13 would be granting approval for the reuse for other purposes of employment land which remains suitable and is required to meet the allocations in Policy EM12 and the needs of key service centres. In addition the suggested amended wording to Policy EM13 set out below requires the preparation of Local Development Documents to review employment land commitments and consider their suitability in environmental and social terms. In summary there is scope within Policy EM13 as recommended to be redrafted (see below) for environmentally beneficial relocations to take place.

3.1.56 The structure of Policy EM13 needs to be improved. The third test which concerns the suitability of a site should come first, followed by the need to meet the requirements of Policy EM12. The test of adequacy of supply within key service centres can be included within the second test as set out below.

3.1.57 The Joint Authorities circulated a redrafted version of Policy EM13 (EiP Doc 15.1) and further amendments were brought forward during the discussion. The version set out below has been further changed by the Panel. The reference to reviewing the suitability of land allocated for employment purposes is already contained within paragraph 3.14 and does not need to be repeated within Policy EM13. This alteration requires consequential alterations to references to Policy EM13 within paragraph 3.14 of the Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1.58 That Policy EM13 be replaced with the following revised version:

"Policy EM13: Development of employment land for other purposes

Outside the Lake District National Park, the development of existing

82 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

employment sites, premises and land allocations for non-employment or mixed uses will be considered where it can be demonstrated that over the Structure Plan period either:

a) the site or premises is likely to remain unsuitable for employment purposes; or,

b) the retention of the site or premises in employment use is not needed to meet the requirements of Policy EM12 including the requirement that each key service centre retains an appropriate supply of land within the Local Employment Site Market Sector.

Within the Lake District National Park, permission will not be given for the redevelopment or use for other purposes of land and buildings with an established business use or of land identified for employment use in a Local Plan or Local Development Documents, unless it can be demonstrated to be unsuitable for business purposes or, exceptionally, viable alternatives are readily available in the locality."

3.1.59 That the opening sentence of paragraph 3.14 include the phrase "and prepare the way for the proper application of Policy EM13" after "EM12" and in the same paragraph revert to the wording of the Deposit Version of the Plan in the sentence referring to Policy UR5 of Regional Planning Guidance.

f) Does Policy EM13 need to be made more specific to the varying pressures for change out of employment use experienced in different sub-areas of the County?

3.1.60 South Lakeland District Council were concerned that Policy EM13 does not give sufficient protection for employment sites that are under pressure for housing. They are concerned about the second test in the redrafted version of Policy EM13 above. In South Lakeland the development industry has sought to bring forward changes out of employment allocations because in aggregate the allocation is sufficient to meet the requirements of Policy EM12. In reality the sites and properties that are available are often small scale and of poor quality. In terms of the different categories of land in Policy EM12 South Lakeland District Council thought they could resist pressure for changes out of the business and science park category, but would find it more difficult in the local employment site category. The use in Policy EM12 of minimum areas was seen as being helpful. The greatest difficulties faced by the District Council are in responding to interest from potential incoming companies and assembling sites of an appropriate scale. Ideally South Lakeland Council would prefer to be subject to same policy as the Lake District National Park.

3.1.61 Carlisle City Council said that they had experienced considerable pressure for changes out of employment to housing in mixed residential areas. The Council were unsure how effective the local level reviews proposed in the first paragraph of the redrafted version of Policy EM13 would be.

83 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

3.1.62 The Joint Authorities said that in monitoring the Joint Structure Plan the ongoing requirements of Policy EM12 would be considered which would help districts to protect employment land. Additionally district councils can in their Local Development Documents define what they consider to be an appropriate level of provision in Key Service Centres.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.1.63 The Joint Authorities commitment to monitoring the operation of Policy EM 12 and EM13 was welcomed by South Lakeland District Council as helping to meet some of their concerns. The Panel recognise that parts of South Lakeland outside the Lake District National Park face pressures and issues very similar to the area of the District inside the Park. However we would not recommend that the policy applying to the Park should be widened to cover the whole of South Lakeland. The Lake District National Park has a particularly limited supply of potential employment sites and an allocation of just 3ha in Policy EM12, whereas the South Lakeland provision is significantly higher reflecting the number and significance of its key service centres. Policy EM12 provides a detailed breakdown of different types of employment land and the minimum amounts to be made available, the Panel considers that this together with Policy EM13 should help South Lakeland defend sites that are coming under pressure, and allocate sites in their forthcoming Local Development Documents.

84 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

WEDNESDAY 6 OCTOBER 2004

ISSUE 3.2

THE APPROACH TO SUPPORTING THE ECONOMY

Issues addressed:

Employment development in rural areas

a) Does the Plan give sufficient emphasis to economic development in rural areas?

b) Is the policy limiting development of new buildings for employment in the open countryside to the requirements of existing businesses too restrictive?

85 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 3.2

Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Barrow Borough Council Ms C Savage Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Ms A Taylor Barden Planning Consultants Mr B Barden Cumbria Rural Enterprise Agency Ms C Crawshaw Friends of the Lake District Mr G Hale/Mr J Ellerby National Trust Mr A Hubbard Northern Reaches Restoration Group Mr H Bagot

Rural Regeneration Cumbria Mr R Pealing

Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend:

North West Development Agency North West Regional Assembly Copeland Borough Council Country Land and Business Association Countryside Agency Kentmere Parish Meeting Kirkby Stephen Town Council National Farmers’ Union

86 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS a) Does the plan give sufficient emphasis to economic development in rural areas?

Sufficient Emphasis?

3.2.1 The context for economic development in rural areas is set by Policy ST5 which directs most new development to key service centres, and Policy ST6 which allows small scale development in towns, and villages, local service centres, identified in Local Plans/Local Development Documents. Policy ST6 says that it will be exceptional for new development to be located in the open countryside. Policy EM14 provides policy criteria for employment development outside key service centres, with a paragraph limiting the development of new buildings in the open countryside to the needs of existing businesses.

3.2.2 Rural Regeneration Cumbria, established in 2002, following the Foot and Mouth crisis, to assist in the delivery of projects, referred to two documents which set a context for considering the need for economic development in the county’s rural areas. The Rural Action Zone report “Next Steps” (CD170) includes targets which cover employment, environmental improvement and farm diversification. The second report “Audit of Rural Workspace” (CD169) commissioned by the North West Development Agency concludes that the provision of workspace in rural areas could be a business development constraint, and identifies parts of Cumbria that have limited provision. The Audit also refers to a substantial minority of businesses preferring “very rural” settings rather than an edge of town location. Secure premises and good road access are seen as important user requirements. The consultants preparing the Audit comment on the “validity of rural areas as a place to do business”, and the existence of “obsolete stock” which provides the opportunity for redevelopment and refurbishment. Rural Regeneration Cumbria’s view is that economic development needs have not been properly assessed by the Joint Structure Plan and as a result adequate provision in the County’s rural areas outside the key service centres has not been made. They are also concerned about the very small provision for employment land in the Lake District National Park in Policy EM12.

3.2.3 The Government Office referred to “Rural Renaissance - Regional Rural Recovery Action Plan” (CD 155) and RPG13 Policy RU2 which stresses the importance of locating development in key service centres and villages. Neither implies significant new development in the open countryside.

3.2.4 Barden Planning Consultants suggested that the four numbered points in Policy EM14 should be transferred to the supporting text, or there is a danger that they will be used in too restrictive a manner. They could be read as criteria when they are not. Reference was also made to the extreme difficulty of finding sites for economic development within small rural settlements. The phrase “in particular” might also be used to rule out developments. Barden Planning Consultants argued that Policy EM14 does not follow though the positive approach to encouraging rural economic development which is required by RPG13 and PPS7.

3.2.5 The Joint Authorities regard the four points in Policy EM14 as covering the key

87 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

issues to be considered in relation to rural employment development. Policy EM14 applies to locations “outside key service centres” which means that it applies to development within local service centres identified in Local Plans/Local Development Documents, under Policy ST6. On the question raised by Rural Regeneration Cumbria of meeting identified needs the Joint Authorities pointed out that Policy EM12 identifies land requirements by Sub County Area and by employment land sector the figures being based on assessments of need. The detailed allocation of sites in the context of local needs would be a matter for Local Plans/Local Development Documents. The issue of location within and on the edge of settlements would also be dealt with at that level. Within the Lake District National Park the employment land supply is very limited and most new development takes place through the conversion of buildings.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.2.6 RPG13 Policy RU2 deals with employment development in key service centres and villages, and the conversion of farm and other rural buildings. Policy EM14 relates to development outside key service centres; that is to say within or on the edges of local service centres and in the open countryside. In respect of Question a) the discussion was concerned with the first paragraph of the policy and the four points it sets out.

3.2.7 The Panel considers that the first part of Policy EM14 is poorly structured and could, as Barden Planning Consultants have suggested, be interpreted negatively. We endorse their suggestion, which was accepted by the Joint Authorities, that the phrase “in particular” should be deleted. We conclude that the final two lines before the four points should be amended to read “proposed and will encourage such developments where they:” On the four points some we regard as criteria, some we do not.

3.2.8 The first numbered point is straightforward as it relates back to Policy ST3 criterion 1 concerning the reuse of existing buildings. As regards previously developed land its development is not ruled out, but does not need to be specifically encouraged. The context of Policy EM14 is rural areas and we consider it appropriate that there should be a direction within the policy promoting reuse of traditional structures that make a positive contribution to landscape character. This has led us to modify the terms in which the first point is expressed and we regard this as a policy criterion.

3.2.9 The second point concerns adverse transport impact, and this is less easy to relate to other policies. Policy T24 deals with adverse effects on the strategic transport network, Policy T30 deals with the need for transport assessments, Policy ST3 criterion 2 requires development to seek sites that are or will be made accessible4. The type of development coming forward under Policy EM14 is likely to be small in scale and impact and would be very unlikely to fall within the terms of Policy ST2. Any transport impacts are likely to be local in significance, for example there could be issues of safety in increasing the use of a farm access road as a result of a development which diversifies activity. In

4 we have recommended that reference to assisting in reducing the need to travel be added to this criterion (paragraph 1.54). 88 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

this context the second point provides a useful test that does not appear elsewhere in relation to economic development. The point can usefully be retained as a policy criterion.

3.2.10 The following points, identified as 3 and 4, would be better made in the supporting text. Point three concerning diversity in the local economic base goes to the heart of rural regeneration but it is more likely to be an outcome of the policy rather than a definable criterion.

3.2.11 Point four will not apply in all situations. In some circumstances it could be a beneficial result of the policy but there will be cases where the refurbishment of non-traditional buildings, having no relevance to the landscape, will make a valuable contribution to the rural economy. While providing a new use for traditional buildings is a worthwhile objective it should not be a requirement in relation to this policy.

3.2.12 We accept the points made by the Joint Authorities that need for employment land is suitably dealt with in Policy EM12 and the intention that an adequate supply of employment land will be identified by District Councils in Local Development Documents.

RECOMMENDATION

3.2.13 That Policy EM14 be amended by:

a) The removal of the words “in particular, where such developments” from the first paragraph and the substitution of “will encourage such developments where they:”

b) Expressing point 1 as a criterion worded as follows:

“utilise existing well-suited buildings, especially traditional structures that make a positive contribution to landscape character”

c) Removing points 3 & 4 from the policy and including them as a new sentence in paragraph 3.19 on the following lines: “Such developments will contribute to diversification of the local economy and can assist in the maintenance of traditional landscapes and buildings.”

Lancaster Canal Restoration

3.2.14 The Northern Reaches Restoration Group consider that their proposal to restore the Lancaster Canal, including provision for marinas and other developments along its length, will benefit the local economy.

3.2.15 The Joint Structure Plan lists this project as a Safeguarded Transport Scheme in Appendix 2 and there is scope for development alongside the canal within key service centres. It was considered by the Joint Authorities that South Lakeland Local Development Documents are a more appropriate vehicle for advancing the project than the Joint Structure Plan.

89 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.2.16 The question of reference to the Lancaster Canal Restoration as a key project was also considered under Issue 3.3 (paragraphs 3.3.19 – 3.3.36).

b) Is the policy limiting development of new buildings for employment in the open countryside to the requirements of existing business too restrictive?

3.2.17 The final paragraph of Policy EM14 applies to new development in the open countryside, outside key and local service centres. Paragraph 3.1 of the Joint Authorities’ Response Statement (EiP Doc 15) says that development of new buildings in the open countryside should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. The exception set out in Policy EM14 is that, with certain provisos, existing businesses in the open countryside may be allowed to develop new buildings for the purpose of expansion. New businesses are regarded by the Joint Authorities as being “footloose” and therefore capable of being directed to key and local service centres.

3.2.18 Allerdale Borough Council support policy EM14 and wish to resist scattered development in the open countryside. South Lakeland District Council consider Policy EM14 to be too restrictive as it does not cater for new businesses arising from farm diversification. The fact that new enterprises would be directed to key and local service centres was seen as being too limiting, self employment is very important in rural areas, forcing home grown businesses to move to service centres as they expand would work against the sustainability of local communities.

3.2.19 Barden Planning Consultants pointed out some possible anomalous consequences arising from the last paragraph of Policy EM14 and suggested its removal arguing that the first paragraph already allowed the scale and character of new development to be controlled. Additionally Barden said that South Lakeland District Council have a local plan policy which does permit small new employment developments outside settlements. This had not caused any problems.

3.2.20 Rural Regeneration Cumbria said that provision was needed for large developments in the countryside in order to bring the economy of Cumbria up to national standards.

3.2.21 The Government Office said that the purpose behind Policy EM14, cutting down sporadic development in the countryside, was supported by national policy, but there was the potential for contradiction in its operation.

3.2.22 The Northern Reaches Restoration Group consider that the final paragraph of Policy EM14 could disadvantage their project which will require some new buildings in the open countryside.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.2.23 Policy EM14 is specifically addressed to development in rural areas. The Joint

90 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Authorities made it clear that the purpose of the final paragraph was to be positive by providing an exception to the general approach to new development in the open countryside.

3.2.24 PPS7, issued shortly before the EiP, states that “new development in the open countryside away from existing settlements….should be strictly controlled” [paragraph 1 (iv)]. It also says that local planning authorities should support countryside based enterprises, and encourages both the reuse and replacement of suitable buildings for economic development purposes. PPS7 does not make the distinction concerning new development for the expansion of existing businesses. In this respect the Panel concludes that Policy EM14 does go further than PPS7.

3.2.25 The first part of Policy EM14 controls the scale and type of development to ensure that it is sympathetic to the character of the surrounding area. This paragraph does not distinguish between new development and conversion, it encompasses both. Our recommended revision to Policy EM14 above (paragraph 3.2.13) goes on to express encouragement for the reuse of traditional buildings where this would not have significant adverse transport impact.

3.2.26 Policy EM14 sits within the framework provided by Policy ST6 which clearly says that development in the open countryside will be the exception, and Policy ST3 which provides a wide ranging set of general criteria In other words Policies ST3 & 6 already provide a comprehensive framework within which Policy EM14 will operate.

3.2.27 It is within this context that all proposals including those for new building within the open countryside would be appraised. It can be anticipated that there would only be relatively few proposals for new building in the open countryside that would pass all the tests. The approach we recommend avoids having to apply a further test, which is unrelated to other policies in the plan, namely whether the proposal will be used by an existing or by a new business. The use of this test does not in our opinion add value to the legitimate planning tests that can be drawn from the policies referred to above, and as was suggested during the EiP debate it could create confusion and anomalies.

3.2.28 As regards possible large scale development in the open countryside, referred to by Rural Regeneration Cumbria, Policy ST4 provides a framework against which to test specific proposals for major development.

RECOMMENDATION

3.2.29 That the final paragraph of Policy EM14 be deleted.

91 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

92 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

WEDNESDAY 6 OCTOBER 2004

ISSUE 3.3

THE APPROACH TO SUPPORTING THE ECONOMY

Issues addressed:

Tourism development

a) Does the Plan sufficiently reflect the approach to tourism taken in RPG13 Policy EC9?

b) Does the approach to tourism development within and outside the National Park allow sufficient scope for the tourism industry and wider economy to be diversified and strengthened?

93 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 3.3

Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Barrow Borough Council Ms C Savage Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Barden Planning Consultants Mr B Barden British Waterways Mr M Clarke Mr D Brockbank Cumbria Tourist Board Mr R Greenwood Friends of the Lake District Mr I O Brodie National Trust Mr A Hubbard Rural Regeneration Cumbria Mr R Pealing Windermere Lake Cruises Mr N Wilkinson Mr R Martakies Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Mr P Stockton

Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend:

North West Development Agency North West Regional Assembly Copeland Borough Council Castle Sowerby Parish Council Cumbria Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ambleside and District Chamber of Trade Kendal Town Council Lake District Peninsular Tourism Partnership National Farmers’ Union

94 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

Overview of Tourism in Cumbria

3.3.1 Cumbria Tourist Board provided an introductory overview. Tourism in Cumbria is increasing in terms of numbers of trips and spending, currently it provides/supports over 43,000 jobs in the county. It has become a year round industry as a result of growth in low season and short breaks.

3.3.2 Tourism faces a number of significant challenges, long stay holidays are in decline and there is a “flatness” in the performance of the core Lake District holiday market, parts of which have been described as “tired and run down.”

3.3.3 The ‘Lake District Renaissance’ is the most significant programme that Cumbria Tourist Board will be running over the next few years, in partnership with the local authorities and a wide range of agencies. The aim is to upgrade the tourism product by initiatives such as improving the built environment and public realm, upgrading accommodation and introducing quality branding schemes.

3.3.4 The Lake District’s special qualities make it the centrepiece of tourist activity, in addition to which the Board is seeking to encourage growth within other areas such as Hadrian’s Wall, Furness and the City of Carlisle. Other actions include developing active outdoor and cycling tourism, food and drink, training, and the attraction of cruise ships.

3.3.5 The overall objective is a doubling of tourism spending to £2bn over the next ten years. Cumbria Tourist Board considers that significant improvements have been made to the Joint Structure Plan but further changes are needed. It would be helpful if the ‘Lake District Renaissance’ were referred to, but the need for flexibility to accommodate necessary change is more important.

3.3.6 District Councils were seen by the Government Office as having a key role to play in improving the public realm, with Whitehaven providing a good example of a town where sustained efforts to improve its attractiveness are now bearing fruit.

3.3.7 Windermere Lake Cruises confirmed the importance of maintaining and improving quality if Cumbria is to compete with other tourist destinations, this will require new capital investment. The quality of the whole experience, including the public realm, has to be considered.

3.3.8 The National Trust stressed the importance of maintaining distinctive qualities, and of long-term values, attributes which cause people to return to Cumbria.

3.3.9 The importance of international marketing focussing on particular aspects of Cumbria’s heritage was referred to. At present the proportion of international tourists is low in comparison with other UK centres such as Bath and Edinburgh.

3.3.10 Friends of the Lake District referred to the importance of ensuring that tourism is developed in ways that create a sustainable industry as well as safeguarding the landscape and supporting local communities.

95 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

3.3.11 The importance of improving travel connections was considered essential to increase both the numbers of international visitors and short break holidays taken by people living in the south of England.

3.3.12 The Government Office said that while RPG13 Policy EC9 does refer to the role of development plans it recognises that a great deal of tourism related activity will be led by specialist agencies. Given the importance of tourism in Cumbria the Joint Structure Plan’s policies should be phrased in a more positive manner in order to accommodate the kind of diverse developments the county requires.

3.3.13 The general introductory discussion helped to provide an overview on tourism issues as they affect Cumbria. There was agreement that the special qualities of the Lake District provide the central focus for tourism and that a range of new investment is required to maintain and increase visitor numbers. There is certainly no room for complacency given the importance of tourism to Cumbria’s economy. The “renaissance” theme encapsulates much of what seems to be required at the present time, a more attractive public realm, better quality accommodation and facilities and improved access. Planning policy has an important bearing on what can be achieved.

a) Does the Plan sufficiently reflect the approach to tourism taken in RPG13 EC9?

Economic and physical regeneration

3.3.14 Policy EM15 deals with the whole of Cumbria outside the Lake District National Park and requires that new tourism facilities be directed to key service centres and locations that “enable the economic and physical regeneration of an area.” The requirement to enable regeneration is not included within Policy EM16 which covers the National Park, although the need to foster the economic and social well being of communities in the National Park forms part of Policy ST11.

3.3.15 The Joint Authorities referred to paragraph 3.23 of the Plan, which in turn refers to RPG13 Policy EC9. This relates to Cumbria as a whole and directs tourism development to areas requiring regeneration and economic diversification. There was no particular reason for omitting a reference to this in Policy EM16 and the Joint Authorities would not object to its introduction.

3.3.16 Cumbria Tourist Board referred to the need for economic and physical regeneration in the towns within the National Park such as Windermere/Bowness and Ambleside which are part of the Market Towns Initiative. The Tourist Board, Friends of the Lake District and Mr David Brockbank supported a reference to regeneration in Policy EM16.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.3.17 Although the link between tourism and regeneration is made in paragraph 3.23 its omission from Policy EM16 could give the impression that this is less of an issue in the Lake District National Park. This is acknowledged not to be the case and therefore an additional phrase is required in Policy EM16. In relation

96 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

to Issue 2.1 we have recommended that Keswick, Ambleside and Windermere/Bowness be recognised as key service centres (paragraph 2.1.29). The fact that the Market Towns Initiative is assisting the regeneration of these towns underlies the importance of focusing tourism investment in locations where it can provide the greatest benefits. It is important to include a reference to regeneration in Policy EM16 as the above towns are likely to be the most significant locations for new investment in tourism within the National Park, and have most to gain from the Park’s economic regeneration.

RECOMMENDATION

3.3.18 That the second paragraph of Policy EM15 be reproduced, in full, as the second paragraph of Policy EM16.

Identification of significant tourism developments

3.3.19 RPG13 Policy EC9 states that development plans “….should identify provision for new facilities that generate significant numbers of tourists/trips in appropriate development locations.” In spite of the importance of tourism in Cumbria the Joint Structure Plan does not identify any specific new tourism initiatives although there are a number of significant projects currently under consideration. The Government Office considered that the identification of significant projects would give the Joint Structure Plan a more positive feel.

3.3.20 A report on “Cumbria Tourism Market Forecasts” produced by Locum Destination Consulting (CD135) lists a number of “big ideas,” under the heading of “renaissance” these include: visitor centres/park and ride at key gateways, upgrade of the main visitor centre, radically enhanced public transport, improved built environment, promoting high and low energy dimensions, high quality cultural building in the central lakes, and improved pedestrian and cycle access to traffic free environments.”

3.3.21 PPG13 Policy UR12 refers to the identification of Regional Parks, one of which would be based upon the North West Coast. The area of search for these Parks shown in Diagram 8 of RPG13 follows the whole of the Cumbrian coast including the Furness and Cartmel peninsulas. The Joint Structure Plan Policy L58 is a little more specific and refers to the development of Regional Parks in the vicinity of Whitehaven/Workington and Barrow in Furness. Allerdale Borough Council referred to the proposed Regional Park in West Cumbria one element of which is “Derwent Forest,” which could usefully be identified as a key tourism project.

3.3.22 British Waterways stressed the significance of the Lancaster Canal restoration project. It will require associated development such as marinas, boat repair and chandlery facilities, hotels and pubs etc to help fund the actual restoration. The Canal will become a significant new tourism attraction, and while it is referred to in South Lakeland’s Local Plan the District consider that its identification in the Joint Structure Plan would be helpful.

3.3.23 Cumbria Tourist Board said that the Joint Structure Plan could mention generic projects such as Park & Ride and harbour improvements to accommodate

97 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

cruise ships and marinas which have been under consideration for some time, along with the Lake District Renaissance programme and proposals for eco tourism.

3.3.24 Rural Regeneration Cumbria said that many projects are at a formative stage making specific reference in the Joint Structure Plan difficult. A number of projects could however be referred to including: the Derwent Forest, the regeneration of Barrow Docks including a cruise ship terminal, the Lancaster Canal restoration, the South Lakeland Gateway project, “low energy” projects such as the restoration of Wordsworth’s house in Grasmere, “high energy” projects such as mountain bike trails and improved visitor centres in commercial forests.

3.3.25 Barrow Borough Council said that the proposed cruise ship terminal would increase the number of international visitors. Barrow is also promoting itself as a wet weather destination for the Lake District.

3.3.26 The National Trust referred to policies in RPG13 and the Joint Structure Plan which require positive management and protection of the environment. Some of the projects referred to have yet to be fully evaluated against these policies.

3.3.27 The Joint Authorities said that Policy EM15 in particular sought to generally enable tourism development leaving specific projects to come forward in Local Development Documents. The Derwent Forest proposal comes within Policy L58, the Canal restoration is safeguarded within Schedule 2, and Barrow port is referred to in Policy ST9. Projects sometimes come forward and then disappear, caution is required in drafting the Joint Structure Plan, but it would be possible to consider the scope for raising the profile of key projects. The Joint Authorities stated their willingness to work with the Cumbria Tourist Board and others to prepare a list of major projects that are likely to come forward during the Structure Plan period. In assessing projects the statutory purposes of the National Park have to be taken into account.

3.3.28 The South Lakeland Gateway Project was referred to by Rural Regeneration Cumbria. This project is described in “Providing Competitive Advantage” prepared by Cumbria Inward Investment Agency, (CD 124). The proposal is for a range of economic development on land in the vicinity of Junction 36 on the M6, some of which could be of tourism significance. The project was not specifically raised at the EiP discussion on Issue 3.1 which dealt with employment land and Policy EM12 in particular.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.3.29 Policies EM15 & 16 do not provide a particularly positive message welcoming tourism development. This is a consequence of the way in which these planning policies are framed; Policy EM15 opens with a positive statement which is immediately qualified by reference to environmental protection.

3.3.30 While the supporting text, paragraphs 3.21 to 3.28 of the Plan, explains the importance of tourism to the county’s economy and its relevance to regeneration the overall “feel” is that while tourism development is needed it must be carefully controlled in order to retain essential landscape and heritage

98 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

qualities. The Panel fully supports the importance of environmental protection; however we also think that potential investors could read the Joint Structure Plan as containing a negative message.

3.3.31 The Panel have drawn a similar conclusion in relation to economic development and suggested ways of giving greater emphasis to the positive messages on employment that are already contained within the Joint Structure Plan, together with highlighting flagship projects (paragraph 3.1.18c). A similar approach needs to be taken in relation to tourism to convey a far more positive message highlighting the aspirations of the Joint Authorities, relevant agencies and of local businesses with a direct interest in tourism.

3.3.32 There was a general consensus amongst participants that while the key attractions of the Lake District, and of Cumbria more generally, derive from its landscape character and environmental qualities, more needs to be done to refresh the tourist experience. From the written submissions, core document reports and EiP discussion, it is clear that there is real commitment to taking the tourism agenda forward through a wide range of practical projects. Some such as the Market Towns Initiative have a wider remit but are highly relevant to tourism, others are more specific in addressing the issue of quality and include the creation of new facilities. Some projects are still at a formative stage and others are well advanced.

3.3.33 The Panel’s conclusion is that additional text is required to make it clear that the Joint Structure Plan has a positive attitude toward tourism and that the Joint Authorities are interested in significant projects that promote tourist facilities in Cumbria in line with the overall strategy of the Structure Plan. In West Cumbria and Barrow such facilities are likely to be associated with the securing of regeneration objectives. Within the Lake District National Park facilities should be related to the purposes of National Park designation and based on promoting enjoyment and understanding of the Park’s distinctive environmental, cultural and historic character. The additional text should emphasise the importance of widely supported projects such as the Market Towns Initiative, and the Lake District Renaissance programme. Within this context a number of specific projects should then be described, in ways that are appropriate to the stage they have reached. We also consider it relevant that the Joint Structure Plan should take note of the extent to which land within the National Park is in the ownership of bodies that have aims and objectives that are either directly supportive of or broadly compatible with those of the Joint Authorities. Such bodies include the National Trust, Forest Enterprise and United Utilities (water supply) as well as the Lake District National Park Authority itself.

3.3.34 Of the projects discussed at the EiP, the Derwent Forest and Barrow Port projects seem to be the most advanced. Other projects in the public domain but less certain would include the Lancaster Canal. We welcome the Joint Authorities willingness to work with the Cumbria Tourist Board in preparing a list of major projects. Such a list should be included with a description of the stage that they have reached.

3.3.35 Reference was made to the South Lakeland Gateway, as this is principally a economic development proposal the Panel’s view is that it can be considered within the context of Policy EM12.

99 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

RECOMMENDATION

3.3.36 That the wording of paragraphs 3.21 to 3.26 of the Joint Structure Plan be recast to present a more positive approach to tourism development, and that reference be made to a number of key projects and initiatives, at different stages in their development, that exemplify the positive approach the Joint Structure Plan is seeking to promote towards tourism related development that is in accord with overall Structure Plan strategy.

Scope for development under Policy EM16

3.3.37 Policy EM16 states that within the Lake District the development of tourism facilities “should be based on visitors enjoyment of the National Park’s distinctive environmental, cultural and historic character”. This relates back to the purposes of the National Park set out in section 61 of the Environment Act 1995. RPG13 Policy EC9 links tourism and leisure together and covers a wide set of activities stating that recreation and leisure are complementary to many tourism activities. Policy EC9 does not make a distinction between different types of tourism and leisure activity in and outside of National Parks.

3.3.38 Cumbria Tourist Board considered Policy EM16 to be too narrowly drafted and suggested replacing “be based on” with “should not prejudice”. In the Board’s view this would not detract from the purpose of the policy but could broaden tourism appeal by adding diversity. For example sport related development could be considered. It was not considered necessary to list other forms of leisure/recreational activity in the policy. The Joint Authorities indicated that they accepted the Tourist Board’s suggested amendment.

3.3.39 The Joint Authorities Response Statement (EiP Doc 17 paragraph 2.3) puts forward an amendment to Policy EM16 introducing, just before the three numbered points, the phrase “Tourism development will only be permitted where the statutory purposes of National Parks are not contravened”. During the EiP the Joint Authorities said they would remove the words “are not contravened” and replace them with “are supported and enhanced” in order to be more positive.

3.3.40 Barden Planning Consultants agreed with the amendment put forward by Cumbria Tourist Board but considered that the Joint Authorities suggested amendments would make the policy even more restrictive. Barden argued that it is significantly more difficult for an applicant to demonstrate that a development will achieve a particular objective than it is to show that it will not prejudice the same objective. The purposes of the National Park are stated elsewhere and do not have to be introduced into the policy.

3.3.41 Friends of the Lake District do not wish Policy EM16 to be weakened in its effect.

3.3.42 Windermere Lake Cruises said that the Lake District is attracting increasing numbers of visitors from South Asia interested in the literary heritage associated with Wordsworth and Ruskin. A key attraction is the perception that the Lake District is a safe place. Specialist shopping is also an important attraction.

100 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.3.43 The Panel consider that the suggestion put forward by the Tourist Board has merit, in that it introduces more flexibility into the understanding of what kind of tourist facilities would be acceptable in the Lake District National Park without requiring a list of particular types of development to be introduced into the policy. There was general support for this suggestion.

3.3.44 The Panel does not however accept the case put forward by the Joint Authorities for a new phrase immediately before the three numbered points in Policy EM16 relating to the purposes of the National Park. We do not consider this to be necessary; they are already set out in paragraph 1.8 of the Plan and referred to in Policy ST11. We were persuaded by Barden Planning Consultants and Cumbria Tourist Board’s argument that it would be significantly more difficult for an applicant to demonstrate that a development would achieve a particular objective than it is to show that it would not prejudice the same objective. The amendment put forward by the Joint Authorities would in our view add unnecessarily and unhelpfully to what is already a challenging threshold of proof.

RECOMMENDATION

3.3.45 That “be based on” be deleted from the second line of Policy EM16 and replaced with “not prejudice”.

b) Does the approach to tourism development within and outside the National Park allow sufficient scope for the tourism industry and the wider economy to be diversified and strengthened?

Cumbria’s Seaside Towns

3.3.46 Allerdale Borough Council said that RPG13 Policy EC9 mentions coastal resorts in Cumbria. The Joint Structure Plan should follow this up with some reference in the text supporting tourism related development in the seaside resorts, in particular Silloth, Allonby, Seascale, Haverigg and St Bees.

3.3.47 The Joint Authorities pointed out that Policy ST9 (Furness and West Cumbria) encourages new tourist attractions that build on the heritage of coastal towns and the tourism policies also accommodate development in these towns. They were not however against a specific reference to the seaside towns in the tourism section.

3.3.48 Both Cumbria Tourist Board and South Lakeland District Council proposed a reference to Grange over Sands to support its need for regeneration.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.3.49 As a further elaboration on our recommendation above (see paragraph 3.3.36) that the Joint Structure Plan’s tourism policies should be set out more positively and exemplified, the Panel consider that reference should be made to

101 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Cumbria’s seaside towns, each of which has its own particular character and opportunities. They widen the range of tourist experience available in the county and are generally located within areas that require investment and regeneration. We agree with Allerdale Borough Council that a reference in the text, rather than a new policy would be sufficient.

3.3.50 Rather than referring to the seaside towns in general, specific reference should be made to Grange over Sands, Silloth, and St Bees. We consider that the other smaller towns mentioned during the EiP are too small to warrant a specific reference in the text. The purpose of such reference would be to draw attention to the needs and opportunities of these relatively small communities.

3.3.51 The larger coastal towns of Whitehaven, Maryport and Barrow in Furness have a tourism significance linked in part to retailing, museums and wider economic regeneration. We consider that these concerns are adequately dealt with by Policy ST9 and its supporting text.

RECOMMENDATION

3.3.52 That a new paragraph be added to the tourism section describing the issues faced by Cumbria’s seaside towns. Grange over Sands, Silloth, and St Bees should be identified as towns where tourism development, of an appropriate scale and character would be welcomed.

Tourism and regeneration

3.3.53 Copeland Borough Council raised the issue of the linkage between tourism and regeneration in their written submission. Allerdale Borough Council would also like a reference to the benefits enjoyed by West Cumbria because of its proximity to the Lake District. Paragraph 3.22 of the Plan already makes a link between tourism development and regeneration in West Cumbria and Furness.

3.3.54 Rural Regeneration Cumbria referred to the long term regeneration process that had been engaged at Whitehaven 10 years ago and is now bearing fruit as the town is becoming a tourist destination in its own right. A similar long term commitment is required at Barrow in Furness. While the scale of tourism investment may be smaller in east and north Cumbria there are projects in Kirkby Stephen, Alston and Brampton, for example, which will increase their attraction to visitors over the long term.

3.3.55 The Joint Authorities pointed out that Policy EM15 already makes the link between tourism development and regeneration in its second paragraph. Policy ST5 is also relevant in that it seeks to focus new development in key centres many of which have regeneration needs.

3.3.56 Windermere Lake Cruises welcomed tourism related regeneration projects but pointed out that visitors, particularly from overseas recognise the Lake District “brand” rather than Cumbria and that private funding of projects has been important in the Lake District itself.

3.3.57 In their introduction the Cumbria Tourist Board referred to their intention to

102 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

increase tourism in Furness and the City of Carlisle.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.3.58 The Panel recognise that the connection between tourism development and regeneration is made in a number of places, however we consider that further points can usefully be made.

3.3.59 Following on from our comments above (paragraphs 3.3.33 –3.3.34) that the Joint Structure Plan should be more positive in its treatment of tourism development we consider that paragraph 3.22 of the Joint Structure Plan should be expanded as part of this requirement with positive reference to what has already been achieved eg in Whitehaven.

RECOMMENDATION

3.3.60 That paragraph 3.22 of the Plan be amended to include reference to what has already been achieved and what further action is needed to encourage tourism in Cumbria’s towns and the City of Carlisle. In particular the regeneration of Whitehaven’s centre and harbour/waterfront should be celebrated, and the long term proposals for Barrow in Furness referred to. Other relevant proposals should also be included.

World Heritage Site Status and International Tourism

3.3.61 During the EiP a number of participants contributed information on why international visitors come to the Lake District. At present the proportion of overseas visitors is small, somewhere between 5-10%. In the examples quoted there were specific cultural/historical reasons for making the visit. Familiarity with the works of Wordsworth and Ruskin in the Indian sub continent, and interest in Beatrix Potter’s books amongst Japanese schoolchildren result in significant numbers of visits to the Lake District. The Panel raised the question of the Lake District’s status as a candidate World Heritage Site and whether this would increase the number of visitors from overseas.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.3.62 While the outcome of the World Heritage Site application is likely to remain uncertain for some time the fact that it is in the public realm and has the support of the Government is significant. The application will focus on the cultural and historical significance of the Lake District, in other words the attributes that tend to attract overseas visitors at the present time.

3.3.63 The Joint Authorities appeared willing to consider a reference to the World Heritage Site application. Such a reference should be made, partly because it would be another forward looking positive statement to add to our earlier recommendations (see paragraphs 3.3.36 and 3.3.60), and partly because it does seem to present itself as a useful attribute in attracting international visitors.

103 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

RECOMMENDATION

3.3.64 That reference be made in the text of the tourism section to the Government’s support for the Lake District becoming a World Heritage Site.

Key Service Centres

3.3.65 This topic was discussed in relation to Issue 2.1. An opportunity was given to participants not invited to that EiP session to comment on tourism aspects of the absence of Key Service Centres in the Lake District National Park. These comments have been taken into account by the Panel in making their recommendations on this matter (paragraph 2.1.29).

Quiet areas and periods

3.3.66 Policy EM16 refers to quiet enjoyment of the Lake District National Park, and paragraph 3.26 refers to quieter areas and quieter periods. South Lakeland District Council said they were concerned about the effect of the quiet periods aspect of policy which could have a detrimental effect on employment when their objective is to extend the tourist season. Cumbria Tourist Board shared the same concern and also wish to see the season extended to create year round employment. Windermere Lake Cruises now run year round services and were concerned that mention of quiet periods could be detrimental to tourism.

3.3.67 Barden Planning Consultants and Friends of the Lake District thought that the main purpose of quiet periods was to enforce a short closed season for caravan and camp sites. The Joint Authorities confirmed that this was the case.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.3.68 Participants acknowledged that the winter is a quieter period and that this is a relative term. The issue of quiet periods in relation to caravan and camping sites is understood and in the Panel’s opinion is more appropriately dealt with at Local Development Documents and development control level. There does not seem to be any particular reason for drawing attention to this in the Joint Structure Plan, and as one participant said the reference in paragraph 3.26 may be detrimental to tourism.

3.3.69 In the context of earlier discussion the Panel consider that there is a case for drawing attention to the fact that the Lake District has much to offer all the year round and does not close down during the winter months as is the case in tourist destinations which are particularly affected by seasonal factors. The widening of the Lake District’s season should be included within the more positive message the Panel wishes to see emphasised in the Joint Structure Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

3.3.70 That the words “and quieter periods” be deleted from the fourth line of

104 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

paragraph 3.26 of the Joint Structure Plan. Text should be added to the introductory paragraphs of the tourism section which describe the widening of the tourism season in positive terms and as something to build on with the provision of year round facilities, attractions and integrated transport, and all year employment.

Policy in AONBs and the National Park

3.3.71 Policy EM15 deals with the whole of Cumbria outside the National Park, including the AONBs. Allerdale Borough Council sought clarification on the distinction between the statutory purposes of the two designations, in particular the implication of policy for tourism in the AONBs.

3.3.72 Friends of the Lake District made a case for including the AONBs within the scope of Policy EM16.

3.3.73 The Joint Authorities referred to paragraphs 1.8 and 1.9 of the Plan which set out the statutory purposes. The primary purpose of AONBs is the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, within National Parks there is an additional objective concerned with understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities which has a direct bearing on tourism. The Joint Authorities’ position is that because the National Park has a wider set of statutory purposes it needs to be separated in policy from the AONBs.

3.3.74 The Joint Authorities put forward a further change to the wording of the third paragraph of Policy EM15 to replace the final word “diminished” with “contravened”.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

3.3.75 The Panel accepts the Joint Authorities’ argument that the distinction between the purposes of National Parks and AONBs should be reflected in policy and consider that the use of the word “contravened” is likely to cause less difficulty in application than “diminished”.

Policy consolidation

3.3.76 The Panel has recommended the replication of part of Policy EM15 in Policy EM16, (see paragraph 3.3.18) and in relation to Issue 2.1 we have recommended that key service centres should be identified within the Lake District National Park. (paragraph 2.1.29). In the light of these recommendations it would be possible and sensible to reorder and combine EM15 and EM16 into a single policy.

RECOMMENDATION

3.3.77 The Panel recommend that Policies EM15 and EM16 be consolidated as follows:

105 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Policy EM Tourism

“New tourism facilities will be directed to key service centres and to locations that enable the economic and physical regeneration of an area, where they bring benefit to the local community. Proposals outside key service centres will be assessed on the basis of Policy EM14.

Tourism development will be permitted where this does not prejudice visitor’s enjoyment and understanding of Cumbria’s distinctive environmental, cultural and historic character. The emphasis should be on sustaining these attributes and adding quality.

Within the Lake District National Park changes of use or conversions…

continue from this point to the end of Policy EM16 and then add as a final sentence:

In addition tourism proposals in AONBs will only be permitted where the statutory purposes of the designated areas are not contravened.”

106 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

TUESDAY 5 OCTOBER 2004

ISSUE 4.1

THE APPROACH TO PROVIDING HOUSING

Issues addressed:

Scale of Housing Development

a) RPG13 expresses in terms of ‘annual average rates of housing provision’. Can an alternative approach based on new permissions with an additional 10% added for expiries be justified, along with a 4-5 year accounting period for monitoring purposes?

b) Do existing permissions mean that there will be overprovision during the early years of the Plan?

c) Are housing allocations appropriate and in particular is the housing allocation to Eden, South Lakeland and Carlisle unduly restrictive?

d) Can the zero allocation of ‘unfettered housing’ in the LDNP be justified? Is it consistent with the Plan’s aim of diversifying and strengthening the area’s economy?

107 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 4.1 Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber North West Regional Assembly Mr M Gallagher Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Barrow Borough Council Ms C Savage Mr P Huck Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Copeland Borough Council Mr J Hughes Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Mr T Whittaker Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Ms J Findley Representing Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes Barden Planning Consultants Mr B Barden Broadway Malyan Ms S Wright Representing Countryside Agency Mr D Brockbank Eden Housing Association Mr P Davies Federation of Cumbria Amenity Societies Mr P Colley Friends of the Lake District Mr J Ellerby House Builders’ Federation Ms G Berridge Impact Housing Association Mr M Muir Rural Regeneration Cumbria Mr R Pealing Dr G A Steele Windermere and Bowness Civic Society Major G Plunkett Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Mr P Stockton Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend: North West Development Agency Cumbria Tourist Board Country Land and Business Association Kentmere Parish Meeting Kirkby Stephen Town Council

108 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

THE SCALE OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

The Style of the presentation of this part of our report varies from the general presentation we have adopted in the rest of the report. As we have previously mentioned concerns about housing provision and the numbers allocated to Cumbria by RPG 13 was a recurring theme throughout almost all of the Issues debated at the EiP. To reflect what we heard adequately this chapter is more discursive than the remainder of the report.

Introductory Comments

4.1.1 Written material provided for this session and the discussion in front of the Panel exhibited the strongly held and divergent views of participants on the question of housing provision within the period of the Joint Structure Plan. Doubtless this is not the only context within which this issue has been examined but we formed the view that the debate within the measured forum of the EiP has provided us with worthwhile insights into the very complex position that is emerging and with an informed understanding of some of the real difficulties that have appeared and that lie ahead. These issues, while within the broad topic “Scale of Housing Development”, go wider than the tightly expressed questions around which the debate was structured.

4.1.2 The planning scene in Cumbria is being transformed as a result of changes introduced by the approach taken to housing provision in RPG13 as issued in March 2003. This seeks to restrain the amount of housing provided within the County to a level significantly below that experienced in recent years. The RPG’s proposed annual build rate from 2002-2016 is 1170 dwellings per year while the figures for the previous 5 years have averaged just under 1600 dwellings per year. This is a reduction of over 25%. Nor is this all, since the most recent years’ figures show house building at a higher level, for example in 2003 there were over 1900 completions, a figure that is some 63% above the RPG figure. The figures are set out in a Panel Briefing attached as Appendix 6.1 to EIP Doc 18.

4.1.3 The universal view of those appearing from the District Councils is that the scale of housing development envisaged in the Structure Plan is too low. It is also a joint view that this is not a question of how the housing “cake” has been divided between the districts but that the “cake” is too small. The concern was not limited to the District Councils but was shared by others, including locally based planning consultants working with housebuilders and by housing associations.

4.1.4 Neither the Joint Authorities nor the District Councils have set out to confront the approach taken in RPG13. In the Overview on Issue 4.1 in EIP Doc 18 paragraph 1.4,, the Joint Authorities recognise that the Structure Plan “must follow general RPG direction”, “cannot increase the RPG housing requirement” and “must apportion the RPG requirement”. However they go on to acknowledge in paragraph 1.7 that:

“The degree of restraint imposed has caused concern. Local aspirations are not fully behind the metropolitan core emphasis of the RPG housing distribution. The argument that constraint on the housing market in Cumbria will make a

109 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

significant contribution to the renaissance of the metropolitan core has not met with widespread conviction. The level of restraint imposed by RPG is therefore difficult to promote and enforce”.

4.1.5 The Government Office position set out towards the close of the first day of the EiP was as follows:

“When we look at numbers regarding housing development the RPG is an adopted document now. As of to-day it is the statutory regional spatial strategy for the time being but it is going to be reviewed very soon, starting next year. So the Government is aware that this cannot be treated as something set in stone and we need to look at it, monitor it and act accordingly… There is no law which says you can't exceed the figures. The point is that the Secretary of State might intervene if you exceed them without due justification. If inflexible operation of regional planning policy is having perverse consequences then obviously we will work with the local authorities to find ways round that”.

4.1.6 While there was no direct challenge at the EiP to the housing figures within Policy UR7 of RPG13, the matter of the “size of the cake” was clearly an underlying cause of concern and the message “not enough cake” was one that was strongly put. We heard the response of the Government Office as being that there would be scope for flexibility in the operation of the policy and also that the Regional Assembly would be re-examining fundamental issues in the context of the forthcoming review.

4.1.7 The need for a review that addresses some fundamental issues is endorsed in the County Council’s Comments on Housing Methodology and Research Briefs for the Regional Spatial Strategy, attached by the Joint Authorities as Appendix 6.6 to EIP Doc 18. These stated views are that:

“Cumbria County Council welcomes the commitment to review the basis on which housing numbers have been calculated and distributed across the region. There is considerable concern locally about the effect the existing level of housing restraint on Cumbria has had on the ability of local people to satisfy housing needs, gain access to affordable housing, support the local economy and ensure a sustainable pattern of development. Whilst the previous methodology may have derived a realistic regional housing requirement its distribution in taking forward the emphasis on the metropolitan core did not reflect adequately the housing that would be necessary to deliver the other RPG spatial policy objectives for Cumbria of meeting local needs and the added emphasis of regeneration in Furness and West Cumbria, and supporting the regional role of Carlisle. Nor did it take a realistic view of the operation of housing markets within Cumbria and their relationship with those operating across the region”.

4.1.8 These comments, while directed at the Regional Spatial Strategy, have been informed by concerns that are relevant to and raised by the housing figures in RPG13. Many of these concerns are touched on in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.4 of the Joint Structure Plan. Directly relevant matters are that:

1 in setting out the RPG requirement in terms of annual build rates, there is no recognition that the local planning authorities’ means of influence is

110 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

through the granting of planning permissions 2 RPG13’s housing figures seek to achieve the same annual average build rate over the plan period but outstanding planning permissions mean that early years of the plan period are likely to see build rates in excess of RPG’s targets 3 build rates are not immediately affected by changes in the rate at which new permissions are granted 4 RPG13’s figures are a reflection of an intention to reduce in-migration to South and East Cumbria but in-migration rates are barely influenced by either the marginal additions to the housing stock that new building represents or by a downward change in the rate at which additional housing is provided.

4.1.9 By reducing the housebuilding requirement for the County to the extent that it has, the figures within RPG (and this Structure Plan) are now expected to act as constraints on the level of development over the plan period. This is in marked contrast to the figures within the existing adopted Structure Plan for the period 1991 to 2006 which acted as targets which District Councils were to seek to achieve but which were not an upper limit on development. The difference is between a situation where a target is a “ceiling” not to be exceeded and a “floor” which is to be striven for as a minimum. This would seem to have been fully intended by those responsible for producing the final housing figures within RPG13.

4.1.10 The extent of this change and its impact however are re-inforced and exacerbated by the switch to the expression of the housing target figure as an average annual rate of building. Expression of the target as a rate of building brings with it the consequence that the change is to be secured with immediate effect from the beginning of the period5. Given the fact of extant planning permissions, building rates cannot be immediately reduced. If the rate of development in the first two or three years is higher than that intended for the period as a whole then if the annual average over the first five years is to be aligned with subsequent five year periods, the levels of permissions granted in the early years must be sharply lower than might be expected later in the plan period.

4.1.11 This is what has in fact happened. It is resulting in the preparation of interim housing policies in the form of supplementary planning guidance, such as that produced by Allerdale Borough Council (CD171). The interim policies are very restrictive.

4.1.12 One other contextual matter of importance for our consideration of the Joint Structure Plan’s approach to housing, is that this EiP was held some 6 months after the publication of the Final Report of Kate Barker’s Review of Housing Supply (CD89). This economist’s view of “Securing Future Housing Needs” has been brought forward against the background of a long term upward trend in house prices to which is attributed problems of affordability. The report is addressed to questions of achieving higher and more responsive levels of

5 Indeed with the RPG period commencing in 2002 even though the final document did not appear until March 2003, and the legal challenge to them was not resolved until November 2003, the figures included an element of retrospective effect. 111 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

housebuilding which are aimed at leading to a lower trend in real house prices that would benefit the UK in economic terms.

4.1.13 There can be little argument that Kate Baker’s Recommendation 3, calling for further research to improve the evidence base for housing policies, is of direct relevance to the Cumbria context. Also particularly noteworthy is Recommendation 7 calling for guidance for determining the scale and allocation of housing provision at the regional level. This is “to ensure that methodologies reflect a full consideration of the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of housing at the regional and local level”.

4.1.14 The recommendation goes on in detail to say that:

“This guidance should be based on the following principles:

• Transparency over the calculations, assumptions and policies that determine the scale and distribution of housing numbers, so that the trade- offs between different outcomes are made explicit. • Consistency in the approach of different regions to the use of information and to the weight given to different variables, in particular, consistency in the method used to translate the region's affordability target into indicative housing targets across the region. • Application of market information and signals, including house prices and house price growth and market affordability in decisions made about the scale and distribution of housing targets. • Decisions about the scale and distribution of housing numbers that over- ride market information, should be based on sound evidence and should set out the costs associated with the decision. • Decisions about the scale and distribution of housing numbers should be informed by sub-regional and Local Housing Assessments (which should include analysis of house price growth and affordability, as well as local housing need)”.

4.1.15 Impact Housing Association’s research study “Housing Markets – Preparing for Change” (CD136 & 137) was made available to us and we see this as at least a partial illustration of the approach envisaged in the Barker Report. It is a Housing Corporation study of local housing markets in six towns and villages in West Cumbria and the Lake District National Park and has as its purposes developing and testing a model approach to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of local housing markets and to inform and guide regional, sub- regional and local housing strategies.

4.1.16 The study takes six settlements that are geographically close together but facing very different issues. It emphasises the need for a bottom-up approach which will lead to tailored planning policies that address the specific conditions of different housing markets within a local authority area.

4.1.17 There was a general acknowledgement at the EiP that the figures in the Joint Structure Plan have been derived from RPG13 and reflect a top-down approach that has been imposed on the County.

112 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004 a) RPG13 is expressed in terms of ‘annual average rates of housing provision’. Can an alternative approach based on new permissions with an additional 10% added for expiries be justified, along with a 4-5 year accounting period for monitoring purposes?

4.1.18 The extent to which the policies of RPG13 and in particular the housing figures for the County contained in Policy UR7 have transformed the planning situation across Cumbria is becoming increasingly manifest. All the Districts, apart from Barrow Borough Council have introduced or started to introduce “interim housing policies” as supplementary planning guidance as a move towards implementing the regional policy on housing numbers.

4.1.19 Joint Structure Plan Policy H17 is expressed in a way that goes towards the implementation of RPG Policy UR7 but is not a direct incorporation of the RPG’s policy into the Structure Plan. In particular the Structure Plan is related to the granting of planning permissions rather than annual house building rates. The North West Regional Assembly said that the use of housebuilding rates within RPG was something that had been brought in at the request of the panel (for the RPG Public Examination) and is a reflection of general practice emerging in response to the development of the Plan, Monitor and Manage approach introduced in PPG3.

4.1.20 We note the Government Office point that the output that is important in the long run is not permissions but houses but recognise that because building rates are not something over which local planning authorities have direct control there is widespread support from District Councils for the Joint Authorities use of permissions. Since RPG13 is looking to the Structure Plan to implement an immediate reining in of rates of development it makes sense to express the measure within the policy in terms that are within, rather than outside, the ambit of local planning authority control.

4.1.21 The use of four or five year periods as a means of securing a spread throughout the period raised no major issue and was seen as generally beneficial. In particular it was seen by both Eden District Council and the House Builders’ Federation as being supportive of smaller, locally based housebuilders.

4.1.22 While no-one before us argued for figures that were substantially different from those in the Joint Structure Plan, the addition of a figure of 10% within the figures in Policy H17 to reflect an average difference between planning permissions given came in for criticism from the Government Office and from Friends of the Lake District. We accept that in a situation where economic and planning conditions are so varied, a single figure that applies across the County is unlikely to be an accurate prediction of take up levels. There is likely to be a significant difference in take up between an aspirational scheme in Barrow or West Cumbria and a similar style of development with ready access to the M6. Sample figures from 1997 at Appendix 6.2 of EIP Doc 18 partially confirm such a finding though the rate for Copeland Borough is lower, and for Eden District higher, than one would expect.

4.1.23 However it would not be helpful to set out to be precise in one area, when a wider range of relevant factors has been given only cursory appraisal. The

113 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

figures in RPG13 were not built on precise analysis and as a result their application should not involve too reverential an approach. It is also important that the figures within Policy UR7 of RPG should not be applied so stringently that they serve to undermine other aspects of RPG strategy, including in this context, the particular Cumbrian objectives described in paragraph 3.20 of RPG13. We consider that this would retain recognition of the main thrust of RPG policy which is to emphasise the benefits of actions that promote the metropolitan areas but would make it plain that this is not intended to be at the cost of achieving other strategic objectives within Cumbria. A suitable way of doing this would be to make a cross reference to the objectives of Policies ST7, ST8, ST9 and ST10 within the text of Policy H17.

4.1.24 The Joint Authorities see the approach taken in Policy H17 as pragmatic. It is significant also that the North West Regional Assembly expressed support for the Joint Authorities’ use of control through planning permissions and did not object to the inclusion of the 10% allowance. The Assembly regards this as “an approach that is useful to take forward and develop”.

4.1.25 Plan, Monitor and Manage is a learning process not only because at present we are learning how to do it but also because part of its attraction is that it inherently lends itself to a process of learning and making adjustments along the way. If the initially planned figures are shown by monitoring to have undesirable consequences or are failing to secure the benefits anticipated the appropriate “management” answer could be to re-examine the basis for the original definition of the planning objective and/or mechanism.

Panel’s Conclusions

4.1.26 We consider that in the circumstances under which it has been produced, the approach taken by the Joint Authorities in expressing Policy H17 in terms of new planning permissions over four and five year periods and adding a percentage for expiries is pragmatic and sensible. We also consider that Policy H17 should take account of other RPG objectives, in addition to building rates. This would be achieved by amending the text of the policy and making cross reference to the objectives of Policies ST7 to 10. 6

b) Do existing permissions mean that there will be overprovision during the early years of the Plan?

4.1.27 This question is not a difficult one to answer, although it is perhaps more difficult to disentangle what the answer means.

4.1.28 The existence of outstanding permissions means that there will be potential for a higher level of building during the early years of the Joint Structure Plan than is looked for in RPG13. The situation is an almost inevitable consequence of RPG’s change in strategy which has brought with it a target for house building that is 25% below the average level achieved in recent years.

6 Conclusions in this and subsequent sections are reflected in our recommendations for Policy H17 which are gathered together and presented at the end of our consideration of Issue 4.1. 114 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

4.1.29 Appendix 6.1 of EIP Doc 18 sets out figures for completions for each planning authority area for 2003 and partial figures for 2004. For 2003 the county figure for completions is just over 1900 compared with a proposed annual rate in RPG13 of 1170. However while this is “overprovision” in relation to the level of housebuilding set by RPG13 that does not mean that it is overprovision relative to demand. The average annual figure for a 5 year period up to 2002 was just under 1600. Nobody sought to suggest to us that the provision that has in fact occurred during the period since 2002 reflects overprovision in relation to market demand. This period has coincided with a sustained rise in house prices across Cumbria.

4.1.30 It should also not be overlooked that the period of the Joint Structure Plan relates in part to a period that has already passed. Retrospective application of the housing targets set in RPG13 is pointless and potentially harmful. Appendix 6.4 of EIP Doc 18 shows that the level at which planning permissions were granted in the two years 2002/3 and 2003/4 was well above that projected as an annual average for the period 2002 to 2006. The number of permissions granted across the County over this two year period is some 63% of the total figure envisaged within the deposited Structure Plan for the first four years of the plan. We do not have figures for the period since April 2004 but applying the figures in the Structure Plan over the period April 2004 to April 2006 would require a substantial reining in of the rates at which planning permission is granted.

4.1.31 The point that causes us particular concern is that, if the figures that are in the Proposed Changes are inserted into Policy H17, an even more extreme position emerges. The permissions granted in 2002/3 and 2003/4 represent over 94% of the figure envisaged in the June 2004 Proposed Changes to the Structure Plan for the period 2002 to 2006. We do not consider that the effect of the Structure Plan should be to bring in a moratorium on the grant of planning permissions, particularly when this is a reflection of decisions taken before the Structure Plan has come into effect. We note that the Regional Assembly and the Government Office were concerned that the term “moratorium” was being used but from the tightness of the criteria being drawn up it does seem that interim policies are being devised in a manner that is in effect a moratorium.

4.1.32 Downward revision of the figures in Policy H17 for the period 2002 to 2006, as suggested in the Proposed Changes, does not reflect what has happened and has no relationship to what is needed in Cumbria. It is a change from the Deposit Version of the plan that we do not support.

Panel’s Conclusions

4.1.33 That housebuilding rates have been higher than those set out in RPG13 in the early years of the Joint Structure Plan period is an established fact. However, we have seen no evidence that this is an over-provision in any other sense and we do not consider it should lead to the introduction of such a sharp level of restraint on the grant of planning permissions during the remainder of the first four year period of the plan as to lead to a virtual moratorium. The text and policy of the Deposit Version of the Joint Structure Plan is better fitted to the needs of Cumbria than the revisions introduced in the Proposed Changes and consequently we do not support the Proposed Changes put forward in relation

115 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

to the figures in Policy H17 or to the text of paragraphs 4.2 and 4.4.

c) Are housing allocations appropriate and in particular is the housing allocation to Eden, South Lakeland and Carlisle unduly restrictive?

4.1.34 In comparison with established trends in house building, the allocations for all the District Councils are too tight, including those within South and East Cumbria7. However this is the strategy adopted in RPG13 and reflected in the County wide figure given in Policy UR7. As a result of the coming into effect of relevant provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, RPG13 is now accorded statutory status as the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West for the time being.

4.1.35 The housing allocations are broadly set within the RPG13 parameters and in that sense they are appropriate. However they are intended to provide limits on development in all the Districts and there is no denying that the levels at which development have been set are arguably unduly restrictive.

4.1.36 The consequences of the restrictions are most clearly evidenced in the proposal within the Proposed Changes to the Structure Plan to bring in an approach of applying “locals only” conditions to all new housing development within South and East Cumbria and in the extent to which District Councils have found it necessary to bring in very restrictive interim housing policies, via supplementary planning guidance.

4.1.37 At the Examination, the Panel made clear that we had serious misgivings about the suitability of evolving strategy within the Joint Structure Plan as a response to the actual issues arising within Cumbria. The proposal to extend a “local needs” requirement to ALL new housing in South Lakeland and the Eden Valley is on the face of it an unnecessary and unduly complicated response to the local housing situation. It may be that there is mismatch between supply and demand for housing in this part of the County but this is hardly exceptional and in no sense comparable to the situation within the Lake District National Park which has been held to justify a “locals only” policy on new housing.

4.1.38 The existence of a “locals only” policy within the Park, strongly supported by Friends of the Lake District, would seem to have been a major factor leading to the suggestion that it should be extended outside. However landscape protection considerations limiting the supply of sites for new housing within the Park are very different from those in the parts of South Lakeland and Eden Districts lying outside the Park. The purpose put forward for a “locals only” policy outside the park is a response to constraints on new housing set as part of a housing strategy devised in response to the perceived needs of the Region.8 That the Government Office has responded favourably to the concept could be a result of the particular perception of issues arising at the regional level. It is not one that we share when considering it from a more detached

7 Although mentioned in the question Carlisle did not present itself as a problem and the debate centred wholly on South and East Cumbria 8 This is confirmed on the second page of Appendix 6.3 to EIP Doc 19 in the first paragraph under the heading Local Needs. 116 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

perspective.

4.1.39 This issue is also considered in paragraphs 2.2.54 to 2.2.71 in the context of Issue 2.2 and the Proposed Changes to Policy ST10. We consider that it has not been demonstrated that the policy would be an effective interference in the housing market achieving any positive ends. The most obvious results would seem to be reducing the financial attractions of carrying out new development and, since there would be no evident reason why demand from in-migrants would reduce, there would be an increase in the imbalance between supply and demand pressures within the overall housing stock. As a result, even if the policy had some impact in producing new housing at sub-market levels, the effect on the local housing market overall would be to drive prices up and make housing less rather than more affordable. In relation to Policy H17 we do not support the Proposed Change that would introduce a paragraph referring to a “locals only” condition for all housing in South and East Cumbria.

4.1.40 While it is not for us to comment directly on the suitability of policies coming forward from District Councils as supplementary planning guidance, it is relevant that the policies coming forward are very, very restrictive. For example, Allerdale Borough Council’s Interim Housing Policy (CD171) seeks to limit development, even in a regeneration area and identified key settlements, to affordable housing unless it is within the development limits of a specified sub- set of settlements. Such a policy is not foreshadowed in the Joint Structure Plan but according to the supplementary planning guidance is put forward as “development principles and proposals which are the local spatial expression of national, regional and sub-regional guidance”. If the document is correct in saying that this supplementary planning guidance is a clarification of the Joint Structure Plan at local level, then this is confirmation that the allocation in the Joint Structure Plan is unduly restrictive.

4.1.41 At the same time as standing behind the figures in RPG13, it was acknowledged by the Government Office (and to an extent by the Regional Assembly) that there would seem to be substantial problems resulting from the application of the strategy on housing set by Policy UR7 of RPG13 and in particular potential conflict between that policy and the regeneration objectives of paragraph 3.20. The Government Office representative expressed a willingness to listen to the detailed concerns of District Councils and to examine what can be done to reconcile such conflicts. This acceptance of a need for flexibility was not suggested as an acceptance that RPG13 figures could or should be relaxed.

4.1.42 One matter that was suggested by the Regional Assembly was that it should be accepted that there would be an element of “front loading”. This would be based on the expectation that lower rates at later stages of the plan period would make up for higher rates at the beginning. It would then be possible to reassess the situation on house building requirements within Cumbria in the context of the review of Regional Spatial Strategy. If it were found to be appropriate to raise the figures upward, then the housing figures to be provided at the later part of the plan period could be adjusted back upwards. The Government Office were not prepared to accept that such an approach would be in line with the intentions of RPG13.

117 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

4.1.43 Such responses are welcome but do not appear to go far enough. In particular we are conscious that the review process, while starting next year, will not be rapidly resolved. The timetable put forward on Day 3 was adoption between December 2006 and June 2007 on favourable assumptions.

4.1.44 There is a current need for review of the housing figures for Cumbria as they appear in guidance from the regional level. If this cannot be achieved as a matter of urgency through the production of Regional Spatial Strategy then a separate statement of policy that has the effect of moderating the impact of the figures within Policy UR7 of RPG13 should be made. This is necessary and justified because there is internal conflict between the figures that have been imposed through Policy UR7 of RPG13 and other parts of the RPG, including the broad statements of policy set out in paragraph 3.20 of RPG13.

4.1.45 Another reason for prompting a review is that it is clear to us that the application of the housing figures in RPG13 Policy UR7 through the policies of the Joint Structure Plan are in marked contrast to the direction for policy being sign- posted in the Barker Report. One of the report’s key points is the extent to which increasing the responsiveness of housing supply to rising demand can help to address issues of affordability related to rising house prices. The other side of this lesson is the danger that increasing planning constraints on land supply can add to problems of affordability rather than contributing to resolution of such problems. It seems to us that in applying the Plan, Monitor and Manage approach, one factor that planners should be taking on board is the economist’s view as reflected in the Barker Report.

4.1.46 The Barker Report identifies the need for policies that are based on principles that include making decisions about the scale and distribution of housing numbers that are informed by sub-regional and Local Housing Assessments; with the latter having included analysis of house price growth and affordability, as well as local housing need. The Impact Housing Association Study of selected settlements in West Cumbria and the Lake District National Park begins to indicate what this might mean for the varying needs of different settlements at a local level within Cumbria. At the same time the District Councils are producing supplementary planning guidance that is the local expression of RPG and Joint Structure Plan policies but have no assessment of market implications and bear no comparison with the types of policy response advocated in the Impact Study.

4.1.47 Viewed from a detached perspective (more national than regional), which has been informed by local views, it seems to us that the regional perspective within RPG13 has sought to apply policies with a particular origin inappropriately in a sub-region, that in terms of housing markets, has very little direct connection with the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations or with the Pennine valley settlements.

Panel’s Conclusions

4.1.48 We do not support the Proposed Change that would introduce a paragraph into Policy H17 referring to a “locals only” condition for all housing in South and East Cumbria. Insofar as such a policy is a consequence of the housing allocation

118 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

made in Policy UR7 of RPG13, this is indicative of the severity of the pressing need for review of the housing figures for Cumbria as they appear in guidance from the regional level.

d) Can the zero allocation of ‘unfettered housing’ in the LDNP be justified? Is it consistent with the Plan’s aim of diversifying and strengthening the area’s economy?

4.1.49 There is general support for the continuation of highly restrictive policies on new housing development within the Lake District National Park and no sustained challenge to the view that the limited opportunities suitable for the provision of new housing should be used to meet local needs and particularly for affordable housing for those with strong connections to particular localities within the Park. The National Park Authority has taken a fresh look at policies within the Lake District National Park Local Plan (CD21) which was adopted in 1998. An Interim Policy Statement (CD25) on Housing Development in the National Park which has the status of supplementary planning guidance has been produced and seeks to ensure that newly permitted housing development contributes to meeting the housing needs of the locality.

4.1.50 Policy H17 indicates that the “Annual Average Dwellings” permitted during the Plan period within the Lake District National Park will be “Zero”. The mathematical correctness of this expression in a situation where there are no minus figures and where later text in the policy says that “housing… permitted…. will be regarded as additional to the zero annual requirement” must be open to question. However it is generally understood that what is intended is that there should be no formal housing allocation to the National Park. The terms “Zero Housing Allocation” and “Zero Requirement for Housing” have been used to express this but are misleading and a cause of confusion in a situation where it is acknowledged that there will continue to be some limited occasions on which planning permission will be granted for new residential accommodation within the Park. The inclusion of a series of zeroes for the Lake District National Park within the Table in Policy H17 adds to and is perhaps the origin of this confusion.

4.1.51 The absence of any formal housing allocation to the Lake District National Park within the Structure Plan for Cumbria is not a new feature of this Joint Structure Plan. The adopted Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 1991-2006 (CD27) stated at paragraph 4.8 that:

“To protect the National Parks from the further expansion of housing detrimental to the landscape and to the character of individual settlements, no specific housing allocation is being made. Proposals for housing development will be guided by Policies 42, 43 and 44 and, if permitted, will normally be for local needs only, except in the larger settlements. Any housing built within the Parks should however contribute to the housing allocation of the District in which it is situated”.

4.1.52 The absence of a formal housing allocation to the National Park continues to be a sensible approach for the reasons advanced in the adopted Joint Structure

119 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Plan 2001 - 2016. What has now become controversial is that where housing is permitted it is regarded as contributing to the housing allocation of the District in which it is situated. The fact that this has become controversial is a result of changes in the wider policy context.

4.1.53 The “Zero Housing Allocation” within the Park emerged in the adopted Joint Structure Plan in a strategic planning context where it was expected that different parts of Cumbria would make a contribution to meeting the collective need for land for new housing in the county. Structure Plan housing targets for each District were set and these targets were intended as “floors”, that is levels that should be reached. It was held that the Lake District National Park should not be seen as having to make any contribution but, possibly for purposes of accounting, where new housing was built in the Park it was attributed to the District within which it lay. The contribution of new housing within the Park was seen as helping to meet the levels of new housing being sought in the various Districts that contain land within the National Park boundary.

4.1.54 That position no longer exists. District targets are currently regarded as “ceilings” not to be exceeded and they are experienced as very low ceilings. New housing allowed within the Park is consequently regarded by the District Councils not as contributing to the achievement of challenging housing targets but as further reducing already inadequate housing allocations.

4.1.55 In the situation established by RPG13, the targets that the Joint Structure Plan converts from a county to a district level have taken the form of “ceilings” rather than “floors”. In this situation a “Zero Housing Allocation” within the Park might be interpreted as meaning that the target is that no new housing will be built. This is not the intention as far as the National Park Authority is concerned. The Local Plan for the National Park contains policies relating to meeting needs for local and affordable housing as new build and as conversions of existing buildings. Appendix 6.1 of EIP Doc 18 reveals that completions in the five years to 2002 averaged 148 units per year (which was incidentally higher than the average figure for Barrow Borough Council over the same period) and there is no expectation that the figure will necessarily change substantially. Appendix 6.4 shows 288 units permitted in the two years 2002-3 and 2003-4.

4.1.56 There is nothing in the version of the Joint Structure Plan currently under examination that says that National Park figures should continue to be absorbed into the allocation for the adjoining district. We do not advocate that they should be. Indeed our position is that in a situation where those allocations are “ceilings” rather than “floors” they should not be treated in that way.

4.1.57 The position established in the 1991-2006 Joint Structure Plan whereby housing built within the Park “counted towards” district allocations is clearly no longer sensible nor acceptable to the District Councils. Adjoining local planning authorities cannot be expected to take responsibility for decisions made by a neighbouring but separate local planning authority. That there is controversy over this is a further indication of how tight a set of constraints has been set through the figures in Policy UR7 of RPG13.

120 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Panel’s Conclusions

4.1.58 The meaning of “Zero Housing Allocation” within the Park remains that there is no particular housing target that needs to be met. This should be made explicit within Policy H17 but the inclusion of a zero figure in the table within Policy H17 should be deleted. It should also be made clear that where housing is to be permitted it will be to meet identified needs of the locality in line with Policies ST11 and H20. A consequence of this is that there is an expectation that local occupancy conditions will be a feature of all new housing development within the Lake District National Park.

4.1.59 The practice under the Joint Structure Plan for 1991-2006, whereby housing built in the National Park should be seen as part of the total new housing provided within the District in which it lies, should be discontinued. This is, as we understand it, what is intended in the Joint Structure Plan 2001-16 but it should be made explicit within the policy wording. The National Park should be responsible for its own decisions and as necessary justify exceedances of RPG13 targets by reference to meeting identified housing needs of the locality.

4.1.60 The absence from the Structure Plan of a set figure for housing provision in the Lake District National Park makes it difficult to demonstrate exactly how the overall County figure will relate to the figure prescribed in RPG13. This causes us some concern but we consider that if a sensible and responsible approach is taken all round then there need be no great problem in practice. The broad strategic picture is that new housing in the National Park will be to meet identified housing needs of the locality only and consequently there should be no adverse consequences for RPG13’s objectives for the metropolitan areas further south.

RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1.61 That the following amendments should be made:

a) In the Table, within Policy H17, revert to the figures set down in the Deposit Version of the Joint Structure Plan and also in paragraph 4.2 and 4.4 of the supporting text revert to the Deposit Version; b) In the Text following the figures, insert “sufficiently high to meet the objectives of Policies ST7 to 10 and are broadly” before “compatible with Regional Planning Guidance; c) Delete the penultimate paragraph of Policy H17 relating to South and East Cumbria; d) Delete the reference to the Lake District National Park from the Table in Policy H17 and replace the text “and it will be regarded as additional to the zero annual requirement” with “in line with Policy ST11. No specific level of provision is set within the National Park but any permissions that are granted within the Park will not be counted against District Council targets”.

121 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

122 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

TUESDAY 5 OCTOBER 2004

ISSUE 4.2

THE APPROACH TO PROVIDING HOUSING

Issues addressed:

Affordable housing

a) Are needs based policies appropriate to deliver affordable housing?

b) Are policies on affordable housing consistent with National Guidance?

c) Should the number of dwellings likely to be permitted under Policies H19-22 be estimated and included within Policy H17?

d) Should the terms ‘affordable housing’, ‘social housing’, ‘local persons’ ‘locality’ and ‘community’ be defined in the Plan or left to Local Plans?

123 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 4.2 Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber North West Regional Assembly Mr M Gallagher Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Barrow Borough Council Ms C Savage Mr P Huck Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Copeland Borough Council Mr J Hughes Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Mr T Whittaker Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Ms J Findley Representing Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes Barden Planning Consultants Mr B Barden Broadway Malyan Ms S Wright Representing Countryside Agency Mr D Brockbank Eden Housing Association Mr P Davies Federation of Cumbria Amenity Societies Mr P Colley Friends of the Lake District Mr J Ellerby House Builders’ Federation Ms G Berridge Impact Housing Association Mr M Muir Rural Regeneration Cumbria Mr R Pealing Dr G A Steele Windermere and Bowness Civic Society Major G Plunkett Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Mr P Stockton Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend: North West Development Agency Cumbria Tourist Board Country Land and Business Association Kentmere Parish Meeting Kirkby Stephen Town Council

124 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Introduction

4.2.1 In relation to “Affordable Housing” there are two sets of policies in the Joint Structure Plan. Policies H20, H21 and H22 appear under the general heading “Housing in the Lake District National Park” but relate to various types of affordable housing provision, within the Lake District National Park. Policy H19 is an affordable housing policy for the rest of the County.

4.2.2 The Lake District National Park Authority already operates a set of housing policies that is designed to shelter the local housing market from some of the pressures of external demand. The policies operate in relation to new housing. However, even in relation to new housing, analysis of past decisions indicates that only some 58% of new units permitted between 1998 and 2002 were subject to any form of occupancy condition. In November 2003, an interim policy statement (CD25) introduced tighter local occupancy restrictions in line with the deposit version of the Joint Structure Plan with the aim that new development would meet locally generated needs of the Park’s communities.

4.2.3 Policies H20, H21 and H22 in the Joint Structure Plan are all designed to relate to housing provision in the National Park that meets local needs. There is no attempt to establish how much housing will be provided.

4.2.4 The issue of affordable housing is not a new problem in relation to parts of the County, notably the National Park, but paragraph 4.13 of the Plan states that “in many areas the issue of access to affordable housing is increasingly difficult for many local people”.

4.2.5 The Joint Structure Plan has been drawn up against the background of an unprecedented rise in house prices. This has been a nationwide phenomenon but one that has also had local dimensions. Technical Paper 4 (CD9, produced in 2003) concludes that the greatest change in recent years has been the expansion of a core area of higher property prices covering the central Lake District National Park and running south east to the Yorkshire Dales National Park into adjoining districts.

4.2.6 The Technical Paper records the increase in property prices as having accelerated in 1998 and that they rose at annual rates of 10% up to the end of 2002. Prices rose at an even faster rate during 2003, with signs of a slow down emerging during 2004. A relatively new feature of the property market in recent years has been growth in the private rental sector through purchase of property (including at auction) by private individuals. Apart from material in Impact Housing Association’s “Housing Markets – Preparing for Change” (CD136), we were not provided with much information on this element of the marketplace and of how it interacts with the supply of and demand for affordable housing. It is not an interest group that is currently readily identifiable and was not represented at the EiP.

4.2.7 The discussion at the EiP encompassed the questions listed but went beyond the confines of those questions. Much as we might have liked to, our remit was not to hold a “Commission” into the issue of affordable housing in Cumbria. The

125 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

focus of our concern is on what the plan says and the implications of that for future patterns of development within various parts of the Joint Structure Plan area. We are however concerned that it should not be assumed that issues relating to the affordability of housing can be addressed solely by the inclusion of policies that declare that “Affordable Housing” is to be provided in one form or another. In examining the Plan’s policies for affordable housing we have sought to take heed of the interaction of these policies with wider aspects of local housing markets and with the broad strategic objectives of the Joint Structure Plan. a) Are needs based policies appropriate to deliver affordable housing? b) Are policies on affordable housing consistent with National Guidance?

4.2.8 In paragraph 2.15 of their Response Statement (EIP Doc 19) the Joint Authorities have put forward an additional paragraph relating to needs-led affordable housing in the Lake District National Park. This states that it is intended that all (new) housing is to be restricted by both occupancy and price and that local needs housing will be required to demonstrate a need to be in the locality in the same way that affordable needs must currently be proven.

4.2.9 A ‘tool-kit’ for determining local housing need has been devised by Cumbria Rural Housing Trust (CD163c) and Friends of the Lake District support the use of this parish level approach for assessing the affordable housing needs of a locality.

4.2.10 South Lakeland District Council referred to the level of resources required to achieve parish based local needs assessments. Delivery is an entirely separate issue from identifying need. The pressing problem is not establishing need but securing delivery.

4.2.11 The Joint Authorities agree that the problem is deliverability of affordable housing to meet growing levels of need. Policy H19 is an enabling policy making provision for affordable housing either as an element of large sites or in rural areas as an exception to normal planning policies. In paragraph 2.27 of the Plan reference is made to District Council housing needs surveys, dating from 1999 and 2002 showing a need for at least 50% of all new housing in South and East Cumbria to be within the affordable housing category.

4.2.12 Eden and Impact Housing Associations reported examples of various ways in which they are seeking to meet different elements of affordable housing need. There is concern that even in relation to affordable housing, limitations on housing numbers in RPG13 are handicapping delivery; whether of additional accommodation brought into use through “living above the shop” initiatives or where medium to large scale new development schemes that have a proportion of affordable housing provision are not going forward.

4.2.13 In relation to consistency with national planning policy guidance, the Joint Authorities explained that in the Deposit Version Policy H16 (now H19) was drawn up in line with guidance in the March 2000 version of PPG3 and that they have sought in the Proposed Changes to bring the affordable housing policies into line with developing national policy, as reflected in the September 2003

126 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

consultation draft of a revised PPG3. The Proposed Changes in Policy H19 are also aligned with the Proposed Changes to Policy ST10 which would restrict occupancy of new housing in South and East Cumbria to people with a local connection.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

4.2.14 The term “affordable housing” has come to have a particular meaning within the terminology of town planning. This meaning arises from use of the term in national planning policy guidance, including Circular 6/98 Planning and Affordable Housing and PPG3 (CD52). The term has come to mean housing provided at below market prices either as a component of a housing development or on land in a rural location that would not otherwise be released for development. In both cases there is an element of subsidy involved which is to be passed on to the occupier in one form or another to make the housing more affordable.

4.2.15 At the EiP, discussion of affordable housing in the above sense was often associated with consideration of more general problems of the cost of housing relative to household incomes and of ensuring that new and existing housing would be affordable by local people therefore meeting the needs of the locality in which it is being provided. Paragraph 3.20 of RPG13 states that “housing provision in Cumbria should be based on meeting local needs” and faced with property prices that are significantly out of kilter with local wage rates in South and East Cumbria, the Joint Authorities have introduced through the Proposed Changes policies that seek to restrict occupation of new housing to people with a local connection to the area. The overlap between this issue and affordable housing is intensified by the wording in the Proposed Changes in relation to ST10: “the occupancy of new housing required by Policy H17 will be restricted to people with a local connection to the area with at least 50% serving evidenced need for affordable housing.”

4.2.16 While studies such as that by the Cumbria Rural Housing Trust (CD163) show that individually worthwhile affordable housing schemes are being provided, we fully share the concerns expressed at the EiP over delivery of housing that can be afforded by the people of Cumbria. That there is a problem and that it is regarded as getting more severe is not surprising at a time when property prices have risen at an unprecedented level. This is in part a national problem and one that has prompted a national review, the Barker Report (CD89). One of the objectives of the Barker Report was achieving “improvements in housing affordability in the market sector” and as part of the terms of reference Ms Barker was asked to “Conduct a review of issues underlying the lack of supply and responsiveness of housing in the UK”. Part of our concern is that the overall operation of the policies in the Joint Structure Plan will inhibit provision of new housing and that this will in itself contribute to restrictions on supply that will, at least over the medium and long term, exacerbate problems of affordability. This is a perspective that has influenced our appraisal of all the Plan’s policies for housing.

4.2.17 Looking specifically at the Joint Structure Plan’s policy approach on affordable housing, the most important feature of that approach is that the Lake District

127 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

National Park has been treated separately from the remainder of the County. This is an established feature of planning in the area.

Affordable Housing in the Lake District National Park for Local Needs

4.2.18 Within the National Park environmental constraints are such an important component of planning policy that supply and demand for housing will remain out of balance and there will always be a distorted local housing market. There are policies in the Joint Structure Plan 1991-2006 (CD27) and the current Lake District National Park Local Plan (CD21) that respond to this problem by restricting occupancy of new housing to certain categories. The policy is concerned with the affordability of housing but is not limited to affordable housing in the sense that the term is used in national planning policy. The policy has sought to give priority in the provision of new housing to what are regarded as local needs.

4.2.19 The monitoring report on operation of the National Park Local Plan’s policy on occupancy restrictions (attached to CD25) indicates that constraints on occupation have frequently not been applied and even where they have the definition of local is drawn widely. In the very special circumstances of the Lake District National Park we can support the adoption of policies like those in the Joint Structure Plan, which intend a tighter application of policies restricting access to new housing to certain categories of “local” occupation. The justification for this is that it is a means of mitigating problems of affordability in a situation where supply is constrained for sound, locally based reasons that reflect the national significance of the outstanding landscape and it is considered socially desirable that at least some of the locally generated demand for accommodation is provided with preferential access to local housing. The policies are also designed to ensure that a relatively high proportion of the new housing that is provided is within the more tightly controlled category of affordable housing, including housing provided by an RSL (registered social landlord).

4.2.20 There will always be difficult decisions to be made on how occupancy restrictions are operated but we consider that the policies in the Joint Structure Plan are reasonably expressed and presented at a sufficient level of detail. They can be further refined within Local Development Documents. The policies go wider than the scope of advice in national policy guidance but generically they can be seen as a more extensive version of the “rural exceptions” policy. They reflect and are warranted by the very special circumstances of the Lake District National Park.

4.2.21 Although there is considerable experience of operating these restrictive housing policies within the National Park, it does not appear that there has been very effective monitoring of them. Most monitoring, for example that by the Cumbria Rural Housing Trust (CD163), has focused on the effect of individual schemes on individual settlements rather than the interaction of current policies with the wider housing market. We consider that it is highly desirable that more work should be carried out to monitor the effectiveness of policies when they are applied.

4.2.22 In responding to affordable housing issues within the National Park it is

128 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

important to recognise that deflecting development pressures away from the Park into surrounding areas has been an intentional element of policy. There are more affordable housing opportunities in surrounding areas and employment within the Park may offer job opportunities to residents of such areas. In evaluating the full effect of the National Park’s restrictive housing policies, we consider that it would be valuable to assess the extent to which development pressures have been deflected and the consequences of this, particularly in relation to regeneration objectives in West Cumbria and Furness.

4.2.23 We have looked at the suggestion in paragraph 2.15 of EIP Doc 19 for additional text to come under the heading, “Housing in the Lake District National Park”. We do not consider that the additional text is particularly helpful. It refers to what may be said in the Park Authority’s replacement Local Plan but doesn’t amplify the overall intention of the Joint Structure Plan which we consider is adequately expressed in Structure Plan paragraph 4.16 which says that further amplification is left to Local Development Documents.

4.2.24 One detailed matter, which at the EiP we said that we would comment on, was a point raised by the Windermere and Bowness Civic Society about use of the phrase “housing to meet the identified needs of the locality” in Policy ST11. The phrase appears not only in Policy ST11 which is the sub-area policy for the National Park but also in Policy H20. In the latter case the policy is more detailed and it is clear that the policy is to contribute to meeting needs of the locality that have been identified and that this is for the provision of housing for people with local connections. The way in which Policy H20 will operate is explained in paragraph 4.16 of the Plan where it says that the policy “ensures that all new housing is for occupation by local persons”, with “local” linked to residency or employment in the area. Proposals for housing in the National Park will involve the application of both Policy ST11 and Policy H20 and in these circumstances we do not consider that the Civic Society need be concerned. The point of plan policy taken as a whole is to ensure that where new housing is to be permitted within the National Park it is to be to meet identified needs of local people.

4.2.25 The affordable housing policies for the Lake District National Park build on and take forward existing policies from the 1991-2006 Joint Structure Plan (CD27) and the Lake District National Park Local Plan, 1998 (CD21). These reflect concern about pressures on the provision of affordable housing in this particular area and the effect that has on the housing needs of people who are local to the area. The broad intentions lying behind Policies H20, H21 and H22 were accepted, while the main focus of criticism was about how effective the policies are in achieving what they set out to do. We urge that the operation of the policies should be more closely monitored and an assessment made of indirect effects, such as the diversion of housing demand to areas outside the Park, but we do not propose any changes to the policies as they appear in the Proposed Changes.

Affordable Housing outside the Lake District National Park

4.2 26 The issue of affordable housing outside the Lake District National Park is addressed in one single policy, Policy H19. This is widely drawn and includes affordable housing as an element within a wider development and as

129 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

development solely of affordable housing.

4.2.27 The Deposit Version of the Joint Structure Plan and the Proposed Changes contain two versions of the policy, with the major difference relating to the sites that are to be developed solely as affordable housing. The Deposit Version includes provision of affordable housing on “exception sites” in line with the March 2000 version of PPG3. The Proposed Changes replace this with sites allocated for affordable housing in line with a consultation version of a revision to PPG3 issued in September 2003 and includes a revised version of an “exception sites” policy. We understand the Joint Authorities’ intention is that the policy should follow a standard form that is in line with national planning policy guidance. At the time of writing, the March 2000 version of PPG3 has not been replaced and our view therefore is that the Deposit Version of the policy, referring to “exception sites” should be retained on the basis that it reflects current national policy guidance more accurately.

4.2.28 The policy is ambitious as it states that “proven local need for affordable housing will be met”. It is important that Structure Plan policies should recognise economic realities and, in view of the difficulty of achieving such an ambition and of the delivery issues that were raised at the EiP, we consider that this introductory wording should be moderated.

4.2.29 Where affordable housing is to provide an element within a wider scheme, the policy does not define what proportion of the development should be in the affordable category. We understand that, given the widely varying needs of different parts of Cumbria, the proportion should vary between Districts. We also acknowledge that current advice in paragraph 16 of PPG3 is that decisions about the amount and type of affordable housing to be provided in individual proposals should reflect individual site suitability as well as reflecting local housing need. In these circumstances we can accept that the first part of the policy as worded in the Proposed Changes is in line with national policy guidance.

4.2.30 The policy and supporting text in the Joint Structure Plan should not set out to over-elaborate. What is required is an enabling policy that can be taken forward and made more effective through Local Development Documents. In our view the wording of the Deposit Version of the policy and the text is generally sufficient in this respect. The only element of the Proposed Changes to the policy that we recommend taking forward is the definition of the size of sites to which the first part of the policy will be applied. Even in relation to this, we consider that the second part of the definition in the Proposed Changes has become unduly complicated. In going for a definition based on site area and numbers of units we have reduced the thresholds at which the policy takes effect. This is to reflect the extent of the County’s affordable housing needs, the significance of small and medium sized settlements and the likely scale of individual development proposals coming forward.

4.2.31 We do not support the bulk of the revisions to paragraph 4.14 that appear in the Proposed Changes. The text that appears in paragraphs 4.12 and 4.13 of the Deposit Version is however broadly satisfactory, subject to incorporation of the thresholds that we propose should be included in the policy. However, we agree with the Proposed Changes in relation to deletion of the last two sentences that

130 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

were included in paragraph 4.13 of the Deposit Version.

4.2.32 We support the Joint Structure Plan’s approach of having affordable housing policies for areas inside the Lake District National Park that are different from those applying outside the National Park.

4.2.33 The Park policies go beyond current national policy guidance but in the very special circumstances in which they have been developed we consider this to be warranted. Direct and indirect effects of these policies should be the subject of special monitoring but we propose no change to Policies H20, H21 and H22 as they appear in the Proposed Changes (CD4). It would however be helpful to the reader, if the heading of this part of the plan before paragraph 4.16 were to be altered to “Affordable Housing in the Lake District National Park for Local Needs”.

4.2.34 The policy for affordable housing outside the Park should reflect current national planning guidance. At the present time the policy as it appeared in the Deposit Version of the Plan (CD1), which takes the form of an enabling policy to be carried forward in more detail into Local Development Documents, is more appropriate than that in the Proposed Changes but with a revised introductory sentence and a point one which specifies lower thresholds.

RECOMMENDATIONS

4.2.35 That the Heading above paragraph 4.16 be altered to “Affordable Housing in the Lake District National Park for Local Needs”.

4.2.36 That Policy H19 follow the wording of the Deposit Version (H16) with the first part of the policy modified as follows:

Affordable housing to meet proven local need will be provided through:

1. the provision of an element of affordable housing as part of residential or mixed use development of sites of more than 0.4 hectares or 10 or more dwellings, or 2. the development of affordable housing in rural sites…..

4.2.37 That the text of paragraph 4.14 follow that in paragraphs 4.12 and 4.13 of the Deposit Version with the replacement of the words “on large sites, as defined in national guidance” by “on sites of more than 0.4 hectares or in developments of 10 or more dwellings” in the first sentence of paragraph 4.12 and the deletion of the last two sentences of paragraph 4.13.

c) Should the number of dwellings likely to be permitted under Policies H19- 22 be estimated and included within Policy H17?

4.2.38 The Joint Authorities reported that they are not in a position to prescribe particular numbers of units of affordable housing. Taking account of studies of housing need, including that for South Lakeland District Council (CD156), the

131 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

requirement is that 50% of the Policy H17 allocation to South and East Cumbria should address affordable needs. It was pointed out that the overhang of outstanding planning permissions involves very few that are limited to any category of affordable housing.

4.2.39 The Joint Authorities regard the provision of affordable housing in the Lake District National Park as outside the zero housing requirement for the Park set by Policy H17 and as not counting towards the figures set in Policy H17. Friends of the Lake District support a position, where with all the Park’s new housing within the affordable category, that provision should not be counted towards District Council figures.

4.2.40 The Government Office stated their position that figures in H17 are meant to take account of local needs and that this is inclusive of affordable housing.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

4.2.41 The first question is whether an overall estimate of the numbers of dwellings coming forward as affordable housing during the period of the Joint Structure Plan can be made. Even if it were to be held that this is something that the Joint Structure Plan should set out to do, we accept the Joint Authorities argument that it is not something that they are in a position to prescribe. Policies H19 to H22 are designed to enable affordable housing schemes to come forward and it is not within the scope of those policies to ensure that any particular number of units of accommodation within the affordable housing category is brought forward.

4.2.42 A second question raised is how the figures for affordable housing should relate to the overall housing figures contained in Policy H17. We acknowledge the point made by the Government Office that the housing figures cascaded down from RPG13 are intended to include housing coming forward as affordable housing. This is because the RPG figures do not intend any distinction between affordable housing and market housing and both are meant to contribute to meeting locally generated needs for housing in Cumbria. At the same time we have very great sympathy with those who have pointed out that with the RPG13 housing figures set at a low level and with an overhang of planning permissions there is very little scope for affordable housing provision.

4.2.43 The overhang of planning permissions has two direct consequences. Firstly, relatively few of these extant permissions involve anything other than open market housing and, secondly, there is little scope in the figures for negotiating new developer led schemes containing an element of affordable housing. As a result we see very little prospect of affordable housing coming forward at the level that on the basis of local studies the Joint Authorities have suggested is needed in South and East Cumbria.

4.2.44 Special comment is needed on the relation between affordable housing allowed within the Lake District National Park in line with Policies H20, H21 and H22 and the County’s housing allocation cascaded down from RPG13. We do not see the restraint imposed through RPG13 as seeking to inhibit provision to meet locally arising needs for affordable housing within the Lake District National Park. The absence of any requirement for housing to be provided within the

132 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Park, also, should not operate to restrain the provision of affordable housing where this is warranted in the circumstances of a particular local scheme. To do so would lead to the “perverse consequences” that the Government Office said they would wish to avoid. At the same time we consider that it would be unreasonable to reduce the housing allocations made to Districts because affordable housing has been provided within a part of the Lake District National Park that falls within that District Council area. The pragmatic solution is not to include house building in the Lake District National Park within the figures set in Policy H17. (See also paragraphs 4.1.49 – 4.1.61).

4.2.45 We conclude that affordable housing provided within the Lake District National Park should not count against the allocations made to individual districts in Policy H17. Affordable housing outside the Park permitted in line with Policy H19 should be counted as part of the District figures in Policy H17. No change is necessary to the Joint Structure Plan to give effect to this conclusion.

d) Should the terms ‘affordable housing’, ‘social housing’, ‘local persons’ ‘locality’ and ‘community’ be defined in the Plan or left to Local Plans?

4.2.46 The Joint Authorities have sought to use terminology in a consistent manner. A meeting of interested parties has been held to clarify meanings and agree definitions related to affordable housing and local needs. The RPG definition of affordable housing, included in paragraph 5.12 of EIP Doc 19, is to be added to the glossary. This is intended to be an umbrella term covering a wide range of forms of provision. It is left to Local Development Documents to define need and locality but it is recognised that there should be a strong steer in how it is expected that definition will take place. Additional text to paragraph 2.27 of the Plan is put forward in paragraph 5.12 of EIP Doc 19 in relation to the use of “locality”.

4.2.47 While there was discussion of the plan’s use of terminology and a general recognition that certain terms such as “social housing” are not currently in common usage within a planning context, there was considerable support for the Joint Authorities approach and in particular for the additions put forward in paragraph 5.12 of EIP Doc 19.

4.2.48 Both Friends of the Lake District and Barden Planning Consultants supported the approach taken to the use of “locality”.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

4.2.49 We welcome the seriousness that the Joint Authorities have attached to securing a degree of rigour in the use of terms that feature within the Plan. Where a word is used that has a particular technical meaning this can usefully be included in the glossary – the term affordable housing itself is one such example and we welcome the definition put forward in paragraph 5.12 of EIP Doc 19.

4.2.50 There does remain difficulty in the relationship between affordable housing and what is variously described as housing for locals/local needs/local occupancy.

133 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

We note that the minutes of the Affordable Housing Group (Appendix 6.3 of EiP Doc 19) meeting record that local need, locality and who was local were problematic. It is almost inevitable that there will be difficulty with terms of this nature that have a general everyday sense but are relative and subject to different perceptions. There is no single definition for such terms in all circumstances, but we consider that it would be helpful to include the description of the approach to be taken in relation to “locality” suggested in paragraph 5.12 of EIP Doc 19. However, the addition should not be made to paragraph 2.27 which is concerned only with South and East Cumbria but to the text of paragraph 4.15. The sentence added to the end of paragraph 4.15 in the Proposed Changes, which is rather confusing, would then be unnecessary and could be deleted. There is scope for further refinement of other terminology related to the affordable housing topic but this could take place through an organisation like the Affordable Housing Group and does not have to be incorporated within the Joint Structure Plan.

4.2.51 Policy H21 is somewhat unusual in the context of current terminology in that the policy title contains the term “social housing”. It is evident from the text of the policy that it relates to schemes promoted by a registered social landlord (RSL) and in our view this adequately clarifies the sense in which the term is used.

4.2.52 With the additions that have been proposed, we consider that the Joint Structure Plan goes as far as it should in defining the terms associated with provision of affordable housing.

RECOMMENDATIONS

4.2.53 That the definition of affordable housing in paragraph 5.12 of EIP Doc 19 be added to the glossary

4.2.54 That the approach to be taken to “locality” put forward in paragraph 5.12 of EIP Doc 19 be added to paragraph 4.15 where it should replace the last sentence.

134 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

TUESDAY 5 OCTOBER 2004

ISSUE 4.3

THE APPROACH TO PROVIDING HOUSING

Issue addressed:

Housing Renewal

Does the Plan give sufficient emphasis to the problems of areas with low housing demand?

135 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 4.3 Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber North West Regional Assembly Mr M Gallagher Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Barrow Borough Council Ms C Savage Mr P Huck Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Copeland Borough Council Mr J Hughes Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Mr T Whittaker Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Ms J Findley Representing Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes Barden Planning Consultants Mr B Barden

Broadway Malyan Ms S Wright Representing Countryside Agency Mr D Brockbank Eden Housing Association Mr P Davies Federation of Cumbria Amenity Societies Mr P Colley Friends of the Lake District Mr J Ellerby House Builders’ Federation Ms G Berridge Impact Housing Association Mr M Muir Rural Regeneration Cumbria Mr R Pealing Dr G A Steele Windermere and Bowness Civic Society Major G Plunkett Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Mr P Stockton Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend: North West Development Agency Cumbria Tourist Board Country Land and Business Association Kentmere Parish Meeting Kirkby Stephen Town Council

136 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

HOUSING RENEWAL

Does the Plan give sufficient emphasis to the problems of areas with low housing demand?

4.3.1 Policy H23 is the only policy in the Joint Structure Plan addressed to the existing housing stock. The Joint Authorities see this as a policy that will facilitate action in relation to areas of low demand housing, primarily in Furness and West Cumbria where it is associated with a fragile economy. It is generally supported. It will require detailed interpretation at the local level at which it is to be implemented within a wider regeneration framework.

4.3.2 Impact Housing Association wants further detail in Policy H23 on the relationship between housing renewal and the wider economic regeneration of an area. Until recently housing renewal has been an issue of stock condition but it is going to be about intervention to ensure that housing continues to meet the needs of those local communities with linkages between demolition and new planning approvals to create balanced housing markets. That requires locally based strategies that are informed by an understanding of local housing markets.

4.3.3 Copeland Borough Council are looking for front loading of the Structure Plan housing allocation. They aim to build housing at above average annual rates in the early years of the plan period. Resources that would underpin clearance programmes that would counterbalance the front loading are going to be available post 2009/10. The City of Carlisle have a programme of clearance with rebuilding by a private developer in a low demand area.

4.3.4 In paragraph 2.11 of their Response Statement (EIP Doc 20), the Joint Authorities propose additional text to paragraph 4.20 of the Plan on the links between clearance, better balanced housing markets and regeneration.

4.3.5 Barrow Borough Council consider that Joint Structure Plan policy should indicate that management or release of housing sites should be structured to encourage renewal. The Borough Council is concerned about the potential consequences of land releases in the Ulverston (South Lakeland District Council) part of Furness for renewal in Barrow. They see this as more than a local issue for Local Development Documents.

4.3.6 Friends of the Lake District would like to see policy wording that took a stronger line on the sequential test and the importance of housing renewal.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

4.3.7 Policy H23 is widely drawn and expresses support for a variety of actions in relation to the regeneration of housing. Friends of the Lake District seek to have a firmer line taken in the Joint Structure Plan on a sequential test that looks to refurbishment as the first step in any housing regeneration strategy. Policy H23 does not express priority between refurbishment, renewal and clearance but the supporting text, especially with the Proposed Changes’ addition to paragraph 4.21 is supportive of initiatives to bring property back into

137 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

beneficial use.

4.3.8 There is scope within the terms of the policy for the formulation of strategies for housing regeneration at a local level. This we welcome for as the Impact Housing Association study “Preparing for Change” (CD136) shows it is necessary to have an approach that is grounded on an understanding of local housing markets if there is to be well directed intervention making effective use of limited public sector resources and harnessing positive forces from the private sector. This is a task to be taken forward in Local Development Documents which must reflect the adoption of policies and programmes that take full account of the local situation. We do not consider that the Policy H23 should be any more directive than it is in its current form.

4.3.9 There are stiff challenges in promoting regeneration within Barrow and West Cumbria. Many of these are the result of the area’s relative isolation but it is also evident that numerical limits on housebuilding, cascaded down from RPG13, are beginning to impinge on housing regeneration strategies within West Cumbria by setting up constraints on new housing provision. The topic is covered in Issue 2.2 questions (c) and (d) (see paragraphs 2.2.16 – 2.2.40) above where we express our view that the issue of undue constraints imposed by Policy UR7 of RPG13 should be addressed directly within the context of preparing detailed regeneration strategies.

4.3.10 Various points on the local implementation of housing regeneration strategies are raised by Allerdale, Barrow and Copeland Borough Councils. The matters that they raise need to be addressed at local level as regeneration strategies are developed but as far as the Structure Plan is concerned we consider that there is no need for any change to Policy H23.

138 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

THURSDAY 7 OCTOBER 2004

ISSUE 5

THE APPROACH TO CARING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Issues addressed:

Issue 5.1 Areas of national and international conservation importance

a) Does Policy E34 properly reflect PPS7?

b) Should other criteria be added to the policy?

c) Does the Plan provide adequate protection to the setting of the two National Parks?

Issue 5.2 County Landscapes

a) Is the designation of County Landscapes consistent with national and regional guidance?

b) What benefits do County Landscape designation bring and would these landscapes be adequately protected by relying only on the landscape character approach?

Issue 5.3 Coastal Zone

Is the definition of the coastal zone appropriate?

139 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 5 Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Broadway Malyan Ms S Wright Representing Countryside Agency Ms C Davenport English Nature Mr I Soane Mr P Glading Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment Ms S Hemsley-Rose Friends of the Lake District Mr I O Brodie Sir Martin Holdgate CB National Trust Mr A Hubbard North Pennines AONB Partnership Mr C Woodley-Stewart South Lakeland Friends of the Earth Ms M Sanders Mr R Woolmore

Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend:

North West Development Agency North West Regional Assembly Barrow Borough Council Copeland Borough Council Eden District Council Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery Rural Regeneration Cumbria

140 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

THE APPROACH TO CARING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Issue 5.1 Areas of national and international conservation importance a) Does Policy E34 properly reflect PPS7? b) Should other criteria be added to the policy?

5.1.1 Policy E34 seeks to protect areas and features of national and international conservation importance. In response to concern expressed by English Nature and Friends of the Lake District about the wording of the policy in relation to PPG 9 and relevant regulations, the Joint Authorities together with those two bodies prepared an amended version of Policy E34. This was circulated to participants as EIP Doc 21.1.

5.1.2 Sir Martin Holdgate made the point that regulatory requirements were constantly changing and the content of the Joint Structure Plan needed to reflect that fact. In response the Joint Authorities said that Policy E34 does allow some flexibility in that specific sites can be added or withdrawn from lists prepared under each category heading and boundaries can be amended as they are not shown in the Key Diagram. The Government Office considered that while the revised wording of Policy E34 was rather technical it provided useful signposting to regulations that need to be taken into account when planning decisions are being taken.

5.1.3 The National Trust welcomed the Joint Authorities willingness, set out in their Response Statement (EiP Doc 21) in paragraph 3.11 to include Grade ll Listed Buildings and Grade ll Registered Parks within the list of areas and features of international and national importance in Policy E34.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

5.1.4 The Panel recognise the point made by Sir Martin Holdgate about plans representing a snapshot in time. There is some flexibility built into Policy E34 as the Joint Authorities suggest in that specific sites and features can be added or removed from relevant lists and schedules without having to change policy. We are also aware that the Joint Structure Plan will be regularly monitored and an annual report produced. The Panel consider that this mechanism will be sufficient to deal with the issue of changing regulations and other circumstances.

5.1.5 The Panel welcome the revised wording proposed by the Joint Authorities and the proposed additions to the list of areas and features in Policy E34.

RECOMMENDATION

5.1.6 That Policy E34 be worded as set out in EIP Doc 21.1

141 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

c) Does the Plan provide adequate protection to the setting of the two National Parks?

Additional National Park and AONB designations

5.1.7 The Countryside Agency Further Submission (EiP Doc 10.1) explains that research will shortly be commissioned to consider the area between the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks. The results of this work will help the Agency to decide whether any of this area should go forward for National Park or AONB designation. The area covered by the proposed study extends from just north of Penrith to the southern boundary of the county, and is shown in CD 148. The process is totally independent of and outside the Development Plan making process.

5.1.8 The Countryside Agency reported that its study will be completed by January 2005 and its results considered by the Agency’s Board in March 2005. If the Board decide that designation could be appropriate then it will follow the procedure set down in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The process will include the definition of initial boundaries and public consultation after which the boundary may be amended. Further statutory consultation would follow after which there may be more boundary changes before an order is prepared and put before the responsible Minister. Only after Ministerial consultation could the order be confirmed.

5.1.9 The Joint Authorities added that the Countryside Agency will be forming a “Technical Group” to oversee this process which will include local authority representation.

5.1.10 There is a very long history behind this idea. The Report of the National Parks Committee in July 1947, referred to as the “Hobhouse Report”, (CD 96) recognised that not all the areas regarded as potential candidates could be included within National Parks, and proposed a series of additional “Conservation Areas.” A map accompanying the report identified a potential “Conservation Area” located between the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks, which is now commonly referred to as the “Hobhouse area”. This area falls within the more extensive area being examined by the Countryside Agency.

5.1.11 A number of participants requested that the “Hobhouse area” be included within the scope of Policy E34, possibly as an interim measure, because of the quality of its landscape. The fact that the Countryside Agency initiated process of designation would inevitably require considerable time provided grounds for the use of some interim measures to give greater protection to the area being examined.

5.1.12 Friends of the Lake District were concerned that in the revision to Policy E34 put forward by the Joint Authorities (EIP Doc 21.1) candidate Special Areas of Conservation and potential Special Protection Areas are included within the list of areas to be protected, whereas candidate World Heritage Sites and potential National Park/AONB designations are not.

142 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

5.1.13 Mr Ray Woolmore supported the position taken by Friends of the Lake District and referred to Government circulars that might provide a basis for increased protection being given to the “Hobhouse area”.

5.1.14 The Government Office confirmed that what have been referred to by some participants as “candidate” areas for National Park or AONB designation do not have any status in planning policy.

5.1.15 The Joint Authorities referred to PPG9 paragraph C7 which says that the Government wishes development proposals affecting potential Special Protection Areas or candidate Special Areas of Conservation to be considered in the same way as if they had already been classified or designated. If the area now being examined by the Countryside Agency were to be designated as either National Park or AONB it would automatically be covered by Policy E34.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

5.1.16 The Panel recognise that candidate Special Areas of Conservation and potential Special Protection Areas have a status which qualifies them for inclusion within the scope of Policy E34. We also acknowledge that consideration of World Heritage Site designation does not confer any special status. The list of areas and features set out within Policy E34, as proposed to be amended by EIP Doc 21.1, each have a status which should be recognised and given protection through Policy E34.

5.1.17 We agree with the Joint Authorities that the same cannot be said of the area now being examined by the Countryside Agency as a possible candidate for National Park and/or AONB designation. There is no basis in national planning policy guidance for including reference to this area in Policy E34.

5.1.18 The fact that the “Hobhouse area” has been the subject of earlier reports which recognise it as a high quality landscape and the fact that a further appraisal exercise is being undertaken are material considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications. If the Agency were to decide to proceed towards formal designation then that decision would increase the weight attaching to such considerations.

5.1.19 In addition, a considerable proportion of the Countryside Agency study area, including the whole of the “Hobhouse area”, are identified as Landscapes of County Importance in the Key Diagram and protected by Policy E36.

5.1.20 For the reasons explained above, we agree with the Joint Authorities that it would be inappropriate to include the study or “Hobhouse area” within the scope of Policy E34.

5.1.21 Our conclusion in this matter has however had an important bearing on our consideration of Policy E36 and our conclusions set out in paragraphs 5.2.9 – 5.2.18, which amongst other things pick up the case made by Friends of the Lake District and Sir Martin Holdgate about the need for some “interim” protection.

143 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Settings

5.1.22 RPG13 Policy ER2 refers to the need for the strongest levels of protection for the region’s finest landscapes and their settings, specifically mentioning the Lake District National Park and Cumbria’s AONBs. The Joint Structure Plan refers to settings in Policies ST11, H21 and E34. Policy E34 seeks to protect designated areas, including both National Parks and AONBs from development that would be detrimental to the area itself and its setting.

5.1.23 The North Pennines AONB Partnership consider that Policy E34 provides adequate protection for the AONBs, but argued for the same treatment as the National Park exemplified by Policy ST11.

5.1.24 The Government Office acknowledged RPG13 Policy ER2 but pointed out that there was no national policy regarding the protection of settings. Their preference is to deal with the appropriateness of development by using landscape character analysis and criteria policies.

5.1.25 Allerdale Borough Council pointed out that the setting of World Heritage Sites enjoys protection, and while the definition of areas which formed settings was difficult, the use of a character area approach also had its limitations. Matters such as visual impact need to be specifically assessed.

5.1.26 Sir Martin Holdgate supported the reference to settings in Policy E34 and pointed out that the extent of a setting will depend on the reason for designation. The National Trust said that the use of character areas and tools such as zones of visual influence were important in considering the effect of new development on the settings of designated areas. They provide a better approach than trying to identify the boundaries of settings on a map.

5.1.27 The Joint Authorities said that references to settings within Policy E34 and elsewhere followed through the intentions of RPG13 Policy ER2 and were important for the county as a whole. As regards Hadrian’s Wall the World Heritage Site comprises the wall itself and associated sites, some of which are isolated. A wider area has been defined as “the military zone” but is not actually referred to as a setting. The Joint Authorities intend to include the boundary of the military zone on the Key Diagram and to treat it as the setting of the World Heritage Site for the purpose of Policy E34.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

5.1.28 There was general agreement that because of the diversity of areas and features listed in Policy E34, and because of the difficultly involved in drawing lines which encompass settings particularly in respect of landscape impacts, it would be best to keep to the current approach whereby development within settings is covered within policy but no attempt is made to define the areas they encompass. The Panel agree with this consensus view and support the approach taken in the Joint Structure Plan towards the protection of settings.

5.1.29 The Panel note that the approach taken in relation to the Hadrian’s Wall World

144 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Heritage Site is different in that the defined “Military Zone” encompasses the Wall and all its associated ditches, forts and other features. In this case the area shown on the Key Diagram will include the setting of the Site.

5.1.30 While paragraph 14 of PPS22: Renewable Energy (CD 79) rules out the use of “buffer zones” around designated areas, it recognises that the potential impact on designated areas of renewable energy developments close to their boundaries will be a material consideration in determining planning applications. The Panel do not consider that there is any inconsistency between the references to settings in Policy E34, and elsewhere in the Joint Structure Plan, and PPS22. There is no intention to define settings on a map or diagram in a way that could be construed as establishing buffer zones. In the case of Hadrian’s Wall, as far as the Panel is aware, the “Military Zone” has not been defined in order to be a buffer zone but to encompass features that are associated with the Wall itself.

Issue 5.2 County Landscapes a) Is the designation of County Landscapes consistent with national and regional guidance?

5.2.1 Policy E36 applies to Landscapes of County Importance, which are identified in the Key Diagram. The policy seeks to prevent development which would be detrimental to the distinctive character of these landscapes. Policy E36 carries forward Policy 12 from the Joint Structure Plan 1991-2006 (CD27) with only minor changes. The Landscapes of County Importance shown in the Key Diagram are very similar to the areas shown as “County Landscape” on the Key Diagram of the Joint Structure Plan 1991-2006 and include the majority of the Countryside Agency study area, referred to in paragraph 5.1.7 above.

5.2.2 PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (CD77) sets out national policy on local landscape designations in paragraphs 24 & 25. This advice is similar to the guidance provided in paragraph 4.16 of PPG7 (CD56) which stated that in reviewing their development plans local planning authorities should rigorously consider the function and justification of existing local countryside designations. The Government’s preference is to move away from local designations in favour of criteria based policies in Local Development Documents utilising tools such as landscape character assessment. The Government are concerned that local designations can operate in a rigid manner restricting otherwise acceptable developments which can assist rural areas. PPS7 paragraph 25 allows for the maintenance of local designations “where it can be clearly shown that criteria- based policies cannot provide the necessary protection”.

5.2.3 The Joint Authorities’ Response Statement (EIP Doc 22 – paragraph 2.9) refers to Technical Paper 5 (CD 10) and explains the process followed and the considerations that led to the identification of Landscapes of County Importance. Paragraph 2.19 of the Response Statement says that these landscapes are seen “as intermediate in a hierarchy of landscape policies between those of national importance and the rest of the countryside.” The

145 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

case for retaining Policy E36 and the identification of Landscapes of County Importance in the Key Diagram can be summarised as follows:

• They work well as a development control tool and are well understood; • District Councils lack expertise to make satisfactory routine landscape character assessments; • The areas in question have a high quality landscape and many are equivalent to National Parks/AONB. They should be protected in their own right, and in some cases they provide the settings to designated areas; • They include areas that might come forward for national designation, including the “Hobhouse area”; • Structure Plan Policy has not been applied in an overly restrictive way; • Landscapes of County Importance are needed during this period of transition until Local Development Documents come forward with character based approaches and criteria based policies.

5.2.4 A number of participants supported the retention of Policy E36 and Landscapes of County Importance. Allerdale Borough Council consider them to be an extremely useful tool. Sir Martin Holdgate regards them as an interim measure to protect the study area during the period of the Countryside Agency’s current investigation. The National Trust and the North Pennines AONB Partnership were also supportive.

5.2.5 Friends of the Lake District support the landscape character approach, and consider that Policies E36 & E37 complement one another. Landscape character assessment is a descriptive tool which does not imply quality, whereas Landscapes of County Importance do signify relative importance.

5.2.6 In contrast the Countryside Agency were disappointed that the character area approach had not been used fully in the Joint Structure Plan. The Agency, and the Government Office, said that the change to a character area approach should be put into effect sooner rather than later.

5.2.7 The Government Office said that PPS7 advises against local landscape designations because they can be used in a negative manner. There are also concerns that boundaries of local designations tend to grow. The Government Office agreed, however, that quite a persuasive case had been made by the Joint Authorities for the retention of Landscapes of County Importance.

5.2.8 The Joint Authorities support the landscape character approach, in time local designations could become unnecessary but they are required at the present time as an interim measure. The boundaries of local designations have changed over time but there has been no net increase in areas covered. At present published material on landscape character is descriptive and does not deal with the issue of quality. The Joint Authorities recognise that more guidance on this is required as districts begin to prepare their Local Development Documents.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

5.2.9 In Policy E37, the Joint Structure Plan already reflects the changed emphasis in

146 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Government policy in PPS7 in favour of the landscape character based approach. This policy provides a series of criteria against which the effect of new development will be assessed to ensure that development and land use change are compatible with distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscapes. Character areas have been mapped and described in detail throughout the county, except for the Lake District National Park, in Technical Paper 5 (CD10).

5.2.10 Policy E36 is put forward in addition to Policy E37. It applies to areas that have been selected on the basis that their landscapes have such distinctive character as to be of particular importance to the County. They carry forward established policies for these areas which give them an intermediate status in relation to landscape protection, below national designations but above that existing across the County through Policy E37.

5.2.11 The Joint Structure Plan is being finalised during a transitional period immediately prior to the preparation of Local Development Documents, and at a time when the Countryside Agency has just initiated the evaluation of an extensive area in the south and east of the county to see if it should be put forward for designation as National Park and/or AONB. The Joint Authorities made a coherent and persuasive case for the retention of Policy E36 and the use of County Landscape designations as an interim measure until District Councils have adopted appropriate criteria based policies in their Local Development Documents. This case was supported by a number of participants, although the point was also made that this transition to the approach described in PPS7 should be made as soon as possible. The Joint Authorities acknowledged the need for more guidance to be provided to districts, particularly in the area of landscape quality, to complement the descriptive material that is already in existence.

5.2.12 The Panel consider that a sufficiently strong case has been made for the retention of Landscapes of County Importance in the Joint Structure Plan to meet the requirements of paragraph 25 of PPS7. That paragraph specifically refers to Local Development Documents setting out such a case, we take it to apply equally to the Joint Structure Plan, as it did under PPG7 which referred to review of development plans. There are three principal reasons for our conclusion.

5.2.13 Firstly the quality of the Landscapes of County Importance has been widely acknowledged in national studies going back to the “Dower Report” of 1945 (CD95) and the 1947 “Hobhouse Report” (CD 96). It is only in comparison with the outstanding landscapes of the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales that these are seen as of secondary quality. RPG13 Policy ER2 refers to the importance of conserving and enhancing landscapes which are of regional and sub-regional importance.

5.2.14 Secondly, now that a process which may lead to the inclusion of additional areas within national designations has been initiated it would be inappropriate to reduce the level of protection they have enjoyed over a lengthy period. There is a strong case for maintaining the policy status quo in relation to landscape protection, at least until decisions have been reached on the future of the areas under investigation by the Countryside Agency.

147 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

5.2.15 Thirdly, although a landscape character criteria policy is already included in the Joint Structure Plan, Policy E37. There is as yet little practical experience on how to apply the landscape character approach and it has yet to be developed at local level and incorporated into Local Development Documents prepared by the District Councils. It has been acknowledged that further detailed work needs to be done to assist the districts in this task.

5.2.16 Retention of Policy E36 may only be warranted as an interim measure but at the present time we consider that it has a useful role in identifying selected areas that, although not having National Park or AONB status, do have special landscape qualities that are worthy of recognition through a policy in the Structure Plan.

5.2.17 The Panel consider that some additional text would help to clarify the approach to be taken during what may turn out to be a transitional period. We also endorse the Joint Authorities’ intention to prepare guidance to assist district councils in incorporating the landscape character approach into Local Development Documents.

5.2.18 The case for retaining Landscapes of County Importance as a local landscape designation has been rigorously tested through our examination in public. The Panel consider that a very strong case has been made for the retention of Landscapes of County Importance in the Joint Structure Plan, at least as an interim measure. It relates to the particular circumstances found in Cumbria and is based on a robust and sufficiently formal assessment of the qualities of the County’s landscapes. We have taken full account of the advice in paragraphs 24 and 25 of PPS7 and have come to the conclusion that the special landscape qualities of selected parts of the County are worthy of recognition through a policy in the Structure Plan and the identification of related areas on the key diagram.

RECOMMENDATION

5.2.19 That further text supporting Policies E36 & E37 should be added which includes reference to the Countryside Agency Study, and the intention to issue guidance on preparing landscape policies in Local Development Documents to district councils. In addition it should be explained that the Policies do not represent alternative approaches but will be applied in tandem, in other words the approach to assessing the effects on landscape character set out in Policy E37 will be applied within the Landscapes of County Importance covered by Policy E36 as well as the rest of the county.

b) What benefits do County Landscape designation bring and would these landscapes be adequately protected by relying only on the landscape character approach?

5.2.20 This question was largely dealt with during the discussion on the retention of Policy E36. The EiP discussion under this heading focused on the application

148 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

of Policy E37 and the approach taken within the Lake District National Park.

5.2.21 Policy E37 sets out criteria for considering the effect of development on landscape character areas. Figure 8 lists and shows the boundaries of character areas outside the Lake District National Park. The Joint Authorities confirmed that there was currently no equivalent map for the National Park, although some detailed landscape assessment work has been completed.

5.2.22 The Joint Authorities also explained that the effect of new developments on landscape character in the National Park is currently considered on a site by site basis. The National Park Authority have a short term objective of adopting a character area approach to assessing landscape impact on the same basis as the rest of the county, using the same level of detail. This would help to achieve a greater level of consistency and accountability.

5.2.23 The Government Office was concerned that in this, and other matters, the Lake District National Park Authority was in danger of not fulfilling their obligations under paragraph 21 of PPS7, and requested the Panel to consider inserting landscape character areas into the National Park.

5.2.24 The National Trust, with a responsibility for 25% of the National Park, use landscape character assessment in bringing forward proposals and would wish the same approach to be taken throughout the National Park.

5.2.25 Friends of the Lake District welcomed the commitment of the Lake District National Park Authority to the use of the character area approach, adding that it was necessary in this process to consider broad areas such as whole valleys and extensive areas of woodland or open fell. Both the Countryside Agency and English Nature endorsed the use of character areas in the National Park.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

5.2.26 The Panel were initially surprised that the Joint Structure Plan contains more area specific information to guide the application of Policy E37 outside the National Park (including the AONBs) than it does within the National Park. This seems anomalous, and suggests that there may be a lack of transparency in the way decisions related to landscape impact are made within the National Park. Outside the National Park it would be possible to examine, for example, the consistency of development control decision making with reference to a particular character area, because the boundaries are known. Within the National Park this would not be possible because character areas have not been defined.

5.2.27 The Panel were pleased to learn that the Lake District National Park Authority are taking immediate steps to provide a basis for the application of Policy E37 which is consistent in detail and approach with that currently being taken in the rest of the county. Additional text should be added to the Joint Structure Plan describing these steps and how they will assist in the application of Policy E37.

5.2.28 The material included within Figure 8 is set out in greater detail in other reports, in particular “Cumbria Landscape Classification” (CD16), and Cumbria Landscape Strategy (CD17). The Panel consider that Figure 8 does not add

149 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

value to the Joint Structure Plan, it contains too much detail at too a small a scale to be readily understood. A better approach would be to draw attention to the source documents, explaining their content and how they should be used.

RECOMMENDATION

5.2.29 That Figure 8 and its associated table be removed from the Joint Structure Plan, and a reference to the relevant source documents be inserted in their place. In addition further text should be included describing the steps that will be taken by the Lake District National Park Authority to achieve an approach to landscape character assessment which is consistent across the whole of Cumbria.

Issue 5.3 Coastal Zone a) Is the definition of the coastal zone appropriate?

5.3.1 Policy C41 is concerned with Development on the Coast and is backed up by Figure 9 which shows Developed and Undeveloped Areas of Coast. In paragraph 2.4 of their Response Statement (EIP Doc 23) the Joint Authorities have acknowledged that some errors are made in the Deposit Version of Figure 9. The coastline of Walney Island is erroneously shown in full as developed coast and an area of developed coast at Whitehaven has been missed out. The National Trust expressed concern that the area around Whitehaven should be drawn tightly, particularly in the direction of St Bees Head.

5.3.2 In addition the Proposed Changes version of Figure 9 shows an “immediate coastal zone” and a “coastal landscape zone”. The basis for identification has been Countryside Character Areas defined by the former Countryside Commission with boundaries modified to take in the whole of coastal parishes.

5.3.3 The definition adopted is a number of years old and the extent of the areas shown as “coastal landscape” is a cause of concern to the City of Carlisle. The Joint Authorities consider that the definition used is appropriate at a broad strategic level but could be refined. Allerdale Borough Council also considers that there are anomalies in the way that the boundary has been defined. Friends of the Lake District are concerned that the right boundaries should be adopted and that other related initiatives, such as RPG13’s proposal for a North West Coast Regional Park (including the Cumbrian and Furness Coastal Beacons), should be integrated with Policy C41.

5.3.4 The National Park is shown as “undeveloped coast” on Figure 9 but there has been no attempt to show either an “immediate coastal zone” or a “coastal landscape zone” within the area that is National Park. Paragraph 7.2 of the Joint Structure Plan records that within the Park coastal management issues are covered by the Lake District National Park’s Management Plan. The Government Office regards the exclusion of the National Park from the scope of this policy as an anomaly.

150 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

5.3.5 English Nature are concerned that while the policy makes specific reference to landscape protection there is inadequate recognition of nature conservation.

5.3.6 The Government Office referred to paragraph 6.4 of RPG13 which sets coastal zone policies within the context of emerging European Community policy on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. This is an attempt to look at physical and human issues within the coastal zone in an integrated and comprehensive way. This will include the interaction of on-shore and off-shore developments. No Directive has yet emerged. The Joint Structure Plan policy sets a context for further policy to come forward.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

5.3.7 We have taken a dual perspective on the issue of whether the definition of the coastal zone is appropriate: firstly, a narrow view as to whether the coastal policy within the Proposed Changes to the Joint Structure Plan has followed the remit set by Policy CZ1 of RPG13; and secondly, a broader view as to whether the Joint Structure Plan takes a sufficiently strategic view on coastal issues and adequately sets the coastal dimension into the overall planning context. The broader view is related to the concept of Integrated Coastal Zone Management which is referred to in paragraph 6.4 of Chapter 6 of RPG13 (CD100) and identified as emerging European Community policy to which local planning authorities should have regard.

5.3.8 RPG13’s Policy CZ1 requires development plan authorities to define “developed” and “undeveloped” coast with the definition based initially on Countryside Character Areas. The Proposed Changes to Chapter 7 of the Joint Structure Plan have done this by extending the scope of Figure 9; in addition to areas of developed and undeveloped coast, it now shows an “Immediate Coastal Zone” and a “Coastal Landscape Zone”.

5.3.9 In principle such designations which are intended to have a different effect over different geographical areas should be shown on the Key Diagram rather than on a figure in the text. However we recognise that these relatively detailed designations could distract from the Key Diagram’s main strategic purposes. In these circumstances we do not object to the material being represented on Figure 9. However it is important that the link to the figure should be clearly expressed in the policy, as it was in the Deposit Version.

5.3.10 We therefore consider that Policy C41 should be amended to make specific reference to Figure 9 and to the fact that it identifies not only developed and undeveloped coast but also the “Immediate Coastal Zone” and “Coastal Landscape Zone”. Thus amended Policy C41 would then satisfactorily carry through the stated intention of RPG Policy CZ1 and adequately achieve the narrow objective for a coastal zone policy set by that RPG policy.

5.3.11 We have not examined the boundaries of the various areas shown in Figure 9 in very great detail. The figure has made use of definitions from landscape character appraisal. We do not criticise this as it is the approach adopted in RPG Policy CZ1.

5.3.12 However, in relation to the broad concept of Integrated Coastal Zone

151 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Management, the landscape focus of Policy C41 is disappointing. Given the significance of the Joint Structure Plan’s regeneration objectives in relation to the extensive coastal areas of Furness and West Cumbria and also the proposal for a North West Coast Regional Park, we consider that concentrating on landscape aspects of coastal policy is something of a missed opportunity. There was an opportunity to bring the policy right up to date in line with the principles that underlie Integrated Coastal Zone Management 9.

5.3.13 The opportunity has not been taken to bring coastal policies into the framework of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in this plan but it remains as something that could be done at a local level in Local Development Documents. Our view is that this is the most appropriate way forward in relation to the development of policies for the coastal parts of Cumbria.

5.3.14 At the same time as the opportunity is taken in Local Development Documents to broaden the outlook of coastal policy, we consider that the geographical coverage of the various areas shown in Figure 9 should be re-examined and refined. The areas shown in Figure 9 should be taken only as broad indications of the “coastal zone” not as precise delineations of it. The boundaries of developed and undeveloped coast should be identified at a more refined level.

5.3.15 While we are saying that not too much should be read into the detailed boundaries shown on Figure 9, there are some detailed points about it that call for comment. The changes proposed in paragraph 2.4 of EIP Doc 23 should be made but without impinging on the Heritage Coast at St Bees Head. The omission of any coastal zone designation within the Lake District National Park is strange and inconsistent with the intentions behind Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

5.3.16 Viewed from a narrow perspective, the amended version of Policy C41 that we put forward together with detailed changes to Figure 9, is an adequate reflection of Policy CZ1 of RPG13. However, the broader picture that integrates policies and proposals across the coastal zone has not been taken forward and should become a task for Local Development Documents.

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3.17 That the following sentence be incorporated at the beginning of Policy C41:

“Developed and Undeveloped Coast are shown on Figure 9 which also provides an indication of the Immediate Coastal Zone and the wider Coastal Landscape Zone.”

9 These are: taking a long view, adopting a holistic approach, using adaptive management, working with natural processes, supporting and involving of all relevant administrative bodies, using a combination of instruments, facilitating participatory planning and reflecting local characteristics. Source: Draft Revised RPG12, June 2003. 152 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

5.3.18 That Figure 9’s identification of Developed and Undeveloped Coast be amended in line with paragraph 2.4 of EIP Doc 23 and an indication of the Immediate Coastal Zone and of the Coastal Landscape Zone within the Lake District National Park be included on Figure 9.

5.3.19 That supporting text be included referring to the principles underlying Integrated Coastal Zone Management which are to be taken forward in Local Development Documents.

153 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

154 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

REPORT OF THE PANEL

FRIDAY 8 OCTOBER 2004

ISSUE 6

THE APPROACH TO RENEWABLE ENERGY

Issues addressed:

a) Should the Plan include, within policy, a target for the development of renewable energy in Cumbria based on the forthcoming partial review of RPG13 and if so what should it be?

b) Is the Plans approach to renewable energy compatible with draft PPS 22? Would the identification of ‘broad areas of search’ assist in planning for renewable energy in Cumbria?

c) The Plan specifies that a single wind turbine over a specified size will be treated as a major development within the National Park. Does this provide adequate protection? Does this go beyond national guidance?

d) Are the criteria set out in Policies R44 and R45 adequately defined, are they appropriate and are additional criteria required, including the need to safeguard the tourist economy?

155 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Participants invited to Issue 6: Participants attending: Government Office North West Mr C Bamber North West Regional Assembly Mr A Brunt Allerdale Borough Council Mr R Evans Carlisle City Council Mr C Hardman Eden District Council Mr R Hopcraft South Lakeland District Council Ms E Jackson Bond Pearce Mr G Wrigglesworth Representing Npower Renewables Council for National Parks Miss R Chambers Cumbria Tourist Board Mr R Greenwood English Heritage Ms J Nelson Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery Dr M Hall Kirkby Londsdale and District Civic Society

Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment Ms S Hemsley-Rose Friends of the Lake District Mr J Ellerby Sir Martin Holdgate CB National Trust Mr A Hubbard Orton Parish Council Mr K Blue Project CLAREN Ms E Bruce West Coast Energy Ltd Mr S Molloy West Cumbria and North Lakes Friends of the Earth Ms J Perry Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Mr P Stockton

Invitation to Participate issued to the following but who were unable to attend or declined to attend: North West Development Agency Barrow Borough Council Copeland Borough Council Baywind Energy Cooperative Ltd E.ON UK Renewables Rural Regeneration Cumbria

156 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

THE APPROACH TO RENEWABLE ENERGY a) Should the Plan include, within policy, a target for the development of renewable energy in Cumbria based on the forthcoming partial review of RPG13, and if so what should it be?

Introduction: Work on renewable energy currently being led by the North West Regional Assembly

6.1 The North West Regional Assembly outlined three strands of current work: firstly the Partial Review of RPG13, which includes new policies and supporting material on sustainable energy, efficiency and renewables, is being considered at a public examination in November 2004. Secondly a Sustainable Energy Strategy being prepared for the North West which will provide guidance, case studies and examples of good practice would be issued for consultation during October 2004 and then finalised for publication early in 2005. This Strategy will include reference to energy efficiency, demand minimisation, combined heat and power as well as sustainable and renewable energy generation.

6.2 Thirdly, the report on advancing renewable energy in the North West “From Power to Prosperity,” (CD115) is being revised and will develop scenarios and targets extending to 2020. This is a technical study which will feed into the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategy, during 2005. It will not fundamentally review targets for renewable energy up to 2010, but will provide sub-regional targets to 2020 as required by PPS22. The revised report will look at the wider renewable energy issues identified in PPS22, including environmental, economic and social impacts, and the capacity of the environment for further renewable energy projects.

A renewable energy target for Cumbria

6.3 The Partial Review of RPG13 Policy ER15 proposes that by 2010 a minimum target of 8.5% of electricity supplied in the North West should come from renewable sources. Table 8.4 requires between 284 to 467MW of such capacity in Cumbria by 2010, of which 41MW is currently available. The figures for Cumbria contained in Table 8.4 were derived from the Joint Authorities Technical Paper 6, “Planning for Renewable Energy Development in Cumbria” (CD11) which incorporates the Axis Report “Renewable Energy Development – Identifying the Potential”.

6.4 The Joint Authorities are opposed to the use of a renewable energy target in the Joint Structure Plan. They have objected to the sub-regional figures included within RPG13 Partial Review Table 8.4 because they consider them to be inconsistent, with Cumbria having a disproportionately high share of the regional target. The level of detailed work undertaken in the Axis Report has not been replicated elsewhere in the region. The Joint Authorities are concerned that the use of binding targets in the Joint Structure Plan and their future upward revision as envisaged in PPS22 could damage Cumbria’s environment. They consider that targets should be set at the regional level only, and should be indicative rather than binding.

157 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

6.5 The Joint Authorities explained that the Axis Report was prepared in two stages the first included mapping factors relevant to the deployment of renewable technologies; the second refined that information and identified broad areas for development. This work made use of Cumbria’s Supplementary Guidance for Wind Energy (CD28). Assumptions were made about landscape capacity and effects of development on the settings of designated areas. The work was not site specific but the level of detail was appropriate for a county structure plan. The Axis Report has not been the subject of consultation with local communities.

6.6 Sir Martin Holdgate supported the use of national and regional targets but was sceptical about county targets without more detailed analysis of opportunities and options. He pointed out that renewable technologies are evolving and have differing environmental effects. Up to 2010 he accepted that wind power would be the most significant renewable technology available for use in Cumbria.

6.7 Friends of the Earth wish to see a minimum, challenging target for renewable energy in the Joint Structure Plan.

6.8 NPower Renewables said that targets should not be indicative but binding as required by PPS22 and emerging RPG13 Policy ER15. PPS22 also recognises that there should be some scope for renewable energy developments in designated areas. West Coast Energy and NPower Renewables said that if targets are restricted to national and regional level there will be no sense of local ownership and responsibility for their delivery, it will be assumed that it is someone else’s problem.

6.9 Friends of the Lake District criticised the Axis Report as lacking the proper criteria in considering the scope for development within Landscapes of County Importance, and in the settings of designated areas.

6.10 The Council for National Parks said that PPS22 does not require sub-regional targets, relevant studies are being completed, and RPG13 Partial Review would be considered at the Public Examination in November making it premature to include a target in the Joint Structure Plan. The Council would not support any target that did not take full account of the special qualities of the Cumbrian landscape.

6.11 Orton Parish Council said that more information was required about the development implications of the targets in RPG13 Partial Review.

6.12 The Government Office pointed out that if Regional Spatial Strategy chooses to disaggregate targets to sub-regions then Cumbria will have a development plan target. The figure for Cumbria is an expression of potential which needs refining. Local targets are needed to achieve national objectives.

6.13 The North West Regional Assembly are sufficiently satisfied with the methodology and content of the Axis Report to include its figures in RPG13 Partial Review. Ongoing changes in technology mean that targets specific to technologies are not appropriate. Targets are an important delivery mechanism. The Regional Assembly recognised that the figures for sub- regions were derived from differing studies, but in Cumbria’s case the source

158 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

was derived from the county itself. Although the targets in the Partial Review are still subject to Public Examination they are already a material consideration. PPS22 requires that targets be revised upwards and their achievement will be monitored.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

6.14 PPS22 paragraphs 2 and 3 make it clear that regional targets are an essential part of the Government’s approach to the delivery of renewable energy. The development of renewable energy can be a locally contentious issue and this is precisely why targets are important. In such circumstances a target focuses attention on making the most appropriate planning decision rather than assuming that national aspirations for renewable energy will be satisfied by some other means whether that be offshore, in a neighbouring county, or by a different technology.

6.15 Industry participants confirmed that the use of sub-regional targets is one way of promoting and encouraging the development of renewable energy, as required by the second PPS22 Key Principle. The fact that the North West Regional Assembly see the use of sub-regional targets as an integral part of RSS in the period up to 2020 is also significant.

6.16 The Joint Structure Plan does not contain a target figure for renewable energy development and the Joint Authorities made it clear that they were opposed to the sub-regional target in Table 8.4 of RPG13 Partial Review. The Joint Authorities presented two arguments against sub-regional targets. The first concerned consistency and it does appear that the detailed work undertaken in Cumbria has led, at least in part, to a target which is significantly higher than other sub-regions. It would be preferable to have sub-regional targets prepared on a manifestly more consistent basis, and it is possible that some of the work now being undertaken by the North West Regional Assembly will help achieve that outcome; at least as far as the 2020 targets are concerned. PPS22 says that targets should be derived from assessments of potential which take into account environmental, economic and social impacts, and that reviews of targets should be subject to the capacity of the environment for further developments. The principle is that the capacity for development within a given region should be established with reference to circumstances within the region, and not by making comparisons with other areas.

6.17 The Panel consider that the same principle applies to sub-regions. The real issue is not how Cumbria compares with other sub-regions but what is Cumbria’s capacity for renewable energy development given the relevant environmental, social and economic factors that apply within the county. The Panel do not accept the validity of the Joint Authorities’ argument against a sub- regional target based on the issue of consistency across the region as a whole.

6.18 The Joint Authorities’ second argument against sub-regional targets is based on concern that an upward revision of a sub-regional target could put the county’s environment at risk. The Panel do not accept this conclusion. PPS22 says that targets are not ceilings and that once achieved they should be revised upwards, but the revision process, as stated above, should be subject to the capacity of the environment to accept more development. This safeguard, together with

159 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

the policies in the Joint Structure Plan which protect the environment, should be sufficient to allay the Joint Authorities’ fears.

6.19 The Panel note that while the Axis Report was criticised by some participants for not taking enough account of environmental factors the Joint Authorities defended its validity and considered that it provided an appropriate level of detail for the purposes of strategic planning. The Axis Report continues to act as a document which supports the Joint Structure Plan. 6.20 If a renewable energy target is included within the Joint Structure Plan then in the light of PPS22 it should be expressed in a single figure expressed in MW installed capacity, or percentage of electricity consumed or supplied; it should also reflect the requirement in Key Principle (ii) to promote and encourage the development of renewable energy resources.

6.21 The Partial Review of RPG13 Policy ER15 says that “Development plans should also include provisions to ensure that the regional and sub-regional targets set out in Table 8.4 for renewable electricity generation capacity are achieved as a minimum.” The Panel consider that the achievement of this requirement will be greatly assisted by the inclusion of a target figure within the Joint Structure Plan. We also consider that the final version of Policy ER15 and Table 8.4 will be more than a “material consideration”, as suggested by the North West Regional Assembly, it will be the determining factor, and as the Government Office pointed out it will become part of the statutory development plan for Cumbria. In other words the issue of a renewable energy target for Cumbria will be determined in the context of the Public Examination of the RPG13 Partial Review and in the subsequent consideration of the Review’s Panel Report.

6.22 Given the likely timescales for the completion of the RPG13 Partial Review Panel Report, and the stages leading up to the adoption of the Joint Structure Plan we would wish the outcome of the Partial Review to be reflected in the Joint Structure Plan

RECOMMENDATION

6.23 That the renewable energy targets for Cumbria established by the Partial Review of RPG 13 Policy ER15 should be included in the Joint Structure Plan.

b) Is the Plan’s approach to renewable energy compatible with draft PPS22? Would the identification of “broad areas of search” assist in planning for renewable energy in Cumbria?

6.24 The Deposit Version of the Joint Structure Plan contained a policy introducing areas of search for grid connected renewable energy which were then identified in a series of technology specific diagrams. The Proposed Changes version of the Joint Structure Plan (CD4) abandoned this approach in favour of two criteria based policies. The Joint Authorities confirmed that these changes were made in response to the consultation draft of PPS22 which advised in favour of criteria based policies and against making technical and economic assumptions about

160 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

the viability of renewable energy projects. In addition the areas of search approach did not provide the desired degree of certainty as policy criteria still needed to be applied to proposals both within and outside the areas identified.

6.25 The Joint Authorities are intending to revise and reissue the statement of supplementary planning guidance Wind Energy Development in Cumbria (CD28) because of the current level of interest in this form of development. The revised guidance will be based on landscape character areas and provide an indication of the scale of development that would be acceptable in different areas. The guidance will provide a degree of spatial guidance. This work could be completed prior to the intended date for adoption of the Joint Structure Plan.

6.26 Allerdale Borough Council expressed some regret at the deletion of the indicative maps from the Joint Structure Plan, and considered them useful in the development control process. To engage local communities in a debate on renewable energy reasonably specific areas for development need to be identified.

6.27 Sir Martin Holdgate preferred there to be criteria which can be used to weigh the merits of a proposal rather than maps which may indicate a degree of certainty which is by no means guaranteed.

6.28 West Coast Energy supported the removal of areas of search which they consider add no value to the planning process. The industry is best placed to identify sites using its own criteria. NPower Renewables would be concerned if areas of search were to be defined through supplementary planning guidance. The industry will identify the sites considered suitable using its own criteria. The guidance needs to be developed jointly by the industry, local communities and the planning authorities.

6.29 Eden District Council are also against the use of areas of search, which can alarm local communities. Kirkby Lonsdale and District Civic Society and Orton Parish Council had previously been concerned about the effect of the areas of search and welcomed their removal and replacement by criteria.

6.30 The Council for National Parks welcomed the use of criteria based policies and the revision of supplementary planning guidance on Wind Energy Development in Cumbria.

6.31 The Government Office see scope for the identification of broad areas for the development of particular types of renewable energy, as envisaged in PPS22 paragraph 7, after which criteria based policies can guide local decision making.

6.32 The North West Regional Assembly while fully supporting the use of criteria based policies feel that it would also be appropriate to indicate broad areas of resource potential and general suitability. These areas could provide a positive steer while not excluding development in other areas. The RPG13 Partial Review does not identify areas for renewable energy in its Key Diagram, such areas could emerge from more locally based studies. The Regional Assembly consider supplementary planning guidance to be relatively easy to update and change, and would wish it to cover other technologies in addition to wind power.

161 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

6.33 The Panel agree that the Proposed Changes to the Joint Structure Plan including the use of criteria based policies bring the approach to renewable energy more into line with PPS22.

6.34 The Panel sought to establish whether the identification of “broad areas at the regional/sub-regional level where development of particular types of renewable energy may be considered appropriate” (paragraph 7 of PPS22) was relevant to the Joint Structure Plan. There was no support for this approach at the sub- regional/county level, and no immediate intention to adopt it at the regional level.

6.35 Wind Energy Development for Cumbria (CD28) is a statement of supplementary planning guidance produced in 1997. Developers and planning authorities are familiar with its approach and the proposal to update and reissue it was generally well received. We note the Joint Authorities’ intention that the revised guidance be related to landscape character areas.

6.36 While the Panel shares some of the misgivings expressed by the North West Regional Assembly about the lack of spatial guidance for renewable energy development in the Joint Structure Plan, we consider that review of the existing guidance, a tried and tested product, is the best way of providing an appropriate degree of steer to the wind development industry.

6.37 Given the increasing degree of commercial interest in renewable energy, particularly wind development, the Panel strongly encourage the Joint Authorities to complete the necessary review of supplementary planning guidance in consultation with the industry, district councils, local groups and other interested bodies as a matter of urgency. We endorse the suggestion that the new supplementary planning guidance should be completed no later than the end of 2005 to coincide with the likely timescale for the adoption of the Joint Structure Plan. We also agree with the North West Regional Assembly that reference to the supplementary planning guidance review process should be included within the Joint Structure Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

6.38 That revised supplementary planning guidance for Wind Energy Development should be prepared as a matter of urgency to be completed no later than the end of 2005 to coincide with the likely time of the Joint Structure Plan’s adoption.

6.39 That additional text should be included within the renewable energy section of the Joint Structure Plan describing the content of the revised supplementary planning guidance.

162 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

c) The Plan specifies that a single wind turbine over a specified size will be treated as a major development within the National Park (and AONBs). Does this provide adequate protection? Does this go beyond national guidance?

6.40 Policy R45 deals with renewable energy developments in the Lake District National Park and the AONBs. It specifies that the development of more than one wind turbine with a hub height of 25 metres or more will be treated as major development under Policy ST4.

6.41 The Joint Authorities recognise that PPS22 does not rule out renewable energy development within designated areas, but requires that the scale of projects that may be acceptable should be defined. Wind energy has the potential for significant visual impact and for that reason a threshold, derived from the Lake District National Park Local Plan (CD21), has been specified. There are other renewables such as hydro and biomass that have less landscape impact and may be easier to accommodate in the National Park.

6.42 Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment said that they would like to see a statement excluding major wind developments from the National Park.

6.43 The Council for National Parks and Friends of the Lake District support the approach taken by Policy R45 and the specific threshold defining when wind developments are considered to be major development. They pointed out that a variety of often innovative projects below that threshold have been successfully brought forward in other National Parks. Project CLAREN said that there was considerable interest in the development of small scale renewables within the National Park, for example within school sites and by community groups. The scale of such developments would fall below the threshold set out in Policy R45.

6.44 West Coast Energy would prefer each development to be considered on its merits and were against the use of a threshold.

6.45 Friends of the Earth considered the threshold in Policy E45 to be too restrictive, some parts of the National Park could accommodate larger turbines and more than one of them.

6.46 The North West Regional Assembly support Policy R45 except for the turbine threshold, which they regard as unnecessary and arbitrary. The Assembly agree with Friends of the Earth and Project CLAREN that larger wind projects may be appropriate in some parts of the National Park and AONBs and should be considered against policy criteria.

6.47 The National Trust were comfortable with the threshold and pointed out that larger schemes were not precluded but could be brought forward for testing under Policy ST4.

6.48 English Heritage were concerned about the scope of Policy R45, which covers the Lake District National Park and the AONBs, but does not refer to the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site. Parts of the Site are also within an AONB,

163 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

and the Site is specifically referred to in Policy E34. If a policy covering the impact of renewable energy projects was needed for national designations then English Heritage wish the World Heritage Site as an international designation to be given equivalent treatment.

6.49 In response to the points made by English Heritage the Joint Authorities said that National Parks and AONBs had been put together in Policy R45 because they have the same level of landscape protection. The World Heritage Site as a feature of international conservation importance is properly covered by Policy E34, and does not need to be referred to in Policy R45.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

6.50 PPS22 paragraph 12 requires a clear description of the scale of development that will be acceptable within designated areas. Although the Panel had initial doubts about the threshold for wind turbine development set out in Policy R45 we were persuaded by the EiP discussion that it should remain in the policy.

6.51 While the Panel support the inclusion of a specific wind turbine threshold in Policy R45 we do not consider that a single turbine of 25m hub height or two smaller turbines could be considered a “major development” within the terms of Policy ST4. This matter was discussed in the context of Issue 1 (paragraphs 1.66 – 1.74) and is covered in paragraph 4.13 of the Joint Authorities’ Response Statement for Issue 6, (EIP Doc 24). That paragraph concludes to the effect that wind energy development of modest scale would have a significant impact within the National Park and AONBs. In other words a modest wind development in a designated area would result in a disproportionate scale of landscape impact. The Panel appreciate the point that the Joint Authorities are making but we remain concerned that treating a self evidently small or modest scale wind proposal as a “major development” in terms of Policy ST4 is not appropriate. In a context which is meant to be broadly supportive of renewable energy generation, the Panel consider that the first three tests in Section 4 of Policy ST4 would be inappropriate. The approach is confusing and would work against the proper operation of Policy ST4.

6.52 The last paragraph of Policy R45 also has the potential to widen the application of Policy ST4 considerably. As well as wind developments over the specified threshold other proposals that do not fulfil the two criteria in the policy could also go forward for consideration as “major development” under Policy ST4. Again this could result in relatively modest renewable energy projects being considered under a policy which is designed to deal with genuinely major proposals.

6.53 As well as concluding that this approach is confusing the Panel also consider it to be unnecessary. The two criteria in Policy R45 provide an adequate basis for preventing development of inappropriate renewable energy projects in the National Park.

6.54 The Panel agree with the Joint Authorities that Policy E34 provides adequate protection to the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage site and no further reference to the Site is required in Policy R45.

164 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

RECOMMENDATION

6.55 That the final paragraph of Policy R45 be amended as follows:

1) the first sentence to be deleted;

2) the second sentence to be amended to read:

“In the case of wind energy the development of more than one turbine or of a turbine with a ground to hub height of 25 metres or more is unlikely to be acceptable”.

d) Are the criteria set out in Policies R44 and R45 adequately defined, are they appropriate and are additional criteria required, including the need to safeguard the tourist economy?

Sufficiently promotional and encouraging?

6.56 Friends of the Earth consider Policies R44 & 45 to be insufficiently supportive of renewable energy. There is no reference to climate change, the reasons for developing renewables, or their economic, social and environmental benefits.

6.57 NPower Renewables would prefer the words “encourage and support” to be introduced into policy. They were concerned that Policy R44 required compliance with all its criteria with insufficient scope for balancing benefits and impacts. The policy could be read as operating sequentially with some projects failing early in the assessment process. Defining significant adverse effects could be difficult.

6.58 Sir Martin Holdgate thought the policies were sufficiently promotional, and suggested that the criteria be split between those that deal with substance and other that were concerned more with process. The Council for National Parks and Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment thought the policies were sufficiently promotional.

6.59 The North West Regional Assembly suggested a stronger link between policy and the achievement of targets for renewable energy. They were also concerned that the policy criteria should not be read sequentially and that benefits were taken into account.

6.60 The Joint Authorities confirmed that Policy R44 requires development to comply with all its requirements. Criterion two refers to significant adverse effects and criterion three allows for mitigating measures to be brought forward. Criterion four does allow a view to be taken on the balance of advantage and impact, and the energy contribution of a project would be counted as a positive feature.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

6.61 Policies R44 and R45 are essentially covering the same ground in respect of areas outside and inside the National Park and AONBs. Of the two policies

165 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

R45 is written in rather more positive terms, projects will be “favourably considered” if criteria requirements are satisfied. Policy R44 says that proposals will be permitted if they satisfy all the listed criteria. The differences in wording are quite minor but Policy R44 has given rise to some confusion as to whether the criteria run sequentially and how benefits and impacts can be weighed against each other. Using the R45 wording and approach in Policy R44 could help convey a more positive, enabling approach.

6.62 The Panel agree with the comments made by Friends of the Earth that more should be included in the text about the purposes of developing renewable energy. The forthcoming ODPM PPS22 Companion Guide may be a useful source document in this respect.

6.63 The Panel also agree with the North West Regional Assembly that a link should be made between policy and making a positive contribution to the achievement of targets.

6.64 Climate change is considered in relation to Issue 1 where the Panel recommend inclusion of additional text in the Joint Structure Plan (paragraph 1.9).

RECOMMENDATIONS

6.65 That the first paragraph of Policy R44 be deleted and replaced as follows:

“Outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs proposals for renewable energy including any ancillary infrastructure and buildings will be favourably considered if:”

6.66 That additional supporting text should be included to explain the importance of renewable energy as one measure that is relevant to the issue of climate change, and to state that Policies R44 and R45 should be applied in order to achieve, and if possible exceed, the renewable energy targets to be set in Policy ER15 of the Partial Review of RPG13.

Policy R44 criterion four

6.67 The Panel raised the question as to whether criterion four of Policy R44 was consistent with PPS22 Key Principle (vi) that a small level of output should not count against small scale renewable energy projects.

6.68 Project CLAREN said that small scale projects in and outside the National Park were enjoying favourable support. The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority were concerned that criterion four could mean that for large projects too much weight could be given to output as against adverse effects. West Coast Energy supported criterion four because it provided wind projects with something positive to put into the balance.

6.69 The Joint Authorities said that the purpose of criterion four was to encourage schemes which have a good electricity yield and low adverse impacts. They suggested an amendment substituting “the total adverse impact” for “any”.

166 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

6.70 The North West Regional Assembly said that if the Joint Structure Plan contained a renewable energy target then the significance of any particular scheme would be more apparent. The Assembly also suggested combining criteria three and four so that the two related steps of reducing and then weighing impact could be brought more closely together.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

6.71 Criterion four’s function is to give weight to the energy contribution of a renewable project against potential adverse impacts. PPS22 has a broader frame of reference, Key Principle (iv) says that the wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy projects are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining planning applications. Policy R44 should include reference to these additional areas of potential benefit.

6.72 The EiP discussion brought out the fact that while comparing and weighing very different types of benefit and impact are a staple planning activity, it is often one which does not lead to straightforward, self evident conclusions. As drafted, criterion four could be interpreted in a mechanistic way requiring a “process” outcome (a clear conclusion that benefits outweigh impacts, or the reverse) that may be impossible to achieve because of the diversity of factors involved.

6.73 The first three criteria of Policy R44 provide the basis for assessing proposals. Criterion four then presents itself as a final, additional hurdle. A project must demonstrate that it will have no significant adverse impact on the various relevant matters listed in criteria one and two, and that steps have been taken to reduce impact. If a project satisfies these requirements it then has to be demonstrated that the energy contribution outweighs any (or the total) adverse impact. In the Panel’s view this additional test could be onerous and should not be necessary if the earlier criteria have been satisfied.

6.74 We recognise that the Joint Authorities intention is that criterion four should act in a positive manner assisting the development of renewable energy by allowing the energy contribution to be weighed against impacts. The Panel consider that this would be achieved by a new sentence dealing with the benefits of renewable energy projects. This would also avoid the danger that criterion four could be used negatively.

6.75 The Panel consider that criterion four should be deleted and replaced by a more general statement (not a numbered criterion) which follows through the intentions of PPS22.

RECOMMENDATION

6.76 That Policy R44 criterion four be deleted and replaced in the Policy by the following text:

“In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in this plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weigh”t.

167 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Landscape and settings

6.77 West Coast Energy referred to their objections in relation to Policy E34 in respect of the settings of designated areas, and Policy E36, Landscapes of County Importance. They see a danger that all wind farms will be seen as having a detrimental impact and in terms of Policy E34 would not be permitted unless they met local infrastructure needs. In effect Policy E36 would prevent any wind farm development in Landscapes of County Importance. The reference to settings in Policy E34 implies a buffer zone which is undefined and possibly extensive, this would be contrary to PPS22 paragraph 14. Most of Cumbria could become the setting for the Lake District National Park.

6.78 NPower Renewables wish Policy R44 to be as comprehensive as possible, it already deals with landscape within criterion one. Other policies such as E36 will be used to prevent wind farm development. Wind farms are bound to give rise to some detriment to landscape and therefore need to be considered by a policy which allow benefits to be taken into account. Judged against landscape protection policy there will always be those who argue that they fail to meet the criteria. The exceptions allowed in Policy E34 are limited to meeting local infrastructure needs, modern wind farms have too large an output to fall within this exception.

6.79 The Government Office referred to PPS22 paragraph 15 which says that local landscape designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy projects.

6.80 Sir Martin Holdgate pointed out that paragraph 6.7 of the Plan, which relates to Policy E36, says that a wider variety of development is likely to be permitted within Landscapes of County Importance than in nationally designated areas.

6.81 The Council for National Parks asked for an additional criterion in Policy R44 to refer to the settings of the National Parks and AONBs, reflecting PPS22 paragraph 14. Friends of the Lake District supported this request.

6.82 The Joint Authorities said that Policy E36 seeks to prevent development that would be detrimental to the character of Landscapes of County Importance. The issue of applying the Policy E34 test of local infrastructure needs would not come into play if a development were not considered detrimental.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

6.83 The EiP considered the issues of settings and Landscapes of County Importance within Issue 5. The Panel’s conclusion is that a sufficient case has been made for the retention of Policy E36 (paragraphs 5.2.9 – 5.2.19). The Panel consider it unnecessary to introduce a reference to settings of the National Parks and AONBs into Policy R44. As the Joint Authorities said on many occasions during the EiP the Joint Structure Plan should be read, and applied, as a whole.

6.84 The Panel acknowledge the points being made by West Coast Energy and NPower Renewables regarding the difficulties that arise when determining whether a proposal does or does not have a “detrimental” effect on a given

168 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

landscape. Both developers seemed to be starting from the point that all large commercial wind farms will be seen as having a detrimental effect. Whether a visual impact is considered detrimental is of course in large measure a matter of subjective judgement. Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, the Panel do not share the view that large commercial windfarms are of their nature detrimental to the visual quality of all landscapes.

6.85 During the EiP there was discussion as to whether the exception within Policy E34 allowing development which meets local needs should be widened. The Panel accept that the key test is set out within the first paragraph of the policy and the exceptions are to allow for development that is genuinely needed to meet local needs. Widening the stated exceptions would weaken the effect of the policy.

Renewable energy and tourism

6.86 Cumbria Tourist Board said that landscape and cultural heritage underpinned the tourism industry. On the basis that some studies show that some tourists are deterred by wind developments, they argued that a precautionary approach is required. The Board broadly support Policies R44 & 45 and suggest the addition of text in relation to Policy R44 criterion 2 to require developers to assess the effects of their proposals on visitor experience. Sir Martin Holdgate, Eden District Council and Orton Parish Council also asked for a reference linking landscape protection and tourism.

6.87 Allerdale Borough Council said that wind projects such as the Robin Rigg offshore proposal in the Solway can be promoted to attract tourists.

6.88 The North West Regional Assembly said that studies into the effects of wind developments on tourism broadly found no significant adverse impact and in some cases marginal benefit. Friends of the Earth confirmed that there are successful renewable energy visitor centres which attract tourists.

6.89 Kirby Lonsdale and District Civic Society said that survey results depended critically on the questions asked, better research is required and developers should be required to demonstrate that their proposals will not deter tourists.

6.90 West Coast Energy said that the current EIA regulations require developers to consider the effect of proposals on tourism.

6.91 The Joint Authorities said that following representations made at the Deposit Stage Policy R44 criterion 2 had been amended to include the effects of development on the local economy. Paragraph 8.9 of the Plan already provides a link between onshore wind developments and the need to protect landscape character.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

6.92 The effect of wind and other renewable energy proposals on tourism can be considered under Policy R44 criterion 2 in respect of the local economy. The Panel consider it unnecessary to include a reference to tourism in the criterion as it falls within the scope of the local economy.

169 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

6.93 Paragraph 8.9 of the Plan refers to the importance of ensuring that onshore wind development does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and highlights the need to protect landscape character. The Panel consider that the current text already deals with the essence of the concerns expressed by participants, introducing a specific reference to the link between tourism and landscape protection would not in our view add any value to this paragraph.

Policy R44 criterion 5, Environmental Impact Assessment

6.94 Policy R44 criterion 5 and paragraph 8.7 say that where projects require an Environmental Impact Assessment they must also be considered under and satisfy Policy ST4 which deals with major projects. The Development Thresholds for wind farms set out in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations 1999 are: the installation of more than two turbines; or the hub height of any turbine or height of any other structure exceeds 15 metres.

6.95 The Joint Authorities pointed out that while all proposals in excess of these thresholds have to be considered to determine whether an EIA is required, there will be cases when a full EIA is not considered necessary, in which case Policy ST4 would not apply.

6.96 NPower Renewables were concerned that Policy ST4 criterion 3 introduced a further test requiring the consideration and rejection of alternative locations and methods. An onus is placed on developers in bringing forward a proposal to demonstrate that it was preferable to a series of potential alternatives. NPower Renewables consider the need to reject alternatives is out of step with the fact that a number of developments will be required to meet renewable energy targets.

Panel’s Views and Conclusions

6.97 The Development Thresholds set out in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations provide the starting point for consideration and not all projects exceeding them will require an EIA. However, given the size of turbines typically used by developers and the fact that there are economies of scale to be gained in grouping turbines into clusters, it seems highly probable that the majority of wind farms brought forward in Cumbria will require the preparation of a full EIA and will therefore fall to be considered under Policy ST4 as well as Policy R44.

6.98 The Panel have expressed concern, in relation to Question c) above, about the application of Policy ST4 in relation to modest wind proposals coming forward under Policy R45 (see paragraph 6.51 – 6.53) we have similar concerns about the application of Policy R44 criterion 5. Firstly the EIA Development Thresholds are set at a level that “captures” what many would regard as medium/modest scale developments, for example a cluster of two or three industry standard turbines. The Panel do not share the Joint Authorities view that it is sufficient to rely on the fact that some projects that fall within the EIA Thresholds will not be required to produce an EIA and will not therefore have to be considered under Policy ST4. In our view the effect of criterion 5 would be

170 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

that many medium/modest scale proposals would have to be dealt with under Policy ST4 as major development. As concluded earlier considering non-major proposals as major projects puts a question mark over the proper operation of Policy ST4.

6.99 Secondly, as pointed out by NPower Renewables, the requirement in Policy ST4 criterion 3 that alternative locations must be fully considered and rejected does not square with the fact that a significant number of renewable energy projects will be required if any real progress is to be made towards achieving national, regional and county targets.

6.100 The deletion of Policy R44 criterion 5 would still leave large scale onshore wind projects to be considered under Policy ST4, by virtue of paragraph 2.9 of the Joint Structure Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

6.101 That Policy R44 criterion 5 be deleted.

Policy R44 Composite

6.102 We have made three recommendations directly affecting Policy R44, for clarity we set out below a composite that brings these recommendations together.

RECOMMENDATION

6.103 That Policy R44 be redrafted as follows:

“Policy R44: Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs.

Outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs proposals for renewable energy developments including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings will be considered favourably if:

1. there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively through their relationship with other utility infrastructure;

2 there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways, aircraft operations, or telecommunications;

3 the proposal takes all practical measures to reduce any adverse impact on landscape, environmental, nature conservation, historical, and local community interests.

In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in this plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight”.

171 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

There are additional requirements in the following cases:…..”

(Continue to the end of the policy with 6, 7 and 8 as set out in the Proposed Changes document, page 63/64)

172 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Document Record 175

Appendix 2 Core Document Library 187

Appendix 3 Timetable 195

Appendix 4 Pre-Meeting Agenda and Minutes 197

Appendix 5 Attendance Record 203

173 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

174 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1 DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 1 THE APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT

DATE 28 SEPTEMBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 1 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS1/1 • North West Development Agency FS1/2 • Allerdale Borough Council FS1/3 • Carlisle City Council FS1/4 • South Lakeland District Council FS1/5 • Barton Willmore Planning Partnership FS1/6 (for Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes) • Countryside Agency FS1/7 • English Nature FS1/8 • Environment Agency FS1/9 • Friends of the Lake District/ CPRE FS1/10 (Cumbria Association) • National Trust FS1/11 • Smiths Gore (for Church Commissioners) FS1/12 • Friends of the Earth - South Lakeland FS1/13 EIP Doc 1.1 Further Statement from: FS1/14 Friends of the Earth - Cumbrian Local Groups EIP Doc 1.2 * Further Statement from National Trust FS1/15 EIP Doc 12 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP Doc 12.1 * Further Proposed Changes submitted by Joint Authorities EIP VBR 1 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 1 - Day 1

• Documents submitted during EIP.

175 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 2.1 THE APPROACH TO PROMOTING A SUSTAINABLE SPATIAL STRATEGY

DATE 29 SEPTEMBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 2 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS2.1/1 • North West Regional Assembly FS2.1/2 • North West Development Agency FS2.1/3 • Allerdale Borough Council FS2.1/4 • Barrow Borough Council FS2.1/5 • Carlisle City Council FS2.1/6 • South Lakeland District Council FS2.1/7 • Barton Willmore Planning Partnership FS2.1/8 (for Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes) • Countryside Agency FS2.1/9 • Friends of the Lake District/ CPRE FS2.1/10 (Cumbria Association) • Smith Gore (for Church Commissioners) FS2.1/11 EIP Doc 2.1 Further Statement by Kirkbride Parish Council FS2.1/12 EIP Doc 2.2 Further Statement by Cumbria Chamber of Commerce FS2.1/13 EIP Doc 13 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP VBR 2 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 2.1 - Day 2

176 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 2.2 THE APPROACH TO PROMOTING A SUSTAINABLE SPATIAL STRATEGY

DATE 30 SEPTEMBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 3 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS2.2/1 • North West Regional Assembly FS2.2/2 • Allerdale Borough Council FS2.2/3 • Barrow Borough Council FS2.2/4 • Carlisle City Council FS2.2/5 • Copeland Borough Council FS2.2/6 • South Lakeland District Council FS2.2/7 • Barton Willmore Planning Partnership FS2.2/8 (for Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes) • Friends of the Lake District/ CPRE FS2.1/9 (Cumbria Association) EIP Doc 3.1 Further Statement by Mr R Wilson FS2.2/10 EIP Doc 3.2 Replacement Statement for Barton Willmore FS2.2/8 FS2.2/8a Two pages of the original submission had been omitted EIP Doc 14 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP VBR 3 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 2.2 - Day 3

177 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 3.1 THE APPROACH TO SUPPORTING THE ECONOMY

DATE 1 OCTOBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 4 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS3.1/1 • North West Development Agency FS3.1/2 • Allerdale Borough Council FS3.1/3 • Carlisle City Council FS3.1/4 • Copeland Borough Council FS3.1/5 • South Lakeland District Council FS3.1/6 • Barton Willmore Planning Partnership FS3.1/7 (for Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes) • Cummersdale Parish Council FS3.1/8 (Withdrawn and substituted by EIP Doc 4.3) • De Pol Associates Ltd (for Northern Trust Co Ltd) FS3.1/9 • Friends of the Lake District/CPRE (Cumbria FS3.1/10 Association) • National Trust FS3.1/11 EIP Doc 4.1 Further Statement by HOW Planning (for Kingmoor FS3.1/12 Properties) EIP Doc 4.2 Further Statement by Cumbria Chamber of Commerce FS3.1/13 EIP Doc 4.3 AMENDMENT TO: EIP Doc 4 FS 3.1/8 Page 15. FS3.1/14 (The Statement by Cummersdale Parish Council did not relate to Issue 3.1 and therefore was disregarded in this respect and substituted by the submission from the Parish Council made at the Deposit stage) EIP Doc 15 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP Doc 15.1* Further Proposed Changes by the Joint Authorities in respect of Policy EM13 EIP VBR 4 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 3.1 - Day 4 * Document submitted during Examination in Public

178 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 3.2 THE APPROACH TO SUPPORTING THE ECONOMY

DATE 6 OCTOBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 5 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS3.2/1 • North West Development Agency FS3.2/2 • Allerdale Borough Council FS3.2/3 • Carlisle City Council FS3.2/4 • South Lakeland District Council FS3.2/5 • Countryside Agency FS3.2/6 • Friends of the Lake District/ CPRE (Cumbria FS3.2/7 Association) • National Trust FS3.2/8 • Northern Reaches Restoration Group FS3.2/9 EIP Doc 16 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP VBR 6 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 3.2 - Day 6

179 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 3.3 THE APPROACH TO SUPPORTING THE ECONOMY

DATE 6 OCTOBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 6 Further Statements from Participants: • North West Development Agency FS3.3/1 • Allerdale Borough Council FS3.3/2 • Carlisle City Council FS3.3/3 • Copeland Borough Council FS3.3/4 • South Lakeland District Council FS3.3/5 • British Waterways FS3.3/6 • Friends of the Lake District/CPRE (Cumbria FS3.3/7 Association) • National Trust FS3.3/8 EIP Doc 6.1 Further Statement by Cumbria Chamber of Commerce FS3.3/9 EIP Doc 17 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP VBR 6 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 3.3 - Day 6

180 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 4.1 THE APPROACH TO PROVIDING HOUSING

DATE 5 OCTOBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 7 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS4.1/1 • North West Regional Assembly FS4.1/2 • Allerdale Borough Council FS4.1/3 • Carlisle City Council FS4.1/4 • Copeland Borough Council FS4.1/5 • South Lakeland District Council FS4.1/6 • Barton Willmore Planning Partnership FS4.1/7 (for Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes) • Federation of Cumbria Amenity Societies FS4.1/8 • Friends of the Lake District/CPRE (Cumbria FS4.1/9 Association) • House Builders’ Federation FS4.1/10 • Dr G A Steele FS4.1/11 EIP Doc 18 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP VBR 5 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 4.1 - Day 5

181 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 4.2 THE APPROACH TO PROVIDING HOUSING

DATE 5 OCTOBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 8 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS4.2/1 • North West Regional Assembly FS4.2/2 • North West Development Agency FS4.2/3 • Allerdale Borough Council FS4.2/4 • Carlisle City Council FS4.2/5 • Copeland Borough Council FS4.2/6 • South Lakeland District Council FS4.2/7 • Barton Willmore Planning Partnership FS4.2/8 (for Russell Armer Ltd and Persimmon Homes) • Countryside Agency FS4.2/9 • Federation of Cumbria Amenity Societies FS4.2/10 • Friends of the Lake District/CPRE (Cumbria FS4.2/11 Association) • House Builders’ Federation FS4.2/12 • Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority FS4.2/13 EIP Doc 19 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP VBR 5 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 4.2 - Day 5

182 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 4.3 THE APPROACH TO PROVIDING HOUSING

1 DATE 5 OCTOBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 9 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS4.3/1 • North West Regional Assembly FS4.3/2 • Allerdale Borough Council FS4.3/3 • Barrow Borough Council FS4.3/4 • Copeland Borough Council FS4.3/5 • Federation of Cumbria Amenity Societies FS4.3/6 • Friends of the Lake District/CPRE (Cumbria FS4.3/7 Association) • House Builders’ Federation FS4.3/8 EIP Doc 20 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP VBR 5 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 4.3 - Day 5

183 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 5 THE APPROACH TO CARING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE 7 OCTOBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 10 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS5/1 • Allerdale Borough Council FS5/2 • Carlisle City Council FS5/3 • South Lakeland District Council FS5/4 • Countryside Agency FS5/5 • English Nature FS5/6 • Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment FS5/7 • Friends of the Lake District/CPRE (Cumbria FS5/8 Association) • Sir Martin Holdgate CB FS5/9 • National Trust FS5/10 • South Lakeland Friends of the Earth FS5/11 • Mr R Woolmore FS5/12 EIP Doc 10.1 Further Statement by Countryside Agency FS5/13 EIP Doc 21 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities Issue 5.1 EIP Doc 21.1 Amendments proposed by the Joint Authorities to Policy E 34 EIP Doc 21.2* Amendments proposed by the Joint Authorities to the text relating to Policy ST3 principle 6 EIP Doc 21.3* Extract from Hansard relating to a Question asked by Lord Clark of Windermere and an Answer given by Lord Whitty in the House of Lords dated 25 June 2003 in respect of Circular 84/50 EIP Doc 22 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities Issue 5.2 EIP Doc 23 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities Issue 5.3 EIP VBR 7 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 5 - Day 7 * Documents submitted during Examination in Public

184 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 1

DOCUMENT RECORD

ISSUE 6 THE APPROACH TO RENEWABLE ENERGY

DATE 8 OCTOBER 2004

Ref: No. Contents FS Ref: No. EIP Doc 11 Further Statements from Participants: • Government Office North West FS6/1 • North West Development Agency FS6/2 • Allerdale Borough Council FS6/3 • Carlisle City Council FS6/4 • Copeland Borough Council FS6/5 • South Lakeland District Council FS6/6 • Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment FS6/7 • Friends of the Lake District/CPRE (Cumbria FS6/8 Association) • Sir Martin Holdgate CB FS6/9 • National Trust FS6/10 • Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority FS6/11 EIP Doc 11.1 Further Statement by Friends of the Earth, Cumbrian Local FS6/12 Groups EIP Doc 11.2 Further Statement by Project CLAREN FS6/13 EIP Doc 11.3 Further Statement by North West Regional Assembly FS6/14 EIP Doc 11.4 Further Statement by Council for National Parks FS6/15 EIP Doc 24 Responses to Further Statements by Joint Authorities EIP VBR 8 Verbatim Report of Examination in Public – Issue 6 - Day 8

185 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

186 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 2 CORE DOCUMENT LIBRARY

No. TITLE DATE

DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED BY THE JOINT AUTHORITIES

CD1 Cumbria and the Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 2003 Deposit Plan CD2 Consultation on the Structure Plan Nov. 2001 - Jan. 2002 2001 CD3 Schedule of Comments on the Deposit Joint Structure Plan, 2004 www.planningcumbria.org/depositplan/comments.pdf CD4 Cumbria and the Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 2004 Proposed Changes CD5 Schedule of Comments on the Proposed Changes 2004 CD6 Technical Paper 1: The Relationship Between Regional Planning and the 2002 Deposit Plan Policies, www.planningcumbria.org/papers/paper1.pdf CD7 Technical Paper 2: Key Service Centres Methodology, 2002 www.planningcumbria.org/papers/paper2.pdf CD8 Technical Paper 3: House Requirements and Targets: Methodology 2002 www.planningcumbria.org/papers/paper3.pdf CD9 Technical Paper 4: Study of Housing Stress and Affordability in Cumbria 2002 www.planningcumbria.org/papers/paper4.pdf CD10 Technical Paper 5: Landscape Character 2002 www.planningcumbria.org/papers/paper5.pdf CD11 Technical Paper 6: Planning for Renewable Energy Development in 2002 Cumbria (including Axis Report) www.planningcumbria.org/papers/paper6.pdf CD12 Technical Paper 7: Monitoring and Implementation, 2002 www.planningcumbria.org/papers/paper7.pdf CD13 Technical Paper 8: Sustainability Appraisal, 2002 www.planningcumbria.org/papers/paper8.pdf CD14 Assessment of County landscapes 1992 CD15 Cumbria Landscape Classifications 1992 Landscape Types and Notations used in CD 14 CD16 Cumbria Landscape Classification 1995 CD17 Cumbria Landscape Strategy 1998 CD18 Cumbria Town Centres Health Check: 1999 Update Of Key Indicators – December 1999 CD18a Cumbria Town Centres Health Check: 1998 CD19 Local Transport Plan 2001/2 - 2005/6 2000 CD20 Local Transport Plan 2001 – 06 2004 Annual Progress Report 4 – 2003/04 CD21 Lake District National Park Authority - Local Plan 1998 CD22 Lake District National Park Authority - Local Plan – Inset Maps 1998 CD23 Lake District National Park Authority - Management Plan 1998

187 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

CD24 Lake District National Park Authority - Management Plan 2004

CD25 Lake District National Park Authority – Interim Housing Policies and 2003 related information CD26 Lake District National Park Authority – Minutes of the Affordable Housing 2004 Group – 16 July 2004 CD27 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan – 1991 - 2006 1995 CD28 Wind Energy Development in Cumbria - 1997 Statement of Supplementary Planning Guidance CD29 Employment Land Availability Schedules – As at March 2003 2003 CD30 Cumbria Coastal Statement – Project Report 2002 (Use as Appendix for Issue 5.3) CD31 Panel Briefing Note: Main Changes between the Adopted and the 2004 Replacement Plan CD32 Panel Briefing Note: Proposed Changes to deal with Issue 2.1 – Key 2004 Services Centres within the National Park

DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED BY GOVERNMENT www.odpm.gov.uk CD47 PPS12 – Local Development Framework 2004 CD48 Housing and Planning in the Regions – Consultation Document 2004 CD49 The Northern Way 2004 CD50 PPG 1 - General Policy and Principles 1997 CD51 PPG 2 - Green Belts 1995 CD52 PPG 3 – Housing 2000 CD52a PPG3 – Statement by Deputy Prime Minister 2000 CD53 PPG 4 - Industrial, Commercial Development & Small Firms 1992 CD54 PPG 5 - Simplified Planning Zones 1992 CD55 PPG 6 - Town Centres & Retail Development 1996 CD55a PPG 6 – Parliamentary Statement on town centre planning policies 2003 CD55b PPG 6 – Government’s response to fourth report from House of Commons 1997 Select Committee: Shopping Centres CD55c PPG6 – Environmental Impact of Supermarket Competition CD56 PPG 7 - Countryside 1997 CD57 PPG 8 – Telecommunications 2001 CD58 PPG 9 - Nature Conservation 1994 CD59 PPG 10 - Planning & Waste Management 1999 CD60 PPG 11 - Regional Planning 2000 CD61 PPG 12 - Development Plans 1999 CD62 PPG 13 – Transport 2001 CD63 PPG 14 - Development On Unstable Land 1990 CD63a PPG 14 – Annex 1: Landslides and Planning CD63b PPG 14 – Annex 2: Subsidence and Planning 2002 CD64 PPG 15 - Planning & the Historic Environment 1994 CD65 PPG 16 - Archaeology & Planning 1990 CD66 PPG 17 - Planning for Open Spaces, Sport & Recreation 2002 CD66a PPG 17 – Companions Guide: Assessing needs and opportunities CD67 PPG 18 - Enforcing Planning Control 1991 CD68 PPG 19 - Outdoor Advertisement 1992 CD69 PPG 20 - Coastal Planning 1992

188 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

CD70 PPG 21 – Tourism 1992

CD71 PPG 22 - Renewable Energy 1993 CD71a PPG 22 – Annex on photovoltaics CD72 PPG 23 - Planning & Pollution Control 1997 CD73 PPG 24 - Planning & Noise 1994 CD74 PPG 25 - Development & Flood Risk 2001 CD75 Consultation on Draft PPS 6 2004 Planning For Town Centres CD76 Consultation on Draft PPS 7 2003 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas CD77 PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 2004 CD78 Consultation on Draft PPS 22 2003 Renewable Energy CD79 PPS 22 – Renewable Energy 2004 CD80 A Better Quality of Life, A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the 1999 UK - Summary www.sustainable-development.gov.uk CD81 Taking it on: Developing UK sustainable development strategy together 2004 CD82 Taking it on: Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment 2004 CD83 DoE Circular 12/96 – Environment Act 1995, Part III – National Parks 1996 CD84 Foundations for our Future 2002 CD85 Regional Quality of Life Counts 2000 CD86 Regional Quality of Life Counts – 4th Edition 2003 CD87 Review of English National Park Authorities 2002 CD88 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 2004 CD89 Barker Review of Housing Supply 2004 CD89a Barker Review of Housing Supply – Interim Report Analysis 2003 CD90 Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Guidance for Planning 2003 Authorities CD91 Rural White Paper “Our Countryside: the Future” 2000 CD92 Affordable Housing Update – (Not yet published) 2004 CD93 Energy – the Changing Climate: Cmd 4749 2000 Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 22nd Report CD93a Energy – the Changing Climate: Cmd 4749 – Summary 2000 Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 22nd Report CD94 Environmental Planning: Cmd 5459 2002 Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 23rd Report CD94a Environmental Planning: Cmd 5459 - Summary 2002 Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 23rd Report CD95 National Parks in England and Wales – Report by John Dower: Cmd 6628 1945 CD96 Report of the National Parks Committee – Hobhouse Report: Cmd 7121 1947 CD96a Ministry of Town and Country Planning - Circular 84/50 1950 CD97 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 – Chapter 37 - Part IV - AONBs 2000 CD98 Consultation on Draft PPS 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation 2004 CD99 PPS 11 – Regional Planning Strategies 2004

DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED BY THE NORTH WEST REGIONAL ASSEMBLY www.nrwa.gov.uk

189 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

CD100 Partial Review of RPG 13 – Submitted Draft 2004 CD101 Partial Review of RPG 13 – Summary and Overview of Key Changes 2004 CD102 Partial Review of RPG 13 – Sustainability Appraisal 2004 CD103 Partial Review of RPG 13 – Issues Paper 2003 CD104 Regional Planning Guidance Annual Monitoring Report 2004 CD105 Everybody has an Impact: Climate Change Impacts in the NW England 1998 CD106 Draft RPG for the North West – Report of the Panel – Public Examination 2001 CD107 Draft RPG for the North West – Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes CD108 RPG 13 - Adopted 2003 CD109 Action for Sustainability 2004

DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED BY OTHER BODIES

Published by Date CD110 Economic Assessment of Cumbria 2004: Cumbria Economic 2004 Executive Summary Intelligence Partnership CD111 Economic Assessment of Cumbria 2004, Cumbria Economic 2004 Intelligence Partnership CD112 Cumbria Woodland Vision Cumbria Woodlands Forum CD113 Energy White Paper- Our Energy Future, DTI 2003 Creating a Low Carbon Economy CD114 New & Renewable Energy – Prospect for the 21st DTI 2000 Century The Renewable Obligation: Preliminary Consultation CD115 From Power to Prosperity: Advancing Renewable Sustainability 2001 Energy in North West England Northwest www.snw.org.uk CD116 Increasing Intermediate Market Housing Cumbria Asset 2004 Provision in Rural Cumbria Reinvestment Trust

CD117 New Visions For Furness and West Cumbria Barrow Borough 2001 Council CD118 Cumbria Economic Bulletin: March 2004 Cumbria Economic 2004 Intelligence Partnership/ CRED CD119 Strategic Waste Management Assessment: North West (National Waste Production Survey) www.environment-agency.gov.uk CD120 Cumbria Biodiversity Action Plan Cumbria Wildlife Trust 2001 www.wildlifeincumbria.org.uk CD121 The Cumbria Biodiversity Action Plan: Cumbria Wildlife Trust 2001 Summary www.wildlifecumbria.org.uk

CD122 West Cumbria: Socio-Economic Study ERM Economics 2001 www.the-environment-council.org.uk

190 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

CD123 West Cumbria: Socio-Economic Study - Update ERM Economics 2003 www.the-environment-council.org.uk

CD124 Providing Competitive Advantage – Creating a Cumbria Inward 2003 Strategic Economic Development Site in South Investment Agency Lakeland CD125 Strategy for Tourism in England’s Northwest NWDA 2003 CD126 Landscape Character Assessment Countryside Agency 2002 CD127 Redevelopment of the Channelside Area – Barrow Borough 2003 Barrow in Furness – Master Plan Council and Cumbria County Council CD128 Barrow Port Master Plan – Final Report – White, Young, Green 2004 Executive Summary CD129 Barrow in Furness Town Centre – Brief for Future Barrow Borough 2003 Development Council CD130 Hindpool Master Plan Barrow Borough 2004 Council CD131 Barrow Local Plan Review – Proposed Alteration Barrow Borough 2004 – Housing – First Deposit Council CD132 Changing Barrow – The Housing Market – John Herrington 2004 Executive Summary Associates CD133 Understanding Rural Disadvantage in Cumbria EDAW Ltd 2003 Final Report CD134 Understanding Rural Disadvantage in Cumbria EDAW Ltd 2003 Executive Summary CD135 Cumbria Tourism Market Forecast – Final Report Locum Consulting 2003 CD136 Housing Markets – Preparing for Change Impact Housing 2004 Association CD137 Housing Markets – Preparing for Change Impact Housing 2004 Executive Summary Association CD138 Tourism Business Performance: April – June Cumbria Tourist Board 2004 2004 CD139 Regional Tourism Strategy for Cumbria Cumbria Tourist Board 1998 CD140 Regional Economic Strategy 2003 NWDA 2003 CD141 CD142 South Lakeland District Council Local Plan – SLDC 1997 Tourism Chapter CD143 A Shared Vision for the Future: The Community South Lakeland 2003 Strategy for South Lakeland 2004 - 2024 Strategic Partnership CD144 Planning Tomorrow’s Countryside Countryside Agency 2000 CD145 Countryside Character Network Newsletter: Issue Countryside Agency 2004 15 CD146 State of the Countryside Countryside Agency 2004 CD147 Letter from the Countryside Agency to DTI dated Countryside Agency 2003 27 November 2003 CD148 Map showing the Study Area referred to in EIP Countryside Agency 2004 Doc 10.1

CD149 From Special Landscape to Landscape High Peak Borough 2004 Character Council

191 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

CD150 A Study into the Attributes of Visitors and Star Consultants 2004 Tourism Organisations towards Wind Farms on Leeds Met University the boundaries of the Lake District National Park CD151 Cumbria STEAM Model Trends 2003 - 2003 Global Tourism 2004 Solutions UK Ltd CD152 Cumbria Visitor Profile 2002 Cumbria Tourist Board 2002 CD153 Not allocated CD154 Cumbria Sub Regional Strategy – Draft John Glester 2004 Sustainable Cumbria Consulting Services

CD155 “Rural Renaissance” – Regional Rural Recovery NWDA Action Plan CD156 Housing Needs Survey SLDC 2002 CD157 Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Management English Heritage 2002 Plan 2002 - 2007 CD158 Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site – Newsletter English Heritage 2003 Issue 21 CD159 Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site – Newsletter English Heritage 2004 Issue 22

CD160 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Landscape Institute 2003 Assessment – Second Edition and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment CD161 Affordable Rural Housing in Cumbria WM Enterprise 2004 Consultants for Cumbria Strategic Partnership CD162 Affordable Rural Housing – an opportunity for Business in the 2003 business Community – rural action CD163 Housing – an effective way to sustainable rural Cumbria Rural communities – Executive Summary Housing Trust CD163 Housing – an effective way to sustainable rural Cumbria Rural a communities – Part I – The Effects of Affordable Housing Trust Housing on Rural Cumbria CD163 Housing – an effective way to sustainable rural Cumbria Rural b communities – Part II – Planning to Deliver Housing Trust Fundamental Changes in Rural Cumbria CD163 Housing – an effective way to sustainable rural Cumbria Rural c communities – Part III – Rural Housing Needs Housing Trust Toolkit CD164 Regional Park Resources Baker Associates for 2003 NWRA and NWDA CD165 Changing Housing Needs in Cheshire, Cumbria Centre for Urban and 2003 and Lancashire. Regional studies CD Rom University of Birmingham CD166 Housing Provision – Supplementary Planning SLDC 2004 Guidance

192 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

CD167 Letter dated 28.04.04 from NWRA to SLDC re: NWRA 2004 South Lakeland SPG Housing Provision CD168 Westlakes Science and Technology Park – Site Copeland Borough 2004 Extension and Development 2001 – 2016 Council Draft 10/08/04 CD169 Audit of Rural Workspace in the North West of NWDA 2003 England – Final Report CD170 ‘Next Step’ Cumbria Rural Action Zone Strategy Partnership 2002 CD171 Interim Housing Policy Allerdale Borough 2004 Council

193 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

194 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 3

TIMETABLE

Date Session 1 Session 2 Session 3

28 September 2004 Issue 1

The Approach to Sustainability and Development. (Policies ST 1-4)

29 September 2004 Issue 2.1

The Rural – Urban balance. (Policies ST 5-6)

30 September 2004 Issue 2.2

Ensuring development supports the needs of communities in different parts of the County. (Policies ST 7-11)

1 October 2004 Issue 3.1

Ensuring an appropriate supply of employment land.

5 October 2004 Issue 4.1 Issue 4.3 Issue 4.2

Scale of Housing Housing Renewal. Affordable Housing. Development.

6 October 2004 Issue 3.2 Issue 3.3

Employment Tourism Development. development in rural areas.

7 October 2004 Issue 5.1 Issue 5.2 Issue 5.3

Areas of national County The Coast. and international Landscapes. conservation importance.

8 October 2004 Issue 6

The approach to renewable energy.

195 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

196 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 4

CUMBRIA & LAKE DISTRICT JOINT STRUCTURE PLAN 2001 – 2016

PRE-MEETING CONVENED BY THE PANEL CHAIRMAN

TO BE HELD AT

LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY OFFICES, MURLEY MOSS, KENDAL, LA9 7RL

ON 10 JUNE 2004 COMMENCING AT 11.00 AM

A G E N D A

1. INTRODUCTION BY THE PANEL CHAIRMAN

2. THE EIP PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE

3. APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT AUTHORITIES

4. DRAFT EIP TIMETABLE

5. EIP PRACTICAL ARRANGEMENTS

6. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

197 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

CUMBRIA & LAKE DISTRICT JOINT STRUCTURE PLAN 2001 – 2016

EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC (EIP)

MINUTES OF PRE-MEETING HELD ON 10 JUNE 2004 AT

LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY OFFICES, MURLEY MOSS, KENDAL

Adrian Smith (the Panel Chair) opened the meeting at 11.00 am by introducing the Panel of himself and Simon Gibbs, who between them will lead the discussion at the EIP, and explained the roles of the Panel and the Secretariat of Frank Hewson (Panel Secretary) and Frank Lee (Programme Officer). He emphasised that all contact with the Panel had to be via the Secretariat to maintain the independence of the panel.

Mr Smith ran through the following headings which are set out in the Notes for Participants at the EIP which had been circulated previously with the invitation to participate letters sent out on 20 May 2004:

(a) The purpose of the EiP (b) Preparation of Further Statements in advance of the EiP which are to be returned to the Secretariat by 23 July 2004. He emphasised that these are entirely separate from any representations participants may have on the Proposed Changes to the Deposit Edition of the Joint Structure Plan sent out by the Joint Authorities on 4 June (the brown book) which are to be returned to the Joint Authorities by 17 July. (c) Conduct of the Debate (d) Written Representations

Mr Smith invited questions.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT (FOLD): Is the Partial Review of PPG13 to be taken into account?

ADRIAN SMITH: Yes.

MARTIN HOLDGATE: Participants can only comment on the content of the Issue they are invited to?

ADRIAN SMITH: Yes.

SOUTH LAKELAND GATEWAY PROJECT: What are the seating arrangements at the table?

198 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

ADRIAN SMITH/SIMON GIBBS: One at any one time with one seated behind, but these can be varied as appropriate to the debate.

FRIENDS OF THE LAKE DISTRICT: How long should Further Statements be and what about appendices?

ADRIAN SMITH/SIMON GIBBS: Be sensible and succinct drawing out main points in a summary. Appendices should identify important facts.

GONW: When would we be required to speak?

ADRIAN SMITH/SIMON GIBBS: Whenever deemed appropriate, the Panel leads the debate but it is an open discussion, if you have something to say, say it. However, the Panel may specifically turn to participants for a view or information even if they are not seeking to speak.

EDEN DC: May have problems with committee cycle in returning Further Statements on time.

ADRIAN SMITH: Let Secretariat have a qualified view within deadline and confirm committee approval later.

Mr Smith outlined the future of Structure Plans before turning to the selection of Issues and Participants and inviting comment.

YORKSHIRE DALES NATIONAL PARK: Are all the District Councils invited?

ADRIAN SMITH: Yes.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: Raised the request made in their letter of 28 May for participation in all issues.

ADRIAN SMITH; This letter has been noted and the request will be considered in consultation with the Joint Authorities for a decision.

NATIONAL TRUST: Which version of the Structure Plan (Deposit Edition [blue] or Proposed Changes Version [brown]) will be used as the basis of discussion of the issues at the EiP?

Mr Smith sought guidance from the Joint Authorities who confirmed it would be the Proposed Changes Version (the brown book).

NATIONAL TRUST: The reference in Issue 5.1 to PPS7 refers to the draft PPS?

SIMON GIBBS: Yes.

199 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

The Joint Authorities introduced the officers who would be leading on the various issues. These are as set out in item 3 of the agenda other than for James Shorten for the LDNPA on Issues 1 and 2 who is replaced by Alison Lax on Issue 1 and Gill Longfellow on Issue 2.

They further informed the meeting that a CD-Rom of all the representations to the Deposit Edition of the Structure Plan is available; this includes comments and notes of action from the Joint Authorities.

Mr Smith outlined the draft timetable for the EiP emphasising that this was still under discussion dependant upon the content of Further Statements and the response to the Proposed Changes. The aim would be to finalise the timetable by the end of August/beginning of September. The broad shape is likely to stay the same, but the detail may vary.

ALLERDALE DC: Is it limited to 8 days?

ADRIAN SMITH: Yes, 2 spare half-days are available on each Friday but the programme is more likely to tighten than extend.

SIMON GIBBS: If you have a view on the timetable let the Secretariat know.

The Panel Secretary outlined the practical arrangements for the EiP covering:

(a) Daily registrations of participants for each issue. (b) The record of proceedings. Transcripts will be available the next day on the Joint Authorities website www.planningcumbria.org (c) Access will be available from 9.00 am. (d) Overnight storage of documents (at own risk) to be discussed with Programme Officer. (e) Expenses for private individuals to be discussed with Panel Secretary.

Mr Smith then made reference to the Partial Review of RPG13 which is now on deposit and can be viewed at www.nwra.gov.uk/rpg and of which the energy policies ER13, 14 and 15 may be the most pertinent to the Issues identified for the EiP and invited final questions.

MARTIN HOLDGATE: Are website addresses available for reference documents?

PANEL SECRETARY: The EiP library has not been set up yet, but it may be possible to arrange something via the Joint Authority Library website in the short-term www.planningcumbria.org.

NATIONAL TRUST: Is it sufficient to provide just a reference for EiP library documents rather than hard copy?

ADRIAN SMITH: Yes. 200 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

General queries were raised about the timing of lunch. It was confirmed that although it would always be an hour its timing would be flexible.

GEORGE STEELE: Will the Local Authorities produce up-to-date housing figures?

ADRIAN SMITH: Matter to be dealt with directly with the Local Authorities, but if any problems speak to the Secretariat.

The meeting closed at 11.50 am.

NB: A record of participants who attended the meeting follows.

201 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

202 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 5

ATTENDANCE RECORD

Tuesday 28 September 2004

Name Organisation

Alan Hubbard The National Trust Alastair Skelton Church Commissioners Paul Swain Environment Agency Mike Smith Cumbria County Council Jillian Hale Carlisle City Council Tifany Hunt The National Trust Carol Davenport Countryside Agency Ray Wilson Private Janette Findley Barton Willmore Sheila Wright Broadway Malyan Paul Glading English Nature Ian Soane English Nature Chris Bamber GONW Graham Hale FLD Peter Ridgway SLDC Richard Pealing Rural Regeneration Cumbria Chris Hardman Carlisle City Council Margaret Sanders Friends of the Earth Jack Ellerby FLD Richard Evan Allerdale Borough Council Alex McKenzie Cumbria County Council T Gale Cumbria County Council Bob Sutcliffe LDNPA Gill Longfellow LDNPA Katina Rice LDNPA Alison Lax LDNPA Paula Allen LDNPA Rob Terwey Cumbria County Council Maxine Bodell Cumbria County Council Iain Fairlamb Cumbria County Council Alison Donald Cumbria County Council Stephen Kempka Durham County Council Claire Savage Barrow Borough Council Roger Hopcraft Eden District Council Shelagh Bussey PINS Helen Houghton LDNPA Helen Jones LDNPA

203 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Wednesday 29 September 2004

Name Organisation

Ray Wilson Private Sheila Wright Broadway Malyan for Countryside Agency Alastair Skelton Church Commissioners Elizabeth Jackson South Lakeland District Council Chris Hardman Carlisle City Council Helen Lewis Carlisle City Council Chris Bamber GONW Alastair Bishop GONW Rodger Read Westmorland County AG Soc Ltd G Hale FLD David Sykes South Lakeland Gateway Project Robert Leach Grange Town Council Aidan Smith Grange Town Council Carol Davenport Countryside Agency Janette Findley Barton Willmore Viv Dodd Cumbria Chamber of Commerce Jack Ellerby FLD Jack Stopforth CIIA Elizabeth Barraclough Keswick Town Council Richard Pealing Rural Regeneration Cumbria Richard Evans Allerdale Borough Council Shelagh Bussey PINS (Planning Inspectorate) Iain Fairlamb Cumbria County Council Helen Houghton LDNPA Carol Crawshaw CREA Bob Sutcliffe LDNPA Roger Hopcraft Eden DC Rosie Vernon Cheshire County Council Claire Savage Barrow Borough Council Bob Cartwright LDNPA Michael Gallagher North West Regional Assembly

204 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Thursday 30 September 2004

Name Organisation

Ray Wilson Private K Doran Eden HA Chris Bamber GONW Alastair Bishop GONW Chris Hardman Carlisle City Council Helen Lewis Carlisle City Council Elizabeth Jackson South Lakeland District Council Brian Barden Barden Planning Consultants Richard Evans Allerdale Borough Council Janette Findley Barton Willmore Jack Ellerby FLD Peter Ridgeway SLDC Michael Gallagher North West Regional Assembly Bern Hellier Copeland Borough Council John Hughes Copeland Borough Council Roger Hopcraft Eden District Council Mike Muir Impact Housing Claire Savage Barrow Borough Council Tifany Battersby Barrow Borough Council Alan Smith West Lakes Renaissance J Stopforth CIIA G Hale FLD

205 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Friday 1 October 2004

Name Organisation

Claire Savage Barrow Borough Council David Humphrey West Lakes Renaissance Trevor Allison Cummersdale Parish Council EH McClorry Kendal Town Council R Hopcraft Eden District Council Richard Evans Allerdale Borough Council Jack Ellerby FLD Helen Houghton LDNPA Rachel Bland LDNPA Vanessa Collier GONW G Hale FND P Ridgway SLDC Alan Hubbard The National Trust Viv Dodd Cumbria Chamber of Commerce Ray Wilson Private Carol Mosby HOW Planning Richard Woodford HOW Planning Chris Bamber GONW Alistair Bishop GONW Chris Hardman Carlisle City Council Helen Lewis Carlisle City Council Alexis De Pol De Pol Associates Ltd John Grainger Cumbria Inward Investment Agency Bern Hellier Copeland Borough Council Emma Hancock Cheshire County Council Gill Smith Cheshire County Council Elizabeth Jackson South Lakeland District Council Richard Pealing Rural Regeneration Cumbria Janette Findley Barton Willmore

206 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Tuesday 5 October 2004

Name Organisation

Chris Bamber GONW Ray Wilson Private Brian Barden Barden Planning Consultants Paul Byrne GONW Jack Ellerby FLD G Hale FLD Ron Cartwright GONW Kathryn Holliday Copeland Borough Council John Hughes Copeland Borough Council Roger Hopcraft Eden District Council Claire Savage Barrow Borough Council Phil Huck Barrow Borough Council Mike Muir Impact Housing S Kiff Eden District Council V Collier GONW Richard Evans Allerdale Borough Council Viv Dodd Cumbria Chamber Ben Dennison Arnside Civic Trust Elizabeth Jackson South Lakeland District Council Gen Berridge House Builders’ Federation Mark Johnson House Builders’ Federation Geoff Plunkett Windermere & Bowness Civic Society Peter Stockton Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Jilly Hale Carlisle City Council Chris Hardman Carlisle City Council Paul Davies Eden Housing Association Janette Findley Barton Willmore David Brockbank Personal Capacity Michael Gallagher North West Regional Assembly Helen Lewis Carlisle City Council Sarah Corlett Isle of Man Government Sara Lewis Cheshire County Council Emma Williams Cheshire County Council Richard Pealing Rural Regeneration Cumbria Peter Colley Federation of Cumbria Amenity Societies Peter Ridgway SLDC George Steele Cumbria Resident Tony Whittaker SLDC

207 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Wednesday 6 October 2004

Name Organisation

Chris Bamber GONW Robin Martakies Windermere Lake Cruises Martin Clarke British Waterways Richard Greenwood Cumbria Tourist Board Roger Hopcraft Eden District Council John Hayton LDNPA (Member) Tony Pearson LDNPA Tony Wolfe LDNPA E Cole Private G Cole Private BK Jones FLD Alan Hubbard The National Trust Elizabeth Jackson South Lakeland District Council Audrey Taylor South Lakeland District Council Ray Wilson Private Peter Stockton Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority David Brockbank Personal Capacity Helen Lewis Carlisle City Council Chris Hardman Carlisle City Council Richard Pealing Rural Regeneration Cumbria Richard Evans Allerdale Borough Council Alastair Makin NRRG Ian Brodie FLD Hal Bagot NRRG Brian Barden Barden Planning Consultants Claire Savage Barrow Borough Council Carol Cranshaw CREA Nigel Wilkinson Windermere Lake Cruises

208 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Thursday 7 October 2004

Name Organisation

Jason McKewan Durham County Council Ray Anglesey Durham County Council Brian Jones FLD Sheila Wright Broadway Malyan for Countryside Agency Carol Davenport Countryside Commission G Hale FLD Ian Henderson Arnside/Silverdale AONB Sarah Hemsley-Rose FORCE Gillian McFarlane FORCE Ray Wilson Private Martin Holdgate Personal Capacity Mike Smith Cumbria County Council Alan Hubbard The National Trust Chris Bamber GONW Pauline Goodridge Carlisle City Council Chris Hardman Carlisle City Council Ray Woolmore Personal Capacity Elizabeth Jackson South Lakeland District Council Richard Evans Allerdale Borough Council Ian Brodie FLD Chris Woodley-Stewart North Pennines AONB Partnership Jack Ellerby FLD Paul Glading EN Ian Soane EN Margaret Sanders FoE

209 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

Friday 8 October 2004

Name Organisation

Chris Bamber GONW G Hale FLD Jack Ellerby FLD Steve Molloy West Coast Energy Ltd Kyle Blue Orton PC Jill Perry West Cumbria FoE Michael Gallagher NWRA Richard Evans Allerdale Borough Council Sarah Hemsley-Rose FORCE A Hemsley-Rose FORCE Ruth Chambers Council for National Parks Brian Jones FLD Roger Hopcraft Eden District Council E Stone Cheshire County Council H Marriott Cheshire County Council E Bruce Project Claren R Bland LDNPA P Winter LDNPA Ray Woolmore Personal Capacity Martin Holdgate Personal Capacity Alan Hubbard The National Trust Peter Stockton YDNPA Elizabeth Jackson South Lakeland District Council Ray Wilson Private Duncan Jeffray LDNPA Judith Nelson English Heritage Mike Smith Cumbria County Council Chris Hardman Carlisle City Council Helen Lewis Carlisle City Council Pat Graham Durham County Council Rick Long Durham County Council Pete Forest N Power Renewables Graham Wriggleworth Bond Pearce Richard Greenwood Cumbria Tourist Board Andy Brunt NWRA Michael J Hall Kirkby Lonsdale Civic Society and FELLS Geoff Thompson Tony Wolfe LDNPA

210 Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Examination In Public 28 September – 8 October 2004

APPENDIX 5

PRESS IN ATTENDANCE

Thursday 7 October 2004

Name Organisation

Martin Lewes BBC Radio Cumbria

211