A Local Plan for Lancaster District 2011-2031 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final

Methodology

Version Control

Version By Date Comment 01 Lancaster City October 2017 Reviewed by PPCLG June and Council August 2017, approved October 2017.

How we review this document

The Planning and Housing Policy Manager will facilitate review as and when required to ensure that its currency is maintained. This will involve:

1. Approval from Senior Service Management 2. Endorsement by Planning Policy Cabinet Liaison Group (PPCLG) 3. Publication (on Council’s Website). Delegated to Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning).

To receive updates on progress you can join our consultation database. To do so please contact the planning policy team on: 01524 582383 or, by e-mail at: [email protected]

Contents for Lancaster District ...... 1 1.0 Introduction ...... 4 2.0 Planning Policy Context...... 6 National Planning Policy Context ...... 6 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ...... 6 National Planning Practice Guidance (nPPG) ...... 8 Local Policy Context – Current Policy Position ...... 10 Lancaster District Local Plan Strike-through Edition – September 2008 ...... 10 Core Strategy (2003-2012) – Adopted July 2008 ...... 10 Development Management DPD (2011-2031) ...... 11 3.0 Current Evidence Base ...... 12 Report of Village Surveys, Planning Services, September 2009 ...... 12 4.0 Other Useful Supporting Information ...... 13 Transport ...... 13 Local Centres Study ...... 14 Draft Lancaster District Local Plan 2011-2031: Part 1: Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD...... 14 2017 Draft Local Plan Consultation ...... 15 Draft Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD ...... 15 Neighbourhood Plans...... 16 5.0 Aims of the Sustainable Settlements Review ...... 17 6.0 Methodology ...... 18 Lancaster District Settlement Hierarchy ...... 18 Population ...... 19 Landscape and Townscape (Settlement Context) ...... 23 Key Services and Facilities ...... 26 Accessibility ...... 36 Employment ...... 41 Key Definitions ...... 43

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Lancaster City Council are seeking to undertake a review of the assessment of the settlements identified as sustainable within the Development Management DPD, policy DM42. The latest piece of formal evidence conducted to underpin the identification of Sustainable Settlements was the ‘Report of Villages Surveys’ which was conducted in 2009. It is understood that a lot of change has taken place since this document was produced, and with the emerging Strategic Policies and Land Allocation DPD and review of the Development Management DPD, it is considered an appropriate time to undertake this review. The results of this assessment will thus be used to inform the Lancaster District Settlement Hierarchy.

1.2 Since the adoption of the Development Management DPD in December 2014, it is recognised that there has not been a significant change in national policy and guidance, however due to changes on a more local level, such as bus service provision, it is considered beneficial to undertake this fundamental review. As stated within the NPPF ‘plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas’ (paragraph 10). The roles and functions of each settlement within the district is different and so this Review will seek to investigate the local circumstances of each one from a number of perspectives to enable the assessment of sustainability, which will ultimately be used to aid and underpin the emerging Local Plan.

1.3 The way in which the assessment is being carried out (the methodology) is also being reviewed as part of this process. This is due to the recognition of a number of changes which have taken place. Firstly, it is being increasingly recognised that accessibility is key to sustainability. Previously the assessment as to whether a settlement should be considered sustainable was based upon the provision of services and facilities within or adjacent to the settlement. However, there has been a noticeable decline in service provision within smaller rural settlements in the district, in particular in relation to bus services. Therefore it is considered important to assess accessibility and the provision of public transport in particular, but also cycling and walking routes.

1.4 It is also important to consider the role the economy plays and to understand the district housing market area. In October 2015 Turley Economics published the ‘Lancaster Independent Housing Requirements Study 2015’. This study considered the extent of the housing market area in which the Lancaster exists. A housing market area as defined by the National Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph 010) is ‘a geographical area defined by household demand and preferences for all types of housing, reflecting the key functional linkages between places where people live and work.’ The study found that the district overall serves as a self-contained housing market area where the majority of people looking to move will move from one home to another within the district. Important reasons for this include the wide choice of living environments that the district offers from urban locations to rural settlements and also the wide choice of housing on offer including smaller properties which may be considered more affordable at the entry level of the market up to larger properties at the highest end of the market.

1.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 47) requires the Local Authority to plan to meet the housing needs of the district across the housing market area i.e. in the case of the Lancaster district, across the whole district. The Turley Report concluded that ‘the identified OAN (Objectively Assessed Need) range of 650 – 700 should be considered as

appropriate for the whole plan period 2011 to 2031 as reflecting the assessed total need for housing against which the emerging Plan should respond in its policy approach’. Over the plan period this equates to 13,000-14,000 new homes, across the whole district, subject to constraints such as protected landscapes. Therefore the Council needs to carefully consider the role each settlement has in addressing and thus contributing towards these district wide needs.

1.6 Changes in service provision affect where people choose to live, and this can have particular impacts in rural locations, for example an increase in older people and a decrease in younger people (including families) in a rural area may affect school numbers and viability and sometimes event result in school closures where there is insufficient demand for school places. Impacts on service provision such as this can influence where a family looking to move may choose to buy a new home. Cuts to public services including subsidies on bus services, libraries and health facilities have all had an impact in recent years on the role and function of settlements and Lancaster District has not been immune to this. This is another key reason underpinning this review.

1.7 Also within the Lancaster District over recent years there has also been a significant change in the provision of high quality communications infrastructure, through the community-led project B4RN (Broadband for Rural North Ltd). As stated within the NPPF ‘ the development of high speed broadband technology and other communications networks also plays a vital role in enhancing the provision of local community facilities and services’ (paragraph 42). This Review will therefore seek to investigate the coverage of this service.

1.8 This piece of evidence seeks to explore further the factors which contribute towards a settlement being considered sustainable. Identifying settlements which are currently considered to be sustainable, and those which have the potential to become sustainable settlements. For example, new development can bring about positive effects through investment in infrastructure. This review will therefore also seek to establish where improvements and enhancements could be made.

1.9 The outcome of this research will enable Lancaster City Council to identify settlements which are considered to be sustainable and able to provide the focus for growth outside the main urban areas, and also consequently inform the settlement hierarchy for the district.

2.0 Planning Policy Context

2.1 There is no specific guidance in relation to the assessment of the sustainability of settlements. Therefore utilising relevant policy from within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and guidance from the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), a robust methodology has been drawn up in order to be able to effectively assess the sustainability of settlements, in particular focussing upon the social, economic and environmental dimensions.

National Planning Policy Context

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of paragraph 6 sustainable development There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social paragraph 7 and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of role:  An economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;  A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by certain a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural wellbeing; and  An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment, and as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy. To achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental paragraph 8 gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions. Plans need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond paragraph 10 to different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in paragraph 14 favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

For plan-making this means that:  Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area;  Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph - Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.* *For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and paragraph Habitats Directives (see paragraph 199) and/or designated as Sites of 14, footnote 9 Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion. One of the core planning principles is to ‘take account of the different roles paragraph 17 and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it’. Another core planning principle is to ‘actively manage patterns of growth paragraph 17 to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’. Also: ‘take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social paragraph 17 and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs’. Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to paragraph 28 create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should…promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable paragraph 29 development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. The transport system need to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. However, the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in paragraph 30 greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport. Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant paragraph 34 movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. However this needs to take account of policies set out elsewhere in this Framework, particularly in rural areas.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph Where practical, particularly within large-scale developments, key facilities paragraph 38 such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties. Advanced, high quality communications infrastructure is essential for paragraph 42 sustainable economic growth. The development of high speed broadband technology and other communications networks also plays a vital role in enhancing the provision of local community facilities and services. In rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring paragraph 54 authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be paragraph 55 located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the paragraph 70 community needs, planning policies and decisions should:  Plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments;  Guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs;  Ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community; and  Ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services. (paragraph 70) Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty if Paragraph National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which 115 have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.

National Planning Practice Guidance (nPPG) Rural Housing: How should local authorities support sustainable rural communities?  Important to recognise the particular issues facing rural areas in terms of housing supply and affordability, and the role of housing in supporting the broader sustainability of villages and smaller settlements  A thriving rural community in a living, working countryside depends, in part, on retaining local services and community facilities (such as schools, local shops, cultural venues, public houses and places of worship)  All settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural areas – and so blanket policies restricting housing development in some settlements and preventing other settlements from expanding should be avoided unless their use can be supported by robust evidence.

National Planning Practice Guidance (nPPG)  The NNPF also recognises that different sustainable transport policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas

Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities (for example, where there area groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby)

Local Plans: What is the role of a Local Plan? National planning policy places Local Plans at the heart of the planning system, so it is essential that they are in place and kept up to date. Local Plans set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the area, addressing need and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and infrastructure – as well as a basis for safeguarding the environment, adapting to climate change and securing good design.

Local Plans: How should a Local Plan reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development? Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework indicates that Local Plans should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should be done by identifying and providing for objectively assessed needs and by indicating how the presumption will be applied locally.

Local Policy Context – Current Policy Position Lancaster District Local Plan Strike-through Edition – September 2008 Policy H7 (Housing in Rural Villages) This policy states that within the following rural settlements, the development of suitable small sites for housing will be permitted provided that the development;  Is appropriate in terms of design, density, and open space standards to its surroundings;  Would not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the settlement, surrounding landscape, or the amenities of nearby residents;  Would not result in the loss of an important open area;  Makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking; and  Makes adequate provision for the disposal of sewage or waste water.

The following settlements are listed:  Middleton  Arkholme  Millhead  Borwick  Nether Kellet  Bolton-le-Sands (outside Green  Over Kellet Belt)  Overton  Brookhouse  Priest Hutton  Caton  Slyne (outside green belt)  Cowan Bridge  Silverdale  Dolphinholme  Tunstall  Galgate  Warton  Glasson Dock  Wennington  Gressingham  Whittington  Halton  Wray  Hest Bank (outside Green Belt)  Yealand Conyers  Hornby  Yealand Redmayne  Melling The policy also specifically notes that priority will be given to suitable small schemes designed specifically to meet rural housing needs.

Core Strategy (2003-2012) – Adopted July 2008 Policy SC3: Rural Communities Purpose: To build healthy Sustainable Communities by empowering rural communities to develop local vision and identity, identify and meet local needs and manage change in the rural economy and landscape.

This policy identified the following villages  Wray as having the five basic services:  Slyne-with-Hest  Bolton-le-Sands  Silverdale  Caton and Brookhouse  Galgate  Halton  Hornby The five basic services (defined by the Lancashire Structure Plan) are: a general practitioner, primary school, food shop, post office and a bus stop. The policy also states that the Council will work with the Local Strategic Partnership, Parish Councils and other local stakeholders to achieve a number of key aims. Some of which are:

Core Strategy (2003-2012) – Adopted July 2008  Protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements;  Identify local employment needs and opportunities for meeting them;  Encourage local involvement in the provision and management of essential rural facilities and resist proposals that would result in their loss;  Encourage appropriate employment development within villages, including home- working, particularly by supporting increased broadband availability; and  Enhance sensitive recreation and develop walking and cycling networks.

Development Management DPD (2011-2031) Policy DM42: Managing Rural Housing  Galgate Growth  Halton This policy identifies the following as  Hest Bank Sustainable Rural Settlements, where  Hornby proposals for new housing will be  Middleton supported:  Nether Kellet  Arkholme  Overton  Bolton-le-Sands  Over Kellet  Brookhouse  Silverdale  Cockerham  Slyne  Caton  Warton  Dolphinholme  Wray ‘The council will support proposals for new housing development in rural settlements that contain, or have good access to, an appropriate range of local services that contribute to the vitality of these settlements. These services are local shops, education and health facilities, access to public transport and other valued community facilities.’ It is also noted that ‘The council will support proposals for new housing development in smaller rural settlements if it can be demonstrated that the development will enhance or maintain the vitality of the local community’.

3.0 Current Evidence Base

Report of Village Surveys, Planning Services, September 2009

3.1 Village surveys were carried out for a number of key villages across the district. The village surveys were carried out to provide up-to-date information on service provision in the eight named villages, as well as information on service provision across a number of larger non named villages in the district. The following villages were surveyed:  Bolton-le-Sands*  Arkholme  Caton and Brookhouse*  Glasson Dock  Halton*  Middleton  Hornby*  Nether Kellet  Wray*  Over Kellet  Slyne-with-Hest*  Warton  Silverdale*  Yealand Conyers; and  Galgate*  Yealand Redmayne.

(* = eight named villages)

3.2 The report found that seven of the eight named villages have all five key services (as outlined in the Core Strategy). These villages are; Bolton-le-Sands, Caton and Brookhouse, Halton, Hornby, Wray, Silverdale and Galgate.Slyne-with-Hest, was found to not have a doctor’s surgery or GP service in the village. The closest doctors surgery was located in Bolton-le-Sands, 1.4 miles away.

3.3 None of the non-named villages were found to have all five key services. The report also states that several of the non-named villages have doctor’s surgeries located a similar, or lesser distance away from the village than Slyne-with-Hest is from Bolton-le-Sands.

3.4 Following the results of this study it was proposed that Over Kellet and Warton should be assessed for named village status. This would be consistent with the current assessment for Slyne-with-Hest.

4.0 Other Useful Supporting Information

Transport

4.1 Building upon the importance of accessibility to services and facilities, as stated within the NPPF, Lancashire County Council have recently consulted upon a draft ‘Lancashire Cycling and Walking Strategy 2016-2026 part 2’1. The vision; ‘more people walking and cycling for every day and leisure journeys in Lancashire’.

4.2 The strategy recognises that there are gaps in the walking and cycling network and that there is a need to strengthen, expand and maintain Centres of Excellence. ‘To achieve a step change in the levels of people walking and cycling, a comprehensive and joined up network which provides connectivity is needed. This network will provide safe routes between homes, schools, workplaces, transport interchanges, services and attractions for leisure and everyday journeys’.

4.3 Additionally, Lancashire City Council published the ‘District of Lancaster Highways and Transport Masterplan’ in October 20162.

4.4 In the Masterplan it is recognised that ‘where people live determines where many journeys start and end, so the more people in an area, the greater the demand on the network. This is particularly true of commuting, which currently places by far the biggest strain on our transport systems as many workers try to travel in a relatively short period of a few hours in the morning and early evening’.

4.5 It is also stated that ‘the car is the dominant travel choice for most people for most journeys for many reasons’.

4.6 With regards to ‘Rural Lancaster’ the Masterplan recognises that ‘by their nature, the rural areas of Lancaster tend to be very dependent on the car, which can not only lead to local problems on the highways network, but makes life very difficult for those who, for whatever reason, do not have their own transport’. These include:  “Rural isolation and ageing population both present health and wellbeing issues for the health sector;  Young people who don’t have access to a car can find it very challenging to reach education and employment; and  Car dependence is unlikely to be sustainable in the longer term.” Additional Information

4.7 Whilst conducting the Sustainable Settlements Review the transport services and facilities provided and maintained by Lancashire County Council will be kept under review, as they are subject to regular change and alteration3.

1 Lancashire County Council, Lancashire Cycling and Walking Strategy 92016-2026) Part 2, http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/consultation/responses/response.asp?ID=327 2 Lancashire County Council, Lancaster District Highways and Transport Masterplan, http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/strategies-policies-plans/roads-parking-and-travel/highways-and- transport-masterplans/lancaster-district-highways-and-transport-masterplan.aspx 3 Lancashire County Council, Changes to where we provide services, http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/get-involved/consultations/changes-to-where-we-provide-services.aspx

Local Centres Study

4.8 Local Centres are currently defined through the Core Strategy, under policy ER4. This identifies nine designated local centres. The Core Strategy describes these local centres as offering basic local shops including a Post Office, a general store, a chemist and other specialist shops. Stating that ‘these remain important as providing sustainable shopping facilities for local communities and their continued vitality is important’.

4.9 WYG Planning was commissioned by Lancaster City Council in Spring 2017 to undertake a review of defined local centres and provide strategic planning advice regarding the proposed new local centres. The report states that ‘many local centres provide access to shops but are also the ‘heart’ of the local community in some instances, with community halls and libraries. Due to the substantially different demographics of populations surrounding the currently defined local centres, each centre is qualitatively different and have been structured and designed to meet specific needs’.

4.10 The report also acknowledges that ‘Lancaster (referring to the district) has a network of local centres, which act as a focus for local life and successful communities. They provide shops, services and facilities to meet local day to day needs as a well as providing opportunities for growth, investment and local employment close to where people live and in some cases, work’.

4.11 The study assessed the health of 13 local centres which were proposed to be allocated as Local Centres within the draft Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD (consulted on in January – March 2017, see below). Some of these assessments, where applicable to the settlements included within this study, will be utilised as an evidence base to provide additional information regarding the provision of key services and facilities. Additionally, the study also investigated walk time catchments, analysis which will also be beneficial in this Review.

Draft Lancaster District Local Plan 2011-2031: Part 1: Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD

“The local plan contains and is built on five overriding objectives, supported by a series of more detailed sub-objectives which together provide a link between the vision and the development strategy itself”. Strategic Objective 1: Delivery of a thriving local economy which fosters investment and growth and supports the opportunities to deliver the economic potential of the district. Strategic Objective 2: Provision of a sufficient supply, quality and mix of housing to meet the changing needs of the population and support growth and investment. Strategic Objective 3: Protect and enhance the natural, historic and built environment of the district. Strategic Objective 4: The provision of necessary infrastructure required to support both new and existing development and the creation of sustainable communities. Strategic Objective 5: Delivery of a safe and sustainable transport network that improves both connection within and out of the district, reducing the need to travel and encouraging more sustainable forms of transport.

As outlined within policy SP3 ‘Development Strategy for Lancaster District’; “In addition to the main urban areas of the district, development will be supported in sustainable settlements as defined in the settlement hierarchy”.

2017 Draft Local Plan Consultation

4.12 From 27th January 2017 until 24th March 2017, Lancaster City Council held their ‘Developing a Local Plan for Lancaster District’ consultation. As part of which members of the public and key stakeholders were invited to provide their views and comments with regards to the following draft Local Plan documents: Part 1 ‘Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD’ and Part 2 ‘Review of the Development Management DPD’, alongside the supporting evidence and policies map.

4.13 Within the draft ‘Part 1: Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD’, policy SP2 outlines the Lancaster District Settlement Hierarchy, which includes those settlements which are currently identified as being sustainable within the adopted Development Management DPD.

4.14 In relation to this policy a number of issues were raised which are summarised below. This review will seek to investigate these further:  The absence of facilities and service provision within settlements currently identified as sustainable;  The absence of a definition of a ‘Sustainable Settlement’;  Consideration of a fourth tier within the hierarchy entitled ‘Secondary Villages’, which have some facilities to meet local needs;  The impact of the AONB upon Sustainable Settlements;  The contribution of ‘Sustainable Settlements’ towards meeting the district wide Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) housing figure vs local housing need;  Key objectives outlined in the Housing White Paper;  The provision of growth estimates for Sustainable Settlements; and  The infrastructure benefits new development can bring. Draft Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD

4.15 From 10th November 2016 until 5th January 2017, Lancaster City Council with South Lakeland District Council jointly consulted on a draft Arnside and Silverdale AONB Development Plan Document.

4.16 Within this document, policy ASO1 sets out the Development Strategy, which includes the identification of Local Service Centres’ (known within the Lancaster District as ‘Sustainable Settlements’, which is the focus of this review). The opening sentence of this policy states ‘a landscape capacity-led approach to development will be taken in the AONB’.

4.17 Specifically in relation to Local Service Centres (Sustainable Settlements) the policy states:

“To promote vibrant local communities and support services, small scale growth and

investment will be supported in the identified Local Service Centres where it is in keeping

with the primary purpose of the AONB. The following villages are defined as AONB Local

Service Centres:

 Arnside  Silverdale 15  Sandside/Storth  Warton” 4.18 Please note, Arnside and Sandside/Storth are not within the Lancaster District and so will not be included within this Review.

4.19 This Sustainable Settlements Review is a district wide assessment, which will therefore include all settlements. This Review will be used as an evidence base to inform the strategic Local Plan documents; Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD (policy SP2) and the Development Management DPD (policy DM4). As this is a district wide assessment it is considered appropriate to include all of the settlements in the Lancaster District within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB, and also the Forest of Bowland AONB, in this Review. So that a balanced assessment approach is taken. The location of a settlement within an AONB will be assessed in further detail.

Neighbourhood Plans

4.20 It is also worthwhile noting that a number of Neighbourhood Plans are being prepared across the Lancaster District.

5.0 Aims of the Sustainable Settlements Review

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework advocates the focussing of development in locations that are or can be made sustainable. This review therefore seeks to assess which settlements within the Lancaster District are considered to be sustainable, and also to explore how settlements could potentially be made sustainable or more sustainable by new development. The following aims are important to the process of understanding the role, function and vitality of settlements, out with the four main urban areas (Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth) within the district:

 Establish the population size (density) and characteristics of settlements across the district  Assess the townscape of each settlement and location of settlements within protected landscapes  Establish the provision, and also identify absence, of local services and community facilities in all settlements  Investigate the accessibility of local services and community facilities which may lie out with a settlement, not available within the settlement itself  Establish the presence, and also absence, of employment opportunities within a settlement, and also assess the accessibility of those nearby  Identify the current issues and aspirations of settlements  Identify settlements which, based upon the evidence found, are considered to be sustainable and therefore able to accommodate growth outside the main urban areas. The results of these assessments will thus inform the emerging Local Plan and the Lancaster District settlement hierarchy, reflecting their role in the district.  Identify settlements which have the potential to become sustainable settlements. For example, new development can bring about positive effects through investment in infrastructure. This Review will therefore also seek to establish where improvements and enhancements could be made.

6.0 Methodology

Lancaster District Settlement Hierarchy

6.1 The overall aim of this review is to establish which settlements within the Lancaster district are considered to be Sustainable Settlements. The definition of which will be outlined at the end of this chapter.

6.2 The settlement hierarchy proposed for the Lancaster District is defined as follows:

1. Regional Centre 2. Key Service Centres and Market Towns 3. Sustainable Settlements 4. Rural Villages

6.3 Lancaster is identified as the Regional Centre, which will provide the focus for future growth in the district and will accommodate the majority of new development.

6.4 Morecambe and Heysham are identified as Key Service Centres, which will play a supporting role to the Sub Regional Centre and will accommodate levels of new residential and economic development to serve more localised catchments.

6.5 Carnforth is identified as a Market Town, which will also play a supporting role to the Sub Regional Centre and Key Service Centres, and will accommodate levels of new residential and economic development to serve more localised catchments.

6.6 Due to their size, scale, location and known presence of services/facilities and employment opportunities, Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth have not been assessed further within this Review, as they are already identified and evidenced to be suitable and appropriate locations for accommodating future sustainable growth.

6.7 Therefore this Review aims to identify which of the following settlements within the rural parishes, outlined in Table 1, are or have the potential to be, a Sustainable Settlement. Table 1: Settlements within the Lancaster District (not including the four main urban areas)

Parish Settlements Over Wyresdale Abbeystead, Lee, Lower Green Bank, Marshaw, Ortner, Tarnbrook Nether Kellet Addington, Nether Kellet Arkholme-with- Arkholme Cawood Aldcliffe-with Stodday Aldcliffe, Stodday Halton-with-Aughton Aughton, Halton Scotforth* Bailrigg, Langthwaite Ellel Bay Horse, Dolphinholme, Ellel, Galgate, Hampson Green Bolton-le-Sands Bolton-le-Sands Borwick Borwick Caton-with-Littledale Brookhouse, Caton, Caton Green, Littledale (Crossgill) Quernmore Brow Top, Quernmore, Denny Beck Cantsfield Cantsfield

Parish Settlements Over Kellet Capernwray, Over Kellet Claughton Claughton Cockerham Cockerham Thurnham Conder Green, Glasson Dock, Lower Thurnham, Upper Thurnham Burrow-with-Burrow Nether Burrow, Over Burrow, Overtown Hornby-with-Farleton Farleton, Hornby Gressingham Gressingham Heaton-with-Oxcliffe Heaton, Oxcliffe Hill Slyne-with-Hest Hest Bank, Slyne Leck** Cowan Bridge, Leck Ireby** Ireby Tatham Lowgill, Tatham Melling-with-Wrayton Melling, Wrayton Middleton Middleton Nether Kellet Nether Kellet Overton Overton, Sunderland Priest Hutton Priest Hutton, Tewitfield Roeburndale Salter Silverdale Silverdale Tunstall Tunstall Warton Warton, Millhead Wennington Wennington Whittington Whittington, Newton, Docker Wray-with-Botton Wray Yealand Conyers Yealand Conyers Yealand Redmayne Yealand Redmayne, Yealand Storrs (* Scotforth was once a separate village, however Scotforth itself is now part of the city of Lancaster. The parish of Scotforth now mainly constitutes the settlement of Bailrigg, Langthwaite and surrounding dispersed dwellings and farmsteads.) (**With regards to Ireby and Leck, large areas of these parishes are now within the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Therefore it is no longer the duty of Lancaster City Council to plan for these areas)

6.8 Following the policy and guidance provided in the NPPF and NPPG, there are five key areas this Review will focus upon:  Population;  Townscape and Landscape;  Provision of Services and Facilities;  Employment Opportunities; and  Accessibility.

Population

6.9 Firstly, in order to begin the assessment of the sustainability of a settlement, it is useful to investigate the size of the population. As generally, the larger the settlement, the larger the population, and consequently the greater the provision of services, facilities and employment opportunities needed to support that population. An assessment of the population will also provide an indication as to the number of people who require access to, and who are currently utilising, the services and facilities available in each settlement.

6.10 The Lancaster District is a predominantly rural district, consisting of a number of dispersed towns, villages and hamlets. Within the district there are 38 designated parish council areas (outside the four main urban areas), and a total of 74 settlements identified. In order to assess the population of each of the rural settlements, outside the four main urban areas (Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth), it was considered appropriate to collate this data at parish level.

6.11 It is recognised that there is often more than one settlement (town, village or hamlet) within a parish. Therefore in most instances the population size of a parish is not representative of the population size of an individual settlement. However, due to the dispersed nature of many of the rural settlements themselves, it was not considered appropriate to define a boundary for each specific settlement. This is because, particularly in rural areas, it is recognised that to be considered part of a settlement does not necessarily mean a residence is required to be part of the ‘immediate settlement’. (The term ‘immediate settlement’ refers to closely grouped or contiguous development which is physically separate from urban or other rural settlements, and which in many cases surrounds or is adjacent to services and facilities serving the nearby dwellings). For example a village may have a main street which is considered the centre, lined with a mixture of dwellings, a shop, church and a village hall, and yet be surrounded by a number of dispersed dwellings and farmsteads. It would therefore be very difficult to draw a boundary around this settlement.

6.12 However, it is stated that ‘Town and parish councils are the first level of local government. They provide communities with a democratic voice and a structure for taking community action’4. This acknowledges that a parish (and a Parish Council) is representative of a ‘community’, focussed around a settlement (or in some cases more than one settlement), and their associated services and facilities. As outlined within the NPPF, one of the three key dimensions to sustainable development is the social role. Paragraph 7 clearly states that the planning system has a role to play in ‘supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities…with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and supports its health, social and cultural well-being’ (emphasis added). Therefore it is considered that to assess the population at parish level is a suitable scale.

Data Collection Methods

6.13 The data which will be used to investigate the population size of each parish will be that which has been generated using the 2015 Experian mid-year estimates (November 2016). Originally the 2011 Census data was going to be used, however, over the past 6 years it is understood that change will have taken place and so it is considered vital to capture as up- to-date picture of the demographics of the population across the district as possible.

6.14 As noted above, due to the rural nature of the Lancaster district, there are a significant number of people who live outside the immediate settlement. Therefore, as opposed to using the population size, the population density of each parish will be calculated because the dispersal of the population will not be demonstrated through the population figure. A parish may have a large population size because it contains a number of smaller settlements or because it contains a single, relatively large settlement. There is evidently a difference between the structures of these two parishes, however the population size alone does not reflect this. It is therefore beneficial for the purposes of this Review to be able to

4 https://www.gov.uk/government/get-involved/take-part/set-up-a-town-or-parish-council

differentiate between the two, because a parish which contains a number of smaller settlements, despite having a large population size, may have relatively limited services, facilities and employment opportunities. For example, in the 2015 Experian mid-year estimates (November 2016), Over Wyresdale parish is estimated to have a population size of 311 and Arkholme-with-Cawood parish, a population size of 327. Both a very similar size but the nature of these two parishes is very different, yet this is not reflected by this figure.

6.15 Again, due to the rural nature of the district, there will be a significant number of people located outside the immediate settlement who will utilise the services, facilities and employment opportunities located within the settlement. This is another reason as to why specific individual settlement boundaries have not been drawn.

Population Density

6.16 The area over which people are distributed will be useful to establish the nature of a parish and the settlements within it, and also to inform the assessment of the accessibility of services/facilities and employment opportunities. Due to the dispersed rural nature of the district, it is considered that the population size will not necessarily be very reflective of the character of each parish. As a result the population density will be investigated and parishes which have a population density of less than 0.2 per hectare will not be assessed further. Consequently, the following Parishes will not be assessed further:

 Cantsfield;  Over Wyresdale;  Claughton;  Quernmore;  Gressingham;  Roeburndale; and  Ireby;  Tatham.  Leck;

6.17 The population density of each parish is displayed in Table X of Appendix X. Each parish has been ranked from highest to lowest. However, please note that this will not directly determine the sustainability of each settlement or the assessment process. This exercise has been carried out for illustrative purposes only. Therefore this does not necessarily mean that the settlement which appears at the top of table is the most sustainable because it has the highest density population. There are a number of other important factors which need to be taken into consideration when assessing the sustainability of a settlement, as demonstrated through this Review.

Age of Population

6.18 It is also recognised, from a social, economic and to an extent an environmental perspective, that the age of the population is another important factor which shapes the context and influences the needs of a settlement. This will also aid the assessment by providing an understanding as to who lives there and what therefore may be required in order for the settlement to be considered sustainable. For example, an ageing population will likely have a greater dependence upon public transport and a working population will be in need of greater employment opportunities.

6.19 The data collated to investigate the age of the population of each parish (as a percentage) will be generated using the 2015 Experian mid-year estimates (November 2016). Originally the 2011 Census data was going to be used, however, over the past 6 years a number of changes may have taken place and so it was considered vital to capture as up-to-date

picture of the socio-demographics of each settlement as possible. This information will be utilised to aid the qualitative analysis of the population of each settlement, with the intention to explore how this may influence key services and facilities, employment opportunities and accessibility. All of which will be assessed within this Review.

6.20 As a result, the following parishes and the settlements they contain, as outlined in Table 2, will be included within the assessment.

Table 2: Settlements within the Lancaster District to be included within the assessment (not including the four main urban areas)

Parish Settlements Nether Kellet Addington, Nether Kellet Arkholme-with- Arkholme Cawood Aldcliffe-with Stodday Aldcliffe, Stodday Halton-with-Aughton Aughton, Halton Scotforth* Bailrigg, Langthwaite Ellel Bay Horse, Dolphinholme, Ellel, Galgate, Hampson Green Bolton-le-Sands Bolton-le-Sands Borwick Borwick Caton-with-Littledale Brookhouse, Caton, Caton Green, Littledale (Crossgill) Over Kellet Capernwray, Over Kellet Cockerham Cockerham Thurnham Conder Green, Glasson Dock, Lower Thurnham, Upper Thurnham Burrow-with-Burrow Nether Burrow, Over Burrow, Overtown Hornby-with-Farleton Farleton, Hornby Heaton-with-Oxcliffe Heaton, Oxcliffe Hill Slyne-with-Hest Hest Bank, Slyne Leck* Cowan Bridge, Melling-with-Wrayton Melling, Wrayton Middleton Middleton Nether Kellet Nether Kellet Overton Overton, Sunderland Priest Hutton Priest Hutton, Tewitfield Silverdale Silverdale Tunstall Tunstall Warton Warton, Millhead Wennington Wennington Whittington Whittington, Newton, Docker Wray-with-Botton Wray Yealand Conyers Yealand Conyers Yealand Redmayne Yealand Redmayne, Yealand Storrs (*For the reasons outlined below, Cowan Bridge will be included within the assessment)

Limitations

6.21 It is understood and recognised that there are limitations associated with this approach. As noted, due to the rural nature of the district, and the number of small, dispersed settlements, it is not possible to obtain specific population density figures for each individual

settlement. Therefore parish level population data has been used. It is important to note that the parishes and their boundaries should not be regarded as synonymous with a settlement or its boundary (‘the immediate settlement’), nor have these boundaries been used to define settlements or their boundaries.

6.22 There is one settlement which lies across the district boundary (with Wyre Council), and this settlement is Dolphinholme. However, for the purposes of this study the settlement will be assessed as a whole, including the areas outside the Lancaster District, as people and the services/facilities/employment opportunities they chose to use are not restricted to district boundaries. Additionally, there is another settlement which is considered to lie across a parish boundary (due to recent construction and expansion) between the Burrow-with- Burrow and Leck parish, and this settlement is Cowan Bridge. However, for the same reasons mentioned above, the entire settlement will be assessed. These two settlements have been highlighted as exceptions because it is considered that the immediate settlement straddles a parish or district boundary, and therefore it is important to include the entire settlement within the assessment. Other settlements may be considered to straddle a boundary, however a professional judgement has been made as to whether this is applicable to the immediate settlement.

Landscape and Townscape (Settlement Context)

6.23 Another crucial way of understanding the role in which a settlement may perform within the settlement hierarchy, depends upon the environment within which it is located. This environment may have shaped the way in which the settlement stands today and therefore, the environment may continue to shape the future of the settlement. As a result, it is considered important to explore the context of each settlement from an environmental perspective further.

6.24 A key dimension of the planning system is the environmental role. As stated in paragraph 7 of the NPPF the planning system needs to contribute ‘to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment’. Therefore this is another key factor to consider as part of the assessment of the sustainability of settlements. This Review will therefore seek to incorporate designated protected landscapes and designated protected heritage areas. This is not to say other aspects of the environment have not shaped, impacted or considered to be important in the context of a settlement, as this is certainly not the case, but these are the two features which will be explored in more depth within this Review.

Townscape (Conservation Areas)

6.25 Continuing on from establishing the population density of each parish, to further focus the assessment upon each individual settlement, this element of the Review seeks to assess the townscape of the actual settlement itself. This will provide an explanation of the evolution of the settlement, investigating the defining characteristics and exploring how and why the settlement came to be as it stands today. Due to the historic nature of the rural settlements within the Lancaster District, a number of settlements contain Conservation Areas which recognise a range of differing townscapes. Although other designated heritage assets may have influenced the evolution of a settlement, this Review will not seek to specifically assess all of these assets.

6.26 Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on local planning authorities to designate any ‘areas of special architectural or historic

interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’ as conservation areas.

6.27 Paragraph 126 of the NPPF states ‘Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account:

 The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;  The wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;  The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and  Opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place’.

6.28 Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states the importance of ‘the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality’. Therefore within the context of this Review it is considered important to acknowledge the presence of Conservation Areas alongside the townscape assessment.

Landscape (Designated Protected Landscapes)

6.29 The NPPF clearly states that ‘great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads’ (paragraph 115).

6.30 Within the Lancaster District there are two AONB’s; the Arnside and Silverdale AONB and the Forest of Bowland AONB. As set out in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, confirmed by Section 82 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000:  ‘The primary purpose of the designation is to conserve and enhance natural beauty’.  In pursuing the primary purpose of the designation, account should be taken of the needs of agriculture, forestry and other rural industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities. Particular regard should be paid to promoting sustainable forms of social and economic development that in themselves conserve and enhance the environment.’(emphasis added)

6.31 Since the 1st August 2016, the north eastern corner of the Lancaster District now lies within the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Designated by Government in 1954 the National Park has two statutory purposes set out in the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, as amended by the 1995 Environment Act:  To conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and  To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public.

6.32 Therefore a large proportion of the Ireby and Leck parish boundaries are no longer within the Lancaster District boundary, and so it is no longer the role of Lancaster City Council to plan for this area. Although these two parishes do not exceed the population density threshold, their location within the Yorkshire Dales National Park also means that they will

not be assessed further as part of this study. (The Yorkshire Dales National Park adopted their new Local Plan in December 2016, however this only covered the ‘old’ National Park and so does not incorporate the areas of land which are within the new extension. It is unknown if the Yorkshire Dales National Park has made a commitment to include this ‘new’ area in a review of its adopted Local Plan. However this will be kept under review.)

6.33 This Review will therefore seek to investigate and assess the sustainability of settlements located within an AONB, giving specific regard to their location within this protected landscape. A settlement’s location within an AONB does not automatically mean it cannot be considered as part of this assessment, as a settlement within an AONB can still be considered to be sustainable. However, this Review seeks to highlight that careful consideration will be given to those settlements located within the protected landscape of an AONB.

6.34 Please note that this Review will not incorporate a landscape and visual impact assessment for each settlement. The purpose and aim of this Review is not to allocate development within each settlement or to assess the capacity for development, but to investigate, assess and establish the sustainability of each settlement taking into consideration environmental, social and economic factors. Landscape and visual impacts are site specific and so different locations within the same settlements could be considered to have a different impact, and so should be assessed accordingly on a site by site basis, recognising the value of the AONB.

6.35 In light of this, it is considered that the most appropriate approach towards the identification of sustainable settlements in the AONB’s is to adopt a landscape capacity-led approach. To ensure careful consideration is given towards the conservation and protection of the landscape and scenic beauty, along with the wildlife and cultural heritage.

Additional Notes

6.36 It is also worthwhile noting that although a separate Development Plan Document is being developed for the Arnside and Silverdale AONB, the following parishes will still be considered within the district wide settlement hierarchy; Yealand Conyers, Yealand Redmayne, Warton and Silverdale. The same approach will also be taken towards the Forest of Bowland AONB to ensure both protected landscapes are treated with parity of esteem.

Data Collection Methods

6.37 Initially this will take the format of a desk-based assessment exercise to establish, for the relevant settlements, where within the AONB they are located, and also where each Conservation Area is located. Following which, Lancaster City Council Conservation Officer’s will be undertaking Townscape Assessments for each settlement above the population density threshold, to investigate the defining characteristics and why and how the settlement came to be as it stands today.

6.38 The Forest of Bowland AONB Landscape Character Assessment (September 2009)5 and Arnside and Silverdale AONB Landscape Seascape Character Assessment (enter date)6 will also be utilised. From which the summary of the overall landscape character of the Landscape Character Type and key characteristics that contribute to the unique local sense

5 http://www.forestofbowland.com/Landscape-Character-Assessment 6 http://www.arnsidesilverdaleaonb.org.uk/what-we-do/current-projects/landscape-seascape-character- assessment/

of place and distinctiveness of the local Landscape Character Area will be extracted.

Limitations

6.39 Although this Review seeks to establish the presence of protected landscapes and heritage areas, it will not seek to investigate or assess in detail the potential historic and environmental constraints for each settlement. Nor will this review explore the ways in which protected landscapes and heritage areas may influence the extent of development growth.

Key Services and Facilities

6.40 The NPPF highlights the importance of the availability of key local services and community facilities. ‘To promote a strong rural economy, Local plans should…promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship’ (paragraph 28).

6.41 In order to assess the current level of local service and community facility provision within each settlement, they will be divided into two categories; ‘key services’ and ‘other services’.

6.42 ‘Key services’ are those which require a frequent number of trips, usually on a daily basis, so it is important that they are located close to the population they serve.

6.43 ‘Other Services’ are not typically present in all settlements. In some cases this is due to the size of the area over which the population they serve are distributed, or because they are not used on as frequent basis as the identified ‘key services’. However, it is important that they are able to be easily accessed.

6.44 If such services and facilities are located close to where people live, there is greater opportunity for people to reduce car journeys and to undertake trips by other, more sustainable transport modes.

Key Services

6.45 For the purposes of this review, the following have been identified as ‘Key Services’:  Local convenience store (including mini-supermarkets, village shops and ancillary facilities)  Primary School  Post Office (shop and service)  (Active) Public Bus Stop (service provision will be included within the accessibility assessment)  Public House  Village Hall/Community Centre

Table 3: Justification for ‘Key Services’ Key Services Justification for inclusion Proposed Score A local convenience good is defined as ‘a consumer item that is widely available and purchased frequently with minimal effort’7. These items can include milk, bread and 3 = mini-supermarket/ newspapers. As this is a service which is used village shop Local Convenience Store on a regular, in many cases daily, basis it is important that these services are located 2 = ancillary facility close to where people are located. Therefore a local convenience store is considered a ‘key service’ to the local community. All children aged 4/5years to 10/11years are required by law to attend primary school. Due to the young age of the children, they are usually required to be taken and collected by a parent/guardian. This can therefore generate a significant number of Primary School trips. This combined with the limit on the 3 class sizes, subjects taught and teachers required, means that this service needs to be local to the community it serves. Therefore it is important that Primary Schools are easily accessible, and thus a ‘key service’ to the local community. Minimising people’s need to travel, in particular via private car, is a key theme within the NPPF. The NPPF also states that people need to be provided with a real choice about how they travel (paragraph 29). Additionally for those without access to a car, public transport is a vital mode of transport (Active) Public Bus Stop 3 in order for them to be able to access a number of ‘key’ and ‘other’ services and facilities. Therefore a public bus stop (service) is considered a ‘key service’ to the local community. (Bus service provision will be investigated in more detail within the ‘Accessibility’ assessment.) The Post Office provides a key communication service, used by many people on a regular basis, and also provides a wide range of other services, such as travel money 2 = post office store and banking. It is therefore important that Post Office this service is easily accessible to all. Despite 1 = post office service the evolution of electronic communication, the postal service still forms a key element of day-to-day communication, especially amongst an ageing population. Although a

7 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/convenience-good.asp

Key Services Justification for inclusion Proposed Score Post Office shop may not be available, in many rural areas a Post Office service is provided within a pub or village hall, highlighting the importance of the availability of this service. Therefore a post office is considered a ‘key service’ to the local community.

There are strict drink drive limit laws in place. It is therefore important that public houses are close to where the people are located. A facility frequently used for social gatherings and meetings within the community. Providing local people with the opportunity Public House 1 to meet and catch up with other local residents within their community. The provision of this facility can be important for tackling rural isolation. Therefore a public house is considered a ‘key service’ to the local community. Provides an important focal point for community events and gatherings. For some it may be considered as an alternative place to meet instead of the pub. It is a publically accessible place (often via prior arrangement) which provides a space to meet for a wide Village Hall/Community range of purposes, and fulfil different 1 Centre community needs. This may include parish council meetings, nursery groups and children’s parties. They provide an important place to bring the community together. Therefore a Village/Community Hall is considered an important ‘Key Service’ to the local community.

Other Services

6.46 For the purposes of this Review, the following services are classified as ‘Other Services’:

 General Medical Practice  Secondary School  Library (permanent and  Dentist mobile)

 Sports/Recreation Ground (public open space and sports/recreation ground)  Place of Worship  Access to high speed broadband

Table 4: Justification for ‘Other Services’ Other Services Justification for inclusion Proposed Score The NPPF reinforces the importance of supporting and improving healthy communities. It is vital for the health and wellbeing of all people that they are able to easily access healthcare services. Previously within the Lancaster District, a General Medical Practice has been identified as one of the five key services. However, it is now recognised that healthcare services are centralising, so larger practices in one location are serving a wider population. Therefore the number of practices is decreasing, so fewer rural settlements General Medical Practice 3 contain one. Although this does not mean that this service is less important, the Council does need to be mindful of this and cannot direct development towards locations where access to healthcare services would not be achievable. Additionally, an ageing population is placing greater demands on the healthcare system, and people of older age may no longer be able to drive and so easy access to a General Medical Practice is very important. Therefore a General Medical Practice is considered an important ‘Other Service’ to the local community. In order to further their primary education, all children aged 11/12years to 15/16years are required by law to attend the next stage of education, which for the majority of children is secondary school. Due to the increased size of the classes, number of teachers required and subjects taught, these services are Secondary School 3 operated on a much larger scale in comparison to primary schools. Children, particularly in rural areas, often travel further distances to attend Secondary School. Therefore a Secondary School is considered an important ‘Other Service’ to the local community.

29 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final Methodology October 2017 Other Services Justification for inclusion Proposed Score Similar to the purpose of a Village/Community Hall, a public open space provides an important focal point for community events and gatherings. An outdoor space for all members of the community to use. Providing a place for Public Open Space people to meet, enjoy recreational and (Sports/Recreation 3 organised sports activities, and community Ground) events. Such spaces are important for people’s health, wellbeing and social integration. In particular for those without access to a private garden. Therefore a Public Open Space is considered an important ‘Other Service’ to the local community. A library provides a range of valuable resources and important educational tools, which are accessible for free (in most cases) to all members of the public. This can include books (fiction and non-fiction), DVD’s and access to a computer. Although the Lancaster District has seen a decline in the number of permanent public library services, the Library increase in mobile library services highlights 2 the importance of this service to the community. Given the rural nature of this district, the mobile library provides a valuable service to the population by reaching a wide number of people, ensuring the service is as accessible as possible. Therefore a Library is considered an important ‘Other Service’ to the local community. Provides an important place for people to meet within the local community. It provides a place of worship, contemplation and reflection away from the busyness of everyday life. For many people their faith is a Place of Worship significant part of their life, and having an 2 easily accessible place to be able to worship with people whom share the same beliefs and values is important. Therefore a Place of Worship is considered an important ‘Other Service’ to the local community. As stated within the NPPF ‘the development of high speed broadband technology and other communications networks also plays a Access to high speed vital role in enhancing the provision of local 1 broadband community facilities and services’(paragraph 42). The internet is performing an increasingly important role in people’s everyday life, both at work and at home, for sharing knowledge 30 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final Methodology October 2017

Other Services Justification for inclusion Proposed Score and increasing connectivity. In rural areas, until relatively recently, access to high speed broadband has been very limited. However, the introduction of ‘Broadband for the Rural North Ltd’ (B4RN) has significantly altered this, and has increased the quality of the communications infrastructure in the rural areas of the district. As it is recognised that rural areas can by their nature, be isolating places to live and work. Therefore access to high speed broadband is considered an important ‘Other Service’ to the local community. (This service also increases digital connectivity and accessibility which will be explored further in the next section). In addition to healthcare services such as GP’s, it is also important that all people are able to easily access a Dental Practice for regular routine check-ups and also Dentist 1 emergency appointments, to maintain their dental health and wellbeing. Therefore a Dentist is considered an important ‘Other Service’ to the local community.

Quantity of Services and Facilities

6.47 For each settlement the quantity of each of the above services and facilities present within or adjacent to the immediate settlement will be recorded. It is considered important to assess the number of services and facilities available within a settlement, as those which have a greater population subsequently have more people to serve and thus a greater provision of services and facilities is likely to be required, and closer to the community they serve.

Value and Importance of Services and Facilities

6.48 It is also considered important to analyse the importance and value of each local service and facility to the community they serve, and to ensure the assessment reflects this. Therefore each of the services and facilities listed above have a weighted score applied, utilising the justifications provided, professional judgement and national guidance to gauge the value and importance of facilities and services to meeting the needs of a community (as shown in Table 5 and 6). This scoring reflects the recognition that some services and facilities are more important and valued greater by the community, and need to be used more regularly, in some cases on a daily basis. Therefore the assessment will not be simply based upon the quantity of services and facilities.

6.49 Please note the scoring system enables an initial comparison of the provision of services/facilities within villages across the district. In particular it will be interesting to see the difference between the provision of ‘key’ and ‘other’ services within the settlements. Therefore the settlements will not be ranked based upon the outcome of their score, for example the greatest score does not necessarily mean that settlement is considered to be more sustainable with regards to services/facilities provision, as the settlement may have

more ‘other’ services and limited ‘key’ services. Therefore providing an inaccurate representation to inform the sustainability assessment. This leads into the importance of the qualitative assessment of service/facility provision.

Quality of Services and Facilities

6.50 As demonstrated in Tables 5 and 6, the assessment of the provision of services and facilities within each settlement will also be subject to a qualitative assessment. In addition to recording the presence and value/importance of services and facilities within each settlement, it is also considered beneficial to assess the quality of the service/facility provided. For example, this element of the assessment will take into consideration other features of the service/facility provided, such as opening times and other services which may be available through that one service/facility, which may not be acknowledged by only recording their presence and importance, but is valuable information when taking into consideration and assessing the extent to which they serve and meet the needs of the community.

6.51 The quantity, value/importance and quality of the services and facilities provided will aid the assessment of the sustainability of each settlement. Table 5 and 6 below will be completed for each settlement assessed.

Table 5: Key Services

Value/Importance Quality of Service Key Services Quantity to Community (i.e. opening times) Local Mini-Supermarket 3 Convenience Village Shop 3 Store Ancillary Facility 2 Primary School 3 Post Office Store 2 Post Office Post Office Service 1 (Active) Public 3 Bus Stop* Public House 1 Village Hall/ Community 1 Centre (*in relation to public bus services, school bus services will addressed within the ‘Accessibility’ section)

32 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final Methodology October 2017

Table 6: Other Services

Value/Importance Other Services Quantity Quality of Service to Community (i.e. opening times)

General Medical Practice (inc. Health 3 Centre) Secondary School 3 Sports/Recreation Ground (public open 3 space and/or sports/recreation) 3 Place of Worship 2 2 Library (permanent and/or mobile) 2 Access to High Speed Broadband 2 Dentist 1

Data Collection Methods

6.52 Initially the majority of the above data will be collected via settlement site visit surveys, by completing the attached Settlement Survey Form (Appendix A) and marking the location of each service and facility on a map. (Please note other services and facilities which are not listed in the tables above will also be recorded during the site survey and mapped, to provide a wider coverage and understanding of the provision of services and facilities available. Some of this information will be useful when exploring the employment opportunities which are available).

6.53 Additionally, questionnaires will also be sent out to each Parish Council being assessed in detail as part of this Review, to confirm the data collected during the site visits is correct and reflects the provision of services and facilities within each settlement, and to seek further additional information regarding the services and facilities (please see Appendix B). Where a facility and/or service is not available, they will be asked to indicate where the nearest accessible alternative is located. It is anticipated that this data collection process will be able to provide information with regards to services/facilities which may have recently closed, are needed or require improving. To develop greater understanding of the current situation in relation to service/facility provision within each settlement and to help identify local settlement need with regards to service and facility provision.

6.54 Table 7 outlines the proposed data collection methods. (Please note that due to the vast number of services and facilities available within the four urban areas, these will not be specifically mapped. However, they will be acknowledged where it is considered appropriate within the assessment).

Table 7: Service and Facilities Data Collection Methods

Services and Facilities Data Collection Methods Mini-Supermarket Local Convenience  Site Visit Survey Village Shop Store  Parish Council Questionnaire Ancillary Facility

Services and Facilities Data Collection Methods  Site Visit Survey  Parish Council Questionnaire  Liaison with Lancashire County Council Education Department Primary School  Lancashire County Council GIS data (School locations)  Lancashire County Council School Place Provision Strategy* Post Office Store  Site Visit Survey Post Office Post Office Service  Parish Council Questionnaire  Post Office Website (Branch Finder)  Site Visit Survey  Parish Council Questionnaire  Lancashire County Council GIS data (bus services, bus stops, cycle routes and public (Active) Public Bus rights of way) Stop  Lancashire County Council website (bus service timetables)  Stagecoach (bus service timetables)  Kirkby Lonsdale Coach Hire (bus service timetables)  Site Visit Survey Public House  Parish Council Questionnaire Village  Site Visit Survey Hall/Community  Parish Council Questionnaire Centre  Site Visit Survey General Medical  Parish Council Questionnaire Practice (inc. Health  Liaison with North Lancashire CCG** Centre)  NHS website (Service Finder)  Site Visit Survey  Parish Council Questionnaire Secondary School  Liaison with Lancashire County Council Education Department Public Open Space  Site Visit Survey Sports/Recreation  Parish Council Questionnaire Sports/Recreation Ground  Lancaster City Council PPG17 Open Space, Recreation and Sports Facilities Study  Site Visit Survey Place of Worship  Parish Council Questionnaire Permanent  Site Visit Survey Library  Parish Council Questionnaire Mobile  Liaison with Lancashire County Council Library Service  Lancashire County Council GIS data Access to High  B4RN (Broadband for Rural North Ltd) website Speed Broadband  Parish Council Questionnaire Dentist  Site Visit Survey 34 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final Methodology October 2017

Services and Facilities Data Collection Methods  Parish Council Questionnaire  Liaison with North Lancashire CCG**  NHS website (Service Finder)

6.55 The findings of the Lancaster District Local Centres Study will also be taken into consideration during the assessment. This will be applicable for the following settlements:  Caton;  Hornby;  Galgate;  Bolton-le-Sands;  Silverdale;  Hest Bank;  Slyne; and  Halton.

6.56 The outcomes of the Local Centres Study does not directly relate to or impact upon the outcomes of this Sustainable Settlements Review. However, this study will provide additional, useful information to aid understanding for the assessment process.

Additional Notes

6.57 Due to the continuing changes in service provision, in particular in relation to bus services, Lancaster City Council will maintain frequent dialogue with Lancashire County Council, and other key stakeholders such as the Morecambe Bay CCG.

6.58 With regards to the provision of education and healthcare, in some cases there are catchments for these services. Where present, these will be investigated as part of the assessment process.

Limitations

6.59 The results will be representative of a moment in time, and because the assessment is a key piece of evidence underpinning the emerging Local Plan, once the Local Plan is adopted it cannot be changed. Therefore this study will not be kept frequently under review. However, because a Local Plan is required to be reviewed every five years, this study will be reviewed again at this stage.

6.60 The Council also recognises the role, prevalence and importance personal choice makes in today’s society. For example, parents can chose where they send their children to school and people can chose which shop they buy their food from. It is acknowledged that the majority of people do not do their ‘weekly shop’ at their local convenience store. This can be for a number of reasons, due to the limited number of food products available. People like to have a choice. People choose which supermarket they go to for their shopping, again this can also be for a number of reasons, and for example can even depend on where they are going that day and which store may be on route, especially for people living in rural areas whose options due to their location may be limited. However, it is also recognised that access to a local convenience store, providing the community with this option, is also important and contributes towards the sustainability of a settlement. Therefore this Review acknowledges the crucial role personal choice has on some of the services/facilities we chose to use,

however to investigate this further is out with the scope of this study. Due to the resource constraints and the array of choices available to a large population over a large area.

6.61 The increase in the role and the growth in uptake of home deliveries is also recognised to be important in today’s society. However, a detailed assessment as to how this service may be used is outside the scope of this study. There are a number of variables which can influence this and in many cases is not a service which is accessible for all. For example, for many it will depend upon access to the internet, which not all households may have. Therefore it was not deemed appropriate to include this within the Review, however it is considered important to acknowledge the increasing importance this service has, in particular for rural settlements.

Accessibility

6.62 One of the core planning principles within the NPPF is to ‘actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’ (paragraph 17).

6.63 Following on from the discussion above, it is important to note that not everyone who lives within a certain settlement will use the services and facilities located in their settlement or settlements within their parish. In part due to personal choice, or this may be because the services/facilities are limited, or not available and so people are required to access these services/facilities within another settlement or parish. People are not restricted by boundaries and so settlement and/or parish boundaries will not be applied within this assessment.

6.64 Therefore there are some settlements, which although they do not have all or even many services or facilities within or adjacent to their settlement, may be considered relatively sustainable due to the transport options available to access key and other services. The network of settlements, and the way in which they may support and depend upon one another is important. Therefore accessibility is a key focus of this study.

6.65 As a result, this Review will seek to assess the accessibility of ‘key services’ and ‘other services’ which lie out with the immediate settlement. For many smaller, in particular more rural settlements (i.e. further away from one of the four urban areas), some ‘key services’ and most ‘other services’ are unlikely to be present, but it is the ease of the ability to access such services and facilities elsewhere, which is important in determining the sustainability of a settlement. As stated within the NPPF; ‘To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlement, development in one village may support services in a village nearby’ (paragraph 55).

6.66 Prior to the start of this review, it is acknowledged and understood that not all of the services and facilities outlined in Tables 5 and 6 will be present in each settlement, and as this Review will acknowledge, they are not required to be in order for a settlement to be considered sustainable. This Review will therefore seek to assess the network of settlements. Looking into the distance from the settlements which have an absence of ‘key services’ and ‘other services’ to identify the nearest provision, and in doing so investigate the availability of public transport, cycling and walking routes to access these services/facility. To assess, what is crucially important to many people, the convenience of access.

6.67 Therefore the assessment of ‘accessibility’ will be a two part process. As outlined in the

36 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final Methodology October 2017

previous section, the services and facilities within or adjacent to each settlement within the district (outside the four main urban areas) will be mapped and recorded. Then whether people whom live within a settlement where these services/facilities are absent are able to access them via bus, cycle or foot, will be assessed.

6.68 Where appropriate this assessment will also extend outside the boundaries of the Lancaster District. For example Arkholme, may have limited service/facilities, in comparison to Kirkby Lonsdale which is within the South Lakeland District but relatively close to the settlement. Therefore it may be likely that residents of Arkholme will go to Kirkby Lonsdale to access the above services and facilities.

Modes of Transport for Assessment

6.69 To assess the accessibility of ‘key services’ and ‘other services’, the following modes of transport will be taken into consideration:

 Public Transport (bus and rail services and stops)  Cycle Routes (existing and aspirational)  Walking Routes – Public Right of Ways

6.70 As stated within the NPPF ‘the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. However, the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas’ (paragraph 29). One of the aims of sustainable development is to reduce reliance on the private car. The role the private car plays in rural life is acknowledged, however it is also considered important to assess the other, more sustainable, options which are available. As the NPPF highlights, it is important to provide people with a real choice about how they travel. Not everyone living in rural areas has access to a private car and so this can also not simply be assumed as part of this Review.

6.71 It is recognised that there are difficulties in sustaining viable rural bus services, but it is hoped that population increases in sustainable locations, or locations which can be made sustainable, may result in increased demand for services which in turn may make them more viable.

Data Collection Methods

6.72 This will be a pre-dominantly desk-based assessment utilising the data collected during the settlement survey visit, GIS shapefiles provided by Lancashire County Council, and timetables produced by the relevant bus and rail service providers.

6.73 Utilising this information which will be mapped, alongside the location of facilities and services throughout the district and adjacent to the boundaries, professional judgement will be used to assess the accessibility of services and facilities from within each settlement via public transport, cycle or foot, to help determine which are considered to be sustainable settlements. The same weighted scoring system as that used within the Key Services and Facilities section will be applied so that these scores for each settlement can be compared, as it will be interesting to explore how the scores compare with the services/facilities available within or adjacent to the immediate settlement itself.

6.74 Advice has been sought from Lancashire County Council and it is considered that a reasonable distance is 800m for walking and 4km for cycling to access schools, work places and services/facilities etc. A radius buffer will be applied for each distance from the centre of the immediate settlement, and using the GIS shapefile data an analysis of the accessibility of additional services will be conducted.

6.75 For additional information, Car/Van Availability data generated for each parish using the Experian mid-year estimates (November 2016) will be used to aid the assessment and deepen contextual understanding.

Table 8: Assessment of Public Transport Services available to a settlement Indicator Score More Detailed Service Information Number of active Bus Stops (for - Location of bus stop public services) - Location of bus stop in relation to wider settlement (i.e. northern end) Frequency of weekday bus 5 = every hour or more service 4 = every 1 – 2 hours 3 = every 2 -3 hours/ or at least 6 services a day 2 = every 3 -4 hours/ or at least 4 services a day 1 = one a day (depart and return) 0 = no bus service Earliest weekday bus service Direction from and to Number of bus services before 9am (weekday) Latest weekday bus service Direction from and to Saturday service (yes/no) 5 = every hour or more 4 = every 1 – 2 hours 3 = every 2 -3 hours/ or at least 6 Frequency of Saturday bus services a day service 2 = every 3 -4 hours/ or at least 4 services a day 1 = one a day (depart and return) 0 = no bus service Sunday service (yes/no) 5 = every hour or more 4 = every 1 – 2 hours 3 = every 2 -3 hours/ or at least 6 services a day Frequency of Sunday bus service 2 = every 3 -4 hours/ or at least 4 services a day 1 = one a day (depart and return) 0 = no bus service

38 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final Methodology October 2017

Indicator Score More Detailed Service Information Number of settlements served on Number of settlements on - List of settlements on direct route (i.e. no change timetabled route timetabled route required) 1 = yes - Secondary Schools served Secondary School bus service 0 = no

5 = every hour or more 4 = every 1 – 2 hours 3 = every 2 -3 hours/ or at least 6 services a day Frequency of rail service 2 = every 3 -4 hours/ or at least 4 services a day 1 = one a day (depart and return) 0 = no bus service Number of settlements served on Number of settlements on - List of settlements on direct route (i.e. no change timetabled route timetabled route required)

Table 9: Key Services out with settlement accessible via bus/rail/cycle/foot (*in relation to public bus services, school bus services included in assessment in Table 8) Nearest Accessible Qualitative Value/Import Location via (bus, Assessment Key Services Distance ance to (Settlement rail, cycle (including safety Community Name) and foot) of route) Mini- Local Supermarket 3 Convenience Village Shop 3 Store (inc. Health Ancillary Centre) Facility 2 Primary School 3 Post Office Store 2 Post Office Post Office Service 1 (Active) Public 3 Bus Stop* Public House 1 Village Hall/Community 1 Centre

Table 10: Other Services out with settlement accessible via bus/rail/cycle/foot

Nearest Accessible Qualitative Location via (bus, Value/Importance to Other Services Distance Assessment (Settlement rail, cycle Community (including Name) and foot) safety of route) General Medical 3

Practice Secondary School 3 Sports/Recreation 3 Ground (public open 3 space and/or sports/recreation) Place of Worship 2 Library (permanent 2 and/or mobile) 2 Access to High Speed 2

Broadband Dentist 1

Limitations

6.76 It is recognised that there are community transport services in operation, such as Dial-a-bus and Community Car Schemes. The Dial-a-bus service provides a door-to-door service, usually specially adapted vehicles. There is a Lancaster and Morecambe Dial-a-Bus service, however this only serves the urban areas of Lancaster and Morecambe, and so not the rural areas of the district. This service is supported by Lancashire County Council.

6.77 However, there is a community car scheme which operates within the Lune Valley, Lancaster, Morecambe, Garstang and Rural Fylde area. This is operated by Preston Community Transport, and can be booked Monday to Friday between 8:30am and 4:30pm. This scheme is supported by Lancashire County Council and Preston Community Transport. However, although the latter service does serve the rural areas of the district, this mode of transport will not be included within the review as they are required to be booked by appointment in advance, and is not a service which can serve a large number of people.

6.78 Additionally, the results will be representative of a moment in time, and because the assessment is a key piece of evidence underpinning the emerging Local Plan, once the Local Plan is adopted it cannot be changed. Therefore this study will not be kept under frequent review. However, because a Local Plan is required to be reviewed every five years, this study will be reviewed again at this stage. It is however understood that public transport timetables are frequently subject to review and may change.

6.79 In addition to physical accessibility, the increasing role digital accessibility also plays is acknowledged. It is understood that this can be considered to be more sustainable, as for example, public transport is not required. However, this form of accessibility is not necessarily available to all. Whereas a bus service, rail service, cycle and foot paths are. Therefore this will not be explored in depth within this Review.

40 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final Methodology October 2017

Employment

6.80 Following the guidance and policy outlined within the NPPF and NPPG, in order to assess the sustainability of a settlement it is also beneficial and useful to understand the availability of employment sites and opportunities in the local area. If jobs are located close to where people live, there is greater opportunity for people to reduce private car journeys, contributing towards the sustainability of a settlement. Given the location and size of many of the settlements outside the four main urban areas, it is understood that employment opportunities within a settlement itself can be limited. Therefore, following on from the ‘Accessibility’ assessment, employment opportunities beyond the settlement itself will be explored.

Data Collection Methods

6.81 To assess the employment opportunities available to those living within each settlement, the following criteria will be used:  Employment sites and opportunities located within or adjacent to the settlement  Accessible employment sites and settlements with potential opportunities within a 7.5km radius* (investigating the accessibility of these employment sites via foot, cycle and public transport as outlined above. The key focus will be upon sustainable modes of transport. However, as previously noted, it is recognised that the private car plays an important role for those living within rural areas ).

6.82 *A distance of 7.5km has been derived from the data collected as part of the 2011 Census in relation to ‘Distance Travelled to Work’. For the rural parishes, which are being assessed in detail as part of this Review, 24% of people travelled ‘5km to less than 10km’ to work. The next highest percentage, 16%, work mainly from home. Therefore for the purposes of this study the median of 7.5km will be used. In the previous methodology which was published for consultation, a distance of 3km was proposed. However, upon reflection of the comments received and given the rural nature of many of the settlements within the district, this was not considered a broad enough search area.

Table 11: Distance travelled to work from Lancaster District’s rural parishes (2011 Census) Less 2km 5km 10km 20km 30km 40km to 60km Work Other than to to to to less to less less and mainly 2km less less less than than than over at or than than than 30km 40km 60km from 5km 10km 20km home Percentage 7 14 24 14 6 4 3 5 16 8 of Category

6.83 The current evidence base, held by Lancaster City Council, will be used to obtain information regarding employment sites. These are the:  Employment Land Review (July 2014, published January 2015); and  Employment Land Survey (Summer 2015).

6.84 Within the questionnaires sent to the Parish Council’s, as shown in Appendix A, a question has been included to seek further information about employment opportunities which are available within each settlement.

6.85 Furthermore during the Settlement Site Surveys, businesses located within each of the settlements being assessed will also be recorded. This will provide an indication as to the types of employment and associated occupations which are present within each settlement, although it is recognised that this does not necessarily mean jobs are currently available as this Review does not seek to investigate capacity specifically.

6.86 Where possible data will also be sought from The Office for National Statistics in relation to further information from the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) 20158.

6.87 To further aid the assessment of economic opportunities and to provide some context to this, the following data generated using the 2015 Experian mid-year estimates (November 2016) will also be utilised:

 Economic Activity; and  Occupation.

6.88 These estimates will provide an indication as to the percentage of people within each parish who are economically active and inactive, and therefore the percentage of the population who will require access to employment opportunities. The occupation data will also provide further information as to the type of employment the majority of the parish are currently employed in, providing an indication as to the type of employment opportunities they may be seeking and need access to.

6.89 For some of the other factors used to assess the sustainability of a settlement; key services/facilities and accessibility a scoring system has been used. However, due to the wide range of employment opportunities available and that occupation preference varies from person to person, it was not considered appropriate to score and weight this element of the assessment.

6.90 Therefore utilising the information outlined above professional judgement will be used to assess the availability and accessibility of employment sites and opportunities both in and within a 7.5km radius of each settlement which could thus present employment opportunities, to help determine which settlements are considered to be sustainable locations for future development.

Limitations

6.91 To aid the assessment of key services/facilities and accessibility a weighted scoring system has been applied. However, for the purposes of this assessment this is not considered appropriate because the importance of an employment opportunity is considered to be more subjective, greatly dependent upon personal choice and preference. Therefore this assessment will take more of a qualitative format.

6.92 It is also acknowledged that just because a business/employment opportunity is present within the radius, this does not necessarily mean there is capacity for employment opportunities. A detailed investigation into job prospects and opportunities is beyond the scope of this Review. However, in accordance with the NPPF it is considered important to investigate potential opportunities and the presence of employment within the vicinity of a

8 Office for National Statistics, https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/paidservices/interdepartmentalbusinessregisteridbr 42 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final Methodology October 2017

settlement and their accessibility.

6.93 With regards to specific employment opportunities, this assessment will only be based upon the data collected during the settlement site surveys and where possible, the data received from the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) 20159.

Key Definitions

What is a Settlement? 6.94 There is no fixed definition as to what comprises a settlement. In this Review when referring to the immediate settlement this is defined as ‘closely grouped or contiguous development which is physically separate from urban or other rural settlements, and which in many cases surrounds or is adjacent to services and facilities serving the nearby dwellings’.

6.95 It is considered that what is defined as a ‘settlement’ is partly dependent upon community perceptions. As the Lancaster District is predominantly rural, there are expectedly a number of people whom live outside an immediate settlement, however will still consider themselves to live in that settlement. Therefore this question will be posed to Parish Councils via the questionnaire. Consequently, it is not considered appropriate to draw settlement boundaries. Each settlement is also unique, due to the difference in their location and function, hence the importance of the qualitative assessment within this study.

Conclusion - What is a Sustainable Settlement?

6.96 The NPPF states that in order ‘to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities’ (paragraph 55).

6.97 In accordance with paragraph 7 of the NPPF each settlement, as outlined within the above methodology, will be assessed in the context of the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Focussing upon the following five key elements:

 Population  Townscape and Landscape  Key Services and Facilities  Accessibility  Employment Opportunities

6.98 In relation to Population, this data has been collated at parish level. Due to the small, dispersed nature of a number of settlements within the rural parishes a population density threshold of 0.2 per ha has been established.

6.99 Following on from which, the Townscape of each settlement within the parishes above the population threshold will be assessed. This is because it is recognised that there are a number of settlements within parishes, which are considered to be very small in scale i.e. hamlets and so service/facility, accessibility and employment opportunity provision is likely to be very

9 Office for National Statistics, https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/paidservices/interdepartmentalbusinessregisteridbr 43

limited. However, to establish this, a settlement site visit will be conducted for further clarification.

6.100 For those settlements which are located in parishes above the population density threshold of 0.2 per ha, and where the townscape assessment concludes that a settlement is not a hamlet, the following further assessments will be undertaken with regards to; landscape, key services and facilities, accessibility and employment opportunities.

6.101 In relation to Landscape, for those sites located within a protected landscape, such as an AONB or National Park, this will be acknowledged and information drawn from the Landscape Character Assessments. This will not be a direct determinant as to whether or not a settlement is considered to be sustainable. However, it is emphasised that any development within an AONB will take a landscape-capacity led approach.

6.102 With regards to Key Services and Facilities, a number of ‘key’ and ‘other’ services are assessed within this Review. It is considered that in order for a settlement to be sustainable, it must contain a minimum level of service provision. Therefore based upon the importance of key services to the local community they serve, for a settlement to be identified as sustainable the following key services are required to be present:

 Primary School (This key service needs to be accessed at a certain time, and for a parent/guardian requires two visits a day, generating four trips, and so it is important that they are located close to the community they serve. When considering other modes of transport to access a Primary School, due to the age and consequently the safety of those attending, a cycle route, and in some cases a long distance walk and bus service may not be suitable).  Active Public Bus Stop (More detailed requirements outlined in relation to Accessibility)

These are considered to be the most important key services to be easily accessible on a daily basis.

6.103 Focussing upon Accessibility, since the Village Surveys were undertaken, it is recognised that there has been a decline in the number of services available within each settlement, and therefore accessibility is a key determining factor to assess sustainability. Therefore it is acknowledged that for a settlement to be considered sustainable, the following must be accessible:

 Good Bus Service*  Local Convenience Store

6.104 *In the context of this Review, a ‘Good Bus Service’ is considered to be one which is a viable, practical alternative to the private car. As noted within paragraph 77 of the NPPF; ‘the government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable solutions will vary from urban to rural areas’. It is not considered appropriate to specify a particular number of services as part of this definition (although useful within the detailed assessment) because these services are subject to frequent review and so may change. Also what may be considered a ‘good bus service’ to one settlement may not necessarily be the same for another. Therefore to adopt a one size fits all approach does not seem appropriate here.

44 Sustainable Settlements Review: Final Methodology October 2017

6.105 Where there is no public bus service available within the settlement or adjacent to the immediate settlement, these settlements will not be considered to be sustainable. This is because public transport is considered to be key to accessing a wide range of services and facilities in a sustainable way.

6.106 Finally, with regards to Employment Opportunities, these will be investigated within a 7.5km radius. It is out with the scope of this study to investigate these in detail, and it is acknowledged that occupation is a personal choice. However, personal choice is ultimately dependent upon the employment opportunities available. Although this study will not seek to establish the capacity of businesses within the specified radius, this Review will seek to investigate the types of employment which are accessible to the residents of each settlement. If there are no potential employment opportunities within this radius, or they are very limited, a settlement will not be considered to be sustainable.

6.107 Therefore, in conclusion, it is a combination and balance of the above factors which contribute to the sustainability of a settlement. Although they are each assessed in a different way, they are given equal consideration within the Review process. Therefore one element is not considered to be more important than another. Similarly, for those factors which have been scored, settlements will not be ranked accordingly as this will be an inaccurate reflection of the sustainability of the settlement, because there is a need to consider all three of the dimensions to sustainable development (as outlined within the NPPF).

6.108 For the purposes of this Review a Sustainable Settlement is defined as a settlement which having assessed the population characteristics, townscape and landscape of the environment within which it is located, and the availability and accessibility of key services, facilities and employment opportunities is considered to be sustainable and therefore will provide the focus of growth for the Lancaster District outside the main urban areas (subject in the AONBs to the constraints of the protected landscapes where a landscape-capacity led approach will be taken), contributing to the vitality of the settlement.

6.109 Based upon the assessment results, this Review will also seek to identify settlements which have the potential to be considered a Sustainable Settlement. There may be settlement’s which were previously identified as Sustainable Settlement’s within the Core Strategy and Development Management DPD but no longer fulfil the criteria of the revised methodology. The Council recognises that of those settlements which this Review may not conclude to be Sustainable Settlement’s at the point of this assessment, could be in the future. For example through significant investment in infrastructure, such as the funding of a public transport bus service. Therefore, where possible, this Review will seek to highlight ways in which the sustainability of these settlements could be improved and enhanced, to support ‘strong, vibrant and healthy communities’, contribute ‘to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy’ and ‘to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment’ (NPPF paragraph 7).