Appendix C (I)

Appendix C (i)

Issues and Options Consultation

Press Release Press Advert Notification letter Notification email Letter for Libraries (Aspatria example) Deposit locations for documents and submission forms IO Drop in sessions for public List of consultees notified by letter or email (including those requesting hardcopies/cds) Email to all Cllrs Email to Council staff IO Discussion Paper comments form Form for submitting additional sites Frequently asked questions Posters advertising drop in sessions (Wigton & Workington) Letter to Parish Councils notifying them of forthcoming locality sessions on local plan Locality list - list of each parish/ward in each locality Email to Parishes in locality notifying them of locality session (example) Timetable of Parish Locality sessions Outline of issues to discuss at locality meetings Old webpages extract Consultation Statement

News Release

To News Editors for Immediate Use Wednesday 9 July 2014

Give your views on Allerdale’s future development Council planning officers are holding a series of drop-in session to ask the public about the location of new development across Allerdale over the next 15 years.

The Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD), which is also known as the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2), will identify or ‘allocate’ sufficient areas of land within the district that lie outside the National Park. The aim is to map out specific types of development and land uses such as housing, employment, retail, leisure and open space for the period up to 2029.

This document will support the vision for the district set out in the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) in delivering sustainable development and economic growth across the borough.

This ‘issues and options’ consultation is one of the initial stages in the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD, and enables local communities to have their say on which sites should be developed and which sites should be safeguarded.

The consultation starts on Friday 11 July 2014 and continues until Tuesday 30 September 2014 and the drop-in sessions will be held in all Allerdale’s town centres to find out more.

Aspatria Library Wednesday 30 July 2pm - 6pm Maryport Library Thursday 7 August 2pm - 6pm Cockermouth Town Hall Tuesday 12 August 2pm - 7pm Silloth Library Wednesday 20 August 2pm - 5pm Wigton Local Links Centre Wednesday 3 September 2pm - 7pm Workington Library Saturday 6 September 10am - 1pm

Councillor Mark Fryer, Allerdale Borough Council’s Executive member with responsibility for planning policy, said: “This Council has pledged its commitment to making Allerdale a great place to live, work and visit, and getting the right developments in the right places is a big part of this.

“I would encourage everyone to get involved in this process. We really do want to hear your views and you could help to shape this borough’s future.”

Allerdale House, Workington, CA14 3YJ Page 1 of 2 www.allerdale.gov.uk News Release

The consultation documents and further information is available at at www.allerdale.gov.uk/Siteallocations, and in the libraries in Aspatria, Cockermouth, Maryport, Silloth, Wigton and Workington, as well as at all Allerdale Borough Council offices.

ENDS

Notes 1. For more information contact 01900 702526, [email protected]

Allerdale House, Workington, CA14 3YJ Page 2 of 2 www.allerdale.gov.uk Published in the Times and Star and the Cumberland News on 11th July 2014

Allerdale Borough Council

Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012

Allerdale Borough Council is seeking comments on its site allocation discussion paper. The site allocations will form the second part of the Local Plan and will identify sites to deliver housing, employment and retail development needs for the area of the Borough outside the National Park up to 2029.

The discussion document can be viewed on the Council website www.allerdale.gov.uk/siteallocations or at The Council Offices, Allerdale House, Workington CA14 3YJ between 9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Thursday and 9.00am to 4.30pm on Friday.

Copies are also available to view at the following venues during their normal opening hours

Aspatria Local Link: The Brandraw Aspatria

Cockermouth Library: Main Street Cockermouth

Cockermouth Customer Service Centre: Fairfield Car Park Cockermouth

Maryport Library: Lawson Street Maryport

Maryport Customer Service Centre: Town Hall Senhouse Street Maryport

Silloth Library: The Discovery Centre Liddell Street Silloth

Wigton Library: High Street Wigton

Wigton Local Links Office: Market Hall Church Street Wigton

Workington Library: Vulcans Lane Workington

Comments should be made in writing, preferably using the comments form, and sent by email or post to Planning Policy, Development Services, Allerdale Borough Council, Allerdale House, Workington CA14 3YJ or [email protected] by no later than 4pm 30 September 2014

Kevin Kerrigan

Head of Development Services

Our Ref: SA/IO/06/2014

This Matter is being dealt with by: Planning Policy Team

Direct Line: 01900 702610 Fax: 01900 702848

Email: [email protected]

11 July 2014

Dear Sir/Madam

ALLERDALE LOCAL PLAN (PART 2): SITE ALLOCATIONS

ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Allerdale Borough Council is in the process of preparing a Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) that will form Part 2 of the Allerdale Local Plan. The Site Allocations DPD will identify sites necessary to meet the Borough’s development needs to 2029, as set out in the Strategic and Development Management Policies DPD (Allerdale Local Plan Part 1).

Following the ‘call for sites’ conducted at the end of 2013, the Council has now published a Site Allocations Issues and Options Discussion Paper. This document includes the sites and land uses suggested to the Borough Council, and presents a range of issues and options for consideration by the local community and other stakeholders. The responses received from this consultation will inform the preparation of the Council’s Site Allocations Preferred Options.

This letter is to inform you that we are now commencing a consultation on the Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Issues and Options.

The Issues and Options consultation period will run until 30 September 2014.

The Council is also publishing a Site Assessment Methodology and Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report which should be read in conjunction with the Issues and Options document.

The documents can be viewed at the Council’s offices at Allerdale House, Workington between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday to Thursday and 9:00 am and 4:30 pm on Fridays.

Copies are also available for inspection at the following locations during their normal opening hours:

• Maryport Customer Services Centre: Town Hall, Senhouse Street, Maryport CA15 6BH (01900 702702) • Silloth Library: The Discovery Centre, Liddell Street, Silloth CA7 4DD (016973 32195) • Wigton Library: High Street, Wigton (016973 66150) • Wigton Local Link: Community Office, Market Hall, Wigton CA7 9AA (01900 702890) • Workington Library: Vulcans Lane, Workington, CA14 2ND (01900 706170)

There are two ways in which you can register your comments, which should be made on the official representation form.

• By email Word document versions of the representation form can be downloaded from our website (www.allerdale.gov.uk/siteallocations) which can then be completed and emailed back to us at [email protected]

• By Post You can either download a pdf version of the representation form from our website to fill in by hand (www.allerdale.gov.uk/siteallocations), or complete a paper copy of the form. Forms are available from any of the venues listed above or upon request from the planning policy team.

Completed forms should be returned to:

Planning Policy Development Services Allerdale Borough Council Allerdale House Workington CA14 3YJ

All comments should be received by 4pm on Tuesday 30 September 2014.

Members of the public are welcome to talk to council officers about the Site Allocations Development Plan Document and give their views at drop in sessions throughout the summer.

Aspatria Library 30/07/2014 Wednesday 2pm - 6pm Maryport Library 07/08/2014 Thursday 2pm - 6pm Cockermouth Town Hall 12/08/2014 Tuesday 2pm - 7pm Silloth Library 20/08/2014 Wednesday 2pm - 5pm Wigton Local Links Centre 03/09/2014 Wednesday 2pm - 7pm Workington Library 06/09/2014 Saturday 10am - 1pm

If you have any queries regarding the consultation or if you would like to have your database contact details updated or removed, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Planning Policy team on 01900 702610 or by email: [email protected] . Likewise, if you have received this correspondence by letter and would prefer email communications in future, please let us know.

Yours faithfully

Kevin Kerrigan

Head of Development Services

Alexander, Julie

From: SiteAllocations Sent: 11 July 2014 15:07 To: SiteAllocations Subject: RE: Allerdale Local Plan DPD - Issue Allocation Issues and Options Consultation Attachments: Site Allocation Issues and Options Consultation.pdf

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to the earlier email, I would like to confirm that all documents are also available to view and download from our website www.allerdale.gov.uk/siteallocations

If you have any queries regarding the consultation, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Planning Policy team on 01900 702610 or by return email.

Yours faithfully,

Kevin Kerrigan Planning Manager

Allerdale Borough Council Allerdale House Workington CA14 3YJ --- T: (01900) 702610 F: (01900) 702848 E: [email protected]

From: SiteAllocations Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:17 PM To: SiteAllocations Subject: Allerdale Local Plan DPD - Issue Allocation Issues and Options Consultation

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Council has published the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Site Allocations - Issues and Options Discussion Paper

Please find attached a letter drawing your attention to the start of the consultation.

Yours faithfully,

Kevin Kerrigan Planning Manager

Allerdale Borough Council Allerdale House Workington CA14 3YJ --- T: (01900) 702610 F: (01900) 702848 E: [email protected]

2 Issues and Options 2014: Deposit Locations for Consultation Documents

Aspatria Aspatria Library & Local The Brandraw Link Aspatria CA7 3EZ (016973 20515) Cockermouth Cockermouth Customer Fairfield Car Park Services Centre (Allerdale Cockermouth Borough Council) CA13 9RT (01900 702870) Cockermouth Cockermouth Library Main Street Cockermouth CA13 9LU (01900 325990) Maryport Maryport Customer Town Hall Services Centre (Allerdale Senhouse Street Borough Council) Maryport CA15 6BH (01900 702702) Maryport Maryport Library Maryport Lawson Street Maryport CA15 6ND (01900 812384) Silloth Silloth Library Solway community school Liddell Street Silloth CA7 4DD (016973 32195) Wigton Wigton Library High Street Wigton CA7 9PE (016973 66150) Wigton Wigton Local Link Market Hall Community Office Wigton CA7 9AA (01900 702890) Workington Workington Library Vulcans Lane Workington CA14 2ND (01900 706170) Workington Allerdale Borough Council Allerdale House Offices Workington CA14 3YJ

Our Ref: SA/IO/07/2014

This Matter is being dealt with by: Steve Robinson

Direct Line: 01900 702610 Fax: 01900 702848

Email: [email protected]

11 July 2014

All Allerdale Libraries

Dear Sir/Madam

ALLERDALE LOCAL PLAN (PART 2): SITE ALLOCATIONS

ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

This letter is to inform you that we are now commencing a consultation on Site Allocations Issues and Options.

This document includes the sites and land uses suggested to the Borough Council in the ‘call for sites’ conducted late last year, and presents a range of issues and options for consideration by the local community and other stakeholders. The responses received from this consultation will inform the preparation of the Council’s Site Allocations Preferred Options.

I would therefore be grateful if you could make the following documentation available for public inspection between 11 July 2014 to 30 September 2014:

• Site Allocations Development Plan Document Issues and Options • Site Assessment Methodology • Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

In addition, the consultation documents can be viewed at the Council’s offices at Allerdale House, Workington between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday to Thursday and 9:00 am and 4:30 pm on Fridays.

Copies are also available for inspection at the following locations during their normal opening hours:

• Maryport Library: Lawson Street, Maryport CA15 6ND (01900 812384) • Maryport Customer Services Centre: Town Hall, Senhouse Street, Maryport, CA15 6BH (01900 702702) • Silloth Library: Solway community school, Liddell Street, Silloth CA7 4DD (016973 32195) • Wigton Library: High Street, Wigton (016973 66150) • Wigton Local Link: Community Office, Market Hall, Wigton CA7 9AA (01900 702890) • Workington Library: Vulcans Lane, Workington, CA14 2ND (01900 706170)

There are two ways in which commentators can register their comments, which should be made on the official representation form.

• By Post You can either download a pdf version of the representation form from our website to fill in by hand (www.allerdale.gov.uk/localplan), or complete a paper copy of the form. Forms are available from any of the venues listed above or upon request from the planning policy team.

Completed forms should be returned to:

Planning Policy Planning Services Allerdale Borough Council Allerdale House Workington CA14 3YJ

All comments should be received by 4pm on Tuesday 30 September 2014.

Members of the public are welcome to talk to council officers about the Site Allocations Development Plan Document and give their views at drop in sessions throughout the summer.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Planning Policy team on 01900 702610 or by email: [email protected]

Yours faithfully,

Kevin Kerrigan

Head of Development Services Issues and Options 2014: Public drop-in sessions

Details of the drop in sessions were publicised in the consultation document, in all consultation letters and emails, via Parish Councils, on the Council’s website and in the press.

Aspatria Aspatria Library & Local The Brandraw Wednesday 30th July 2014 2pm – 6pm Link Aspatria CA7 3EZ (016973 20515) Maryport Maryport Library Maryport Thursday 7th August 2014 2pm – 6pm Lawson Street Maryport CA15 6ND (01900 812384) Cockermouth Cockermouth Town Hall Market Street Tuesday 12th August 2014 2pm – 7pm Cockermouth CA13 9NP (01900 821869)

Silloth Silloth Library The Discovery Centre Wednesday 20th August 2014 2pm – 5pm Liddell Street Silloth CA7 4DD (016973 32195) Wigton Wigton Local Link Market Hall Wednesday 3rd September 2014 2pm – 7pm Community Office Wigton CA7 9AA (0303 123 1702) Workington Workington Library Vulcans Lane Saturday 6th September 2014 10am – 1pm Workington CA14 2ND (01900 706170) List of those consulted for Issues and Options Consultation

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Department Company Office of Rail Regulation Planning & Policy Liaison Citizens Advice Bureau Planning & Allerdale & Copeland Cumbria Community Transport Policy Liaison Cumbria Health on Call (GP out of hours service) Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Planning & Policy Liaison Cumbria Rural Housing Trust Planning & Policy Liaison Deaf Vision Policy & Communications Team Defence Infrastructure Organisation Planning & Policy Liaison Department of Education Planning & Policy Liaison Department of Health Planning & Policy Liaison Department of Transport Planning & Policy Liaison Department of Works and Pensions Derwent Forest Development Consortium Planning & Policy Liaison Equality & Human Rights Commission Planning & Policy Liaison Health & Safety Executive Planning & Policy Liaison Home Group Plannin & Policy Liaison Jones Day LS (Jersy) Planning & Policy Liaison Ministry of Defence NHS England North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust North West Ambulance Service Planning & Policy Liaison RAC Motoring Services Planning & Property / Property Law Royal Mail Group Ltd Policy Liaison North ‐ Barnard Castle RWE npower renewables Sainsburys Supermarkets North Allerdale Development Trust Mr Anthony Allaker Mrs Helen Allaker Mrs Katie Allison Mr Robert Allison Mr Peter Allport Ms Carla Allport P Anderson Mr Samuel Anderson Blennerhasset & Torpenhow Parish Mr G Armer Clerk Council Mr Neil Bassett Mrs Susan Batty Mrs Daphne Beck Mr David Bell Mrs Nicola Bell Mrs Jennifer Bernard Dr Robert Bernard Mrs Hazel Blacklock Clerk Winscales Parish Council Mrs Christine Blake Mr Geoffrey Bowe Mr W Bowman Mr William Peter Boyes Mrs A Bradley Clerk Allonby Parish Council Ms Barbara Burton Mr Andrew Butler Mrs Sandra Butler Mr Michael Caley Mr Dacre Caley Mrs Nicola Caley Mrs Joyce Caley Mrs Kathleen Chambers Mrs Anne Chapman Mrs Joanne Charlton Clerk Thursby Parish Council Miss Alison Church Mrs Pearl Coates Mr Stephen Coates Mr & Mrs Geoffrey & Ella Cole Mrs Valerie Conelly Mr Denis Cooper Mr Elliott Cooper Mrs Elizabeth Cooper Mrs Clair Cooper‐Rickerby Mr David Copeland Ms Debbie Cosgrove Clerk Oughterside & Allerby Parish Council Mrs Felicity Crowley Ms Karen Dawson Dr Simon Dumbill Mrs W E. Jameson Clerk Silloth Town Council Mr Mark Eastwood Mrs Caroline Eastwood Cockermouth & District Chamber of Ms Suzanne Elsworth Trade Miss Tracy Erlston Mrs G A Everett Clerk Arlecdon & Frizington Parish Council Mrs Eileen Fennell Mr John Fennell Mrs Christine Freeland Clerk Crosscanonby Parish Council Mr Mark Gascoigne Mr Cyril Gilmour Mr Ronald Goulding Mrs Mary Goulding Mr J Graham Dr Mark Greaves Mr Peter Greggains The Senhouse Museum Trust Mr John Guthrie Mr & Mrs T E Hall Mrs Doreen Hardy Miss Kathryn Hardy Mr Ron Hardy Mrs Dorothy Hillar Mr Paul Holliday Local Planning Framework Ms Jenny Hope Developer Services & Planning United Utilities Group Plc Planning Manager Mrs L Housby Clerk Holme St Cuthbert Parish Council Miss Laura Hughes Mr Ray Huntington Mr John F Hyncica Mr Ian Inglis Mr Richard Irving Mrs Maureen Jackson Mr Derek Jackson Mrs W E Jameson Clerk Holme Low Parish Council Canon C G Johnson Ms Judith Johnstone Mr Keith Jones Area Director Forestry Commission Mr David King Trustees for Methodist Church Mr Sean Knapp Mrs B Lamb Clerk Greysouthen Parish Council Mrs B Lamb Clerk Papcastle Parish Council Mrs B Lamb Clerk Dean Parish Council Mr Christopher Lasper Mr J Lattimer Lattimer Group Mr Richard Lewington Mrs Patricia Lewington Mr Stuart Liddington Local Development Plans 3/12 Planning Inspectorate Mrs Gillian Linder Mr Alan Littlefair Mrs A Logan Dr Ian Lowles Mrs Helen MacDonald Mr George Mattinson Mr John Maynard Hall Ms Andrea McCallum Clerk Rockcliffe Parish Council Mrs Susan McCallum Miss Lesley McCallum Mrs Gillian McGowan Mr Melvyn McGowan Mr James McGrath Mr David McGrath Mrs Dorothy McGrath Ms Sue Miller Mrs Dorothy Miller Mr Andrew Millward Mr Mike Muir Chief Executive Impact Housing Association Mr Malcolm Mullett Ms J Musgrave Secretary St Andrews Parochial Church Council Mr Clive Narrainen Mr R Nichols Mr Eric Nicholson Mr Jeffrey Nicholson County Cumbria Federation of Women's Ms Trish O'hara Chairman Institutes Mr Eric S Orr Ms Allison Paterson Clerk Waverton Parish Council Malcolm Mr Pattinson Mossop Planning Liaison Mr Jeremy Pickup Environment Agency Officer Mr Anthony Poucher Mr Rea Mr Simon Rickerby Mr John Robinson Mr Martyn Robinson Mrs Samantha Russell Mrs Florence Sanderson Mr Joe Sandwith Local Development Mr David Sherratt Developer Services & Planning United Utilities Water PLC Framework Assessor N D Sideaway Mrs Sue Silvester Clerk Bassenthwaite Parish Council Mr Robert Slack Mrs Jean Sorensen Clerk Broughton Moor Parish Council Conservation Mr Jeremy Sutton Officer, North RSPB West Mr John Sutton Mrs Maureen Sutton Mr Allan Sykes Mrs Brenda Sykes Mrs Kim Terry Mrs Wendy Thomas Mrs Carol Thompson Mr William Thompson Mr Victor Thompson Mrs Jean Thompson H W Thompson Mrs Margaret Travell Mr Geoff Travell Mr Philip Tyson Tredegar Consulting Ltd Van Den Mrs Sheena Bossche Mrs Lisa Varey Mary Walsh Mr Mark Walton Mrs Jennifer Walton Ms Antoinette Ward Clerk Caldbeck Parish Council Mr Brian Warren Clerk Hayton & Mealo Parish Council Planning and Mr Kevin Waters Development Planning Team Adlington Manager Miss F Watson Ms Pamela Watson Mrs Fiona Weakley Mrs June Wheeler Mr Francis Wheeler Mrs Joan Wilson Mr Thomas Windridge Mr Adrian Windridge Mrs Jacqueline Windridge Mr Colin Woollard Mrs Maureen Zanineth Mr Albert Zaninetti Mr Bryn Earley Cumbria Local Nature Partnership Ms Emma Hullry Planner Signet Planning Planning Mr Simon Artiss Barratt Manchester Manager Mr Oliver Mitchell Planware Ltd Senior Planning and Development Ms Sophie Gooch Development Fairhurst Services Planner Ms Dot Freeman Administrator Wiggonby Primary School Mr Tim Miles Associate Montagu Evans LLP Mr George Wilyman Turley Associates Mr Edward Harvey Planner Planning CBRE Ltd Planning & Mr Andrew Pepper Strategic Persimmon Homes Lancashire Manager Ms Carol Hodgson Mrs Debra Rutherford Rev'd Judith Morgan Parish Clerk Little Clifton Parish Council Mr David Abercrombie Fairhurst Mr Frank Blenkharn Cumbria County Council Mr John Pearson Cumbria County Council Mrs Linda Doyle Allerdale Borough Council Mrs Muriel Heatherington Mr Robert Crolla Indigo Planning Mr Dick Cuckson Cumbria County Council Ms Janet Carruthers Story Homes Development Mr Adam McNally Story Homes Planner Mr Mark Donnelly Mr Andrew West Day Cummins Mr Peter Bailey Mr Ian Honeybill NPL Developments Mr Lloyd Thompson Day Cummins Mr Craig Wallace WYG Mr R A Moss Edwin Thompson Mr M T Sandelands Goughs Mr Jeff McMaster Edwin Thompson Mr Malcolm Jennings Day Cummins Plannin & Policy Liaison Action With Communities in Cumbria Planning and Development Age UK Liaison Planning Liaison Aggregate Industries Ms E Clark Clerk Aikton Parish Council Planning and Development Airport Operators Association Liaison Planning and Development Allerdale Disability Association Liaison Mrs A Bradley Clerk Allonby Parish Council Consultant AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Mr Damien Holdstock Town Planner Limited Planning & Policy Liaison Ancient Monuments Society Cllr B Finlay Chairman Aspatria Rural Partnership Mrs Helen Ostle Clerk Aspatria Town Council Development Aftab Khan AWAZ Cumbria Officer Mr Chris Atkinson Planner Barton Willmore Mrs Nichola Traverse‐Healey Barton Willmore LLP Mrs Sue Silvester Clerk Bassenthwaite Parish Council Mrs J McTear Clerk Bewaldeth & Snittlegarth Parish Council Planning Mr Sam Grant Big Tree Planning Ltd Consultant Blennerhasset & Torpenhow Parish Mr G Armer Clerk Council Ms Janice Rae Clerk Blindbothel Parish Council Mr G Forrester Clerk Blindcrake Parish Council Ms E Clark Clerk Boltons Parish Council Miss Rebecca Carter Clerk Borrowdale Parish Council Ms Janice Rae Clerk Bothel & Threapland Parish Council Mr Michael Abbs Clerk Bowness Parish Council Ms Deborah Cosgrove Clerk Bridekirk Parish Council Commercial Mr Chris Middlebrook Oakmere Homes Director Planning and Development Britain’s Energy Coast Liaison Head of Mr Tim Hirst Britain's Energy Coast Property Mr Steven Szostak Britain's Energy Coast Planning and Development British Cycling Federation Liaison Central British Geological Survey Enquiries Planning & Policy Liaison British Telecom Mr Raymond Martin Chief Executive British Toilet Association Mr Neil Rose Board Director Broadway Malyan Ms E Clark Clerk Bromfield Parish Council Mrs Jean Sorensen Clerk Broughton Moor Parish Council Mrs V Sealby Clerk Burgh‐by‐Sands Parish Council Planning & Business, Innovation and Skills Ministerial Correspondence Unit Policy Liaison Department Mr Gordon Lowery Clerk Buttermere Parish Council Ms Antoinette Ward Clerk Caldbeck Parish Council Mr Rodney Coward Camerton Parish Council Planning & CAMRA Policy Liaison Mr Richard Lorden Capita Capita Symonds Principal Mrs Jillian Hale Planning Officer Economic Development Carlisle City Council (Policy) Mr H W. Eastwood Clerk Castle Sowerby Parish Council M Damian Waters Director CBI North West Planning & Policy Liaison Chemical Business Association Diocesan Mr Derek Hurton The Diocese of Carlisle Church of England Secretary Planning and Development Churches Together in England Liaison Planning & Policy Liaison Churches Trust for Cumbria Planning and Development Civil Aviation Authority Liaison Mr Phil Campbell Chairman Cockermouth Civic Trust Mrs Sheila Brown Clerk Cockermouth Town Council Mr Adam Pyrke Colliers CRE Senior Planning Mr Chris Hoban Planning Policy Team Copeland Borough Council Policy Officer Council for British Archaeology (North Planning & Policy Liaison Area) Council Offices Catherine Street West Cumbria Community Safety Cllr . Norman Williams Chairman Whitehaven Partnership Cumbria CA28 7SJ Planning & Policy Liaison Country Guardian Country Land & Business Association Mrs Jane Harrison Rural Advisor (North Office) Mrs Christine Freeland Clerk Crosscanonby Parish Council Mr David Claxton Cumbria Association of Local Councils Cumbria Biodiversity Partnership Mrs Sheila Pearson Retired Teacher Cumbria CC District Lead Mr Barwick Gordon Adult Social Care Cumbria CC Adult and Local Services Allerdale Planning and Development Cumbria Chamber of Commerce Liaison Community Mr David Thompson ALO West Cumbria Cumbria Constabulary Safety Office Performance Information and Performance Mr Simon Atherton Cumbria County Council Assistant Team Children's Services Ms Joan Cowan Cumbria County Council Mr Iain Fairlamb Planning and Sustainability Cumbria County Council Corporate Safer and Stronger Communities Cumbria County Council Director Economic Development Cumbria County Council Mr Andrew Moss Highways and Transportation Cumbria County Council Ms Judy Palmer County Ecologist Cumbria County Council Mr Richard Parry Adult Social Care and Health Cumbria County Council County Historic Environment and Mr Jeremy Parsons Cumbria County Council Archaeoogist Development Planning & Countryside Access Team Cumbria County Council Policy Liaison Area Support Manager Mr Ted Thwaites Cumbria County Council (Allerdale and Copeland) Mr Mark Tennant Cumbria Disability Network Locality Mr Nick O'Key Cumbria Fire & Rescue Service Manager Julie Monk Cumbria Housing Group Business Ms Kathy Miles Support Cumbria Local Access Forum Administrator Ms Suzanne Caldwell Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership Planning and Development Cumbria Neighbourhood Watch John Perkins Liaison Association Mr Mike Dewey Secretary Cumbria RIGS Planning and Development Cumbria Rural Enterprise Agency Liaison Planning and Development Cumbria Rural Forum Liaison Planning & Policy Liaison Cumbria Strategic Partnership Head of Policy Mr Richard Greenwood Cumbria Tourism and Research Planning & Policy Liaison Cumbria Tourist Planning & Cumbria Wildlife Trust Policy Officer Planning and Development Cumbria Young Farmers Liaison Planning and Development Cumbria Youth Alliance Liaison Mr Paul Reeves Cunnane Town Planning LLP Mrs S Haynes Clerk Dalston Parish Council Company Mr Dan Walker David L Walker Surveyors Director Mr Marco De Pol Director De Pol Associates Mr K Rogers Clerk Dearham Parish Council Deparment for Environment, Food and Policy & Communications Team Rural Affairs Department for Culture, Media and Planning & Policy Liaison Sport Mr Eric Martin Mrs Rita Rogerson Mr Peter Foster Steven Hesmondhalgh & Associates Mr Bruce Armstong‐Payne Mr Andrew Scott Ms Charlotte Wynn Strategic Land Group Mr Chris Jones Strategic Land Group Mr Christopher Gowlett Persimmon Mr David Dixon Spring Garth Mr Tom Woof H and H Land and Property Mr Kevin Thompson Mr Steve Doyle Department of Communities and Local Planning & Policy Liaison Government Planning & Policy Liaison Department of Energy & Climate Change Department of Environment, Food & Planning & Policy Liaison Rural Affairs Planning & Policy Liaison Design Council Mr J S. Holliday Clerk Distington Parish Council Mr Jonathan Burns DPP Associate Mr Richard Purser DPP Director Head of Mr John Adams Drivers Jonas Deloitte Planning Ms Katharine Morgan DTZ Principal Development Planning Dumfries & Galloway Council Planning Officer Ms Janice Rae Clerk Dundraw Parish Council Senior Planning Planning Policy Eden District Council Officer Managing Mr John Clasper Eden, Homes and Communities Director Mr Peter Twomey Electricity North West Ltd Mr David Smith Clerk Embleton & District Parish Council Planning & Policy Liaison Employers' Forum on Disability Planning Liaison Mr Jeremy Pickup Environment Agency Officer Planning & Policy Liaison Equality and Human Rights Commission Mr Eric Telford Principal Eric Telford Planning Associated Planning and Development Fields in Trust Liaison Head of Road Network Mr Malcolm Bingham Northern Region Freight Transport Association Management Policy Miss Sarah Hemsley‐Rose Friends of Rural Cumbria's Environment Dr Ruth Balogh Friends of the Earth West Cumbria Mrs Kate Willshaw Planning Officer Friends of the Lake District Planning & Policy Liaison Friends, Families and Travellers Mr Sean Wildman Fusion Online Ltd Senior Planning Ms Louise Armstrong Gerald Eve LLP Consultant Mrs Kylie Parkinson Clerk Gilcrux Parish Council Programmes Ms Carlolyn Siddall Gingerbread North West Manager Planning & DPM GL Hearn Policy Liaison Strategic Land Mr Paul Stock Gladedale Estates Manager Mrs Diane Robertson Clerk Great Clifton Parish Council Mr C Breen Great Clifton Residents Group Mrs B Lamb Clerk Greysouthen Parish Council Gypsy Roma Traveller Achievement Planning & Policy Liaison Service Leeds Principal Ms Clare Woods Hall Aitken Consultant Planning & Policy Liaison Harvest Housing Mr Brian Warren Clerk Hayton & Mealo Parish Council Planning & Policy Liaison Highways Agency Mr Stan Shreeve Himor Group Ms Lindsay Hanley Clerk Holme Abbey Parish Council Mr Michael Abbs Clerk Holme East Waver PC Mrs L Housby Clerk Holme St Cuthbert Parish Council Planning Mr Matthew Good Home Builders Federation Manager Mr Nick Alderson Homes and Communities Agency Office Manager Pauline Parmeggiani Inspira (Head Office) Planning & Policy Liaison Institute of Directors Planning & Policy Liaison Invest in Cumbria Ms Janice Rae Clerk Ireby Parish Council Planning & Policy Liaison JMP Consultants Ltd Associate Mr Frazer Sandwith Jones Lang Lasalle Director Ms Lynda Walker Clerk Keswick Town Council Ms Andrea McCallum Clerk Kirkbampton Parish Council Mr Michael Abbs Clerk Kirkbride Parish Council Principal Planning Policy Lake District National Park Authority Planning Officer Principal Lakes College West Cumbria Mr J Sloan Clerk Lamplugh Parish Council Prof Richard Shore Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Lancaster University Mr D Smith Clerk Lorton Parish Council Mr R Adams Clerk Lowca Parish Council Mr D Smith Clerk Loweswater Parish Council Planning Mr Nick Thompson Lucent Manager Miller Strategic Mr Tim Williams Miller Homes Ltd land manager Planning & Policy Liaison Mind in West Cumbria Senior Estate Mr Martin Watson Defence Estates Ministry of Defence Surveyor Planning & Policy Liaison Ministy of Justice Mr John Cooke Policy and External Relations Mobile Operators Association Mr Neil Hodgson N.J. Hodgson & Co National Childminding Association Planning & Policy Liaison (North West Office) Policy Advisor, Ms Alison Morgan Environment & National Farmers Union Land Use Mr Charlie Webber (Upgrade Project) National Grid Safeguarding Office NATS Planning and Mrs Janet Baguley Conservation Land Use Operations Team Natural England Lead Advisor Town Planning Network Rail Town Planning Team Diane Clarke Techincian LNW (LNW) NHS Cumbria Clinical Commissioning Planning & Policy Liaison Group Mr Neil Hampshire Northern Gas Networks Ltd Planning & Policy Liaison Northern Housing Consortium Limited Stakeholder Mr Brian Hough Relations Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Manager Mr Manuel Prieto Nugeneration Ms P McDonald Clerk Orton Parish Council Ms Debbie Cosgrove Clerk Oughterside & Allerby Parish Council Richard Kavanagh Outreach Cumbria (GLB Health Project) Mrs B Lamb Clerk Papcastle Parish Council Mr P Butler Paul Butler Associates Development Mr Malcolm Walker Peacock & Smith Plan Manager Mr Stuart Liddington Local Development Plans 3/12 Planning Inspectorate Ms J Smith Clerk Plumbland Parish Council Planning & Policy Liaison Port of Workington Planning & Policy Liaison Ramblers Coast Access Mr Ian Brodie Ramblers Association Volunteer Planning & Ramblers Association (Lake District) Policy Liaison Ms Yana Bosseva Planning Advisor Renewable UK Head of representing National Offender Mr Richard Moffat Planning Management Service (NOMS) Planning & Policy Liaison Rights of Women Mr Malcolm Dodds Area Manager Cumbria Road Haulage Association Ms Andrea McCallum Clerk Rockcliffe Parish Council Conservation Mr Jeremy Sutton Officer, North RSPB West Mr Mark Swiers Planning Department Sanderson Weatherall Graduate Miss Rebecca Housam Savills Planner Mr Tim Price Savills Ms Charlotte Wilcox Savills Mr Paul Bramley Clerk Seaton Parish Council Ms P L Gauntlett Clerk Sebergham Parish Council Planning and Development Mr Nick Wilson Skills Funding Agency Liaison Solway Coast Mr Bian Irving Solway Coast AONB AONB Manager Planning & Policy Liaison Solway Firth Partnership Principal Damian Law Development Plans South Lakeland District Council Planning Officer Planning Planning and Development Mr Paul Daly Sport England Manager Liaison Mrs Sally M Bickerdyke Clerk St Johns Castlerigg Parish Council Managing Mr Nigel Winter Stagecoach North West Director Ms Laura Ross Stewart Ross Associates Mr M Porter Susco North West Sustrans Strategic Land Mr Andrew Thorley and Planning Taylor Wimpey North West Manager Planning and Development Mr Brian Quinn Tesco Plc Liaison Retail Planning Ms Annette Elliott Property Division ‐ Planning The Co‐operative Group Ltd Liaison Manager Planning & Policy Liaison The Crown Estate Planning and Development The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Liaison Committee Planning and Development The Garden History Society Liaison Planning & Policy Liaison The Gender Trust Planning and Development The Georgian Group Liaison Ms Jill Perry The Green Party Planning and Development Mr Joseph G Jones The Gypsy Council Liaison Planning & Policy Liaison The Home Office Planning & Policy Liaison The Marine Management Organisation Mr Alan Hubbard Planning Advisor The National Trust Planning & Policy Liaison The Runnymede Trust Planning and Development The Society for the Protection of Ancient Liaison Buildings Planning Policy Ms Rose Freeman The Theatres Trust Officer Planning & Policy Liaison The Traveller Law Reform Project Planning and Development The Twentieth Century Society Liaison Planning and Development The Victorian Society Liaison Regional and Local Planning and Development Mr Nick Sanford The Woodland Trust Government Liaison Officer Turley Associates Planning & Cabinet Office UK Resilience Policy Liaison Mrs P Soulsby Clerk Underskiddaw Parish Council Local Planning Framework Ms Jenny Hope Developer Services & Planning United Utilities Group Plc Planning Manager Committees Ms Elspeth MacKay University of Cumbria Officer Ms Vicki Richardson Office Manager Walton & Co Planning & Policy Liaison Ward Hadaway Washington Mr David Fletcher Washington Square Developments Square Manager Technical Mr M Summers Waterman Group Director Ms Allison Paterson Clerk Waverton Parish Council Planning and Development West Cumbria CVS Liaison Planning and Development West Cumbria Development Agency Liaison Planning and Development Westfield Housing Association Liaison Mr J Alan Keighley Westnewton Action Group Mrs J Love Clerk Westnewton Parish Council Ms E Clark Clerk Westward Parish Council Ms Alison Dodd Clerk Wigton Parish Council Mrs Hazel Blacklock Clerk Winscales Parish Council Planning and Development Mr Richard Bakes Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC Liaison Mr M McCabe Clerk Woodside Parish Council Planning and Development Workington Civic Trust Liaison Mr C Bagshaw Clerk Workington Town Council Planning and Development Julie Crellin Young Cumbria Liaison Planning and Development Youthtastic Liaison Ms Jenny Alexander Mr Anthony Allaker Mrs Helen Allaker Susan and Mr & Mrs Allison Arthur Ms Margaret Armstrong Mr Steve Atkinson Miss Jenny Bate Mr CJ Bate Mr & Mrs J & E Bell Mrs Pauline Bibby Mrs Sandra Boardman Mr Allan Boardman Mrs Pauline Boyes Mrs Caroline Brews Mr Philip Brews Mr Adrian Brown Mr Richard Chapman Cllr N Cockburn Mr Nicholas Cockton Mrs Judith Cockton Mr David Colborn Mr and Mrs D and GJ Crone Mrs Felicity Crowley Mr Joe Crowther Mrs Susie Davies Ms Kelly Davis Ms Karen Dawson Mr and Mrs John and Ann Day Miss Sophie Dewhurst Mr Dennis Dickins Mrs Gwendoline Dodd Miss Hannah Dodd Cllr Duncan Fairbairn Ms Janet Farebrother Cllr Bill Finlay Ms Marion Fitzgerald Mr Alan Graham Mrs Susan Graham Mr Ben Greaves Ms Lilli Green Mrs Ruth Guthrie Mrs Margaret Guy Ms Elizabeth Joy Hall Mr John Havelock Cllr M Heaslip Mrs Donna Holliday Mr Mark Holliday Mr Mark Holt J & K Howis Mr Andrew Hunter Mr Malcolm Jennings Mr & Mrs Joan & Martin Jepson Mrs A M J Jones Aine Kelly Mrs J Kirkbride Mrs Myra Kirkpatrick Mr Clive Kirkpatrick Deborah and Mr & Mrs Kitching Steve Ms Joan Lancaster Ms Viv Lewis Miss D Lewthwaite Mr Roy Lucas Mrs Barbara Lucas Nicky Luckett Mr Anthony Macey Mr Clive Marshall Mr John Maynard Hall Graham and McFarlane and Mr & Ms Gillian Conyers McHugh and Ms & Mr A and B Smithies Mr Robin Mcnamara Moore and Ms & Mr H and P Albion Ms Sheila Murphy Mr Stephen Murray Mr Douglas Newham Mr R Nichols Mrs Janet North Mr Roy Oxlade Mr William Patterson CJ Payne Mrs Joan Poucher Mrs Rosemary Prosser Mr Nigel Prosser Mrs Deborah Redmond Mrs Margaret Robinson Ms Sue Ross Mr Alan Rule Mr Ian Russell Mr J K Rylands Mr Charles Sanderson Ms Hemsley Rose Sarah Mrs Anne Singleton Mrs Jeannette Smith Ms Mary Snape Ms Dianne Standen Mr Graham Stanton Ms Vera Stanton Mrs S Steel Mrs Pat Stephenson Mr Brian Taylor Mr Chris Taylor Mr John Thomas Mrs Shirley Thompson Mrs Margaret Travell Ms Allyson Turner Mr and Mrs Mave and Tony Tyas Mr Paul Tyson Van Den Mr Robert Bossche Mrs Sylvia Walsh Mrs Susan Wasilewski Mr Eric Wasilewski Mr Richard Watson Mr Alan Waugh Mr David Williams Mr Richard Wilson Mr Charles Woodhouse Ms Kathy Woods EW & I Dixon Mr David Hetherington Mr Herbert Laidlow Abbey Building Design Anthony Collier Associates Beatty & Co Edwin Thompson Hopes Land Agency Johnston & Wright Mr R A Metcalfe MJN Associates Northern Developments Whittaker & Biggs

Mrs M E Brown Mr John Goulding Mr Mark Hodgson Mr W Irving Mr R B Jackson Mr R Kemp Ms J Kirkbride Mr John H Mattinson Mr K Thomas Mr Ric Outhwaite Arrow Planning Mr Dan Mathewman Environment Agency Mr Andrew McNeil Highfield Design Ltd Mrs Janice Rae Ireby and Uldale Parish Council Ms Jacqueline Storey James Walker Ms Vanessa Graham JD Banks & Son Ltd Ms Joan Ellis Local Councillors for Cockermouth Mr Jamie Melvin Natural England Mr Richard Evans RLP Planning Ltd Mr Alastair Willis Signet Planning Mr Lee Atkinson Ms Julia Barron Mr & Mrs Edward & Jane Bebbington Mr John Beetham Mr Lionel Bidwell Mrs A Binns Mr Leonard Birkett Mrs Christine Blake Ms Nina M Blight Mr & Mrs M & S Blow Mrs Sandra Boardman Mr Allan Boardman Proff David J Breeze Mr John Butler Fayyaz Chudhri Mr Gordon Clark Mr Len Cockcroft Mr Des Cox Mr John Crofts Mr Steve Donaldson J Doughty Ms Yvonne Dutton Mr David Elliott C S Evans Mr Roland Fletcher Mr Tony Gilbert Ms Gwen Graham Mrs S Greenhill Mr Tom Hails Ms Debra Hardy Ms Philippa Hardy Ms Sue Hearn Ms Theresa Hobson‐Frohock Mr Martin Holliday Mr & Mrs Graeme & Sara Ives Mr Duncan Keeler Mrs Jean Kriebel Denise & Mr & Mrs Lowden Andrew Mr Gordon Lowry R Mack Mr David Malloy Mr Jeff Marshall Mrs Dorothy McCallam Mr Thomas R McCallam Dr David McCallam Mr & Mrs D McGrath Ms Heather McIntosh Mr & Mrs C Milton Mr James Moore Mr Clive Nixon Mrs Sylvia Noble Ms Marieanna Norendal Trevor & Mr & Mrs Place Amanda Ms Hannah Place Mr Jonathan B Place Mr Stephen Poultney Ms Teresa Poultney Dr & Mrs C J & P Pye Mr Denis Robinson Mr Keith C Rushton Ms Elizabeth Silman Mr Rod Smith Christopher & Mr & Mrs Snowden Eleanor Mr Paul Standring Ms Hilary Tattershall Mr & Mrs M & R Thebe Mr Alan Trinder Ms Victoria Waters Ms Pamela Watson Ms Wendy Watson Mr Martin J West Mr Shaun Winstanley Woodhouse‐ Ms Margaret Doig Ms Trudy Beetham Ms Lynn Broadbent Mrs Anthea Jones Director Planning Branch Ltd Mr Trevor Gear Clerk Allhallows Parish Council Managing Mr Stuart Woodhall Day Cummins Ltd Director Mr Paul Martin Clerk Broughton Parish Council Mr Paul Boustead Lakeland Building Design Planning & North West Persimmon Homes Policy Liaison Mr Glenn Beattie Alpha Design Mr Peter Winter PFK Ms Jennifer Hadland The Planning Team Smiths Gore Development Mr Daniel Barton Story Homes Planner Mr Bob Taylor Taylor & Hardy Mr Tony North Clerk Brigham Parish Council Mrs B Lamb Clerk Dean Parish Council North West Ms Emily Hrycan English Heritage Planner W F Barnes Friends of Deer Park Dr Ian Francis Friends of Deer Park Maryport Mrs L M. Douglas Clerk Maryport Town Council Planning and Local Authority Mr Anthony Northcote Planning Advisor The Coal Authority Liaison Mr Peter Greggains The Senhouse Museum Trust Mrs Joanne Charlton Clerk Thursby Parish Council Local Development Mr David Sherratt Developer Services & Planning United Utilities Water PLC Framework Assessor H & H Land & Property Ms Jackie Knights Clerk Above Derwent Parish Council Mr Keith Jones Area Director Forestry Commission Ms Rosanna Metcalfe Smiths Gore Mr Matthew Bell H and H Land and Property Mr Matthew Bell Mr Adrian Coyle Mrs Edna Mary Wood Mr Mark Rooke Mr Edwin J Bowe Ms Susan Hopley Mr Vincent Johnson Mr Nigel Robson Churches Trust for Cumbria Office of Rail Regulation JPL Walker Architecture Ward Architects Duncan Hill Ltd HFT Gough & Co john Lambe Associates Stephenson Halliday Mr & Mrs Vailionis Mr Scott Capita Symonds United Utilities

Mr Samuel Anderson Mr M H Askew Mr Kenneth Birkett Mr Geoffrey Bowe Mr W Bowman W Bowman J Dixon J J Elliot Mr Kenneth C Foster Mr Cyril Gilmour Mr J Graham Mr Kenneth Graham J Graham Mr W M Graham Mr P Greggain Mr & Mrs T E Hall A R Harris Ms Emma J Heal Mrs S Hodgson Mr Alan Hogarth Mr J F Hyncica Canon C G Johnson Mr David King Trustees for Methodist Church G T Lawson R & PC Medlicott J Mitchell Ms J Musgrave Secretary St Andrews Parochial Church Council Mr Eric S Orr Malcolm Mr Pattinson Mossop Mr & Mrs Ponsonby Mr Rea Mr W Roberts Mr R Skelton Mr John Stamper Mr John E Tudor J Tunstall Mr Philip Tyson Tredegar Consulting Ltd Mr Whitfield Ms Edna M Wood Robert Nicols Mercia Haughan Jane Sheppard Mrs Crowley Cllr Peter Kendall Paul Carr Alexander, Julie

From: SiteAllocations Sent: 11 July 2014 16:45 To: All Councillors (Allerdale) Subject: FW: Allerdale Local Plan DPD - Issue Allocation Issues and Options Consultation Attachments: Site Allocation Issues and Options Consultation.pdf

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Council has published the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Site Allocations - Issues and Options Discussion Paper

Please find attached a letter drawing your attention to the start of the consultation.

Yours faithfully,

Kevin Kerrigan Planning Manager

Allerdale Borough Council Allerdale House Workington CA14 3YJ --- T: (01900) 702610 F: (01900) 702848 E: [email protected]

1 Alexander, Julie

From: Alexander, Julie Sent: 14 July 2014 11:03 To:

Subject: FW: Allerdale Local Plan DPD - Issue Allocation Issues and Options Consultation Attachments: Site Allocation Issues and Options Consultation Amended letter.pdf

Dear All Please find attached details of the consultation on site allocations which will run throughout the summer until 30 September 2014. Regards Julie

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Council has published the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Site Allocations - Issues and Options Discussion Paper

Please find attached a letter drawing your attention to the start of the consultation. The documents are available to view and download from our website: www.allerdale.gov.uk/siteallocations

Yours faithfully,

Kevin Kerrigan Planning Manager

Allerdale Borough Council Allerdale House Workington CA14 3YJ --- T: (01900) 702610 F: (01900) 702848 E: [email protected]

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Site Allocations Development Plan Document

Issues and Options Discussion Paper

Comments form

The completed comments form may be Submitted in the following ways:-

By post: Planning Policy, Development Services, Allerdale Borough Council, Allerdale House, Workington, Cumbria, CA14 3YJ.

By email: [email protected]

Please return to Allerdale Borough Council no later than 4 pm on Tuesday 30 September 2014

If there is insufficient space to write your comments, please add a separate sheet.

The comments received during this formal round of consultation will help inform the Preferred Options phase of the Site Allocations process. All representations will be available for public scrutiny, and by submitting this form you are consenting to your personal information and representations being stored and being made publically available.

Further advice and guidance can be obtained by contacting the planning policy team directly or by visiting the Allerdale Borough Council Website:

Tel: 01900 702610 Website: www.allerdale.gov.uk/siteallocations

“Allerdale – a great place to live, work and visit”

Guidance Notes

1. Please fill sections 1 and answer any of the questions that are relevant to your comments/suggestions. 2. Not all the questions need to be completed.

1. Contact details

Name

Organisation (if applicable)

Address

Telephone Fax

These questions relate to the Site Allocations DPD Issues and Options Discussion Paper – Section 1

Question 1 Do you agree or disagree that the starting point for the distribution of growth between the settlements in the Local Service Centre tier should be the size of the settlement, based on the number of dwellings? Agree Disagree Reason(s)

Question 2

If a Local Service Centre cannot accommodate the levels of growth indicated in Table 2 due to issues in relation to deliverability and environmental constraints, should the housing numbers be allocated to other Local Service Centres or to the nearest Principal/Key Service Centre (i.e. town)? Allocate to other Local Service Centres Allocate to Principal/Key Service Centre Reason(s)

Question 3

Do you agree or disagree that the Local Service Centres in the north of the Borough should have greater level of housing growth than indicated in Table 2 to enable them continue to perform their important role in terms of meeting local housing, employment and service needs? Agree Disagree Reason(s)

3 Question 4

Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make in relation to the distribution of housing growth between the Local Service Centres?

These questions relate to the Site Allocations DPD Issues and Options Discussion Paper – Section 2

Section 2 of the Issues and Options Discussion Paper show all the sites submitted to the Council through the ‘Call for Sites’. A schedule of sites is also listed in Appendix 2. During this consultation we are seeking your view as to which of the sites should be included within the Allocation DPD and welcome comments on any of the key questions, in addition to any general comments you may have.

In considering these sites we request that responses are based on the suitability of the sites, their location, use and the issues set out in the Methodology Paper. It is suggested that the following factors are considered in making a response:

• Accessibility • Services and facilities • Flooding • Open space provision • Design • Infrastructure • Landscape and townscape impact • Archaeology and ecology • Sustainability Appraisal • Provision of affordable housing • The Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) • National Policy and legislation

If you consider that a site is not suitable for development/protection please provide evidence in support of your comments having regard to the bullet point list above.

Question 5

Which site(s) would you prefer the Council to take forward?

Site ID(s) Reason(s)

Question 6

Would you prefer development to be located on a number of sites or concentrated on one site to deliver your village/town’s allocation? Yes No Settlement Reason(s)

Question 7

Do you consider that any of the sites are not suitable for allocation? What changes would you like to be made? Reason(s) Site ID

Alternative use

(please specify) Change to the site

boundary Discarded/rejected Reason(s) Site ID

Alternative use

(please specify) Change to the site

boundary Discarded/rejected Reason(s) Site ID

Alternative use

(please specify) Change to the site

boundary Discarded/rejected Reason(s) Site ID

Alternative use

(please specify) Change to the site

boundary Discarded/rejected Reason(s) Site ID

Alternative use

(please specify) Change to the site

boundary Discarded/rejected Reason(s) Site ID

Alternative use

(please specify) Change to the site

boundary Discarded/rejected

If needed please continue on a separate sheet. 6

Question 8

Do you feel any existing employment sites are not fit for purpose and should not be protected and retained, if yes, can you suggest an alternative use? Please provide the Site ID or location, your suggested alternative use and the reasons.

Question 9

Are there any particular issues the Council should know about any of the sites? Please provide the Site ID(s) and any evidence for the sites you refer to.

7 Question 10

Do you have any comments about the areas of open space, are they appropriate?

Question 11

Do you have any comments on the suggested areas for growth in the Limited Growth Villages? Are there any areas that you would like to suggest?

Question 12

Any other Comments

Signature: Date:

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Site Allocations Development Plan Document

Submission form for Additional Sites Summer 2014

Please complete a separate form for each site and submit to the Council -

By post: Planning Policy, Development Services, Allerdale Borough Council, Allerdale House, Workington, Cumbria, CA14 3YJ.

By email: [email protected]

Please return to Allerdale Borough Council no later than 4 pm on Friday 30th September 2014

For assistance on how to complete this form please refer to the guidance notes overleaf

The submissions received as part of the Call for Sites will be published for public scrutiny. By submitting this form you are consenting to your personal information and representations being stored and used for this purpose.

Further advice and guidance can be obtained by contacting the planning policy team directly or by visiting the Allerdale Borough Council Website:

Tel: 01900 702610 Website: www.allerdale.gov.uk/siteallocations

“Allerdale – a great place to live, work and visit”

Guidance Notes

1. Please complete as many of the sections (1) - (11) of the Site Submission Form as you can. The Council will accept partially completed forms as long as the key sections in relation to ownership (1) – (5) have been filled in. Most of the fields on the form should be self- explanatory but guidance on each section is provided below. 2. A separate pro-forma must be used for each individual site. 3. All site submissions must be accompanied by a location plan at a scale of 1:1250 or 1:2500. This must show the precise boundaries of the site edged in red. 4. Do not submit sites that already have planning permission. 5. Submitting details of a particular site is not a guarantee that the Council will support or allocate the site for development or protection.

Section (1) – Contact details Sites submitted to the Council cannot be treated as confidential and your contact details and the location of the site will be published with your representation.

Section (2) – Your details You do not need to be the owner of a site to promote it for development. The Council does not tend to hold information on who owns land (apart from its own). If you require details of who owns a particular site, we suggest you contact the HM Land Registry.

Section (3) – Ownership details We need to ascertain whether the site is in single or multiple ownership as this can affect whether a site can be developed. An indication as to whether the owner(s) have expressed an interested in developing the site would be useful at this stage.

Section (4) – Site location A map of suitable quality on an Ordnance Survey (OS) base at a scale of either 1:1250 or 1:2500 clearly showing the detailed site boundaries must be supplied. This will enable the location of the site to be accurately identified. Unfortunately, due to OS licensing and operational restrictions, the Council is unable to supply blank maps for this exercise.

Section (5) – Proposed development/land use A preferred and, if applicable, alternative use for the site must be indicated. ‘Specialist residential’ uses include extra villages, care homes etc.

Section (6) – Site details The current use of the site should be specified and whether there any existing uses that will need to be relocated before the site can be developed. Any structures on the site that would need to be cleared in order for the development to occur should also be identified. The use of the surrounding land must be indicated as this may influence the type of development the site is suitable for.

Section (7) – Site constraints An indication of the extent of any potential or identified constraints that may affect how easily or quickly the site could be developed should be provided.

Section (8) – Utilities An indication of which utilities are available to the site should be provided.

2 Section (9) – Identified constraints Where available, evidence from any studies and/or assessments in relation to any identified constraints should be provided and submitted. It is important to note that the Council will make their own assessment of these matters for each site in consultation with statutory consultees and may come to a different conclusion.

Section (10) – Site achievability An indication of the level of developer interest, if any, should be provided. An estimation of when the site would be ready for development should be indicated, taking into account any issues identified in sections (7), (8) and (9).

Section (11) – Site constraints This final section is an opportunity to provide any additional information and/or outline the merits of the site to support the submission.

Further advice and guidance can be obtained by contacting the planning policy department directly or by visiting the Allerdale Borough Council Website:

Tel: 01900 702610 Website: www.allerdale.gov.uk/siteallocations

Address: Planning Policy, Development Services, Allerdale Borough Council, Allerdale House, Workington, Cumbria, CA14 3YJ.

1. Contact details

Name

Organisation (if applicable)

Address

Telephone Fax

2. Your Details A Private Landowner A Planning Consultant A Public Land-owning Body A Land Agent I am A Registered Social Landlord A Developer Other (please specify)

I own the site Yes No

If you do not own the site please supply the name(s) and addresses(es) of the owners

3. Ownership Details Is the owner of the site the sole Yes No owner?

If the site is in multiple ownership, please provide the name(s), address(es) and contact details of all owners.

(Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary, and provide a plan showing extent of individual land holdings)

Has the landowner (or each owner) indicated support for development of the land?

4. Site Location

Site address (Please enclose a map at the appropriate scale clearly showing the detailed site boundaries.

Site OS grid reference Northing Easting

5. Proposed Development / Land Use Preferred Alternative Development / Land Use Use Use Housing Employment Retail Tourism Leisure Health Education

In the 1st column, please tick Community Facilities your preferred land use(s) Transport

In the 2nd column, please tick Open space any alternative land use(s) that you would also consider. Allotments

Burial Grounds Local Wildlife Site Local Geological Site Wildlife Corridor Gypsy and Traveller Site Travelling Showpeople Site Heritage Site/Asset Utilities Infrastructure Other (please specify)

6. Site Details

Net developable Site area (hectares) Whole site area

Current or previous land use(s)

Existing structures on the site (e.g. buildings, pylons, substations, overhead wires) Would development require relocation of the current use or demolition of existing structures? Adjacent land uses (e.g. employment, residential, agricultural) Details of any previous planning applications on the site (if applicable)

7. Site Constraints: Are there any limitations that may prevent or constrain development on this site? (please give details)

Access Issues (e.g. limitations or problems relating to site access, public rights of way or cycleway crossing the site)

Topography or ground conditions (e.g. site slopes, varying site levels etc)

Stability and contamination issues (e.g. unsuitable ground conditions, potentially contaminated land)

Flood risk issue (e.g. liability of site to flooding and if so, nature/source of flooding and frequency)

Legal issues (e.g. multiple ownership, covenants, tenancies, ‘ransom strips’)

Environmental Issues (e.g. located adjacent to a watercourse, mature woodland or would result loss/access to open space)

Other considerations (any other issues that may affect the development of the site)

8. Utilities (Please tell us which of the following utilities are available to the site) Yes No Unsure

Mains water supply

Mains sewerage

Electrical supply

Gas supply

Public highway

Landline telephone

Public Transport

Other (please specify):

7 9. If there are any identified constraints, have any studies or assessments been undertaken to determine whether they can be overcome and at what cost? (If applicable, please give details and include a copy of the study/assessment commissioned)

10. Site Achievability (please give details)

Is the site currently being marketed? Yes No

Has there been developer interest? Yes No

Is the site owned by a developer? Yes No

Is the site under option to a developer? Yes No

Short term (within 5 years)

Please tick the likely timescale for the site being developed Medium term (6-10 years)

Long term (11-15 years)

8 11. Please provide any additional information you think may be helpful to the Council in its consideration of this site for development.

Signature: Date:

9 Frequently Asked Que stion s

What is the Allerdale Local Plan? planning applications are made. The Local Plan determines how development will shape your community up to 2029. The What is the purpose of the Issues and Plan covers the area of the Borough outside Options Consultation? the Lake District National Park. It outlines the growth and spatial strategy for the local area The Council is seeking your views on the and planning policies for managing initial catalogue of sites submitted during the ‘ ’ development proposals through the planning Call for Sites , and we welcome your process. comments on how we should identify sites and allocate land uses to meet our needs. This consultation is intended to stimulate What is the Site Allocations DPD? discussion amongst residents, parish councils, This is Part 2 of the Local Plan. It determines landowners, developers and all other where development will take place, by stakeholders. allocating sites for a range of different uses such as housing, employment, open space Where can I view the documents and and nature conservation. It also reviews the maps? development boundaries of the towns and You can view the Site Allocations DPD Issues villages within the settlement hierarchy. and Options Discussion Paper and associated documents online at www.allerdale.gov.uk/ Identifying areas for development and siteallocations, or at your local library or ’ protection is the best way to protect Allerdale s Council office. sensitive areas from unplanned and inappropriate development. All maps can also be viewed using our online interactive mapping system. ’ Are there detailed plans for what s proposed for these sites? Has any assessment of the suitability of The Site Allocations DPD, when adopted, will sites been carried out? establish the principle of how the land is used. Detailed proposals would be required when The sites included within the Issues and

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Site Allocations Development Plan Document “Allerdale – a great place to live, work and visit” J u l y 2 0 1 4 Frequently Asked Que stion s

Options Discussion Paper have been people are living longer, therefore, we need to submitted during the ‘Call for Sites’ by land build more homes to meet our needs up to owners, developers and communities. 2029. This has been fully discussed during the development of the Allerdale Local Plan Part It is important to note that these sites are 1, including at public examination where the displayed as submitted and are not approach was found to be ‘sound’. It will endorsed for development by the Council. subsequently be adopted as the Development The Council has not carried out any Plan. analysis or consideration of the suitability for development/protection. Can I comment on the overall number of How many of these sites will be needed? homes being proposed? Only a small proportion of the land that has No. The Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) sets a been put forward will be needed for target of 5,471 dwellings to be delivered over development. up to 2029. The Plan also sets the number of homes for Workington and each of the main The ‘Call for Sites’ received over 350 towns in Allerdale. However, we are seeking responses with a substantial number of sites your views on the distribution of growth for the submitted for development and protection Local Service Centres; Abbeytown, Allonby, throughout Allerdale. It is clear that the sites Brigham, Broughton, Broughton Moor, submitted for development are well in excess Dearham, Flimby, Great Clifton, Kirkbride, of that which is required to deliver the needs Prospect, Thursby. Options are detailed in and aspirations of Allerdale as set out in the chapter 5 of the Issues and Options strategy and policies of the Local Plan. The Discussion Paper. Site Allocation Methodology Paper sets out how the Council will assess and select Is this just about housing development? preferred sites. No. Allocation of residential sites is a major Why does Allerdale need more homes? part of the Site Allocations DPD. However, we also need land for a range of different uses The population of Allerdale is growing and such as employment, retail, community use,

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Site Allocations Development Plan Document “Allerdale – a great place to live, work and visit” J u l y 2 0 1 4 Frequently Asked Que stion s

infrastructure and open space, as well as for allocation or protection. looking at areas that should be protected. Please contact the Council or look on our website for details of how to submit additional Can I suggest changes to the Settlement land. When considering submitting a new site Hierarchy or the role of each settlement? consideration should be given to the strategy No. The strategy and other policies have been and policies with in the Allerdale Local Plan set during the development of Part 1 of the (Part 1), in addition to the Site Assessment Local Plan. A full programme of consultation Methodology. has taken place over a number of years, in addition to examination in public by a Planning Will there be consultation events? Inspector. We are running a series of ‘drop in’ sessions during the summer at various locations around Allerdale. During these sessions staff will be Why should I get involved in this visiting the following locations to explain the consultation? Site Allocations process and discuss the Your comments will help to shape the documents or any questions you have. Allocations and therefore the future patterns of development in your area. Your views and Aspatria Library Wednesday 30 July 2014 ideas could therefore help influence the 2pm - 6pm outcome of future planning applications. Maryport Library Thursday 7 August 2014 2pm - 6pm Cockermouth Town Hall Tuesday 12 August Can I submit another site? 2pm - 7pm ‘ We had a great response to our 2013 Call for Silloth Library Wednesday 20 August 2pm - Sites’ and received over 350 responses. The 5pm sites submitted so far would deliver well in Wigton Local Links Centre Wednesday 3 excess of Allerdale’s development needs up to September 2pm - 7pm 2029. However, we would like to hear from Workington Library Saturday 6 September you at the earliest opportunity if you wish us 10am - 1pm to consider additional sites within the Borough

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Site Allocations Development Plan Document “Allerdale – a great place to live, work and visit” J u l y 2 0 1 4 Frequently Asked Que stion s

This document will also explain why certain How can I make my comments and get sites and land uses have been selected and involved? others rejected.

There are a number of questions set out in the How will sites be selected? Issues and Options Discussion Paper that we would like you to consider. To comment on the Sites will be assessed using the Site Site Allocations DPD Issues and Options Assessment Methodology document that is Discussion Paper you can download the published alongside this paper. The comments form from: www.allerdale.gov.uk/ Methodology Paper ensures that the siteallocations and email the completed assessment of potential sites and land is form to: [email protected] transparent and decisions are clearly justified. A key aim of the process is to ensure sites Or request a hard copy of the form by writing contribute to achieving sustainability to the Council or by telephoning 01900 objectives, offer the most benefit to the 702610. community and minimise any adverse impacts on the built and natural environment. All comments must be received by Tuesday 30 September 2014, no later than The process of site assessment considers 4 pm. consistency with the Local Plan strategy, physical constraints as well as economic, What Happens Next? social and environmental impacts.

The consultation responses to this Paper will Any other issues or questions? help inform the Site Allocations DPD Preferred Options which will identify the sites needed to Please contact the Planning Policy Team by deliver the Local Plan. The next stage of email [email protected] or by public consultation is planned for summer telephoning 01900 702610 if you would like 2015. This stage will set out the Preferred more information, help making a comment or Sites to deliver the aims and objectives of the you would like this document in an alternative Allerdale Local Plan. format.

Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2) Site Allocations Development Plan “Allerdale – a great place to live, workD oand c u visit m e n” t J u l y 2 0 1 4

Our Ref: SA/IO/08/2014 Parish

This Matter is being dealt with by: Planning Policy Team

Direct Line: 01900 702610 Fax: 01900 702848

Email: [email protected]

12 August 2014

All Town and Parish Councils

Dear Sir/Madam

ALLERDALE LOCAL PLAN (PART 2): SITE ALLOCATIONS

ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

This letter is in addition to the notification letter regarding the consultation on the Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Issues and Options, which will run until 30 September 2014.

At this stage, the Council is publishing all of the sites that have been put forward for consideration, and is seeking your comments and views. The consultation is intended to stimulate discussion amongst residents, parish and town councils, landowners, developers and all other stakeholders.

In addition to the informal drop-in sessions for members of the public and interested parties held at various venues throughout the summer, as outlined in the notification letter (and reiterated overleaf), the Planning Policy Team will be available to meet with the parish and town councils on a locality basis in early September. These meetings are being organised by the Council’s Partnership Officer, Ian Hinde and the dates and times will be forwarded to you as soon as possible.

Should you require a hard copy of any of the maps of particular settlements within your parish, or have any other queries relating to any aspect of the consultation or site allocations process, please contact a member of the Planning Policy team on 01900 702610 or by email: [email protected]

Yours faithfully

Kevin Kerrigan

Head of Development Services

Drop-in-sessions

List of each Parish/Ward in each Locality area

Area Parish Parish Wards County Council Wards Aspatria Aspatria Bromfield Aspatria Bothel and Wharrels Allhallows Gilcrux Boltons Aspatria Allonby Hayton and Mealo Solway Bewaldeth and Snittlegarth Ireby and Uldale Holme Blennerhasset and Torpenhow Oughterside and Allerby Wharrels Boltons Plumbland Bothel and Threapland Westnewton

Cockermouth Blindbothel Dean All Saints Cockermouth North Blindcrake Embleton, Setmurthy and Wythop Christchurch Cockermouth South Bridekirk Greysouthen Crummock Brigham Lorton Dalton Broughton Loweswater Broughton St Bridgets Buttermere Papcastle Cockermouth

Keswick Above Derwent Keswick Keswick Keswick Bassenthwaite St John's, Castlerigg and Wythburn Boltons Borrowdale Underskiddaw Derwent Valley

Maryport Broughton Moor Ellenborough Maryport North Crosscanonby Ewanrigg Maryport South Dearham Netherhall Dearham and Broughton Maryport Ellen Flimby

Silloth Holme Abbey Silloth Solway Coast Holme Low Holme Holme St Cuthbert Silloth-on-Solway

Wigton Aikton Sebergham Wigton Wigton Bowness Thursby Marsh Thursby Caldbeck Waverton Waver Dundraw Westward Warnell Holme East Waver Wigton Wampool Kirkbampton Woodside Kirkbride List of each Parish/Ward in each Locality area

Workington Camerton Harrington St. Michael's Great Clifton Moorclose Moorclose Little Clifton Mossbay St. John's & Great Clifton Seaton Stainburn Harrington Winscales St John's Workington St Michael's Seaton Seaton Clifton Alexander, Julie

From: Sent: 29 September 2014 16:19 To:

Cc: ' Subject: Forthcoming - locality three tier workshop including planning site allocations Attachments: Workington Profile FINAL July.docx

Dear Councillors, Town and Parish Clerks

Allerdale Borough Council would like to invite you and representatives of your Town and Parishes to a combined workshop session at

The Carnegie, Finkle Street, Workington on Wednesday 22nd October, 6.30pm and would be grateful if Clerks can forward this message to your Town and Parish Councillors to promote good attendance. (Borough Councillors who are also County Councillors have been sent a single invitation to your Borough email address.)

The first part of the session will look at the Area Profiles which have been created for seven areas of Allerdale, with the opportunity to identify shared issues and possible actions, working through all the relevant authorities. I have attached the draft profile for the Workington area.

As part of work on the Local Plan landowners, developers and community groups have submitted land to the Council to consider for development or protection for open space or wildlife sites. This is the start of a two year process and the Council is interested in the views of Town and Parish Councils on these sites before any formal assessment work is carried. Plans mapping out the sites will be available at the meeting as well as members of the planning policy team who can guide you through the process and answer questions.

A Site Assessment Methodology and Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report have also been published which should be read in conjunction with the Issues and Options document.

All of the documents can be viewed online at www.allerdale.gov.uk/siteallocations

The following link takes you directly to the Issues and Options document: http://www.allerdale.gov.uk/downloads/Allerdale_Local_Plan_(Part2)_Issues_and_Options_Discussion_Paper_July_2 014.pdf

Kind regards,

Key Partnerships Officer - Policy Team Allerdale Borough Council, Allerdale House, Workington, Cumbria. CA14 3YJ T: W: www.allerdale.gov.uk

Making Allerdale a great place to live, work and visit

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

2 Issues and Options 2014: Parish Council locality drop-in sessions

Invitations were sent by email/letter to Town/Parish Councils and District/County Councillors

Locality Venue Address Day Date Time Aspatria Allhallows Community Fletchertown Thursday 4th September 2014 4pm – 6pm Centre

Maryport Netherhall School Sports Netherhall Road Thursday 17th September 7pm – 9pm Centre Maryport 2014 CA15 6NT

Cockermouth Cockermouth Town Hall Market Street Monday 15th September 7:30pm – 9 pm Cockermouth 2014 CA13 9NP (01900 821869)

Silloth Solway Community School Liddell Street Thursday 11th September 2014 6:30pm – 8:30pm Silloth Wigton CA7 4DD Wigton Wigton Local Link Market Hall Wednesday 24th September 6:30pm – 8:30pm Community Office Wigton 2014 CA7 9AA (0303 123 1702) Workington The Carnegie Theatre Finkle Street Wednesday 22nd October 2014 6.30pm – 8pm Workington

Web Page extracts Allerdale Local Plan (Part 2): Site Allocations Setting the context of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD)

Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 (Strategic and Development Management Policies DPD) sets out the policy framework for Allerdale Local Plan Part 2 (Site Allocations DPD) as it identifies the settlement hierarchy for the Borough, sets out the future role, function and spatial objectives of each of the five tiers of the settlement hierarchy and indicates the level of housing and employment development for each.

Therefore the Site Allocations DPD is restricted to three principal roles:

1. Identifying sites for allocation within the Principal Service Centre, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres.This will be done in accordance with the role function, spatial objectives and level of development set out for each tier. A broad range of uses such as housing, employment, open space and nature conservation will be considered. 2. Defining revised development boundaries for the Principal Service Centre, Key Service Centres, Local Service Centres and Limited Growth Villages. The settlement boundaries will identify (and delineate on a plan) the division between the built-up area of the settlement and the surrounding countryside in order to prevent the encroachment of development into the countryside and define areas of land where new development will, in principle, be acceptable. 3. De-allocation of employment sites. There is a cumulative oversupply of employment land in Allerdale and the Site Allocations DPD will explore the possible de-allocation of under used and underperforming sites

Site Allocations Issues Development Plan Document: Issues and Options Consultation

The ‘Issues and Options’ consultation is one of the initial stages in the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD. The Council is seeking your views on how we should identify sites and allocate land uses in order to meet the Borough’s future development needs. It is intended to stimulate discussion amongst residents, parish councils, landowners, developers and all other stakeholders in relation to how this growth could be distributed. The Site Allocations DPD Issues and Options discussion paper includes all of the sites put forward for consideration in the Council’s ‘Call for Sites’ which concluded in January 2014, and presents a range of issues and options for consideration.

• Site Allocations Development Plan Document Issues and Options The Issues and Options consultation document should be read in conjunction with

• The Site Assessment Methodology that sets out the approach to assessing sites, reviewing settlement boundaries and de- allocating employment land, and • The Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report which sets out the sustainability objectives and assessment framework for the sustainability appraisal.

The Issues and Options consultation period will run from 11 July 2014 to 30 September 2014.

Hard copies of the consultation documents can be viewed at the Council’s offices at Allerdale House, Workington between 9:00 am and 5:00pm Monday to Thursday and 9:00 am and 4:30 pm on Fridays.

Copies are also available for inspection at the following locations during their normal opening hours:

• Aspatria Library: Local Link, The Brandraw, Aspatria, CA7 3EZ (016973 20515) • Cockermouth Customer Services Centre: Fairfield Car Park, Cockermouth, CA13 9RT (01900 702870) • Cockermouth Library: Main Street, Cockermouth, CA13 9LU (01900 325990) • Maryport Customer Services Centre: Town Hall, Senhouse Street, Maryport CA15 6BH (01900 702702) • Maryport Library: Lawson Street, Maryport CA15 6ND (01900 812384) • Silloth Library: Solway community school, Liddell Street, Silloth CA7 4DD (016973 32195) • Wigton Library: High Street, Wigton (016973 66150) • Wigton Local Link: Community Office, Market Hall, Wigton CA7 9AA (01900 702890) • Workington Library: Vulcans Lane, Workington, CA14 2ND (01900 706170)

Comments should be made on the official representation form. If your comments involve suggesting new sites for development or other land uses (see Page 6 of the Issues and Options paper, then please use the site submission form.

• Representation form in pdf format • Representation form in word format • Site submission form in pdf format • Site submission form in word format

All comments should be received by 5pm on Tuesday 30 September 2014

• By email The Word document version of the representation form (or site submission form) can be downloaded, completed and then emailed back to us at [email protected]

• By Post The pdf version of the representation form can be downloaded to complete by hand, or complete a paper copy of the form which is available from any of the venues listed above or upon request from the planning policy team.

Completed forms should be returned to:

Planning Policy Planning Services Allerdale Borough Council Allerdale House Workington CA14 3YJ

A member of the Planning Policy Team will be available at informal drop-in sessions at the following locations during the summer to answer your queries:

Aspatria Library Wednesday 30/07/2014 2pm - 6pm Maryport Library Thursday 07/08/2014 2pm - 6pm Cockermouth Town Hall Tuesday 12/08/2014 2pm - 7pm Silloth Library Wednesday 20/08/2014 2pm - 5pm Wigton Local Links Centre Wednesday 03/09/2014 2pm - 7pm Workington Library Saturday 06/09/2014 10am - 1pm

If you have any queries regarding the issues and options consultation and the site allocations process please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Planning Policy team on 01900 702610 or by email: [email protected]

‘Call for Sites’ and initial stage in the production of the Site Allocations DPD.

This first stage involved four separate pieces of work:

• A ‘Call for Sites’ to allow members of the public, parish councils, landowners and their agents, developers and other interested parties the opportunity to put forward sites for development that could be allocated through the Site Allocations DPD • The publication of a Discussion Paper to help establish the type of sites for which land must be found. • The publication of a draft Site Assessment Methodology document that sets out the approach to assessing sites, reviewing settlement boundaries and de-allocating employment land. • The publication of a draft Scoping Report, which sets out the sustainability objectives and assessment framework for the Sustainability Appraisal.

The 'Call for Sites' and the consultation on the Discussion Paper, Draft Site Assessment Methodology and the Draft Scoping Report and has now closed.

Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

Site Allocations Issues and Options “Allerdale – a greatConsultation place to live, work Statement and visit”

M a y 1 2 0 1 5 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

Contents

Introduction 1

Consultation Process 2

Representations Summary 3

Responses to the first Issues and Options consultation 4

Responses to the second Issues and Options (Additional 5 Sites) consultation

Next Steps 6

3 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

1 Introduction

1.1 The Local Plan (Part 1) contains the Strategic and Development Management Policies and was adopted in July 2014. This document sets out a clear vision of the development requirements of the district between the plan period of 2011-2029. As part of this, it sets out a minimum target of new dwellings (5,471 houses) and employment land (54 hectares) that the district needs to provide by 2029.

1.2 The Local Plan (Part 2) is the Site Allocations document. This document will seek to identify the most appropriate sites in Allerdale in order to meet the development targets identified in the Local Plan (Part 1).

1.3 The first stage of the Local Plan (Part 2) process was for Allerdale Borough Council to issue a ‘Call for Sites’. This stage allowed members of the public, parish councils, landowners, agents, developers and other interested parties the opportunity to put forward sites for development that could be allocated through the Site Allocations DPD.

1.4 Following an initial light touch assessment of all the sites, the majority of the sites received by the Council as part of the Call for Sites were included in an ‘Issues and Options’ document; consultation on this document ended on 30 September 2014.

1.5 As a result of this consultation, a further 35 sites were put forward for consideration. In order to ensure that all stakeholders, consultees and members of the public were able to comment on these new sites, another consultation was held. This was entitled ‘Issues and Options – Additional Sites Submitted’ and ran from 9 January to 27 February 2015.

1.6 This report summarises all of the responses received to both rounds of consultation. These comments will inform the next stage of the Local Plan (Part 2) document preparation which is where the Council will assess sites in line with the published Site Assessment Methodology to identify the best sites capable of delivering the identified need; this is known as the Preferred Options stage.

1.7 When the Council has carried out its assessment and identified what it believes to be the best sites, there will be a further round of consultation to allow for comments on these preferred options. It is anticipated that this round of consultation will occur in summer 2015.

5 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2 Consultation Process

Scope of the consultation

2.1 When the sites were put forward to the Council for consideration as part of the Call for Sites, those putting the site forward were required to identify what type of development they wanted to happen on the sites.

2.2 The Council received a total of 351 suggestions for potential development sites which were to be considered for a wide range of uses including: housing; employment; retail; open space; burial grounds; community facilities; leisure; local geological sites; local wildlife site; mixed; utilities infrastructure; village green protection. The Council also identified 14 suggested areas for growth.

2.3 In addition to consulting on the suggested development sites in the first Issues and Options consultation, the document also included a number of questions on how respondents thought the Council should identify sites and allocate land in order to meet the future development needs of Allerdale. In addition, there were two documents that were issued with this consultation that respondents were encouraged to read alongside the Issues and Options document. These were the Site Assessment Methodology (set out the approach to assessing sites, reviewing settlement boundaries and de-allocating employment land) and the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (set out the sustainability objectives and assessment framework for the Sustainability Appraisal).

Methods of consultation

2.4 Both Issues and Options consultations were carried out in line with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. The Statement of Community Involvement sets out how the Council will involve the community as part of the preparation of planning policy documents. Whilst national regulations have changed since the adoption of the Statement of Community Involvement with regards to how planning policy documents are prepared, the process of community engagement remains the same.

2.5 The Council contacted all those on its consultation database about the two Issues and Options consultation either through email or letter. The Council made copies of the consultations documents available to view at the following locations:

• Aspatria Library

6 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

2 Consultation Process

• Cockermouth Customer Service Centre • Cockermouth Library • Maryport Town Hall • Maryport Library • Silloth Library • Wigton Customer Service Centre • Wigton Library • Workington Council Offices (Allerdale House) • Workington Library

2.6 In addition, a consultation pack was sent to all of the Parish and Town Councils in the district and the documents were also available to view online at http:// www.allerdale.gov.uk/planning-and-buildings/planning/planning-policy/site-allocations.aspx

2.7 For the first Issues and Options consultation, a number of drop in sessions were held across the district, attended by members of the Planning Policy team. The dates and venues of the drop in sessions were:

• Aspatria Library – Wednesday 30th July 2014 – 2pm-6pm • Maryport Library – Thursday 7th August 2014 – 2pm-6pm • Cockermouth Town Hall – Tuesday 12th August 2014 - 2pm-7pm • Silloth Library – Wednesday 20th August 2014 – 2pm-5pm • Wigton Local Links Centre – Wednesday 3rd September 2014 – 2pm-7pm • Workington Library – Saturday 6th September 2014 – 10am-1pm

7 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

3 Representations Summary

3.1 For the first Issues and Options consultation, comments were received from 136 respondents (71 members of the public, 52 organisations and 13 Parish and Town Councils). The second Issues and Options consultation (Additional Sites), had 167 respondents (138 members of the public, 21 organisations and 8 Parish and Town Councils).

3.2 The tables below summarise the number of representations made on each site, and identifies if the representations were supportive, objections or just a comment. Sites that did not receive any comments have not been included in this table. The sites that were included in the first Issues and Options consultation have the prefix ‘1’ and the sites that were included in the second Issues and Options (Additional Sites) consultation have the prefix ‘2’. A summary of all the comments received can be found in Appendix 1.

Principal Service Centre

Workington

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/WOR/011/R 26 0 26 0 1/WOR/014/E 1 1 0 0 1/WOR/016/R 1 1 0 0

1/WOR/017/R 2 1 1 0 1/WOR/018/I 1 1 0 0 1/WOR/020/R 2 2 0 0

1/WOR/023/M 1 0 0 1 1/WOR/025/M 1 0 1 0 1/WOR/026/M 1 0 1 0 1/WOR/027/M 1 0 0 1

1/WOR/032/E 1 0 1 0

1/WOR/034/E 2 1 1 0

1/WOR/035/E 1 1 0 0

8 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

3 Representations Summary

1/WOR/043/M 1 1 0 0 1/WOR/050/R 1 1 0 0 1/WOR/052/R 1 0 1 0

1/WOR/053/R 1 1 0 0 1/WOR/055/R 1 1 0 0 1/WOR/056/R 5 2 1 2

1/WOR/057/R 6 2 2 2 1/WOR/073/M 1 0 0 1 1/WOR/076/E 1 1 0 0 1/WOR/078/M 1 0 0 1 2/WOR/080/R 3 1 0 2

2/WOR/081/R 64 12 49 3 2/WOR/082/R 12 2 9 1 2/WOR/083/O 3 2 0 1

Key Service Centres Aspatria

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/ASP/001/R 2 0 1 1

1/ASP/002/R 2 0 1 1 1/ASP/003/R 2 0 1 1

1/ASP/004/R 3 1 1 1 1/ASP/005/R 2 0 1 1 1/ASP/006/R 2 0 1 1 1/ASP/007/R 2 0 1 1 1/ASP/008/R 2 0 1 1 1/ASP/009/R 2 0 2 0

9 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

3 Representations Summary

1/ASP/010/R 1 0 1 0 1/ASP/011/E 1 0 0 1 1/ASP/012/R 3 1 1 1

Cockermouth Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/COC/001/M 3 0 3 0 1/COC/002/R 2 1 1 0

1/COC/003/E 1 1 0 0 1/COC/004/R 4 1 3 0

1/COC/005/R 4 1 3 0 1/COC/006/R 6 2 3 1 1/COC/007/R 5 1 4 0 1/COC/008/R 7 2 4 1 1/COC/009/R 20 2 17 1 1/COC/010/R 6 2 3 1 1/COC/011/R 5 2 3 0 1/COC/012/R 5 2 3 0 1/COC/013/M 14 0 14 0 1/COC/014/R 2 0 2 0 1/COC/015/R 19 4 14 1 1/COC/016/R 3 0 3 0 1/COC/017/R 3 1 2 0

2/COC/018/E 9 1 5 3 2/COC/019/M 6 2 3 1 2/COC/020/R 6 0 6 0 2/COC/021/M 8 4 3 1

1 0 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

Maryport Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/MAR/003/R 2 0 1 1

1/MAR/008/R 1 1 0 0

1/MAR/009/E 2 1 1 0 1/MAR/010/R 1 1 0 0 1/MAR/011/S 1 1 0 0

1/MAR/012/R 1 1 0 0 1/MAR/013/R 1 1 0 0

1/MAR/018/M 2 0 1 1 1/MAR/025/C 1 0 1 0 2/MAR/033/R 3 0 2 1 2/MAR/034/M 6 1 1 4 2/MAR/035/R 3 0 2 1 Silloth Site Number of Support Object Comment representations

1/SIL/003/R 1 1 0 0 Wigton Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/WIG/001/R 1 1 0 0 1/WIG/003/R 2 1 1 0 1/WIG/004/M 3 3 0 0

1/WIG/005/R 2 1 1 0 1/WIG/006/R 2 1 1 0 1/WIG/007/R 2 1 1 0 1/WIG/009/M 2 1 1 0

1 1 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

1/WIG/010/R 2 1 1 0 1/WIG/011/R 2 1 1 0

1/WIG/012/S 2 1 1 0

1/WIG/013/M 2 1 1 0 1/WIG/014/R 1 0 0 1 1/WIG/015/L 1 0 1 0

1/WIG/016/R 1 1 0 0 1/WIG/020/R 1 1 0 0 1/WIG/021/S 2 1 1 0 1/WIG/022/R 1 1 0 0 1/WIG/023/M 2 2 0 0

1/WIG/024/R 1 1 0 0

1/WIG/025/R 1 1 0 0

1/WIG/026/R 1 1 0 0

1/WIG/029/M 2 1 1 0

2/WIG/030/R 5 3 1 1

Local Service Centres

Abbeytown

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/ABB/004/R 1 1 0 0 1/ABB/005/R 1 1 0 0 2/ABB/006/R 2 0 1 1 Brigham

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/BGH/001/R 5 0 5 0

1 2 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

1/BGH/002/R 6 0 5 1 1/BGH/003/R 4 0 4 0

1/BGH/004/G 1 0 1 0

2/BGH/005/R 31 3 27 1 2/BGH/006/R 28 1 27 0 Broughton

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/BRN/001/R 2 0 2 0 1/BRN/002/O 1 0 1 0

1/BRN/003/R 2 0 2 0 1/BRN/004/R 3 0 3 0 1/BRN/007/R 2 0 2 0 1/BRN/008/R 3 0 3 0 Broughton Moor Site Number of Support Object Comment representations

1/BRM/002/R 2 0 2 0 1/BRM/004/R 1 0 1 0 1/BRM/005/R 3 1 2 0 1/BRM/007/R 2 1 1 0 1/BRM/008/M 1 0 1 0

Dearham Site Number of Support Object Comment

representations 1/DHM/015/R 1 1 0 0 2/DHM/018/R 5 1 3 1

1 3 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

Flimby Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/FLI/006/M 1 1 0 0

Great Clifton Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/GRC/001/R 2 0 2 0 1/GRC/002/R 5 0 5 0

1/GRC/003/R 3 0 3 0 1/GRC/004/O 3 0 3 0 1/GRC/005/R 2 0 2 0 1/GRC/006/R 2 0 1 1

1/GRC/007/R 2 0 1 1

1/GRC/008/R 1 0 1 0

1/GRC/009/R 2 0 2 0

1/GRC/010/R 2 0 1 1 1/GRC/011/R 2 0 1 1 1/GRC/012/R 5 0 5 0 1/GRC/013/R 2 0 1 1 2/GRC/014/R 3 2 0 1 2/GRC/015/R 6 3 0 3

2/GRC/016/R 4 1 1 2 Kirkbride Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/KBR/002/R 1 1 0 0 1/KBR/003/R 1 1 0 0 1/KBR/004/R 1 1 0 0

1 4 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

1/KBR/005/R 1 1 0 0 Prospect

Site Number of Support Object Comment

representations

2/PRO/003/R 5 4 0 1

Thursby Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/THU/003/R 2 1 1 0

1/THU/004/R 1 1 0 0 1/THU/005/R 1 1 0 0 1/THU/006/R 1 1 0 0 1/THU/008/R 1 1 0 0

1/THU/009/R 1 1 0 0

1/THU/010/R 1 0 1 0

1/THU/011/R 1 0 1 0

1/THU/013/R 1 0 1 0

2/THU/015/R 2 2 0 0

Rural Villages - Limited Growth Villages

Bolton Low Houses Site Number of Support Object Comment representations

1/BLH/001/R 2 1 1 0 2/BLH/002/R 4 2 1 1 2/BLH/003/R 5 1 3 1

1 5 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

Branthwaite Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/BRW/001/R 2 1 1 0

1/BRW/002/R 1 0 0 1

1/BRW/003/R 1 0 0 1 1/BRW/004/R 1 0 1 0

Bridekirk

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/BRK/001/R 3 0 3 0 1/BRK/002/R 1 0 1 0 Crosby

Site Number of Support Object Comment

representations 1/CBY/004/R 1 0 1 0 1/CBY/005/R 5 2 3 0 2/CBY/006/R 5 2 2 1 Dean

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/DEA/001/R 1 0 1 0 1/DEA/002/R 1 0 1 0 1/DEA/003/R 1 0 0 1

2/DEA/004/R 1 1 0 0 2/DEA/005/R 2 0 1 1 Eaglesfield Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/EAG/001/R 1 0 1 0

1 6 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

1/EAG/002/R 1 0 0 1 1/EAG/003/R 1 1 0 0 1/EAG/004/R 1 1 0 0

Fletchertown Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/FLE/001/R 2 1 1 0 Gilcrux

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/GIL/004/R 1 0 1 0 1/GIL/005/R 1 0 1 0 1/GIL/006/R 1 0 1 0

Greysouthen

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/GRE/001/R 1 0 1 0 1/GRE/002/R 1 0 1 0 1/GRE/003/R 1 0 1 0 1/GRE/004/R 1 0 1 0 1/GRE/005/R 1 1 0 0

1/GRE/006/R 1 0 1 0 Ireby Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/IRE/002/R 4 1 1 2 2/IRE/006/R 2 0 1 1

1 7 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

Kirkbampton Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/KBA/001/R 1 1 0 0

1/KBA/002/R 2 0 2 0

1/KBA/003/R 1 1 0 0 Little Clifton/Bridgefoot

Site Number of Support Object Comment

representations

1/LCB/003/R 1 1 0 0 Plumbland Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 2/PLU/002/R 24 1 22 1

Rural Villages - Infill and Rounding Off Villages

Broughton Cross

Site Number of Support Object Comment

representations 1/BRC/001/R 4 0 4 0 Crosby Villa

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/CRV/001/R 3 0 2 1 1/CRV/002/R 3 0 2 1 Dovenby Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/DOV/001/R 11 0 11 0 1/DOV/002/R 1 0 1 0

1 8 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

1/DOV/003/R 1 0 1 0 Little Bampton Site Number of Support Object Comment representations

1/LBA/003/R 1 0 0 1

1/LBA/004/R 1 0 0 1 Oughterside Site Number of Support Object Comment representations

1/OGH/001/R 2 2 0 0 Oulton Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 2/OLT/001/R 3 0 2 1 Papcastle Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/PAP/001/R 5 0 5 0 1/PAP/002/R 2 0 1 1 1/PAP/003/R 2 1 0 1 1/PAP/004/R 15 0 15 0 1/PAP/005/R 2 1 0 1

2/PAP/006/R 4 2 0 2 Pardshaw

Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 2/PRW/001/R 3 0 2 1

1 9 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

3 Representation Summary

Parsonby Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/PAR/001/R 1 0 1 0

Ullock Site Number of Support Object Comment representations 1/ULL/001/R 1 1 0 0 1/ULL/004/R 1 0 1 0

Suggested Areas for Growth

Bolton Low Houses Site Number of rep- Support Object Comment resentations BLH01 1 1 0 0 Branthwaite Site Number of rep- Support Object Comment

resentations BRA10 2 1 1 0

BRA11 2 0 1 1

Greysouthen

Site Number of rep- Support Object Comment resentations GRE01 1 0 1 0

GREY02 1 0 1 0

2 0 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.1 Within the consultation document, Allerdale Borough Council included 12 questions in order to receive comments/opinions on how the Council should identify sites and allocate land for a variety of uses in order to meet the development need in the district until 2029. The responses to these questions are summarised below; a more detailed summary of all of the responses is included in Appendix 1.

Question 1

Do you agree or disagree that the starting point for the distribution of growth between the settlements in the Local Service Centre tier should be the size of the settlement, based on the number of dwellings?

Number of responses 33

Agree 20 (61%) Disagree 8 (24%) Comment 5 (15%)

4.2 The majority of respondents considered that the size of the settlement should be a starting point for the distribution of growth in Local Service Centres in order to ensure that the distribution is sustainable and proportionate in social, environmental and economic terms. Whilst the size of the settlement is generally considered to be the starting point, respondents felt that other factors that need to be taken into consideration include:

• infrastructure capacity; • the reuse of brownfield sites; • the nature and character of the settlements; • access to services and facilities; • the sustainability of the settlements; • using evidence bases to understand the market and identify localised housing need; • the availability, viability and suitability of sites; • the need to avoid urban sprawl; • the need to protect the countryside; • the need to protect habitats; • the housing level commitment set out in the Local Plan (Part 1); and • the housing completions that have already occurred in the settlements.

2 1 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.3 A number of respondents stated that the infrastructure capacity of settlements should be considered a priority in any distribution assessment. The growth of a settlement should be related to the ability of that settlement to be able to support the increase in population. It was considered that the infrastructure to support any identified growth in settlements should be in place before the development takes place and before the population increases. In order to determine the infrastructure need, an analysis should be carried out of the present infrastructure and amenities within the settlement and include a projection of what will be required in the future and any associated costs.

4.4 There was a lot of support for prioritising brownfield land for new housing development. By focussing housing development in the larger settlements, it was considered that such settlements would have more potential to support development on brownfield land, as well as minimising the need to travel. There was also support for development not to occur outside the existing settlement boundaries.

4.5 There was also a comment made that the Council seek to plan positively in line with national guidance. The Council should not see the housing target as the minimum level to provide for; it should use it as a base and plan in excess of this.

4.6 There were a number of settlement specific comments made in response to this question. A number of respondents made reference to the fact that Brigham has already met its growth targets for the Local Plan period and that it should not be allowed to expand too rapidly as it would change the character of the village. Respondents also questioned why Brigham was classified as a Local Service Centre when the services and facilities that it currently has are more appropriate for classification as a Rural Village.

4.7 Some respondents stated that the size of the settlement of Broughton is not representative and serves to remove the individual identity of the separate settlements of Great Broughton and Little Broughton. One respondent raised concern about the amount of sites, and their size, in the two settlements. Development of these sites would build more than the identified need for Little Broughton and Great Broughton whilst putting pressure on local infrastructure and amenities. When looking at the growth figures for Broughton, the Council should take into account the level of housing allocated to Derwent Forest as the impact of development here would affect the infrastructure capacity of Great Broughton and Little Broughton.

2 2 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

Question 2

Number of responses 33

Other Local Service Centres 9 (27%) Nearest Principal/Key Service Centre 19 (58%) Comment 5 (15%)

4.8 The majority of respondents (58%) felt that any underprovision in Local Service Centres should be redistributed to the nearest Principal/Key Service Centres in order to maintain the distribution of development across Allerdale as intended in the Local Plan (Part 1).

4.9 The respondents suggested that Principal/Key Service Centres have the capacity, services and facilities to absorb additional development of this scale without affecting their nature. Principal/Key Service Centres are considered to have a number of benefits over Local Service Centres including: access to areas of unused brownfield land; access to employment opportunities; better public transport; and better infrastructure capacity.

4.10 If the underprovision was redistributed to other Local Service Centres, it would negatively affect the character of Local Service Centre settlements, create unsustainable development and lead to the suburbanisation of settlements. Local Service Centres are already struggling to meet present housing requirements and could not manage additional allocations from other Local Service Centres.

4.11 One respondent said that if services and amenities are to become more centralised in the future, it seems logical to concentrate the population in areas with easy transport links to these facilities, especially as the district has an ageing population.

4.12 There was a specific request for any underprovision to be redistributed to Silloth as it is felt that the future level of growth in Silloth should be increased to a level closer to the other Key Service Centres.

2 3 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.13 27% of respondents would prefer for housing underprovision to be redistributed to other Local Service Centres as the Local Plan (Part 1) states that 20% of the housing requirement for Allerdale will be provided across Local Service Centres. However, respondents acknowledged that the redistribution to other Local Service Centres should only occur as long as there is no detrimental effect on the settlements.

4.14 One stated that resources should not be concentrated in one area of the district to the detriment of others. Others said that there may be other Local Service Centres who would want the additional housing that another settlement cannot provide for. By redistributing the underprovision to other Local Service Centres, it will ensure the sustainability of the Local Service Centres is maintained and will ensure sufficient additional homes are provided to serve existing and future residents, thereby sufficiently addressing local need.

4.15 The remaining 15% of respondents felt that this approach is theoretical and that any underprovision should be redistributed to the next sustainable settlement that has capacity, whether it is a Principal/Key Service Centre or a Local Service Centre. It is considered that this will help to ensure that housing which is delivered is well related to the community it would otherwise be serving. Any redistribution would need to be assessed to ensure that potential alternative settlements had the infrastructure capacity to accept additional housing.

4.16 Another respondent agreed that the underprovision redistribution could be split between the nearest Principal/Key Service Centres and other Local Service Centres but went on to say that any redistributed housing should be affordable and for local occupancy only.

4.17 Any approach should recognise that the requirements of each settlement are different and that the approach should be designed to address specific housing need requirements in a locality.

2 4 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

Question 3

Do you agree or disagree that the Local Services Centres in the north of the Borough should have greater levels of housing growth than indicated in Table 2 to enable them to continue to perform their important role in terms of meeting local housing, employment and service needs?

Number of responses 29

Agree 17 (59%) Disagree 9 (31%) Comment 3 (10%)

4.18 59% of respondents to this question agreed that the Local Service Centres in the north of the Borough should have greater levels of growth if that is what the residents of these settlements want and only if it is needed.

4.19 However, the Council should avoid the application of a standard percentage so as to avoid under/over development in certain areas. The local context of settlements should be taken into account when determining the levels of development appropriate for an area. It is important for the Council to determine the necessary levels of housing growth so that development is not developer led. Any decision to alter the housing growth levels for these Local Service Centres should be supported by a review of the current housing needs information for all the affected and surrounding parishes.

4.20 Some respondents stated that an increase in housing growth will help with the sustainability of the larger settlements in the north of the Borough. When determining the appropriate levels of growth, proportionality is considered important so as to retain the character of settlements and to ensure that the required services and infrastructure should be in place to support such development. Any increase in the levels of housing growth should ensure that there is no adverse impact on the natural environment and landscape.

2 5 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.21 It is recognised that the special circumstances of Local Service Centres in the north of Allerdale should be acknowledged and catered for, with any increase in housing growth levels complemented by an increase in employment opportunities. The north of the borough is more rural, has fewer employment opportunities and consequently less need to provide employment related housing. To increase growth in the north of the borough would encourage greater travel distances on rural roads to reach existing employment centres.

4.22 The Local Service Centres in the north of Allerdale have fewer completions and commitments than have been achieved in the south of the district. The northern Local Service Centres should firstly achieve the Indicative Future Housing Needs outlined in Table 2; the Housing Needs numbers may then need to be further increased. However, should housing growth levels in the northern Local Service Centres be increased, it should not be prejudicial to the housing delivery for other settlements as Policy S3 of the Local Plan (Part 1) does not set a housing requirement ceiling – it is a minimum requirement.

4.23 One respondent said that there is no need for more housing given the number of empty houses currently available; this is with the exception of housing for the elderly whose needs are currently badly served.

4.24 Another respondent said that any increase in housing growth in the north of the district should be directed to Silloth rather than the Local Service Centres as Silloth requires a higher level of growth to allow the town to continue to play an important role in meeting local housing, employment and service needs. The Port of Silloth offers the potential to attract additional investment and development to Silloth. Silloth has the services and facilities to support additional sustainable housing development.

Question 4

Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make in relation to the distribution of housing growth between the Local Service Centres?

4.25 This question attracted 12 varied responses; some were settlement specific, whilst other comments were more generic in terms of the distribution of housing growth across Allerdale.

2 6 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.26 The Local Plan (Part 2) should distribute high quality housing away from Cockermouth; other Local Service Centres and Key Service Centres need to have the full housing ladder option in order to address local housing needs.

4.27 The distribution of growth between Local Service Centres should take into account the size of the settlement, facilities and services available and the sustainability of each of the settlements. The character of settlements, its open space and landscape must be preserved. More housing should be planned preferably in brownfield areas and have the scope for large enough developments which in turn have the financial mix to provide for the maximum proportion of affordable homes

4.28 Housing needs to be allocated to the centres who actively want it and for whom it would improve their circumstances, not just proportional to their current size. It must be allocated to those places where it is most viable in terms of all practical aspects. One major area for development should be the Workington-Carlisle route as there are good transport links.

4.29 Given the level of housing need identified in the Local Plan (Part 1) and recent underdelivery, the Council needs to be proactive in its approach to settlement growth, particularly to bring forward development that improves the economic, social and environmental considerations of the Borough. Larger urban settlements, the main employment and service centres, should be targeted to meet housing requirements, associated affordable housing, social cohesion and sustainable development.

4.30 The impact of development within each settlement and the subsequent growth of the settlements upon other nearby settlements must also be considered. For example, Broughton Moor is located within a relatively central location of the Borough and therefore development here will benefit a number of nearby settlements, including Maryport,. Cockermouth and Workington are also within relatively close proximity and therefore housing here will support the economies and populations of these towns.

4.31 The impact of development within each settlement and the subsequent growth of the settlements upon other nearby settlements must also be considered. For example, Broughton Moor is located within a relatively central location of the Borough and therefore development here will benefit a number of nearby settlements, including Maryport, Cockermouth and Workington are also within relatively close proximity and therefore housing here will support the economies and populations of these towns.

2 7 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.32 The impact of development within each settlement and the subsequent growth of the settlements upon other nearby settlements must also be considered. For example, Broughton Moor is located within a relatively central location of the Borough and therefore development here will benefit a number of nearby settlements, including Maryport, Cockermouth and Workington are also within relatively close proximity and therefore housing here will support the economies and populations of these towns.

4.33 There is concern about the amount of land identified for development in Cockermouth as it is anticipated that only 5% of the land identified will be developed; this is not a planned approach and does not seek to achieve NPPF requirements of sustainable development. The 20% buffer should not be applied to Cockermouth as there has not been persistent under-delivery here.

4.34 One respondent requested that some of the growth proposed for the Local Service Centres is redistributed to Silloth.

4.35 The housing numbers allocated to 'Broughton' (actually Great Broughton and Little Broughton) is far too high. The identity of the two villages was decreased by the Church Meadows development. Additional development with further remove the separate identities of the two villages, especially if 1/BRN/004/R is allowed.

4.36 The delivery of housing for Broughton and Thursby is supported, although it is considered that the level of housing distribution for each, in particular Thursby, should be increased to enable a critical mass of sites for delivery that will support the Local Service Centres and meet housing need.

Question 5

Which site(s) would you prefer the Council to take forward?

4.37 29 responses were received to the question regarding 30 specific sites and seven settlements.

4.38 One respondent stated that any sites located in Aspatria, Wigton and Maryport should be taken forward as the settlements have good public transport.

2 8 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.39 Another respondent supported the submitted sites in Workington due to its good access to transport and facilities. The respondent stated that housing in Workington would support a new nuclear power station as it will allow the workforce to live close to sustainable modes of transport for travel to work.

4.40 A number of respondents stated that they did not want to see any sites taken forward in Brigham, Cockermouth or Great Clifton as these settlements have already met/exceeded their Local Plan Indicative Future Needs targets.

4.41 Respondents from Brigham feel that the settlement should be classified as a rural infill/ rounding off village as it is not a sustainable village given the fact that there are no school places, the current limited bus service will soon be lost and cycling will become more dangerous as traffic levels increase. However, affordable housing for young, local working people would be acceptable if located on a small, brownfield site.

4.42 The respondents from Cockermouth also raised concerns about how the existing infrastructure will be able to cope with additional housing, especially with the location of new employment opportunities being elsewhere in West Cumbria.

4.43 Other respondents identified specific sites in Aspatria, Broughton Moor, Cockermouth, Greysouthen, Silloth, Thursby, Wigton and Workington that wanted to be taken forward.

Question 6

Would you prefer development to be located on a number of sites or concentrated on one site to deliver your village/town’s allocation?

Number of responses 25

Number of sites 8 (32%) Concentrated on one site 3 (12%) Neither option 7 (28%) Comment 7 (28%)

2 9 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.44 The majority of the responses to this question were settlement specific, although two respondents provided general comments about how development should be distributed within settlements. One respondent stated that the Council should take into consideration the state of the infrastructure in the settlement when deciding which sites to take forward.

4.45 Another respondent supported the possibility of some large urban extensions, particularly in Cockermouth, Workington and Maryport. in order to provide the necessary open market housing to support and achieve affordable housing delivery. However, in order to provide housing choice within the market, smaller sites should also be delivered. The assessment which will take place for the Preferred Options should be used to determine the most effective approach on a settlement basis.

4.46 Respondents from Great Clifton, Brigham and Broughton Cross stated that neither option was suitable for these settlements as the Indicated Future Needs have already been met. One respondent said that any future development in Brigham and Broughton Cross should be infill and should not lead to the joining of the two settlements.

4.47 There was a mixed response about the distribution of any future development in Cockermouth. One respondent said that Cockermouth (and the surrounding villages) have almost reached their limit and the current infrastructure cannot accommodate any further development. Two respondents said that any future development in Cockermouth should be spread over a number of sites in order to round off the settlement in a manner which is sensitive to the townscape and landscape, whilst making the most appropriate use of services and infrastructure.

4.48 One respondent said that if the site 1/COC/015/R is large enough to take all the future housing need in Cockermouth then it would be acceptable for the development to be concentrated on this one site.

4.49 For Broughton, there was support for infilling within the settlement rather than having significant new housing estates on the edge of the settlement; this will help to protect the identity and amenity of the settlement. Developing a number of smaller sites will gradually raise the number of dwellings to meet identified needs without putting a strain on amenities and services.

3 0 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.50 There was also support for utilising the former Royal Naval Armaments Depot to provide the housing need for the area; it is one of the largest brownfield sites in the UK.

4.51 Respondents from Broughton Moor would prefer developments to be located on a number of sites, although site 1/BRM/007/R should be identified as the main site for residential development. The use of a number of sites for development will allow the new development to properly integrate into the settlement and there would be less disruption whilst the development is occurring.

4.52 A respondent from Dean said that there should be fewer but slightly larger concentrated developments within settlements in order to ensure a proportion of affordable housing, rather than scattered individual or small-scale developments.

4.53 A respondent from Greysouthen also supported the use of multiple infill sites (one or two houses) in order to minimise the visual impact on the village.

4.54 A respondent supported the use of numerous sites in Thursby in order to round off the settlement in a comprehensive and sensitive manner.

4.55 A respondent from Bridekirk stated that if development was to be concentrated on one site, then the overall effect on the character and appearance of the village would be less than if it was spread out over a number of sites.

Question 7

Do you consider that any of the sites are not suitable for allocation? What changes would you like to be made (alternative use; change to the site boundary; or discard/reject the site)?

Number of responses: 133

Site should have an alternative use: 18 (13.5%) Changes should be made to the site boundary: 0 (0%) The site should be discarded/rejected: 113 (85%) Comment: 2 (1.5%)

3 1 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.56 A number of different reasons were provided for supporting the rejection of certain sites. The reasons included: access issues; loss of greenfield land; Local Plan commitments in settlements have already been met; site is outside the settlement boundary; flooding issues; site is of archaeological interest; existing infrastructure cannot cope; pedestrian safety would be compromised; and the site is located on old open cast coal mines. This is not a comprehensive list of reasons for site rejection but is a summary of the key issues raised (see Appendix 1 for full list).

4.57 For a number of sites, respondents also provided ideas for alternative land use. These ideas included: car parking; local wildlife sites; a satellite business park; village greens; play areas; nature reserve and agricultural uses. Again, this summary is not a comprehensive list of ideas received. A detailed breakdown can be found in Appendix 1.

Question 8

Do you feel any existing employment sites are not fit for purpose and should not be protected and retained? If yes, can you suggest an alternative use?

4.58 Seven representations were made to this question, focussing on the settlements of Cockermouth, Great Clifton and Brigham.

4.59 Two of the respondents supported the removal of the existing employment allocation in Great Clifton (1/GRC/002/R). This site was allocated in the 1999 Allerdale Local Plan for industrial use to address unemployment levels at that time. As no industrial use has been introduced on this site in the last 15 years, it is felt that the site should be de-allocated and remain as agricultural land.

4.60 There was support for site 1/COC/003/E as it is adjacent to other industrial uses and it is accessible to local services. Two other responses supported the retention of all employment sites in Cockermouth.

4.61 The respondents in Brigham supported the retention of existing employment sites in the settlement. One respondent said that road surfacing, car parking and signage should all be improved in order to protect, enhance and safeguard the businesses for the future.

3 2 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

Question 9

Are there any particular issues the Council should know about any of the sites?

4.62 72 responses were received to this question, with 15 responses referring to specific sites and 57 responses referring to settlements.

4.63 For the site specific responses, a number of issues were raised which have all been noted by the Council and will be included in the site assessment. These issues included: highway safety; highway capacity; ageing foul and surface water drainage systems; flooding; capacity of local schools; historic mine workings present on the site; and archaeological interest.

4.64 Cumbria County Council provided an overview for each settlement about the capacity in local schools and the general levels of growth the local schools could accommodate in the future. There could be a need to increase capacity in a number of primary and secondary schools across the district.

4.65 The settlement wide comments relate to: proximity to designations (e.g. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Special Area of Conservation, Ramsar sites, Site of Special Scientific Interest); proximity to the Lake District National Park; the presence of priority habitats; the potential effect on Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land; the importance of supporting local businesses; and any development should be sensitively handled to protect the character of settlements. One respondent stated that the database for the Business Park at Park Road, Aspatria is out of date as other premises have been erected in addition to those shown.

Question 10

Do you have any comments about the areas of open space – are they appropriate?

4.66 There were 53 responses to this question. Respondents provided a mix of comments either commenting on the proposed areas of open space, the potential loss of open space should certain sites be allocated or suggesting other sites for consideration for open space protection.

3 3 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.67 There was concern from respondents that the following settlements would lose valued open space, greenfield areas and existing playing fields should certain sites be taken forward for allocation:

• Brigham (1/BGH/001/R, 1/BGH/002/R, 1/BGH/003/R); • Broughton Cross (1/BRC/001/R); • Broughton (1/BRN/001/R, 1/BRN/003/R, 1/BRN/004/R, 1/BRN/007/R, 1/BRN/008/R); • Cockermouth (1/COC/005/R, 1/COC/006/R, 1/COC/007/R, 1/COC/008/R, 1/COC/009/R, 1/COC/010/R, 1/COC/011/R, 1/COC/012/R, 1/COC/015/R); • Dean (1/DEA/001/R); • Maryport (1/MAR/018/M); and • Papcastle (1/PAP/004/R).

4.68 One respondent suggested that site 1/PAR/001/R would be better designated as green space, possibly as a Village Green, for use by the school, which does not have a field of its own, and the Parish as a whole.

4.69 A number of responses supported certain areas identified for open space protection as they are registered Village Greens.

4.70 Some concerns were raised about the maps included in the consultation document. One respondent said that site 1/THU/009/R was shown on the map as ‘Open Space Protection’ whereas Appendix 2 of the consultation document identified the site as having been put forward for residential development.

4.71 Two respondents stated that the colour coding on the maps used two/three very similar shades of green that were indistinguishable. Another resident asked for the next consultation document to provide a definition of certain terms (Open Space, Open Space Protection and Village Green Protection) contained in the map legend. They also requested that the Council confirms that the Village Green Protection referred to in the maps relates to the protection granted to the areas of land included on Cumbria County Council’s register of town or village greens.

3 4 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.72 A respondent from Cockermouth stated that the next consultation document should show the Green at Limetree Crescent’s status as a registered green. In addition, another respondent stated that the Village Jubilee/Memorial Garden in Greysouthen has village green status but it was not shown on the consultation map. The land on the north-west bank of Black Beck in Ullock is a registered Village Green which should be safeguarded.

4.73 There was general support to protect existing open spaces in Brigham, Broughton, Cockermouth, Dean, Deanscales, Pardshaw, Branthwaite, Eaglesfield and Ullock.

4.74 Additional sites were suggested for consideration. One suggestion was that there could be additional provision made in the St. Helens Road/Castlegate Drive area of Cockermouth. Two additional sites were suggested in Dean as the community lacks a village green but historically existing open areas within the village have been used for community events and should be preserved. One was the site opposite the houses Dewmela, Fell View and Field Side as it contributes to the character of the village and the other site was the field between the school and the church as it includes important features. A respondent from Branthwaite stated that the community wishes to obtain a Village Green (or equivalent) and a children’s play area. There was also a request for the Village Green at Ellerbeck in Brigham to be identified for protection, as well as the playground area at Broughton Cross.

4.75 A respondent from Wigton commented that the current open space provision close to the town centre is inadequate. The respondent suggested that the site off West Road, which is currently subject to a planning application for residential development, would be the best site to provide open space as it is close to local recreational amenities such as allotments, a park, playing fields, a cycle path and a river.

Question 11

Do you have any comments on the suggested areas for growth in the Limited Growth Villages? Are there any areas that you would like to suggest?

4.76 Eight responses were received to this question, but only one response directly related to the question. This response was in relation to the suggested areas for growth in Greysouthen (GRE01 and GREY02) which said that the two suggested areas would have poor access and visibility issues; 1/GRE/002/R was previously discarded in the SHLAA.

3 5 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

4.77 A general comment was received which stated that residential development should be in the most sustainable places. These are often located in already established urban areas, therefore the focus for development should be the larger urban areas which have the infrastructure and services to support a greater population base.

4.78 The other responses received related to development in: Broughton Cross (development should not merge Broughton Cross with Brigham, any new development will need to provide major sewage works and site 1/BRC/001/R is too big – development on this site should be smaller), Brigham (there is a site behind Hill Crescent owned by Home Housing which could be suitable to provide affordable housing) and Great Broughton (the armed dump could be used to provide all the housing Allerdale needs until 2029).

Question 12

Any other comments?

4.79 In total, 89 responses were received for Question 12. The majority of responses were settlement specific and have been summarised in the table below. Comments that were submitted in response to Question 12 that have already been considered as responses to other questions have not been included in the table.

Settlement Comments Aspatria The settlement boundary to the north of West Street should be looked at where three large agricultural buildings are located as the settlement boundary currently runs through these buildings. West Street Surgery is shown to be outside the settlement boundary – this is no longer the case.

Broughton Broughton villages seem to unfairly have a big percentage of sur-

rounding land identified when compared to other settlements. Cockermouth Allerdale Borough Council needs to adopt a policy for Cockermouth that positively encourages town centre usage and discourages further out of town development.

3 6 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

The requirement for development in Cockermouth should be carefully balanced with the need to protect its outstanding natural beauty. The former Fire HQ in Cockermouth should be considered to deliver the remaining 5% housing need in Cockermouth. This site is adjacent to the town centre and is ideally suited for high density affordable housing. Retail development on this site should be resisted as it would adversely affect the vitality and viability of the town centre. There is a lack of parking in the central areas of town, especially when tourists arrive. In its designation as a Key Service Centre, Cockermouth has the ability to serve day-to-day needs of local and surrounding residents and offer a varied range of employment land to meet the needs of local and regional businesses. The immediate surroundings of Cockermouth Castle are excessively covered with trees. Some removal and management is required. The Castle is a historic building and one of the reasons for Cockermouth's existence. Views of it are a feature of historic documents about Cockermouth and also existing tourist literature about the town. It is a greatly neglected asset. The determination of the final allocations in Cockermouth should wait until the planning application at Strawberry How has been determined to see if there is a need for further housing. Allerdale Borough Council should consider the provision of the type of housing in Cockermouth. There is a need for suitable private, as well

as low cost homes for the elderly, particularly appropriate sheltered accommodation. There is also a need for bungalows. Any development to the east of the town would have a very negative effect on the road network. It would be sensible to build homes to the north and west of the town, near the proposed industrial development and the major road links to Penrith, Carlisle and the coast Any expansion of Cockermouth should be by the way of 'rounding off' within, or on the south side of, the town as far as possible. Existing housing developments should be extended rather than developing completely new and greenfield areas.

3 7 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

The Thomas Armstrong owned site adjacent to 'The Lakes' fronting onto Low Road sits at a slightly higher elevation and would be suitable for development provided it was adequately screened by trees and minimal flood defences were put in place. ‘Smarter' traffic lights at the Sainsbury's junction should be installed, with longer periods between changes so as to reduce the time that no traffic is using the junction, and a mini roundabout at the Windmill Lane/Kirkgate/Lorton Road junction could help to address traffic levels. Deanscales The village has a central nucleus with scattered dwellings along the road to the Old Posting House and along the A5086. Infill along the A5086 is not desirable and new development in Deanscales is not supported. Eaglesfield The community wishes to obtain a children's play area The character of the village is strongly associated with its unadopted lonnings and these should be protected The village is split into a larger western portion and a smaller eastern portion and would not harm from the two being joined A suggested possible housing location is the land to the east of Barker Meadows; this would join the two halves of the village and would be of sufficient scale to include affordable housing. If this site were to be developed, the south-west corner (next to Eaglesfield Village Hall) should be reserved for development only for community benefit (e.g. children's play area, village hall extension) Maryport There is a need to develop strategic transport links, including the

Maryport Transport Hub at Maryport Railway Station. The current preferred site is the land adjacent to Maryport Fire Station, currently part of the Rugby Football Club site on Mealpot Road. It is requested that Allerdale's Local Plan will safeguard the site for this purpose. Funding to deliver a transport hub at Maryport has now been secured through

devolved Local Major Transport Scheme funding (available from April 2015). Papcastle If more housing is needed, then it would be preferable in the fields on the Papcastle side of Gote Brow and/or (perhaps) at Belle Vue where infrastructure already exists. Behind James Walkers' may work, but it may be liable to flooding.

3 8 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

Pardshaw New development in Pardshaw is not supported, although infill development to the east of the village would be acceptable if it was constrained to align with existing boundary lines Parsonby/ If an area is needed for housing, then the field diagonally opposite Plumbland The Muslins is much more suitable as it would have access to the main road through Plumbland and would seamlessly link Plumbland and Parsonby which, while separated by name, are actually one community sharing the church, school and village hall. Wigton The site of Police Station and Old Court could be a possibility for mixed use development. The development that has taken place north of the bypass over the last 20 years (300 houses) has failed to make adequate provision for children's facilities. Allerdale Borough Council needs to plan more for elderly needs housing and residential care given the ageing population. There is concern about what will happen to the housing market when interest rates rise. Wigton already has around 100 houses for sale. The Environment Agency would welcome a meeting to discuss future development in Wigton and measures to address localised flood risk.

Sites 1/WIG/009/M, 1/WIG/024/R and 1/WIG/029/M could be considered as part of a larger area of land to the south of West Road which offers the potential to be developed for residential land employment uses as a strategic expansion of Wigton

Workington There is a need for further development at the Port of Workington, including developing plans for an upgrade to the current bridge access and an upgrade to the road connection. There is a need to develop strategic transport links, including the Workington Transport Hub. The Workington Goods Yard is the proposed location for transport infrastructure to improve multi-modal access to the railway. The bulk of the site is in County Council ownership and the scheme is now a funded Cumbria County Council High Priority Local Major Transport Scheme for delivery by March 2019. It is requested that Allerdale's Local Plan will safeguard the site for this purpose.

3 9 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

There is a need to deliver a new secondary school in Workington. There was an opportunity to improve the A66 Ramsay Brow/A596 Washington Street as land was for sale to facilitate this. This land is no longer for sale and the opportunity has presently receded, but there may be future opportunities to assemble this site to secure improvements. The County Council wishes to see the continued safeguarding of the route for the Workington Southern Link Road. In the most recent SHLAA document, Eastland Farm in Harrington was considered suitable for development (reference EXWK22), but it does not appear in the Issues and Options consultation paper and it is unclear as to why this is the case. It is well related to Harrington

and it is not within Flood Zones 2 or 3. General The Council’s ability to develop Local Service Centres in the north of comments the district may be affected by the eventual route of the North West Coastal Connections project led by National Grid. Development of brownfield land should always be a priority over building on greenfield land. The Port of Silloth is well placed for trade with Western Europe, Ire- land and Isle of Man with good road connections to the M6, southern Scotland and North East England. The specialism of the Port plays an integral role in the Cumbrian and regional economy as a catalyst for trade and commerce. Allerdale Local Plan should support the continued future use and development of the Port of Silloth for port related uses.

The Council claims to have a 6.25 year supply, but at recent appeals, Inspectors have shown less than a 5 year supply. The Council must ensure that the housing needs over the plan period are deliverable on the sites identified. The Council should review all sites with planning permission as it ap-

pears to be assuming they are all deliverable, thereby reducing the need to allocate land. This may negatively affect the levels of growth needed in areas to support the Council's economic regeneration strategies.

4 0 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

The Plan needs to avoid concentrating sites too closely together as developers will be less willing to build out at the same time and com- peting sites will impact upon sales values. Generally a focus on smaller sites, like Allerdale, struggle to deliver a Plan - a number of larger allocations are needed to ensure its deliverability. Cumbria County Council has a commitment to "working with others to support the enjoyment of our countryside and green spaces while protecting and enhancing its natural, wildlife and historic qualities" and to "support Cumbria Woodlands to help manage and conserve forests and woodlands across the county". Whilst this is the County Council, it is expected that Allerdale Borough Council's values are aligned with them. The Council should be bringing back into use empty buildings in order to meet housing needs. At present, there is no Extra Care Housing in Allerdale, but the Coun- ty Council will be giving further consideration to where demand can be met. Between 2009 and 2019, 380 places are required across Al-

lerdale. The County Council hope that an element of this housing can be provided on housing sites, as part of the overall affordable housing contribution, in addition to public sector and Registered Provider owned land. The Cumbria LEPs' Strategic Economic Plan needs to be an important consideration. This amplifies the important role of West Cum- bria in delivering Cumbria's role as a centre for nuclear and energy excellence, especially the Port of Workington and Lillyhall. The Al- lerdale Local Plan should be consistent with the aspirations expressed in this document. As sites are filtered, and Preferred Options emerge, the County Council will work with Allerdale Borough Council to assess infrastructure requirements, to assess the potential for CIL and assist with any masterplanning exercises.

Homes should be delivered close to schools which have available places in order to facilitate development and to help maintain the sustainability of schools.

4 1 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

Where land is earmarked/suggested for employment, leisure or housing use in the plan, there will be situations where it will be equally suitable (possibly as part of a mixed development) for housing/ tourism use and would generate the economic and employment benefits associated with B1, B2 or B8 uses. In this instance, the development should be consistent with Policy S17 of the Local Plan (Part 1). Dean Parish has a rural character throughout and this should be maintained. Any new developments should be in keeping with and appropriate to this context. Pockets of agricultural land within the villages are important to retain their rural character. The settlements in Dean Parish are now dormitory villages for Cock- ermouth and the Cumbrian West Coast, with an important continuing agricultural element which defines their character. Large scale new industrial/commercial developments are not appropriate to the Par- ish, however home working should be encouraged along with small scale businesses such as artisan/professional developments to reduce commuting out of the Parish. New residential developments in Dean Parish should take place with-

in village boundaries, with the exception of those supporting the rural/agricultural community. Where developments larger than single-dwelling infilling take place, the Parish would like to see a significant proportion of affordable housing included and/or other associated benefits provided to the community. A lower threshold for requiring affordable housing than Allerdale Borough Council's threshold is supported. When affordable homes are built, they should be managed through a Housing Associ- ation scheme to ensure continuity of their low-cost status.

Where villages are bounded and/or screened by natural features (e.g. woodland, ridges, streams) the village should not expand beyond these features. Where proposed allocations are located within/partly Flood Zones 2 and 3, a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will need to be

submitted.

4 2 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

If any site borders a watercourse designated a Main River, then prior consent of the Environment Agency would be required for any works within the top of the bank of a Main River watercourse and new structures and private garden spaces that would permanently obstruct access would not be permitted. Risks from land contamination to controlled waters should be considered as part of any development and remedial measures put in place if required. Given the important contribution the historic environment makes to the district, the Local Plan should include a proper description, identification and assessment of the historic environment and the supporting evidence base should include heritage information. The Plan should conserve and enhance the historic environment of the area and guide how the presumption of sustainable development should be applied locally. The selection of sites needs to be informed by the evidence base and the Plan should avoid allocating sites for development which are likely to result in harm to the significance of heritage assets. When

adverse impacts are unavoidable, the Plan should consider appropriate mitigation methods. Impacts on designated conservation sites within and close to the boundary of the Borough will need to be fully tested through the SA and HRA. This should include impacts on the Solway Coast AONB,

Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Special Protection Area/Ramsar/ SSSI, Solway Firth SAC, River Derwent and Bassenthwaite SAC and River Derwent and Tributaries SSSI. The Local Plan should safeguard the long-term capability of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land and make clear that areas of lower quality agricultural land should be used for development in preference to the BMV land. Retaining BMV land enhances future options for sustainable food production and helps secure other important eco- system services. Natural England can provide free digital maps which show Agricultural Land Classification information.

4 3 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

4 Response to first Issues and Options consultation

The Local Plan (Part 2) should include a policy requiring the payment of developer contributions where development pressure on the railway occurs as a result of the proposed site allocations. The density of development should be looked at to avoid 'cramming homes' into villages. Developments should have garages that can actually fit cars into them to address parking issues associated with housing developments. The evidence used to inform the Local Plan (Part 1) should be re- freshed and utilised. The NPPF sets out the need for Authorities to use Strategic Housing Market Assessment to ensure that Authorities have a full understanding of housing need in their area; this includes the need to address all types of housing. Authorities should respond to market signals including considerations such as improving afforda- bility and also the need to meet housing need within the plan. Concern about how small the stand was at the drop-in session at Wigton Local Links centre. It was difficult to hold a conversation with the planning officer in attendance and it was difficult to read and use

the information provided given the busy environment the session was held in.

4 4 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

Response to second Issues and 5 Options (Additional Sites) consultation

5.1 The text below summarises the responses that were received as part of the second Issues and Options (Additional Sites) consultation. The summarised list of all the site specific comments received is included in Appendix 1.

Question 1

Which site(s) would you prefer the Council to take forward?

5.2 70 people provided 172 comments to support the allocation of 35 sites. There was support for the allocation of sites 2/PRO/003/R (Prospect Garage) and 2/COC/021/M (Former Fire and Rescue Centre, Cockermouth) to enable the development of brownfield sites. There was also support for the protection of open space at Harrington Marina (1/WOR/083/O) given its key role as part of green infrastructure.

5.3 The site at Bow Flatts in Great Clifton (2/GRC/015/R) was supported by three written submissions and a petition signed by 52 residents (on behalf of 125 people) as development would provide a new road with footpaths connecting both sides of the village. 12 people wrote in to support the allocation of land at Low Seaton (2/WOR/081/R) as there is a need for larger, family homes in Seaton.

5.4 Other respondents identified specific sites in Bolton Low Houses, Cockermouth, Crosby, Dean, Dearham, Fletchertown, Great Clifton, Ireby, Maryport, Oughterside, Papcastle, Plumbland, Thursby, Wigton and Workington that they felt should be taken forward. Some of the key supporting reasons included: location in Flood Zone 1; accessibility to services and facilities from sites; infrastructure enhancements are unlikely to be required; there are nearby employment opportunities; and there is easy access from the site to road and rail. The full list of supporting comments can be found in Appendix 1.

5.5 In addition to 172 site specific comments, the Council also received 50 settlement wide comments to Question 1.

5.6 23 of these comments related to the settlement of Brigham, where respondents stated that as Brigham has met the identified Local Plan need. A similar comment was received from one respondent about Great Clifton. In total, 24 respondents stated that no new sites should be taken forward in Brigham and Great Clifton as part of this plan period.

4 5 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

Response to second Issues and 5 Options (Additional Sites) consultation

5.7 A respondent from Plumbland stated that they would support infill and brownfield sites which would be more in line with the desired development of the parish rather than the designation and use of greenfield sites.

5.8 25 respondents from Workington want all available brownfield sites to be taken forward rather than greenfield sites. It is considered that the regeneration/redevelopment of derelict/neglected brownfield sites within existing communities would be more beneficial and in line with Government policy.

Question 2

Do you consider that any of the sites are not suitable for allocation? What changes would you like to be made?

5.9 135 people provided 1,295 comments against the allocation of 45 sites. All of the comments can be found in Appendix 1. The text below summarises the key issues raised on the sites that were commented on the most.

5.10 There were five sites included in the Issues and Options (Additional Sites) consultation that generated the most objections:

• Low Seaton (2/WOR/081/R); • Land at Camerton Road, Seaton (2/WOR/082/R); • Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham (2/BGH/005/R); • Spring Croft (2/BGH/006/R); and • Linton Garth, Plumbland (2/PLU/002/R).

5.11 The site at Low Seaton attracted a total of 63 responses; 49 were objecting to the site progressing further in the Site Allocations process. There were a number of issues raised about this site but the main issue raised was the fact that the existing highway capacity is poor and already struggles to cope with existing development; the road infrastructure cannot cope with any further development. Other highway related issues included concern about emergency vehicle access, the limited parking available and the lack of footpaths in the area. There were other issues raised including: loss of residential amenity; the local schools are at capacity; and the loss of important wildlife habitats.

4 6 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

Response to second Issues and 5 Options (Additional Sites) consultation

5.12 Another site in Seaton (Land at Camerton Road) received nine letters of objection. Most of the reasons provided were similar to the issues raised about the Low Seaton site relating to concerns about the capacity of the existing highway and education infrastructure and the impacts on the local wildlife. Other concerns included: the loss of a natural water store if the site was developed which would lead to an increase in flooding in the surrounding areas; part of the site has a covenant on it restricting it to agricultural use only; and the fact that employment opportunities for the new residents of these houses would be south of the river Derwent in the nuclear industry which would put additional strain on the two bridges and would increase traffic congestion through Workington.

5.13 The majority of the 25 objections to the site at Ellerbeck Brow in Brigham referred to the number of planning applications made for development on this site which have been refused and the subsequent dismissed appeals. The site has poor accessibility as it only has a single point of access which has an inadequate visibility splay which is a hazard for pedestrian and vehicular access/egress. A large number of other objection reasons were provided which included: development on this site would be backland development outside the settlement boundary; the level of development would not be sympathetic to the scale of the village and its narrow roads; the existing infrastructure, facilities and services cannot support development of this level; and there is no need for this housing numbers have been met.

5.14 The site at Spring Croft in Brigham also received 25 objections. The main concern about development on this site was that, in conjunction with the recently approved Lawsons Garth development, there would be pressure on the road junction at Hotchberry Road. However, the majority of respondents said that low level density development could be supported in the next Plan period, after 2029.

5.15 22 responses were received in objection to the site at Linton Garth, Plumbland. A wide range of issues were covered which have all been listed in Appendix 1. Some of the main concerns included: development on the site would result in the loss of Grade I and Grade II agricultural land; there are no services/facilities in the settlement to support development on this scale; the roads to and from the village regularly flood, making them impassable for emergency services and healthcare professionals; access to the site is dangerous as the gateway is directly opposite other driveways and there is poor visibility due to parked vehicles on the road; and existing residents would prefer housing need to be meet through infill development within the settlement boundary.

4 7 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

Response to second Issues and 5 Options (Additional Sites) consultation

5.16 Consultation responses were also received against the allocation of sites in: Bolton Low Houses; Cockermouth; Crosby; Crosby Villa; Dean; Dearham; Dovenby; Great Clifton; Ireby; Maryport; Oulton; Pardshaw; Wigton; and Workington. The comments for all of these sites can be found in Appendix 1.

5.17 As part of Question 2, respondents were also asked what changes they would like to be made to the sites that had been put forward. Respondents were able to: suggest an alternative use for a site; identify changes to the site boundary; and suggest discarding/ rejection.

5.18 The majority of respondents to this question stated that they wanted the sites they identified to be discarded from the allocations process.

5.19 Two respondents suggested that the site beside the Tennis Courts in Cockermouth (2/ COC/020/R) should be allocated for recreational purposes rather than residential.

5.20 Two comments were received in respect of the Former Fire and Rescue Centre in Cockermouth (2/COC/0021/M) due to the location of a footpath through the site. One respondent requested a change in the site boundary as the site includes several footpaths, including a footpath on the old railway, and a cycleway. This change in the site boundary will allow these features to be preserved. There was also an alternative use suggested for this site. Rather than mixed use on the site, a respondent suggested that the site may be appropriate for housing for older people.

5.21 One respondent stated that the site at Netherhall Estate, Maryport (2/MAR/034/M) should only be allocated for community green space and non-built leisure uses.

5.22 Another respondent felt that the Site Allocations document should protect the woodland and parkland at Dovenby Hall as a Local Wildlife Site in recognition of the Ancient Woodland and UK BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) habitats that can be found on the site.

4 8 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

Response to second Issues and 5 Options (Additional Sites) consultation

Question 3

Are there any particular issues the Council should know about any of the sites?

5.23 81 comments on 30 sites were provided in response to this question. The majority of the comments provided as part of these responses were site specific and so have been summarised in Appendix 1 under the relevant site reference.

5.24 The Environment Agency provided a comprehensive assessment of all the sites included in the second Issues and Options (Additional Sites) consultation. The response identified sites which were: within the vicinity of a sewer network; within 8 metres of a watercourse; in Flood Zone 2 or 3; affected by a culvert through the site; and within 25m of a historic landfill.

5.25 Other stakeholder comments identified potential constraints to development on sites given their proximity to a number of designations including: Ancient Semi Natural Woodland; the River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake SAC; and the River Derwent and Tributaries SSSI.

Question 4

Any other comments?

5.26 Four comments were made on the consultation document itself; two people stated that the plans were difficult to read as the colours on the map do not match the colour in the key and one person pointed out that page 6 of the document referred to Appendix 2, even though the document did not have an Appendix 2. One respondent questioned the need to produce a Site Allocations document given the recent planning permission that was granted at Strawberry How in Cockermouth. Another resident raised the point that the Council does not appear to take account of the responses submitted by members of the public.

5.27 Some respondents suggested that the Council should look at the possibility of developing Derwent Forest to meet the housing targets. One respondent considered that this site would be suitable for use as a retirement village.

4 9 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

Response to second Issues and 5 Options (Additional Sites) consultation

5.28 There was general support for the Site Allocations document to protect existing woodlands, habitats and open space, as well as those sites of archaeological interest.

5.29 One respondent encouraged the Council to make more of s106 Agreements to secure community benefits associated with development in the district.

5.30 One respondent stated that for all mixed, retail and employment sites, the Council should consider adopting a policy of pocket Park and Ride areas. Each relevant site would be required to provide an agreed amount of free car parking spaces for Park and Ride where the site is close to a bus route. Road signage should be included in the development to identify the car parking spaces available. This will help to reduce car journeys in an affordable and sustainable manner where no revenue support costs are required post introduction. This should all be secured through s106 agreements

5.31 17 respondents provided comments that any future development in Brigham should be plan led given that the Council has an adopted plan and a five year supply. This will help to protect against unsustainable development in the settlement as Brigham does not have the services/facilities/infrastructure to sustain any more new dwellings.

5.32 One comment was made that developer led projects should follow the adopted Local Plan which states that the allocation of growth between settlements should take into account current housing commitments and completions since the beginning of the Plan Period, and the ability of the settlement to accommodate growth without harming its character, setting or the surrounding landscape. Another respondent supported proportionate development across settlements as disproportionate growth in any settlement, particularly smaller settlements, has the potential to place a strain on existing water and wastewater infrastructure

5.33 Concern was raised about the fact that there appears to have been little thought given to the type of housing development required in this area – a greater a variety of sheltered accommodation is needed across the district. By making provision for older people, other accommodation for families will then be made available.

5.34 Concern was also raised about the settlements that will soon lose their bus service and how this will impact on the accessibility of some of the sites that have been put forward for consideration.

5 0 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

Response to second Issues and 5 Options (Additional Sites) consultation

5.35 In total, ten comments were received from five respondents about evidence base documents. With regard to the Site Assessment Methodology, the Coal Authority stated that they were pleased to see that the Site Sustainability Assessment Criteria identifies that sites should be considered against the Coal Authority defined Development High Risk Area and the Surface Coal Resource plans provided to the Local Planning Authority. This identification shows that the Council recognises the importance of coal mining legacy and coal resources within the district.

5.36 Sport England encourages the Council to use the recently completed Playing Pitch Strategy to identify whether specific sites have been identified in the document as surplus to requirement to meet an existing or predicted future need. Any lapsed sites which are required to be brought back into use should be an allocation in its own right. Any site allocation containing a sports facility which is not deemed to be surplus to requirements will need to be replaced to an equivalent or better quality and quantity within the locality.

5.37 A number of stakeholders offered support to the Council in the ongoing preparation of the Local Plan (Part 2). Natural England offered their support to the Council in the preparation of the Sustainability Assessment and the Habitat Regulations Assessment given the key role these documents will have in informing the Preferred Options process. United Utilities will work closely with the Council to develop a coordinated approach to delivering sustainable growth in sustainable locations. Cumbria County Council will liaise with the Council to give robust consideration to both the site specific and broader infrastructure effects of development, and subsequently the mitigation measures that may be needed to ensure development is sustainable.

5 1 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

6 Next Steps

6.1 The responses provided to both of the Issues and Options consultation will be used, alongside site assessment tools and liaisons with key stakeholders, to help Planning Officers to determine which sites to take forward to the next round of consultation (Preferred Options).

6.2 Once the preferred sites have been identified, they will be released for consultation; it is anticipated that this will occur in summer 2015. The Preferred Options consultation document will identify the preferred sites, but it will also explain why the other sites have not been taken forward. The Council will also be working on supporting documents such as the Habitats Regulations Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal.

6.3 The next round of consultation will be published on our website and those who are registered on our consultation database will be notified of the start of the consultation. If you would like to be added to our consultation database, please email [email protected] or call 01900 702610.

5 2 Discussion Paper: January 2013 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5 Appendix 1: Consultation response summary by site

53 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

Principal Service Centre Site Issue/comment Number of representations 1/WOR/011/R There is already flooding issues from Eller Beck; any development in this area will have an 26 adverse effect on an area already struggling to cope with the volumes of flood water. Due to the topography of the site, development on this site is highly likely to increase the risk of flooding to the local area as the Eller Beck/River Wyre already suffers from downstream flood events. Any increase to the natural flow would also have an impact on the nature reserve at Harrington Reservoir which is home to many forms of wildlife (e.g. Mallards, Moorhen, Sticklebacks etc.) The site is located in Flood Zones 1 and 3B - development should be located in areas with the 25 lowest probability of flooding. Allowing residential development in this area could have safety implications for residents due to 1 the flood risk Given that Workington only needs 8% of the land that has been put forward, there are brownfield 26 sites that should be developed first The site lies outside the settlement boundary 25 It's location at one of the high points in Workington (64m above sea level) makes inaccessible for 25 a high percentage of possible users (e.g. elderly, disabled, those reliant on having a means of transport at their disposal) The site is not sustainable. The closest amenities are all approximately 1 mile away (Moorclose 25 shops, Harrington Road Co-Op and the town centre), with Derwent Park Retail Park approximately 2 miles away. Leisure facilities (e.g. football ground, cinema and bowling) are approximately 2-3 miles away. These will all be difficult to access on foot and via public transport as the nearest train station is 1.5 miles away and the bus station 1 mile away. The topography of the land renders it unsuitable for development 25 Currently the utility capacity on this site is classified as a public sewer flooding risk 25 Development on this site will have an impact on the A596. Cumbria County Council has identified 25 that the High Street/Newlands Lane junction is operating above capacity. Development of this site would further impact on this junction and those at Ashfield Road, Ellerbeck Lane, Ashfield Gar- dens, James Duffield Close and Stanbeck Meadows Two accesses to the site would be needed. As the site is land-locked, two new junctions onto the 25 A596 would need to be created which would put stress on the local highway network, affect all junctions on the A596 at High Street and generate severe highway infrastructure problems. This development, together with the new secondary school at Stainburn and the Ashfield Road South site, will result in an increased number of vehicles on the A596, especially at peak times, thus affecting highway safety for vehicles and pedestrians.

54 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WOR/011/R Between June 2008 and September 2014, there have been 19 recorded accidents around the High Street/ 25 Guard Street junction and at Castle Gardens Given its elevated position, any development on this site would have an unacceptable effect on the local 25 residential amenity in terms of loss of privacy due to overlooking or an increased sense of enclosure as a result of an overbearing development Development on this greenfield site would lead to a detrimental effect on local visual amenity due to the loss 25 of open space, trees and impact on the historic character of the area The site provides habitats for a variety of wildlife, including Red Squirrels, blue butterflies, pheasants and 25 bats Schoose Farm is opposite the site and contains a number of Grade II listed buildings 25 The site is not in a location that would benefit affordable housing due to the distance from services and 25 facilities 1/WOR/014/E Support allocation for proposed use 1 1/WOR/016/R Support allocation for proposed use 1 1/WOR/017/R Support allocation for proposed use 1 The site is adjacent to Eller Beck which already has issues with flooding 1 1/WOR/018/I Support allocation for proposed use 1 1/WOR/020/R Support allocation for proposed use 1 Site is within settlement boundary 1 Site is within reasonable proximity to wide range of community facilities 1 The land uses in the vicinity of the site are primarily residential and passive recreation 1 Part of the site is brownfield 1 Access can be gained to the site 1 Site is in Flood Zone 1 1 Site is not constrained by environmental, ecological or archaeological issues 1 1/WOR/023/M Any loss of playing fields should be replaced or proven to be surplus to requirements 1 1/WOR/025/M Flooding issues 1 1/WOR/026/M Site includes the Scheduled Monument that protects Jane Pit 1 1/WOR/027/M Any loss of playing fields should be replaced or proven to be surplus to requirements 1 1/WOR/032/E Habitat for the small blue butterfly which is sensitive to disturbance 1

55 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WOR/034/E Support allocation for proposed use 1 Habitat for the small blue butterfly which is sensitive to disturbance 1

1/WOR/035/E Support allocation for proposed use 1

1/WOR/043/M Site is in a prominent location and well related to the strategic Lillyhall Estate 1 The site is extremely accessible from the highway network 1 Site has close links to services and public transport links 1

The site is previously developed land 1 The proposed use would complement the existing uses in the locality 1 1/WOR/050/R The site has good access from the main road 1 The site has good access to services and facilities 1 The site is in Flood Zone 1 1

Open space can be provided either within the site or on adjoining land 1 There is no impediment to excellent design on this site 1

Power and water connections exist on the site. Sewage treatment can be provided 1

Development on the site can manage the blind corners 1

There is no known ecological or archaeological impediments on the site 1

There are no known factors to indicate that this site is not a positive addition to the sustainability of Allerdale's 1 Land Allocation Document Affordable housing can be provided as per the relevant policy 1 The site is achievable, available and suitable for development 1 1/WOR/052/R Access is not possible to the site via St. Andrew’s Road 1 The proposed site is the only open space for local children to play on 1 Moor Road frequently floods after heavy rain; drainage systems cannot cope 1

1/WOR/053/R The site has good access from the main road 1

The site has good access to services and facilities 1 The site is in Flood Zone 1 1 Open space can be provided either within the site or on adjoining land 1 There is no impediment to excellent design on this site 1 Power and water connections exist on the site. Sewage treatment can be provided 1

56 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WOR/053/R Development on the site can manage the blind corners 1 There is no known ecological or archaeological impediments on the site 1 There are no known factors to indicate that this site is not a positive addition to the sustainability of Allerdale's 1 Land Allocation Document

Affordable housing can be provided as per the relevant policy 1

The site is achievable, available and suitable for development 1 1/WOR/055/R An access to the site could be created using other land under the owner’s control 1 There is no flood risk impediment to the site 1

1/WOR/056/R The site is supported 1 This site should only be brought forward if modified. The site boundary should exclude westernmost section - 1 the site is too large otherwise The developer is committed to the delivery of this site for housing and continues to support the inclusion of 1 this site for housing allocation The revised site boundary is consistent with the current proposals which the developer is preparing in order 1 to support a planning application in the near future

This site will deliver housing and will assist the Council with achieving its targets 1 The high demand for properties at Whins Farm demonstrates that there is a desire for high quality housing in 1 this area of Workington

The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1

The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1

Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with require- 1 ments for enhanced local highway infrastructure 1/WOR/057/R The site is supported 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with require- 1 ments for enhanced local highway infrastructure The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with require- 1 ments for enhanced local highway infrastructure This site is too disconnected from the rest of the settlement 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 This site is not designated as Ancient Semi Natural Woodland. However, it is recorded as woodland on the 2 National Forest Inventory. This site should be treated as Ancient Semi Natural Woodland and reference should be made to standing advice

57 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WOR/073/M Any loss of playing fields should be replaced or proven to be surplus to requirements 1 1/WOR/076/E Support allocation for proposed use 1

1/WOR/078/M Any loss of playing fields should be replaced or proven to be surplus to requirements 1

2/WOR/080/R This site is suitable for allocation 1 This site is adjacent to Workington Railway Station and a developer contribution may be required if the 1 proposal were to increase footfall at the station The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1

2/WOR/081/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1

Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site There is a desperate need for larger family houses in the village – a lot of families are moving out of the area 9 due to the lack of supply

Access via Branthwaite Lane and Low Seaton would be fine. Traffic was redirected about 18 months ago and 2 over 100 cars per day used the re-direction route so access has proved to be more than OK

The site is a beautiful place to build new homes and would let residents have a house that overlooks the river 2 and Mill Field. The site would be a very desirable location for housing

If the right type of houses were provided, it would attract a lot of people to Seaton 2

Access could be improved down Branthwaite Lane that would be of benefit to all of Seaton 2

The development might include a park/other facilities for young people 1

There is sufficient room in the local schools 1

The site contains dog faeces which means that children cannot play in the field 7

Access to the site would be OK if some of the local residents who run a business did not park 7-8 vehicles on 3

the street overnight and have heavy goods delivery vehicles coming to Branthwaite Lane If new developments are not supported, then Seaton will be an ageing village and no new families will move 3 to the area Could the current parking issues on Low Seaton road be addressed using double yellow lines? 1 A small development will blend in nicely - it should be a low density development including some affordable 3 family homes. Would support development of around 40 units of the site It would put the field to good use and benefit the local community 1 Development on this site would provide work for local tradesmen 1 Provision of access is important and would need to be commensurate with the number of houses 1

58 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/WOR/081/R The road that development would use is not capable of taking any increase in traffic volume, as it is currently 45 at capacity and is of sub-standard conditions. The access road down Low Seaton is narrow with a single lane in some parts and no pavement. Cars are parked most of the way down the road making access very difficult. The volume of traffic using the road has increased over the last few years. Development of this site would lead to more traffic which will increase the risk of accidents in an area with families with young children. Emergency vehicle /delivery vehicle/construction vehicle access is a concern at present based on the amount 19 of traffic/parking restrictions Planning permission on this site has been refused in the past, and a subsequent appeal was dismissed 9 This area is used for recreational purposes by walkers, horse riders and dog walkers 14

The site is adjacent to significant areas of woodland and home to several species of indigenous wildlife (e.g. 24 red squirrels, deer, pheasant, owls, bats and woodpeckers). Development on this site would undoubtedly dis- rupt the habitat of this wildlife, potentially damage the woodland and affect the water courses that run through the area Ancient Semi Natural Woodland is adjacent to this site. This site allocation should not be taken forward. How- 3 ever, if the sites are allocated, a buffer of at least 50m between the site and the woodland should be implemented

Development on this site would lead to further destruction of an unspoilt, historic area and would be detri- 19 mental to the character of the area as it would lead to a loss of amenity space The proposed development will affect existing house values 5 The village schools are at maximum capacity and they do not have the potential to expand 11 There is no need for this level of housing in Seaton. There are houses currently on the market that are not sell- 9 ing. There are enough planning permissions for housing in the area (Maryport, Cockermouth, Workington, Derwent Forest) and so this is not needed. The generation of heavy construction traffic could affect the foundations of nearby houses 3

The site is greenfield land in open countryside 2 The units built would not be for affordable housing 1 This would be a very inappropriate urban extension into open countryside as the site is isolated and uncon- 1 nected from the rest of the settlement. The drainage system is already struggling – heavy rain causes flooding at Branthwaite Lane. Development on 3 this site would remove a natural water storage area and exacerbate the existing problem It is likely that the houses built on this site would not have garages attached to them, meaning that the cars will 1 be parked on the road The land levels are unsuitable for development 1 There is concern that there will not be safe playing areas for children 5

59 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/WOR/081/R There is plenty of land in the Derwent Forest and surrounding area that can be used instead of the centre of 1 Seaton If the development goes ahead, a balcony at an existing neighbouring property would overlook the new hous- 1 es The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site is in Flood Zone 3 1

The site is within 8 metres of a Main River 1 If the site was to be developed, the new residents could use Branthwaite Lane/Derwent Bank as a short cut 4 which would be unacceptable as it is a public bridleway and it is regularly used by children Development on the site would create noise pollution from the construction phase and from the new resi- 3 dents, affecting residential amenity 2/WOR/082/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be ad- 1 versely affected by development on this site Supportive of the inclusion of this land as a potential site for housing 1 The scale of development would be much too large for the settlement and involve the loss of a very large 2 greenfield, agricultural site. The site bounds a County Wildlife Site to the north 1 Vehicle access to this site (as well as in conjunction with 2/WOR/081/R) would put great strain on the access 8 routes via Church Road and Causeway Road which already suffer from congestion. Apart from Camerton Road (which is very narrow and can also have weather related problems) these two roads are the only exist-

ing roads in and out of this area. Both of these roads allow parking on two sides (particularly with visitors to the church and pubs) which is a hazard to drivers and pedestrians. Any additional traffic would make this much worse. There is already concern for pedestrians, cyclists, car drivers, horses, delivery vehicles, refuse collections and emergency vehicles due to parked cars on both sides of the road. Emergency vehicle /delivery vehicle/construction vehicle access is a concern at present based on the amount 1 of traffic/parking restrictions The village schools are at maximum capacity and they do not have the potential to expand 6 There is plenty of land in the Derwent Forest and surrounding area that can be used instead of the centre of 1 Seaton Water drains off this site to the lowest point near the British Legion and floods the road. Development of this 2 site would cause more water run-off and cause flooding of houses in this area Employment opportunities for the new residents of these houses would be south of the river Derwent in the 1 nuclear industry. This would put additional strain on the two bridges and would increase traffic congestion through Workington

60 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/WOR/082/R There is currently already insufficient parking for access to local facilities (e.g. shops, library, post office, 1 pharmacy) Development on this site would put pressure on local biodiversity and their habitats (e.g. red squirrels, 2 pheasants, ducks and birds) The site is on the limits of the parish boundary and the green space should be protected 1 Development on this site would have a negative effect on the surrounding footpaths, cycle tracks and public 1 rights of way. It would also have a negative impact for those utilising community facilities including the Village Hall and the Scout Hut The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 Part of this site has a covenant on it restricting it to agricultural use only 1 2/WOR/083/O This site should be brought forward as public open space as it is important green infrastructure within south 1 Workington. Management plan should be put in place to enhance the wildlife at the site Support this Open Space designation, although it should continue further north on open land between the 1 railway line and the coast, reaching as far north as the former steelworks site The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site is within 8 metres of a Main River 1 Consider the ordinary watercourse on the site 1 The site is within Flood Zone 3 1 This site appears to be open space adjacent to the operational railway. In this case, Network Rail would wish to 1 see a trespass proof fence erected adjacent to the railway boundary to ensure that users of the open space could not gain unauthorised access to the operational railway.

Key Service Centres

Aspatria 1/ASP/001/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available This site makes sense in terms of a rounding off development 1 1/ASP/002/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available Combined with sites 1/ASP/005/R and 1/ASP/006/R would imply a significant extension of the town 1 The distance of the site from the railway station is not sustainable 1 If this site progresses as an allocation, it should be limited to a natural extension of the existing settlement 1 boundaries (the east and west of northern portion of the site)

61 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/ASP/003/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available This site relates well to the adjoining residential properties on the south side and as such it could be considered 1 a logical extension to the settlement Development of this site could exacerbate the disjunction created by the absence of facing settlement to the 1 north - a 'half a ribbon development' in effect 1/ASP/004/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available This site should be considered for commercial/retail mixed use in order to support the town centre and to reduce 1 travel pressures on Aspatria residents to access services The site should also build upon its proximity to the Rugby Club to develop leisure facilities 1 Access via the Pringle would be impossible, but a masterplan for the site (including the area to the north of the 1 site) could be done to relieve some of the access and frontage issues The site is accessible by a range of means of transport including bus and rail 1 The site is not visually intrusive 1 The site is well related to the existing built form of the settlement 1 The site is within walking distance to numerous services and facilities 1 1/ASP/005/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available Combined with sites 1/ASP/002/R and 1/ASP/006/R would imply a significant extension of the town 1 The distance of the site from the railway station is not sustainable 1 If this site progresses as an allocation, it should be limited to a natural extension of the existing settlement 1 boundaries (the east and west of northern portion of the site) 1/ASP/006/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available Combined with sites 1/ASP/002/R and 1/ASP/005/R would imply a significant extension of the town 1 The distance of the site from the railway station is not sustainable 1 If this site progresses as an allocation, it should be limited to a natural extension of the existing settlement 1 boundaries (the east and west of northern portion of the site) 1/ASP/007/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available This site makes sense in terms of a rounding off development 1 The Business Park to the NE of the site is now beginning to attract investors. This site might benefit from being 1 considered as a satellite Business Park if the present one becomes full (although there could be access issues)

62 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/ASP/008/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available This site looks like a sensible rounding off site 1 Even a limited increase in vehicular movements would lead to problems at the Station Road junction. 1 1/ASP/009/R The village is sometimes cut-off by flooding near Blennerhasset Bridge at one end and Baggrow Farm at the 1 other. Any further development could increase the risk of that flooding The village has no local services (apart from a public house) and would not be sustainable for the site to be 1 developed There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available 1/ASP/010/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available 1/ASP/011/E This seems a logical location for to extend the Commercial Park 1 The junction will need to be looked at as vehicles leave the national limit zone on a relatively blind bend. 1 The residential amenity of the facing dwelling, and the wider environmental amenity of the area, might be 1 better maintained by ensuring a setback and screening to prevent any building coming too close to Arkleby Road 1/ASP/012/R There is no requirement for additional housing in the area in view of the number of empty properties currently 1 available This site should be examined as a potential allocation for the relocation of Aspatria station with associated car 1 parking. The site is well related 1 It is in a Key Service Centre where new development is supported 1 It is a brownfield site 1 It lies entirely out of Flood Zones 2 and 3 1 The site will soon be available 1 Cockermouth 1/COC/001/M Development on this site would lead to the loss of an essential car park in Cockermouth. If it is built on, the car 3 park should be relocated 1/COC/002/R Poor accessibility 1 Lack of services 1 Flooding issues 1 This site is accessible to the town centre and would have minimum impact on current traffic bottlenecks 1

63 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/COC/002/R It is within a landscape envelope of the town, respecting Cockermouth's status as a gem town and its 1 proximity to the National Park Services are already adjacent to this site 1 It is capable of providing affordable housing 1 This site needs to be confined to land immediately accessible from Towers Lane 1 1/COC/003/E More employment is needed in Cockermouth 1 1/COC/004/R Need to retain existing play provision and protect against loss of open space 3 This site is accessible to the town centre and would have minimum impact on current traffic bottlenecks 1 It is within a landscape envelope of the town, respecting Cockermouth’s status as a gem town and its 1 proximity to the National Park Services are already adjacent to this site 1 It is capable of providing affordable housing 1 It is a key access area for the railway cyclepath into and out of town 1 1/COC/005/R Poor accessibility. There is no suitable access to the A66 from the east side of town. 2 Lack of services 1 Flooding issues 1 When combined with 1/COC/006/R, 1/COC/011/R and 1/COC/012/R, this allocation is excessive. 1 It is beyond the landscape envelope of town and access is less satisfactory than selected sites 1 There would be increased pressure on Strawberry How as a short cut, which is used by walkers, runners, 1 horse riders and cyclists (it is a national cycle route). There will be an increased risk of accidents along this road and at the junction with the A66 The town does not have suitable road infrastructure capacity to accommodate further development due to 2 physical limitations and already under strain. Increased traffic in the town centre will lead to increased risk of collisions This site is supported 1 1/COC/006/R There is no suitable access to the A66 from the east side of town. 2 Lack of services 1 Flooding issues 1 Development of this site would allow for a natural expansion of the town with the least visual impact on the 1 character of the townscape due to the topography of the town Development on this site would extend relatively recent developments 1

64 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/COC/006/R Development on this site would ultimately allow vehicles to enter the town in a managed approach via traffic 1 lights at the junction of Lorton Road and Station Road Part of this site is within a Flood Risk area (albeit not in Zone 3b) and this part of the site could be used to 1 accommodate public open space or a SUDs system. It would not be used to accommodate housing or other vulnerable end uses. When combined with 1/COC/005/R, 1/COC/011/R and 1/COC/012/R, this allocation is excessive 1 It is beyond the landscape envelope of town and access is less satisfactory than selected sites 1 Major service infrastructure is required 1 There would be increased pressure on Strawberry How as a short cut, which is used by walkers, runners, horse 1 riders and cyclists (it is a national cycle route). There will be an increased risk of accidents along this road and at the junction with the A66 The town does not have suitable road infrastructure capacity to accommodate further development due to 1 physical limitations and already under strain. Increased traffic in the town centre will lead to increased risk of collisions This site is supported 1 1/COC/007/R There is no suitable access to the A66 from the east side of town. 3 Lack of services 2 Flooding issues 1 Traffic levels on Castlegate already cause a problem and levels are likely to increase once the hospital is fully 1 operational. Cars do not obey the priority rules and they mount the pavement, putting pedestrians at risk. Any increase in traffic levels on Castlegate Drive/Castlegate/St Helen's Street will present a greater risk to school children The loss of open space will be detrimental to the character of the landscape/townscape. This site acts as part of 2 a gateway into Cockermouth Housing developments already approved already meet the demand for housing in Cockermouth. Any further 1 development could destroy the character of Cockermouth This site should be promoted for residential allocation. It is accessible, close to existing services and facilities, 1 not subject to flood risk, would not lead to a loss of public open space, would be subject to high quality design, is connected by good quality existing infrastructure, would not have an adverse impact on the landscape or townscape, would not have an adverse impact on archaeology or ecology and would help to provide affordable housing in Cockermouth The site is beyond the townscape of Cockermouth 1 There would be increased pressure on Strawberry How as a short cut, which is used by walkers, runners, horse 1 riders and cyclists (it is a national cycle route). There will be an increased risk of accidents along this road and at the junction with the A66

65 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/COC/007/R The town does not have suitable road infrastructure capacity to accommodate further development due to 1 physical limitations and already under strain. Increased traffic in the town centre will lead to increased risk of collisions 1/COC/008/R Poor accessibility 1 Any further housing needs in Cockermouth should best be considered an infill development on this site. 1 Development on this site would add to the traffic problems on Castlegate Drive which can then cause traffic 3 movement problems in Market Place and the eastern end of Main Street, particularly at peak periods and Cockermouth School traffic. Peak traffic levels already cause serious concern for pedestrian safety. The development of this site would give the eastern side of Cockermouth a more urban appearance, detracting 1 from its character as a distinctive market town. There are other sites available (e.g. the former fire station) which is better placed to avoid the listed issues with 1 this site The loss of open space will be detrimental to the character of the landscape/townscape. This site acts as part of 1 a gateway into Cockermouth Housing developments already approved already meet the demand for housing in Cockermouth. Any further 1 development could destroy the character of Cockermouth This site should be promoted for residential allocation. It is accessible, close to existing services and facilities, 1 not subject to flood risk, would not lead to a loss of public open space, would be subject to high quality design, is connected by good quality existing infrastructure, would not have an adverse impact on the landscape or townscape, would not have an adverse impact on archaeology or ecology and would help to provide affordable housing in Cockermouth This site is accessible to the town centre and would have minimum impact on current traffic bottlenecks 1 It is within a landscape envelope of the town, respecting Cockermouth's status as a gem town and its proximity 1 to the National Park Services are already adjacent to this site 1 It is capable of providing affordable housing 1 1/COC/009/R Additional traffic on Castlegate Drive would make this road even more hazardous. There are problems with 16 school pick-ups/drop-offs and the extra hospital traffic. Any new development can only lead to further serious traffic problems either on Castlegate Drive or St. Helen’s Street. Access from St. Helen’s Street would not be possible as it is very narrow 1 The narrow part of Castlegate has pavements unable to cope with the numbers of school children using them. 6 Combined with the traffic levels, this is dangerous Development on this site would be detrimental to the character of Cockermouth. It would give the eastern side 3 of Cockermouth a more urban appearance, detracting from its character as a distinctive market town.

66 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/COC/009/R At present, there is probably not the need for more housing in Cockermouth 3 If a site needs to be developed in Cockermouth, there are more suitable sites 3 If these houses were to be developed, serious infrastructure improvements would be needed to shops, schools, 6 leisure facilities and utilities. New large housing developments should be resisted until a full study has been carried out assessing Cockermouth’s infrastructure capacity Development on this site would lead to a loss of a well-used open space/local amenity to both the local commu- 6 nity and local farmers which would have an overwhelmingly negative effect on the surrounding properties and the economy Local knowledge suggests that this site could be an ancient burial ground 1 Development on this site would have a serious visual and landscape impact on the character if the surrounding 7 area and the Lake District National Park The site has links to the Castle 1 Focus should be on developing brownfield sites not greenfield sites 1 There is concern about flooding on this site and the surrounding area. The development of this site will exacer- 2 bate the risk of flooding as excessive rainfall will not be so well absorbed in the absence of the existing open space. The field itself, the central copse and the surrounding mature hedgerows form an excellent natural habitat to 1 many birds, insects and small animals Any further housing needs in Cockermouth should best be considered an infill development on this site. 1 This site should be promoted for residential allocation. It is accessible, close to existing services and facilities, 1 not subject to flood risk, would not lead to a loss of public open space, would be subject to high quality design, is connected by good quality existing infrastructure, would not have an adverse impact on the landscape or townscape, would not have an adverse impact on archaeology or ecology and would help to provide affordable housing in Cockermouth This site is accessible to the town centre and would have minimum impact on current traffic bottlenecks 1 It is within a landscape envelope of the town, respecting Cockermouth's status as a gem town and its proximity 1 to the National Park Services are already adjacent to this site 1 It is capable of providing affordable housing 1 Development on this site would lead to a loss of natural flood storage. In turn, this could lead to localised flood- 1 ing in neighbouring streets The current sewer system is at capacity - further development would worsen this situation. 1 Development of this site would be seriously detrimental to the town and its heritage setting 1

67 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/COC/010/R Poor accessibility 1 Any further housing needs in Cockermouth should best be considered an infill development on this site. 1 Development on this site would add to the traffic problems on Castlegate Drive which can then cause traffic 2 movement problems in Market Place and the eastern end of Main Street, particularly at peak periods and Cockermouth School traffic. Peak traffic levels already cause serious concern for pedestrian safety. The development of this site would give the eastern side of Cockermouth a more urban appearance, detracting 1 from its character as a distinctive market town. There are other sites available (e.g. the former fire station) which is better placed to avoid the listed issues with 1 this site The loss of open space will be detrimental to the character of the landscape/townscape. This site acts as part of 1 a gateway into Cockermouth Housing developments already approved already meet the demand for housing in Cockermouth. Any further 1 development could destroy the character of Cockermouth This site should be promoted for residential allocation. It is accessible, close to existing services and facilities, 1 not subject to flood risk, would not lead to a loss of public open space, would be subject to high quality design, is connected by good quality existing infrastructure, would not have an adverse impact on the landscape or townscape, would not have an adverse impact on archaeology or ecology and would help to provide affordable housing in Cockermouth This site is accessible to the town centre and would have minimum impact on current traffic bottlenecks 1 It is within a landscape envelope of the town, respecting Cockermouth's status as a gem town and its proximity 1 to the National Park Services are already adjacent to this site 1 It is capable of providing affordable housing 1 1/COC/011/R There is no suitable access to the A66 from the east side of town. 2 Lack of services 1 Flooding issues 1 This site should be promoted for residential allocation. It is accessible, close to existing services and facilities, 1 not subject to flood risk, would not lead to a loss of public open space, would be subject to high quality design, is connected by good quality existing infrastructure, would not have an adverse impact on the landscape or townscape, would not have an adverse impact on archaeology or ecology and would help to provide affordable housing in Cockermouth When combined with 1/COC/005/R, 1/COC/006/R and 1/COC/012/R, this allocation is excessive 1 It is beyond the landscape envelope of town and access is less satisfactory than selected sites 1 Major service infrastructure is required 1

68 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/COC/011/R There would be increased pressure on Strawberry How as a short cut. This road is used by walkers, runners, 1 horse riders and cyclists (it is an official national cycle route). The road has numerous blind binds and the risk of accidents will increase. The road joins the A66 at a currently uncontrolled junction; development of this site will lead to an increased risk of high speed incidents. The town does not have suitable road infrastructure capacity to accommodate further development due to 1 physical limitations and already under strain. Increased traffic in the town centre will lead to increased risk of collisions This site is supported 1 1/COC/012/R There is no suitable access to the A66 from the east side of town. 2 Lack of services 1 Flooding issues 1 This site should be promoted for residential allocation. It is accessible, close to existing services and facilities, 1 not subject to flood risk, would not lead to a loss of public open space, would be subject to high quality design, is connected by good quality existing infrastructure, would not have an adverse impact on the landscape or townscape, would not have an adverse impact on archaeology or ecology and would help to provide affordable housing in Cockermouth When combined with 1/COC/005/R, 1/COC/006/R and 1/COC/011/R, this allocation is excessive 1 It is beyond the landscape envelope of town and access is less satisfactory than selected sites 1 Major service infrastructure is required 1 There would be increased pressure on Strawberry How as a short cut. This road is used by walkers, runners, 1 horse riders and cyclists (it is an official national cycle route). The road has numerous blind binds and the risk of accidents will increase. The road joins the A66 at a currently uncontrolled junction; development of this site will lead to an increased risk of high speed incidents. The town does not have suitable road infrastructure capacity to accommodate further development due to 1 physical limitations and already under strain. Increased traffic in the town centre will lead to increased risk of collisions This site is supported 1 1/COC/013/M Site is on the floodplain which bore the full brunt of the 2009 flood. The effect of all the recent flood prevention 12 measures probably enhances the likelihood of floodwaters spilling over at Broomlands. Development on this site will diminish the natural effectiveness of the flood plain Development on this site would need flood defences built. However, such flood defences would compromise 1 the area from the Goat to Derwent Gardens and the Industrial Estate The allocation is excessive 1 Development on this site would create an intrusion in the landscape 3

6 9 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/COC/013/M Archaeological investigations in this site have revealed extensive buried Roman remains that are considered to 11 be demonstrably of equivalent significance to a designated heritage asset. Therefore, any development on this site should avoid causing harm to the significance of these remains unless, in wholly exceptional circumstances, it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve public benefits that outweigh the harm. Development on this site would affect the view from Papcastle, the coast-to-coast cycle route and from the 3 footpaths along the banks of the River Derwent Development would change the character of the area and would lead to a loss of amenity for the community 1 Development here would be out of keeping with the existing historic, sensitive riverside development 1 Any design would have to be carefully monitored as the site is highly visible from the higher land on the other 1 side of the river This particular area of Cockermouth is already being overdeveloped by housing and the siting of more buildings 1 here will spoil the approach to the town. Development should be concentrated in areas of the town currently abandoned/vacated 1/COC/014/R Poor accessibility 1 Poor infrastructure 1 Flooding issues 1 When combined with 1/COC/016/R and 1/COC/017/R, this allocation is excessive 1 The site is beyond the landscape envelope of town and if development occurred on this site, there would be 1 major landscape effects beyond the summit of the hill crest south-east of the town There would be major traffic implications if this site is developed 1 1/COC/015/R It is debateable about whether or not further large areas need to be designated for Cockermouth when 79% of 6 the need is already provided for - and if Strawberry How gets approved, this would meet the need for Cockermouth The site is in open countryside, too far out of Cockermouth, not contiguous with the existing housing and is 4 separated from other areas of housing by an industrial area Concern as to how the existing infrastructure, especially traffic, will cope with the existing permitted development 4 without contemplating additional housing here The site is well located for access and development on this site would not create traffic congestion in the town 3 centre if low level development was phased over a number of years. There is access to local bus services The development of this site would be beneficial to the local economy and the viability of the town centre. 1 Development on this site is excessive and would represent over-development 3 This site is preferential for housing development in Cockermouth and even a small portion of the site would be 3 big enough for all the required build.

70 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/COC/015/R This is closer to the town centre (than most of the sites to the South East), increasing the likelihood of people 3 walking/cycling rather than driving to the shops The site has excellent accessibility to the A66 and A595 3 The site has no flooding issues 1 Development on this site would not have an impact on landscape or townscape 2 Development on this site would spoil the green area and lead to the loss of countryside 2 Development on this site will ruin the northern approach to the town and change the nature of Cockermouth as a 2 whole It is inappropriate due to the relative closeness to the Maryport roundabout and would lead to a large amount of 1 traffic on a very steep hill. Development here would lead to an expansion of Cockermouth towards the main arterial routes 1 This would result in a massive housing estate and any access from near the Belle Vue junction would cause 2 significant problems to an already dangerous junction Development here would impact on the setting of Hames Hall, a historic building 1 This is a very large area which is in an elevated position relative to, and visible from, Cockermouth and the 2 approach roads to town. Development in this location would completely alter the character of Cockermouth and substantially detract from visual amenity to the site from the A5086 and Lorton Road Any development of the proposed site would be better restricted to the area adjacent James Walker’s Ltd. At the 4 bottom of Gote Brow and not isolated from the town. This area is now protected by the town’s new flood defences This site is not the most appropriate place to locate the extra housing 1 Development on this site would have a minimum effect on the town 1 1/COC/016/R Poor accessibility 1 Poor infrastructure 1 Development of this site would allow for a natural expansion of the town with the least visual impact on the 1 character of the townscape due to the topography of the town Development on this site would extend relatively recent developments 1 It would ultimately allow vehicles to enter the town in a managed approach via traffic lights at the junction of 1 Lorton Road and Station Road When combined with 1/COC/014/R and 1/COC/017/R, this allocation is excessive 1 The site is beyond the landscape envelope of town and if development occurred on this site, there would be 1 major landscape effects beyond the summit of the hill crest south-east of the town There would be major traffic implications if this site is developed 1

71 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/COC/017/R Poor accessibility 1 Poor infrastructure 1 Flooding issues 1 When combined with 1/COC/014/R and 1/COC/016/R, this allocation is excessive 1 The site is beyond the landscape envelope of town and if development occurred on this site, there would be 1 major landscape effects beyond the summit of the hill crest south-east of the town There would be major traffic implications if this site is developed 1 If this site were to be developed, it would provide a planning benefit as a slip road on/off the A66 at Lorton Road 1 (in the Workington direction) would be funded. This would seek to ease congestion in the west of Cockermouth. An eastern slip road would not be funded as to do so would encourage vehicles to run through town. 2/COC/018/E Employment site is acceptable adjacent to sewage treatment works 1 The site is served by the existing B5292 road 1 However, the site is well-removed from Cockermouth and is prominent in views across the valley from the north, 1 including Papcastle The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with requirements 1 for enhanced local highway infrastructure This site is of archaeological interest. The proposed site lies in the vicinity of scheduled remains relating to an 2 Iron Age Settlement The site has possible flooding issues as it is within a floodplain 2 The site is in Flood Zone 2 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site is poorly related to the rest of Cockermouth for transport/pedestrians 1 The site is in the open countryside 1 The site is a greenfield site 1 This site is located immediately adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Works. New development should be more 1 appropriately located away from sources of odour. Development on this site could infringe on the route of a public right of way between Brigham and Cockermouth. 1 If development occurs on this site, a planning condition will be needed to protect this footpath As part of planning application 2/2010/0542 (217 dwellings), a 50m landscaped buffer was put in place between 2 the Wastewater Treatment Works and the dwellings in order to protect residential amenity and to screen the visual appearance of the treatment works. In order to protect this buffer zone, it should remain undeveloped and therefore the Council should not allocate it for development

72 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/COC/018/E The site is dissected by a large sewer which measures 600mm in diameter. It also includes a pressurised large 1 diameter trunk water main which measures 21 inches in diameter. There needs to be an access strip of 5m each side for each pipe. Therefore the access strip for each pipe measures 10m in total distance. 2/COC/019/M Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be ad- 1 versely affected by development on this site This site should be included for employment 1 Site lies beyond the townscape limits, in a location which is prominent within the surrounding lowland valley 1 landscape. Development on this site would have an adverse impact on the setting of the historic Fitz House and parkland. 1 This point of the valley is subject to flooding 2 The site is within Flood Zone 2 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The area is of archaeological interest 1 Whilst the previous railway foundation is acknowledged, it is now substantially tree covered and this character 1 should be retained The adjacent Lakes Home Centre should be more clearly demarcated and screened on its western side 1 Development on this site would put pressure on the infrastructure, schools and other public services 1 The site is poorly connected to the rest of the town 1 As the site is brownfield, there may be biodiversity interest 1 2/COC/020/R If developed, this site would have an unacceptable landscape and townscape impact as it is outside the existing 3 settlement boundary and is visible from the Lake District National Park. The site is within a LDNPA landscape character type (Setmurhy Common and Embleton) meaning that development could have an impact on the setting of the National Park. Any development here should be sensitive to the landscape setting The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with require- 2 ments for enhanced local highway infrastructure. The roads to the town centre are already subject to congestion, and with a new development approved at Strawberry How, will become more congested. Before any further sites to the South and East of Cockermouth are allocated, access to the town centre and A66 needs to be improved. This site is out of character and poorly related to adjacent properties 1 It makes no provision for affordable housing 1

73 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/COC/020/R Development on this site would put pressure on the infrastructure, schools and other public services 1 The site lies a distance from Cockermouth 1 2/COC/021/M Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site This would be a beneficial use of brownfield land 1 The site is well located to services and facilities 1 If development was to happen on this site, it should be a maximum of two storey buildings in order to allow views 1 of the town from Harris Park to be retained Some reduction of tree cover on embankments and cuttings within the site would be appropriate. 1 Access is adequate but could be improved in relation to Station Road around the War Memorial 1 This site could be suitable for units of private sheltered accommodation which is in short supply. The site is 1 reasonably central for this use This is an ideal location for housing development, with an allocation of affordable housing, close to the town 1 centre. Development on this site will help consolidate the settlement, support town centre shops and services, and save 1 greenfield sites on the periphery of the town Housing on this site will reduce the reliance on cars and thus help to maintain a reasonable level of traffic 1 through the town centre The adjacent semi-derelict site could be considered to be an extension to this site for housing development 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site is in Flood Zone 2 1 The site is within 8 metres of a Main River 1 It is unacceptable to build on the much used railway path. With the Strawberry How development now approved, 2 this pedestrian and cycle access route which also serves as a wildlife and recreational corridor becomes more important. This is a mostly wooded site – the use of the site would mean significant loss of woodland resource within the town which means a loss of Green Infrastructure Access would be difficult to achieve - a single lane carriageway would be unsuitable 1 Maryport 1/MAR/003/R The drawn allocation on the map identifies the whole of Deer Park Field as a housing allocation. Part of this field 1 lies to the NE of the line of the Roman Road is within the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Buffer Zone. Please could the Council confirm that this part of Deer Field Park has been included on the map in error and will be removed from the proposed housing allocation designation?

74 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/MAR/003/R This site includes the Scheduled Monument that protects a Roman Cremation Cemetery. Any development on 2 this site should avoid causing harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and its setting unless, in wholly exceptional circumstances, it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve public benefits that outweigh the harm. 1/MAR/008/R Support the allocation for the proposed use 1 1/MAR/009/E Support the allocation for the proposed use 1 Habitat for the small blue butterfly which is sensitive to disturbance 1 1/MAR/010/R Support the allocation for the proposed use 1 1/MAR/011/S Support the allocation for the proposed use 1 1/MAR/012/R Support the allocation for the proposed use 1 1/MAR/013/R Support the allocation for the proposed use 1 1/MAR/018/M This is an existing playing field and therefore not suitable for development 1 The boundary of the site also takes in part of a Local Wildlife Site, and also a bank of scrub which is likely to be 1 biodiverse. Any loss of playing fields should be replaced or proven to be surplus to requirements 1 1/MAR/025/C This site includes 2 sites protected as Scheduled Monuments, 2 Grade II* Listed buildings and 1 Grade II listed 1 building. Any development in the park should avoid causing harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets and their settings unless, in wholly exceptional circumstances, it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve public benefits that outweigh the harm. 2/MAR/033/R The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with requirements 1 for enhanced local highway infrastructure The Dearham and Maryport sites combined will cause junction capacity problems at peak times 1 The site is within 8 metres of a Main River 1 The site is in Flood Zone 3 1 There is a culvert through the site 1 This site is too separate from the main body of Maryport and would give the feeling of not being part of the town 1 itself. The site is actually separated by a woodland belt along Gill Beck which currently provides a wooded boundary to the town, and development on this site would bring development outside this visual boundary 2/MAR/034/M Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be ad- 1 versely affected by development on this site

75 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/MAR/034/M This is a totally inappropriate site to allocate for development. The site comprises mainly of broadleaved wood- 2 land/parkland and there are two Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the boundary of the site. The site lies within a flood risk zone 1 This site is recorded as woodland on the National Forest Inventory and although it is not freely accessible, it 1 provides valuable green space close to the town centre. This mature woodland should not be developed and left to provide the benefits that green space can provide in urban environments. The site is within 8 metres of a Main River 1 The site is in Flood Zones 2 and 3 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 Consider the ordinary watercourse on the site 1 Should a developer come forward to undertake works on the site, they should approach the Network Rail Asset 1 Protection Team to determine if the proposal will have any specific impacts on Network Rail land 2/MAR/035/R The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with require- 1 ments for enhanced local highway infrastructure The Dearham and Maryport sites combined will cause junction capacity problems at peak times 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site is too separate and distant from the main body of Maryport and would give the feeling of not being part 1 of the town itself Silloth 1/SIL/003/R This is a surplus area of land to current and anticipated future Port of Silloth related development. 1 The site is available, developable and deliverable. 1 It is a brownfield site within the existing development limits of Silloth and it is close to a range of services and 1 facilities It has good accessibility to employment opportunities and it is located close to existing public transport links. 1 The Council has raised concerns previously about the suitability of the width of the current access to the land 1 from Lawn Terrace to the north. ABP is looking to enter into a land exchange deal with Carrs Flour Mill (to the east of the access road) to be used to achieve a widened access. Wigton 1/WIG/001/R This site can be brought together in a cohesive manner with 1/WIG/016/R 1 Deliverability of these sites is certain 1 There is a possibility for these sites to accommodate all of the housing requirement of Wigton (average 30 per 1 year) over the first five years of the plan

76 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WIG/001/R Whilst the sites are outside the settlement boundary, there are surrounded on four sides by housing develop- 1 ment meaning that development on these sites would not have as large an impact on the open green space amenity as opposed to the other sites that have been put forward in Wigton The sites can be accessed from Lowmoor Road 1 The sites have strong accessibility to the services in Wigton 1 Habitat mitigation and enhancement can be included as part of the development 1 1/WIG/003/R Station Hill has seen major development in recent years - further development would spoil its character 1 The bypass isolates it from the rest of Wigton 1 It has no services except for the hospital and cemetery 1 Support this allocation for this proposed use 1 1/WIG/004/M The site is sustainable as it is physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is visually constrained by existing development to the north, west and east and the topography and 1 landscape features of the surrounding landscape to the south The site benefits from close linkages to the existing range of services and public transportation services within 3 the settlement. This reduces the carbon footprint There are no known ecological or environmental constraints on the site 1 A suitable vehicular access to the site can be provided 1 There is sufficient capacity in the surrounding highway network to accommodate the development 1 This site should be looked at in conjunction with 1/WIG/005/R 1 The site could be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding 1 land uses The site is close to employment opportunities 2 There is easy access for the Care Agencies to allow people to live independently 1 There is demand for affordable housing 1 No flooding issues 1 1/WIG/005/R This site adjoins Fell View which is next to the bypass 1 There is a history of subsidence 1 The site is well related to the existing built form of Wigton 1 The site is closely located to community facilities and employment opportunities 1 This site should be looked at in conjunction with 1/WIG/004/M 1

77 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WIG/005/R The site is within easy access of essential local services including the town hall, shops, health and community 1 services, schools and public transport connections 1/WIG/006/R Too near new factory development and railway 1 The site is within walking distance to essential local services including town hall, shops and leisure facilities, 1 health and community services, schools and public transport connections The site has footpath connections to the railway station and employment opportunities 1 The site was identified in the SHLAA (ref. AAWG23) as developable 1 Access to the site would be achieved from the north via Cross Lane 1 1/WIG/007/R Too near new factory development and railway 1 The site is well related to existing development and adjacent site which are also included in the Site Allocations 1 process as being suitable for residential development The site is not visually prominent 1 The site is within walking distance of a range of means of transport including bus and rail 1 The site is within walking distance to essential local services including town hall, shops and leisure facilities, 1 health and community services, schools and public transport connections The site has footpath connections to the railway station and employment opportunities 1 The site was identified in the 2012 SHLAA are being deliverable 1 1/WIG/009/M Access to this site is poor. 1 Development on this site would be detrimental to existing higher value properties - something which Wigton is 1 short of Should be left as green space 1 The site is sustainable, being physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is visually constrained by existing development to the north and west and the topography and land- 1 scape features of the surrounding landscape to the south The site benefits from close linkages to the existing range of services and public transportation services within 1 the settlement There are no known ecological or environmental constraints on the site 1 A suitable vehicular access to the site can be provided 1 There is sufficient capacity in the surrounding highway network to accommodate the development 1 The site could be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding 1 land uses

78 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WIG/010/R Too near new factory development and railway 1 The site has a good relationship to the existing built form 1 The site is well related to existing residential developments within Wigton 1 The site is closely located to community facilities and employment opportunities 1 The site is within easy access of essential local services including the town hall, shops, health and community 1 services, schools and public transport connections Adjacent sites are also included in the Site Allocations process 1 The site is not visually prominent 1 1/WIG/011/R Too near new factory development and railway 1 The site is sustainable, being physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is not visually prominent 1 The site benefits from close linkages to services and public transportation within the settlement 1 The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 properties The site was identified in the SHLAA (ref. AAWN04) as developable 1 1/WIG/012/S This site would be better as an allocation for housing rather than retail 1 Existing shops are already struggling and do not need more competition 1 An application for retail development on this site has previously been recommended for approval 1 (2/2009/0500) Retail on this site would meet an identified need for additional convenience floorspace as highlighted in the 1 West Cumbria Retail Study and would reduce the significant level of retail and leisure trade leakage to other centres such as Carlisle, Cockermouth and Workington The site is not visually prominent 1 The site is well related to the built form 1 The site is previously developed land 1 The site is within easy access of essential local services including the town hall, shops, health and community 1 services, schools and public transport connections The site is adjacent to a Public Right of Way with opportunities to connect into the footpath network 1 The site can be accessed from the highway network 1 The site does not have any environmental or ecological constraints 1 The site is wholly suitable for redevelopment for (a) new use(s) 1

79 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WIG/013/M This site might be needed by the school if it needs to expand 1 The site is in a sustainable location 1 The site is well related to the built form of Wigton - it is physically and visually well related to the existing form of 1 the settlement The site is visually contained by existing development to the south, west and east and, to the north, the land 1 form The site is within easy access of essential local services including the town hall, shops, health and community 1 services, schools and public transport connections The site is adjacent to a Public Right of Way with opportunities to connect into the footpath network 1 The site can be accessed from the highway network 1 The site is not within an area subject to flood risk 1 The site is not in an area known to have ecological interest 1 There are no known ecological or environmental constraints on the site 1 The site can be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding 1 uses 1/WIG/014/R Any loss of playing fields should be replaced or proven to be surplus to requirements 1 1/WIG/015/L This site is too far out of town 1 Development on this site would spoil it as parkland 1 1/WIG/016/R This site can be brought together in a cohesive manner with 1/WIG/001/R 1 Deliverability of these sites is certain 1 There is a possibility for these sites to accommodate all of the housing requirement of Wigton (average 30 per 1 year) over the first five years of the plan Whilst the sites are outside the settlement boundary, there are surrounded on four sides by housing develop- 1 ment meaning that development on these sites would not have as large an impact on the open green space amenity as opposed to the other sites that have been put forward in Wigton The sites can be accessed from Lowmoor Road 1 The sites have strong accessibility to the services in Wigton 1 Habitat mitigation and enhancement can be included as part of the development 1 1/WIG/020/R The site is close to residential properties and represents a natural 'rounding off' of the existing built up area. 1 The site lies on a bus route and has easy access to the A596. 1 It is not in a flood risk zone 1 There is roadside access 1

80 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WIG/021/S This site is too close to existing housing development 1 Development on this site would affect green space 1 This is the preferred site in Wigton for retail as the other site has major highway constraints 1 Whilst the site is detached from the town centre, it is well located to serve Wigton's wider hinterland. 1 The site has the space to provide substantial parking, suitable for bulky goods retailers 1 Allocating this site would provide variety in Wigton's retail offer 1 1/WIG/022/R The site is sustainable as it is physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is visually contained by existing development and the topography of the surrounding landscape 1 The site benefits from direct linkages to the existing range of services and public transportation links existing 1 within the settlement via the connecting network of highways and Public Right of Way The site could be development without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surround- 1 ing uses The bulk of the site is within Flood Zone 1, with limited areas adjacent to the watercourse to the west and south 1 of the site located within Flood Zones 2 and 3a. Given the scale, location and containment of these areas, this is not considered a limiting constraint on the development capacity of the site. An access/egress route is achievable in the form of a bridged or culverted structure over the watercourse, connecting either to Laurel Ter- race, the former Auction Mart or the existing highway to the south-east of the site 1/WIG/023/M This site (and the area behind) is suitable as it is already used for this purpose. 1 The site is located on an arterial road into the town centre 1 The site is sustainable, being physically well related to the existing development form of the settlement and the 1 existing development on Station Road The site is visually contained by existing development 1 The site benefits from close and easy access to the existing range of services and public transportation services 1 There is sufficient capacity in the surrounding highway network to accommodate the development 1 The site could be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding 1 land uses 1/WIG/024/R The site is located on an arterial road into the town centre 1 The site is sustainable, being physically well related to the existing development form of the settlement and the 1 existing development on Station Road The site is visually contained by existing development 1 The site benefits from close and easy access to the existing range of services and public transportation services 1 There is sufficient capacity in the surrounding highway network to accommodate the development 1

81 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WIG/024/R The site could be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding 1 land uses 1/WIG/025/R The site is sustainable, being physically well related to the existing development form of the settlement 1 The site is located close to the existing services and public transportation links within the settlement via the 1 connecting network of highways and Public Rights of Way The site has no known flood risk, ecological or environmental constraints 1 A suitable vehicular access to the site can be provided 1 Sufficient capacity exists in the surrounding highway network to accommodate the proposed development 1 The site could be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding 1 land uses 1/WIG/026/R The site is sustainable, being physically well related to the existing development form of the settlement 1 The site represents a logical extension of 'The Hawthorns' residential development to the north 1 The site is both physically and visually contained by the existing development to the east and west and 1 landscape features to the south The site is located close to the existing services and public transportation links within the settlement via the 1 connecting network of highways and Public Rights of Way No known flood risk, ecological or environmental constraints exist on the site 1 A suitable vehicular access to the site can be provided. Whilst the site was discounted from the SHLAA as there 1 was no obvious means of access, it is considered that access could be taken from the existing housing estate to the north. The landowner has the legal right and ownership of the land required to provide the access which is required. Sufficient capacity exists in the surrounding highway network to accommodate the proposed development 1 The site could be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding 1 land uses 1/WIG/029/M Access to this site is poor. 1 Development on this site would be detrimental to existing higher value properties - something which Wigton is 1 short of Should be left as green space 1 The site is sustainable, being physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is usually contained by existing development to the north, west and east and the topography and 1 landscape features of the surrounding landscape to the south The site benefits from close linkages to the existing range of services and public transportation services within 1 the settlement

82 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/WIG/029/M No known ecological or environmental constraints exist on the site 1 A suitable vehicular access to the site can be provided 1 There is sufficient capacity in the surrounding highway network to accommodate the 1 development The site could be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding land 1 uses 2/WIG/030/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road 2 passenger transport services. Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be adversely 1 affected by development on this site Good employment opportunities in Wigton 1 No flooding risk 1 This is a site which is surrounded by existing dwellings on three sides 1 Site boundary should be revised to be considerably smaller than at present if the site is to come forward for allocation. 1 The site is a greenfield site 1 The site is poorly related to the rest of the settlement 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site expands development across the road to where there is little to no development at the moment 1

Local Service Centres

Abbeytown 1/ABB/004/R The site is sustainable, being physically well related to the existing form of the settlement 1 The site represents a logical extension of the existing Friars Garth residential development to the north and is 1 physically contained by the existing development to the east and west The site is of a scale appropriate to the growth aspirations for the settlement and holding potential to deliver affordable 1 housing to meet local need The site is accessible from three possible points subject to agreement with the Highway Authority/landowner 1 The site is located close to the existing services and public transportation links within the settlement via the 1 connecting network of highways and Public Rights of Way The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 residential properties or being affected by the existing development

83 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/ABB/005/R The site is sustainable being located close to the existing services and public transportation links within the 1 settlement via the connecting network of highways and Public Rights of Way Development of the site will naturally round off development in this area of the settlement, with the existing 1 delineating hedgerow to the west of the site forming a natural terminus to development The site is of a scale appropriate to the growth aspirations for the settlement 1 The site is accessible from the highway frontage subject to agreement with the Highway Authority 1 The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 residential properties 2/ABB/006/R This is very disconnected from the rest of the settlement 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site is within Flood Zone 3 1 Brigham 1/BGH/001/R The levels of development required in Brigham have already been met. It is not a sustainable village for further 3 development This is the least worst site proposed in Brigham but leads onto a very narrow lane and would need to be on a 1 very small scale This site will be affected by the loss of a local bus service 1 This is a greenfield site, outside the settlement limit. 3 There is a rich and diverse range of flora and fauna on the site which would be affected if development occurred 2 on this site. The site has a narrow access lane 2 The site has amenity value 1 The site is a poor shape which is very narrow and of small scale 1 1/BGH/002/R The levels of development required in Brigham have already been met. It is not a sustainable village for further 2 development This site is virtually inaccessible via a narrow lane 4 This site will be affected by the loss of a local bus service 1 This is a greenfield site, outside the settlement limit. 4 This site attracts wildlife (including red squirrels) which would be affected if development occurred on this site. 1 The existing Mancroft Cottages are not on the public sewer 1 Development on this site would have a landscape impact 1

84 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/BGH/003/R The levels of development required in Brigham have already been met. It is not a sustainable village for further 1 development Development on this site will consume valued open space 1 This site has had previous planning appeals dismissed due to the risk of potential highways accidents. The 3 access remains too narrow and is poorly aligned. The site has a sense of back-land, a lack of character and a poor relationship with the settlement. 2 It is contrary to Policy HS9 and it is outside the settlement limit. 2 This site will be affected by the loss of a local bus service 1 Would need to ensure that development here would not shed floodwater onto existing housing or overfill local 1 watercourses. This is a greenfield site, outside the settlement limit. 2 This site attracts wildlife (including red squirrels) which would be affected if development occurred on this site. 1 Poor infrastructure 1 The site is too close to existing properties 1 1/BGH/004/G The levels of development required in Brigham have already been met. It is not a sustainable village for further 1 development 2/BGH/005/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 2 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site Site should be brought forward as it is well connected to the rest of the settlement 1 The site is deliverable and developable 1 Cumbria County Council has confirmed that access to the site is satisfactory 1 An Inspector on appeal confirmed that the land was appropriate in landscape terms and development would not 1 result in harm to the character of the rural area The living conditions of the neighbouring properties would be adequately protected from the main body of the 1 site. There has been a tree planting scheme on the land which reinforces the separation between the rear gardens of existing properties and the site There are no nature conservation issues to be addressed 1 There is no flood risk on the site 1 There is adequate land available to provide any open space required 1 There are no archaeological or ecological issues 1

85 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/BGH/005/R Cumbria County Council has confirmed that access to the site is satisfactory 1 An Inspector on appeal confirmed that the land was appropriate in landscape terms and development would not 1 result in harm to the character of the rural area The living conditions of the neighbouring properties would be adequately protected from the main body of the 1 site. There has been a tree planting scheme on the land which reinforces the separation between the rear gardens of existing properties and the site There are no nature conservation issues to be addressed 1 There is no flood risk on the site 1 There is adequate land available to provide any open space required 1 There are no archaeological or ecological issues 1 The appropriate percentage of affordable housing could be provided 1 The site has had a number of planning refusals and appeal dismissals. There has been no fundamental change 27 in circumstance since these refusals. This site has poor accessibility - it has only a single point of access which has an inadequate visibility splay 25 which is a hazard for pedestrian and vehicular access/egress. Traffic flow is already difficult and there are not pavements on both sides of the road The site is poorly connected to local services and the infrequent bus service 23 Backland development on this site will have an effect on the character of the settlement 22 Development on this site will result in the loss of greenfield land and valuable open space 21 There is no need for any further development as housing numbers have already been met 13 This level of development would not be sympathetic to the scale of the village and its narrow roads 20 This was a discarded site in the 2013 SHLAA 15 The site is outside the settlement boundary 21 There would be additional traffic congestion in the settlement 4 The services and facilities in Brigham cannot support any further development 2 The settlement has drainage, sewerage and flooding issues which needs to be addressed. Local residents suffer 4 flooding as a result of run-off from this site. The site put forward includes section of public highway, footpaths and verges. The plan shows proposed 5 changes to the highway. This could have a detrimental effect on existing nearby residents if they want to sell their property There would be an adverse effect on near neighbours, especially at the proposed access 20 The bus service has been withdrawn, increasing the reliance on cars 13

86 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/BGH/005/R Development of this site would affect the character of the village 8 There is no longer a Local Plan shortfall in housing - Allerdale Borough Council has a 5 Year Supply 11 The plan for this site shows a pedestrian link onto Barr's Lane but there is no public right of way on this lane as 2 it is unadopted and occupational. The only permitted users of the lane are farm vehicles, movement of stock and vehicles associated with number 42 The site is within 8 metres of a Main River 1 There is no market for these houses in Brigham as other developments in Brigham and Cockermouth already 2 cater for the need 2/BGH/006/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site Development on this site, in conjunction with the recently approved Lawson Garth development, will put 25 pressure on the Hotchberry Road junction There are no pavements on Hotchberry Road to allow safe pedestrian access to the village centre 24 It is close to most services (except the bus) 1 It doesn't seem prone to flooding 1 The site is outside the settlement boundary 25 Concern that development on this site could open up the area to the west for development too 1 Depending on the density of the houses (there was a 2006 permission for 3no. Bungalows) and highway 25 improvements, this site could be looked at for the next Plan period This is a greenfield site 3 There would be additional traffic congestion in the settlement 2 The site is inappropriately large for the size of the settlement. 1 Development on this site would have a large visual impact 1 There would be no street frontage 1 There are not enough services in Brigham to support this size of development 1 Development on this site would be unsustainable 1 Broughton 1/BRN/001/R This site should not be developed on as it is prime agricultural land 2 1/BRN/002/O This site lies in open countryside and much of it is a Local Wildlife Site and deciduous woodland 1 It is disconnected from the settlement at Little Broughton so would not fit the Site Assessment methodology 1

87 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/BRN/003/R This site should not be developed on as it is prime agricultural land 2 1/BRN/004/R Development of this site would further join and erode the separate identities of Great Broughton and Little 3 Broughton; it cannot be classed as infill development There is a Quaker burial ground adjacent to the site which is used as a place of quiet reflection 2 A monument is located on the site 1 An adjacent site (around 100m from this site) supports various habitats (red squirrels, owls, snakes and great 2 crested newts) The only possible entrance/exit to/from the site (A594 or A66) are highly dangerous with no visibility splays and 2 countless accidents There are no pavements into the village, to the bus stops or the A66 via Craggs Road 2 Development here will put pressure on the current infrastructure and will significantly alter the nature of the vil- 2 lage This site is a greenfield site 1 This is prime agricultural land 1 Development of the houses at Derwent Forest will put pressure on the infrastructure in Little Broughton and 1 Great Broughton - this should be taken into account 1/BRN/007/R This site should not be developed on as it is prime agricultural land 2 1/BRN/008/R This site has had previous planning appeals dismissed due to the risk of potential highways accidents. The ac- 1 cess remains too narrow and is poorly aligned. This is a greenfield site, outside the settlement limit. It should remain as green space/agricultural land 3 Egress to this site is unsafe and the visibility splay is dangerously short 3 The Derwent Valley should be protected from development 2 There are a number of accidents in this location with no footpath 2 The Derwent Forest site is better placed for housing 1 Broughton Moor 1/BRM/002/R Development of this site would double the size of the village 1 Development here would have a major landscape impact, particularly when taken in combination with 1/ 1 BRM/005/R The access road is unclassified with high hedges. All of the village roads are of low quality and would be unsuit- 1 able for any further increase in traffic. The village has significant issues with parking and speeding. The village does not have the services, facilities and infrastructure to support a larger population. 1 The field, and surrounding areas, was used for coal mines and was used during open cast to dump soil. 1

88 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/BRM/004/R The access road is unclassified with high hedges. All of the village roads are of low quality and would be unsuit- 1 able for any further increase in traffic. The village has significant issues with parking and speeding. The village does not have the services, facilities and infrastructure to support a larger population. 1 Any housing built on this site would overlook existing housing due to its topography. 1 The field, and surrounding areas, was used for coal mines and was used during open cast to dump soil. 1 The land contains pylons that carry high voltage electrical cables. 1 1/BRM/005/R Development of this site would double the size of the village 1 Development here would have a major landscape impact, particularly when taken in combination with 1/ 1 BRM/005/R The access road is unclassified with high hedges. All of the village roads are of low quality and would be unsuit- 1 able for any further increase in traffic. The village has significant issues with parking and speeding. The land has issues with flooding risk. 1 The village does not have the services, facilities and infrastructure to support a larger population. 1 The field and the surrounding area is undermined by coal mines. 1 The land contains pylons that carry high voltage electrical cables. 1 Development of this site would represent a rounding off of the northern edge of the settlement and would mirror 1 development on the western side of Church Road If the totality of the site was not required, then the owner might consider the development of part of the site 1 Extending the settlement any further north might be restricted by the presence of high voltage power lines, but 1 the suggested site would be unaffected There is no flood risk impediment to the site 1 1/BRM/007/R The access road is unclassified with high hedges. All of the village roads are of low quality and would be unsuit- 1 able for any further increase in traffic. The village has significant issues with parking and speeding. The village does not have the services, facilities and infrastructure to support a larger population. 1 Any housing built on this site would overlook existing housing due to its topography. 1 The field, and surrounding areas, was used for coal mines and was used during open cast to dump soil. 1 The land contains pylons that carry high voltage electrical cables. 1 This site is available, suitable and achievable 1 It would provide a natural extension to the settlement 1 The scale of development is in keeping with the settlement 1 It is in a sustainable location with access to facilities, services and public transport 1

89 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/BRM/008/M This site is known to be very biodiverse with a number of high quality habitats and protected species on the site 1 The site also currently has a relatively high landscape value due to the wooded and heathland communities on 1 the site Its elevated position in the landscape means that any development at the site will be visible in views from the 1 south and the east Dearham 1/DHM/015/R The site is sustainable being physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement, especially 1 in the context of the approval of application reference 2/2013/0142 The site is of a scale appropriate to growth aspirations for the settlement 1 The site is visually contained by existing and approved development 1 The site benefits from frontage access to a public highway to be of sufficient capacity to serve the development 1 The site is well located in respect of access to the existing services within the settlement and public 1 transportation links The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 residential properties The site was discounted from the SHLAA due to visibility issues. However there has been positive pre 1 application engagement with Cumbria Highways in respect of a proposed development 2/DHM/018/R There is access to road and rail links 1 No flooding risk 1 The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with 1 requirements for enhanced local highway infrastructure The Dearham and Maryport sites combined will cause junction capacity problems at peak times 1 This site is much too big for a village the size of Dearham 1 This is a greenfield site 1 The site is in the open countryside 1 Development on this site would be located away from the centre of the village 1 Development on this site would be unsustainable 1 The road from Townhead to Toll Bar Cottage is not suitable for any increase in traffic as it is subject to flooding 1 in several places after heavy rain; this causes the road to be closed to traffic on a regular basis. The road is very narrow with limited visibility. The junction near the Old Mill Inn is hazardous as traffic needs to turn into the opposite side of the road to get from Row Brow towards Cockermouth; it is also on a bad bend.

90 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

Flimby 1/FLI/006/M The site comprises previously developed land that is sustainable and it is physically well related to the existing 1 developed form of the settlement Development on this site will significantly improve the visual appearance of this currently vacant site within 1 Flimby, which at present detracts from the character of the settlement The site is visually contained by existing residential development and landscape features 1 The site is of a scale appropriate to the growth aspirations for the settlement 1 The site is accessible via the existing highway frontage to the A596 and will secure improvements to the existing 1 highway layout and safety. This has been agreed with Cumbria Highways The site benefits from close links to the services and public transport links existing within the settlement via the 1 network of highways The site could be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding 1 land uses Great Clifton 1/GRC/001/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required. 1 This site is subject to flooding as sewerage tanks are in the area 1 1/GRC/002/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required. 1 In the 1999 Allerdale Local Plan, this site was identified for industrial use. As no industrial use has come about 1 since 1999, this site should be de-allocated and it should remain as agricultural land This site is unsuitable for housing due to the constraints caused by its former use for open cast mining workings, 4 as identified in the 1999 Allerdale Local Plan The settlement boundary of Great Clifton should be redrawn to exclude this site 2 Moor Road requires considerable improvements before further housing development should be allowed 2 The Council has an adopted policy not to allow windfarms within 0.4 mile of any housing. In order to remain 2 consistent, housing development must not be allowed within 0.4 mile of any windfarms. In this case, this site is within 0.4 mile of windfarms. The allocation of this site would fail the NPPF request that Local Planning Authorities should "ensure a good 1 standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings". This site is in the Open Countryside. The road serving Mabel Wood Close is a clear and robust edge of the 2 village and anything outside this is in Open Countryside. Development should not occur in the Open Countryside Development on this site would place unacceptable strain on local infrastructure (e.g. schools, roads, transport) 1 Development on this site would detract from the type of settlement Clifton is 1 The field and nearby woodland supports a wide variety of wildlife (red squirrels, bats and birds) 1

91 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/GRC/003/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required 1 Any development here would be overly dominant to the surrounding area 2 The Council has an adopted policy not to allow windfarms within 0.4 mile of any housing. In order to remain 3 consistent, housing development must not be allowed within 0.4 mile of any windfarms. In this case, this site is within 0.4 mile of windfarms The site is extremely close to the A66 and many residents of houses on this site would suffer disturbance 2 The allocation of this site would fail the NPPF request that Local Planning Authorities should "ensure a good 1 standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings" Moor Road requires considerable improvements before further housing development should be allowed 3 This site is in the Open Countryside; development should not take place in the Open Countryside. It does not 2 physically connect to the nearest non-agricultural development in Great Clifton. Its narrowest point emphasises the lack of a link with the village 1/GRC/004/O The site is a field adjacent to the A66 – due to the raised levels of the A66 compared to the site, there are no 3 obvious access points. The site should be rejected as it is in Open Countryside 2 Accessibility for commercial vehicles from Moor Road would be problematic due to poor visibility caused by the 2 A66 flyover and due to the uneven road levels Due to its location, development on this site could create adverse visual impacts 2 The site is unsuitable due to the proximity to the wind farm 1 The proposed use for this site is unclear 1 1/GRC/005/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required 1 This site is subject to flooding as sewerage tanks are in the area 1 1/GRC/006/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required 1 No objection to this site but it is on a steep incline with housing at the top and side of the site 1 1/GRC/007/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required 1 No objection to this site 1 1/GRC/008/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required 1 1/GRC/009/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required 1 There is a public footpath on the site 1 A drainage stream for the south and west of the village, including Mabel Wood Close, crosses the site. A drain- 1 age pipe under A66 discharges into stream.

92 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/GRC/010/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required 1 No objection to this site 1 1/GRC/011/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required 1 No objection to this site but it is on a steep incline with housing at the top and side of the site 1 1/GRC/012/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required. At 12.19 hectares, it is estimated that 1 this site could accommodate around 300 houses. It is understood that this site has been used in the past for open cast coal mining. The cost of any remediation 4 works on this site would be unsustainable. There is possible cancerous water from this site which does seep through to the surface after heavy rainfall The obliteration of the wood behind Abbott Wood and 7 and 8 Mabel Wood Close would be unacceptable. 2 The Council has an adopted policy not to allow windfarms within 0.4 mile of any housing. In order to remain con- 2 sistent, housing development must not be allowed within 0.4 mile of any windfarms. In this case, this site is within 0.4 mile of windfarms. The site is at a considerably higher level than 1-8 Mabel Wood Close and would dominate those properties un- 2 reasonably. The allocation of this site would fail the NPPF request that Local Planning Authorities should "ensure a good 1 standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings". In view of the proposed development there would need to be an access road from this site not only onto Stain- 2 burn Road but also onto Moor Road. Moor Road requires considerable improvements before further housing development should be allowed. This site is in the Open Countryside. The road serving Mabel Wood Close is a clear and robust edge of the vil- 2 lage and anything outside this is in Open Countryside. Development should not take place in Open Countryside Development on this site would place unacceptable strain on local infrastructure (e.g. schools, roads, transport) 1 Development on this site would detract from the type of settlement Clifton is 1 The site is outside the Parish boundary 1 The field and nearby woodland supports a wide variety of wildlife (red squirrels, bats and birds) 1 1/GRC/013/R Great Clifton already has more commitments for housing than is required 1 No objection to this site 1 2/GRC/014/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be ad- 1 versely affected by development on this site The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 This is a site which is surrounded by existing dwellings on three sides 1

93 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/GRC/015/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site This is a site which is surrounded by existing dwellings on three sides 1 The road at the end of Riverside is currently not fit for purpose 1 There is a lot of local support for a new road with footpaths which would connect both sides of the village. A 1 petition was signed by 52 residents on behalf of 125 people in support of this The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 Planted Ancient Woodland is adjacent to this site. This site allocation should not be taken forward. However, if 2 the site is allocated, a buffer of at least 50m between the site and the woodland should be implemented 2/GRC/016/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 This site should be discarded as it does not relate well to the rest of the settlement 1 Kirkbride 1/KBR/002/R The site is sustainable being physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is of a scale appropriate to growth aspirations for the settlement 1 The site benefits from frontage access 1 The site is located close to the existing services and public transportation links within the settlement via the 1 connecting network of highways and Public Rights of Way The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 residential properties 1/KBR/003/R The site is sustainable being physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is of a scale appropriate to growth aspirations for the settlement 1 The site is visually contained by existing development 1 The site was discounted from the SHLAA on the basis of the lack of adequate access. However, it is considered 1 that access to the site is achievable via the existing access subject to agreement with the Highway Authority/ owner The site is located close to the existing services and public transportation links within the settlement via the 1 connecting network of highways and Public Rights of Way The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 residential properties

94 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/KBR/004/R The site is sustainable being physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is of a scale appropriate to growth aspirations for the settlement 1 The site is visually contained by existing development 1 There are two possible points of access (via the north of the site or via Chestnut Grove to the south) subject to 1 agreement by the Highway Authority/landowner The site is located close to the existing services and public transportation links within the settlement via the 1 connecting network of highways and Public Rights of Way The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 residential properties 1/KBR/005/R The site is of a scale appropriate to growth aspirations for the settlement 1 The site was discounted from the SHLAA on the basis of the lack of adequate access. However, it is considered 1 that access to the site is achievable via the existing access subject to agreement with the Highway Authority/ landowner The site is located close to the existing services and public transportation links within the settlement via the 1 connecting network of highways and Public Rights of Way The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 residential properties Prospect 2/PRO/003/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 2 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site No flooding risk 1 Whilst this proposed site extends the ribbon development of the settlement, it is in proportion with the size of the 1 village The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 This is a brownfield site which is surrounded by existing dwellings on three sides 1 Thursby 1/THU/003/R This site is located immediately south of an identified beck/drain and could have potential drainage and flooding 1 issues if the site was to be developed The site represents a logical extension to the west of Thursby 1 The site is sustainable as it is physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is of a scale appropriate to growth aspirations for the settlement 1

95 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/THU/003/R The site is accessible, benefiting from direct highway frontage to the south 1 The south is contained by landscape features and development, including the A595 1 The site is located close to existing services, public transport links and the A595 1 The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 residential properties A planning application for this site is now being prepared following positive pre-application discussions with Al- 1 lerdale Borough Council 1/THU/00/4/R This site should be promoted for residential allocation. It is accessible, close to existing services and facilities, 1 not subject to flood risk, would not lead to a loss of public open space, would be subject to high quality design, is connected by good quality existing infrastructure, would not have an adverse impact on the landscape or townscape, would not have an adverse impact on archaeology or ecology and would help to provide affordable housing in Thursby 1/THU/005/R This site should be promoted for residential allocation. It is accessible, close to existing services and facilities, 1 not subject to flood risk, would not lead to a loss of public open space, would be subject to high quality design, is connected by good quality existing infrastructure, would not have an adverse impact on the landscape or townscape, would not have an adverse impact on archaeology or ecology and would help to provide affordable housing in Thursby 1/THU/006/R This site should be promoted for residential allocation. It is accessible, close to existing services and facilities, 1 not subject to flood risk, would not lead to a loss of public open space, would be subject to high quality design, is connected by good quality existing infrastructure, would not have an adverse impact on the landscape or townscape, would not have an adverse impact on archaeology or ecology and would help to provide affordable housing in Thursby 1/THU/008/R The site represents a logical extension to the west of Thursby 1 The site is sustainable as it is physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is of a scale appropriate to growth aspirations for the settlement 1 The site is accessible, benefiting from direct highway frontage to the south 1 The south is contained by landscape features and development, including the A595 1 The site is located close to existing services, public transport links and the A595 1 The site could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent 1 residential properties 1/THU/009/R The site is currently an area of unremarkable, private grazing land. It is suggested that it performs a function as 1 recreational or amenity open space The site has easy access to the highway network and it has good connections to Wigton and Carlisle 1

96 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/THU/009/R Development on this site would fit in well with the existing built environment and would have minimal landscape 1 impact It would not result in the extension of the settlement 1 There is no flood risk impediment to the site 1 1/THU/010/R This site is in a comparatively isolated location. It is considered that sequentially there are more appropriate sites 1 located on the immediate edge of Thursby which is more suitable and sustainable for residential development. 1/THU/011/R This site is in a comparatively isolated location. It is considered that sequentially there are more appropriate sites 1 located on the immediate edge of Thursby which is more suitable and sustainable for residential development. 1/THU/013/R This site is in a comparatively isolated location. It is considered that sequentially there are more appropriate sites 1 located on the immediate edge of Thursby which is more suitable and sustainable for residential development. 2/THU/015/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site The site sits well within the settlement 1 Hedgerows should be retained 1

Rural Villages - Limited Growth Villages

Bolton Low Houses 1/BLH/001/R Bad access to this site 1 The settlement boundary should be revised to include this site as: the site is available in the plan period 0-5 1 years; it is well related to existing built form of the village; it is of a scale appropriate to the growth aspirations for the settlement; it is not visually prominent; and it is within close proximity to village services. Positive pre-application responses have been received from both Allerdale Borough Council and Cumbria High- 1 ways in respect of proposals for the erection of 4no. residential dwellings on this site 2/BLH/002/R The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 2/BLH/003/R The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 Branthwaite 1/BRW/001/R Whilst acceptable in principle, the recent Environment Agency advice is that this location is at risk from flash 1 flooding and therefore is not able to endorse it. Whilst the site is located in Flood Zone 3a, this Environment Agency classification is only indicative. A report has 1 shown that the flood risk is contained to the west of the site and evidence shows that the site was not affected during a significant event. Therefore it is considered that flood risk does not present a barrier to the development of the site for residential purposes

97 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/BRW/001/R The settlement boundary should be revised to include this site as: the site is available in the plan period 0-5 1 years; it is sustainable as it is physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement; it is of a scale appropriate to the growth aspirations of the settlement; it comprises development on a previously developed land as it is a former Fish Farm; it is visually contained by existing development and the topography of the surrounding landscape; it benefits from an existing access to the public highway; it is located in close proximity to the services and public transport links within the settlement; it could be developed without adversely affecting the living conditions of the occupiers of any adjacent residential properties; and if it is developed, it will ensure that the infrastructure of the former fish farm will be removed with resultant visual benefits. 1/BRW/002/R It is noted that the impact on the existing sewerage/drainage system might be a constraint 1 If developed, the site is of a size to support a significant proportion of affordable housing 1 The inclusion of a children's play area would be welcomed and might be made as part of a community benefits 1 package associated with developing the site. 1/BRW/003/R It is noted that the impact on the existing sewerage/drainage system might be a constraint 1 If developed, the site is of a size to support a significant proportion of affordable housing 1 The inclusion of a children's play area would be welcomed and might be made as part of a community benefits 1 package associated with developing the site. 1/BRW/004/R The full extent of the proposed area (triangle shape in the south-east corner of the proposed area) is inappropriate. A smaller boundary aligned to the existing boundary of the fish farm might be appropriate Bridekirk 1/BRK/001/R This is a marshy site which has a slope 1 Sewage would be difficult 1 Road access is poor - narrow road with blind bends 3 The site has a beck at its boundary - the beck would be at risk of pollution and flooding with development on this 1 site There are no play facilities for children in the village so this site could be used for such a facility 1 The area is prone to flooding due to an underground spring 2 The other proposed allocation (1/BRK/002/R) is capable of delivering 52 dwellings which is more than adequate 2 to satisfy the housing needs of the village 1/BRK/002/R The current road and pavement network is insufficient to support further development in Bridekirk without 1 creating safety concerns. There is no piped gas in the village. 1 There have been water supply problems to the village. 1

98 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/BRK/002/R The site has marshy, poor quality land. If development occurred on this site, any natural drainage of the field 1 would be severely compromised and there would be increased flooding on the road and potentially of Bonnyhill house/garage. This site provides open space and mature native woodland 1 Bonnyhill house is downhill from this site. Housing on this site could impact on privacy as ground floor windows 1 on these houses would be level with bedroom windows at Bonnyhill The local school is over-subscribed. 1 There are no shops or facilities in the village. 1 There is an extremely limited bus service which only runs in the middle of the day. 1 The field lies outside the settlement boundary. 1 Development of this site would be out of keeping with the linear development of the rest of the village 1 Bridekirk Church front dates back to 12th Century. 1 The trees in this field support a variety of wildlife (bats, owls and red squirrels) 1 Bolton Low Houses 2/BLH/002/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site Development on this site should be OK with decent landscaping 1 There is no access to this site 1 2/BLH/003/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site This site should be discarded, especially if 2/BLH/002/R is brought forward 1 The site is too big and extends the settlement limit in a linear fashion out of the village confines 1 This site would unnecessarily extend the settlement boundary when there are other, more suitable infill sites 1 within the village. The size of the site is unsustainable when considering existing infrastructure and facilities. There are no shops, 1 no footpaths to the school, there is poor public transport and no play areas for children The site represents a natural buffer between the edge of the settlement and the River Waver. Development of 1 this site would have a great impact on the rural character of the area Development on this site would set a dangerous precedent for future unconstrained development 1 Given the land levels and poor visibility splays, it would not be possible to create an acceptable access 2

99 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/BLH/003/R The levels close to the River Waver would mean that it would be impossible to connect to any of the mains foul 1 drains Crosby 1/CBY/004/R Whilst this is a brownfield site within the settlement limit, access is via a private road which is already heavily 1 used by traffic from existing development. 1/CBY/005/R This is a greenfield site, outside the settlement limit. 2 It is agricultural land 1 The site sits on the boundary of the Solway Coast AONB, therefore there may be setting issues. 3 Crosscanonby Road which has limited access over a site which has already had planning permission refused by 2 both Allerdale Borough Council and at an appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. The reasons for refusal on the adjacent site should apply to this site as it is even less suitable for development than the parcel of land which was refused permission Development on the site has already been refused by the Council and on appeal by the Inspector 1 The development of this site would create infill between the villages of Crosby and Crosscanonby to the 3 detriment of both Additional access onto Crosscanonby Road is potentially dangerous 2 Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site The site does extend the settlement boundary north in a linear fashion with no development on the other side of 1 the road, so may be inappropriate on this basis This is a site which is surrounded by existing dwellings on three sides 1 The site crosses an area associated with Roman heritage linked to the area behind Moor Park 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 Development of this scale would be well in excess of that which is required to deliver the needs and aspirations 1 of Allerdale 2/CBY/006/R Site is located close to accessible services and facilities, including existing road passenger transport services. 1 Infrastructure enhancements (e.g. road junctions) and national policy (e.g. air pollution) are unlikely to be 1 adversely affected by development on this site This is a site which is surrounded by existing dwellings on three sides 1 Crosby is a limited growth village which has, very recently, had three areas approved for development 1 This is a greenfield site 1

100 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/CBY/006/R The site is outside the settlement boundary 1 The site is used as agricultural land 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site sits too far out of the village and extends the frontage along the A596 on one side with no development 1 on the other side of the road. Development would look out of place and considerably extend the settlement Dean 1/DEA/001/R This green bank contributes to the character of the village and should not be developed 1 1/DEA/002/R This site is supported for housing development, particularly if it were to include a significant proportion of afforda- 1 ble housing It would be important to protect the village well and its immediate surroundings and the Plan should be adjusted 1 to indicate this 1/DEA/003/R The area within the existing village boundary/settlement boundary is considered appropriate for development, 1 however the further expansion is not 1/DEA/004/R The site is quite well related to the rest of the settlement. 1 Hedgerows should be retained 1 1/DEA/005/R Site is quite large for the size of the village 1 The site is within 25m of a Historic Landfill 1 Hedgerows surrounding it should be retained if site is allocated 1 Eaglesfield 1/EAG/001/R There are significant reservations about this location as it extends the village over the hill crest and affects the 1 character of the approach to Eaglesfield. 1/EAG/002/R This location is acceptable in principle; however the scale of the extension southwards seems excessive. If a sig- 1 nificant proportion of development on this site was affordable housing, then the benefit to the community might offset the scale 1/EAG/003/R This location is acceptable in principle 1 1/EAG/004/R This location is acceptable in principle 1 Fletchertown 1/FLE/001/R The land is adjacent to a de-restricted road, very close to the blind brow of a hill; therefore the required visibility 1 splays would be hard to achieve This site has easy access to the main road and rail transport services; this reduces carbon footprint 1 There are greater employment opportunities at this site 1 The site has local amenities (e.g. shops, pubs, recreational facilities) 1

101 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/FLE/001/R There is easy access for the Care Agencies to allow people to live independently 1 There is demand for affordable housing 1 No flooding issues 1 Gilcrux 1/GIL/004/R The site is on the edge of the village and covers a very large area compared to the rest of the village and is not 1 acceptable for development There is no requirement for development of the size proposed. There is a current planning application under con- 1 sideration for 25 dwellings in the village The existing highways servicing the land are poor and could not be upgraded to carry the additional traffic gener- 1 ated by such a site 1/GIL/005/R The site is not considered suitable for development as it is currently operated as a farm which should be retained 1 1/GIL/006/R The site is on the edge of the village and covers a very large area compared to the rest of the village and is not 1 acceptable for development There is no requirement for development of the size proposed. There is a current planning application under con- 1 sideration for 25 dwellings in the village The existing highways servicing the land are poor and could not be upgraded to carry the additional traffic gener- 1 ated by such a site Greysouthen 1/GRE/001/R This site was discarded through the SHLAA due to sub-standard access 1 Development on this site would require demolition of existing house/houses to open up the site 1 1/GRE/002/R This site was discarded through the SHLAA due to sub-standard access because of poor visibility at junction of 1 Overend Road and Main Street 1/GRE/003/R This site was discarded through the SHLAA due to sub-standard access 1 Development on this site would require demolition of existing house/houses to open up the site 1 1/GRE/004/R This site was not included in the SHLAA as development on this elevated site would have an adverse visual im- 1 pact 1/GRE/005/R This site has received full planning approval for 4 houses and is supported by the Parish Council 1 1/GRE/006/R This site was not included in the SHLAA due to sub-standard access and visibility issues 1 Ireby 1/IRE/002/R If the site is not public open space, then it is a good infill site 1 The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with requirements 1 for enhanced local highway infrastructure

102 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/IRE/002/R The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 If development occurs on this site, all the mature trees should be retained as features in the landscape 1 2/IRE/006/R The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with 1 requirements for enhanced local highway infrastructure Concerns have been raised with regard to the access - the road is relatively narrow and the level of the field is 1 approximately 15-20 feet above the road level If development occurs on this site, all the mature trees should be retained as features in the landscape 1 Kirkbampton 1/KBA/001/R Considered suitable for development 1 1/KBA/002/R Considered unsuitable for development due to the land being very wet and subject to flooding 1 Vehicular access to this area is also considered unsafe 1 Further development would impose significant greater demands upon the existing sewage system and it is 1 considered to not have sufficient capacity to cope with further demand A mains sewer pipe is reported to run directly underground through the middle of the site 1 Village infrastructure is not considered capable of supporting any additional housing - the village primary school 1 is at capacity Existing housing and bungalows that are currently for sale are not moving - this suggests that no demand exists 1 for additional housing in the area If the part of the site between Kirkbampton and Thurstonfield was developed, then this would join the two 1 separate settlements together. Therefore this area of land is an extremely important to avoid the merging of the two settlements. Potential foul sewage issues on the area to the north of this site 1 1/KBA/003/R Considered suitable for development 1 Little Clifton/Bridgefoot 1/LCB/003/R The site is sustainable being physically well related to the existing developed form of the settlement 1 The site is visually contained by existing development to the north, west and south and the topography and 1 landscape features of the surrounding landscape to the east The site benefits from close linkages to the existing range of services within the settlement 1 There are no known ecological or environmental constraints on the site 1 A suitable vehicular access to the site can be provided 1 There is sufficient capacity in the surrounding highway network to accommodate the development 1

103 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/LCB/003/R The site could be developed without adversely affecting or being adversely affected by the existing surrounding 1 land uses The site was identified in the SHLAA (ref. RU14) as being Developable 1 Plumbland 2/PLU/002/R The site performs well/adequately against the criteria included in the Council's Sustainability Appraisal Scoping 1 document The site is central to the village and local amenities 1 It has two obvious existing access points onto the highway which will provide the required splays 1 All utilities, except gas, can be accessed via existing supply points adjacent 1 The site could cater for all potential parish development and the need for the Council's forecast dwelling require- 1 ment to the end of the Plan Period Over the past 35-40 years there have been over 40 new dwellings or barn conversions or planning permission 1 for dwellings across the parish. This shows a constant requirement and demand for growth The last social build, The Muslins, was built in 1950 1 If the site was available it could be argued that demand and fulfilment would only increase as local growing or 1 starter families could stay in the village The site could cater for a potential mix of social housing, public housing, shared ownership, affordable housing, 1 retirement or typical contemporary new build There is not the local support for infill development. Infill development alone will not meet the Plan targets 1 There has been precedent set by the Planning Inspectorate for granting planning permission for development 1 outside the settlement boundary Development on this site would contribute to creating a vibrant, active, inclusive and open minded community 1 with a strong sense of local history The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 2 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with requirements 3 for enhanced local highway infrastructure The village has no mains gas supply 2 There is no demand for new housing in the village as it has lost its services and facilities (bus service, shop, pub 6 and post office). There have been houses for sale in the village for a long period of time There are derelict properties which could be adapted into domestic dwellings in order to increase the housing 3 stock The village is a predominately farming village with the most versatile land used for agricultural needs. Develop- 8 ment on the site would result in the loss of countryside and agricultural land which is extremely valuable (Grade I or Grade II)

104 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/PLU/002/R There is opportunity for infill development in the village, rather than building new housing estates. The Council 11 should only allow building within the settlement limit. The local economy jobs market is under threat as Lakeland Dairy is in financial difficulty 1 The roads to and from the village regularly flood, making it impassable for emergency services and healthcare 11 professionals and to connect to Aspatria Digital connections are poor - poor mobile phone signals and broadband provision 1 Development on this site would have an adverse effect on trees and habitats (e.g. Woodland Barn Owls) 4 Development on this site would destroy the tranquillity of a rural environment and the village appeal 6 The site suffers from flooding from Calf Lonning and due to drains not being able to cope with heavy rain 7 Access to the site is dangerous – the gateway is directly opposite other driveways, a public footpath and access 15 to agricultural fields for vehicles. There is poor visibility. Access to the site is unsustainable for any volume of traffic as it is extremely dangerous due to parked vehicles on the road (there have already been complaints to Cumbria County Council about this). The village traffic regularly includes 11000 litre slurry tankers, silage trailers and other big tractor farm machinery 1 and the village farmer’s cows cross and walk along the main thoroughfare The water quality will be affected as there are natural springs at the bottom of the proposed site which flows into 2 the River Ellen, supporting freshwater fish and feeding bird life The large size of the site is disproportionate to the village and would have an overbearing impact 9 Additional housing would swamp local amenities. Plumbland has no public transport, no local shop or pub and it 18 has poor street lighting. The local primary school is oversubscribed with local children being sent to other schools. The village has extremely low broadband speed There are more suitable brownfield sites for small scale development 2 Development on this site would not be in line with Allerdale’s housing development plan. Development of this 2 scale on this site would not meet Local Plan policies S4, S5, S9, S30 and DM16 The existing infrastructure is inadequate to service such a large area of housing (e.g. roads, water supply, 2 drains, telecoms, electricity) There is already low cost housing available in the settlement that cannot be sold. Helping people buy existing 1 houses would be a better way to provide affordable housing rather than ruin a rural environment and landscape There would be a loss of open outlook towards the coast 1 The school is full of pupils from outside the village which adds to the increase in traffic. The school is not owned 1 by the County Council but a Charitable Trust. If the school becomes unsustainable the school could close The alternative access down Calf Lonning is used daily by horses, dog walkers, agricultural vehicles and 4 caravan owners

105 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

2/PLU/002/R Development of this site would drastically destroy the environment by increasing the carbon footprint as there 3 are no local transport services easily accessible to the village If access were to be between Linton Garth and Firth View, it would preclude infill of one dwelling between the 1 existing houses. If access were to be from opposite the Caravan Park on Calf Lonning, road improvements would be required Farmers neighbouring this field have licenses to spread human waste and the protein milk wastings from the 3 Aspatria Creamery. There are no employment opportunities or services in the village. To access these facilities creates a high cost 3 of living If a significant number of houses were to be built this would no doubt cause much increased light pollution 1 There are no economic benefits associated with the development 2 Public footpaths would be greatly affected 1 The local road network is already sub-standard; any further traffic would worsen the current situation 1 There is no demand for affordable housing 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 Other planning applications by local residents for dwellings have been refused as the development would be 1 outside the settlement boundary.

Rural Villages - Infill and Rounding Off Villages

Broughton Cross 1/BRC/001/R There are existing highway safety issues which will need to be addressed (restricted visibility when exiting Old 1 Greysouthen Road junction, speeding through the village). There is also concern about the safety of school children from St. Bridget's School as school pick up/drop off is hazardous now. Increased traffic from this site would create issues in the already congested Brigham village and the A66/Brigham junction which has already had fatal road traffic accidents. Concern about the ageing foul and surface water drainage system 1 The natural water stream in the NE corner of the site has been known to flood on several occasions 1 The capacity of local schools will need to be assessed to cope with this level of development 1 Brownfield sites should be given priority over greenfield sites such as this location 1 Development on this site will consume valued open space 1

106 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/BRC/001/R Depending on the numbers of houses proposed on this site, it may have some future if it is proportional, had 1 community benefits and made A66 junction improvements. The current site size is too large - the site should only be looked at to provide small-scale development. This site will be affected by the loss of a local bus service 1 Would need to ensure that development here would not shed floodwater onto existing housing or overfill local 1 watercourses. This is a greenfield site, outside the settlement limit. 2 This site attracts wildlife (including red squirrels) which would be affected if development occurred on this site. 1 The site is too large 1 Crosby Villa 1/CRV/001/R This site is actually in the village of Bulgill 1 The site is subject to regular flooding as it is on the floodplain (Flood Zone 3) for the River Ellen and it is on an 3 ephemeral pond 1/CRV/002/R This site is actually in the village of Bulgill 1 The site is subject to regular flooding as it is on the floodplain (Flood Zone 2) for the River Ellen and it is on an 2 ephemeral pond There has been an application for housing on this site in the past which was refused 1 Dovenby 1/DOV/001/R Dovenby Hall Estate should not be a site for further expansion of employment outside of B1(a) uses 10 Hodgson House and Howard House should be allowed to be developed in accordance with Policy S31, REM10 10 and land use B1 Dovenby Hall Estate should be recognised as a significant site of biodiversity and open landscape with an 10 important heritage setting with significant historical features The perimeter trees, parkland and naturally seeded wild area with wildlife should be recognised for its amenity 11 value and for its landscape and ecological value Allerdale should allocate a land use that preserves the landscape, setting, biodiversity, history, green space, 10 wildlife habitat and amenity 1/DOV/002/R This site should be removed from consideration for residential development 1 1/DOV/003/R This site should be removed from consideration for residential development 1 Little Bampton 1/LBA/003/R Site is in Wiggonby not Little Bampton 1 1/LBA/004/R Site is in Aikton not Little Bampton 1

107 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

Oughterside 1/OGH/001/R This site has easy access to the main road and rail transport services; this reduces carbon footprint 2 The site provides greater employment opportunities 2 The site has local amenities (e.g. shops, pubs, recreational facilities) 1 There is easy access for the Care Agencies to allow people to live independently 1 There is demand for affordable housing 1 No flooding issues 1 Oulton 2/OLT/001/R The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with requirements 1 for enhanced local highway infrastructure The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site would be more acceptable if it echoed the housing to the north and only rounded off the village. If the 1 boundaries were changed to reflect this, it would therefore be a more suitable site Papcastle 1/PAP/001/R The current 'gap' between Moorside and Belle Mount maintains the hamlet status of Belle Vue. Any new develop- 3 ments would connect the two settlements and remove that status and could not be considered as infill or rounding off; this is against Local Plan (Part 1) The proposed development would erode the rural/village nature of Papcastle and Belle Vue. 1 Development on this site would be an extension to the Papcastle village envelope and give a precedent for fur- 2 ther development of land on the opposite side of the road Development on this site would create a landscape impact 1 Development on this site could affect archaeological interest 1 It would cause access/traffic problems between Belle Vue and the corner at Belle Mount 1 1/PAP/002/R It is shown on the plan as away from Camp Farm House but close to Croft House Farm and Lynwood. Part of the 1 site (west of the access road) is outside the village envelope and development on this site would have a significant landscape impact. This is an incorrect description, it should read Croft House Yard 1 If development occurred on this site, Policy S5 requirements should be met 1 1/PAP/003/R Development on this site would involve redevelopment of the existing farm steading 1 East of the access road is within the village envelope 1

108 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/PAP/003/R It is close to existing services 1 If development occurred on this site, Policy S5 requirements should be met 1 1/PAP/004/R It is envisaged that any retail on this site would service the housing growth of proposed allocation 1/COC/015/R – 1 otherwise there can be no case for accepting this out-of-town site for retail use. This proposed allocation would be against Government policy of trying to restore the vitality of town centres. De- 5 velopment of this type on this site would adversely affect small retailers in the town centre The introduction of further retail development is unnecessary and undesirable for the vibrant character of Cocker- 10 mouth. It would undermine recent efforts to enhance Main Street. The focus should be on local shops and suppliers and supporting the annual food festival. 1 The proposed development would impact on Cockermouth’s ability to portray itself as a Lakeland market town 6 and would result in the loss of Cockermouth’s identity and Belle Vue’s character. This development of this site would be unsustainable as it lies well out of the boundaries of Cockermouth and 2 would be considered as an ‘out of town’ development It is not a suitable land use for the open countryside that it sits in and would have significant landscape and visu- 5 al impacts It would not be well connected to the town and people would use cars to get to the site. Edge of town sites 2 should not be promoted in the Local Plan as it is against the NPPF Is this development necessary given the planned redevelopment of the Oakhurst garage? 2 If more retail facilities are needed, then the bottom of Gote Road would be more suitable 2 Development on this site would ruin the northern approach to the town. 1 It is inappropriate due to the high levels of traffic development on this site would generate. 1 Development here would lead to an expansion of Cockermouth towards the main arterial routes 1 The Belle Vue junction is already dangerous on entry and exit as it is situated on a slow bend and any access 3 near this point would create major problems and improvements would be required Policies S3 and DM8 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) make it clear that proposals outside of defined settle- 1 ments should only be permitted where there is an established and essential need, and they should not have significant adverse impacts on existing town centres If a petrol station was to be built here, it is likely that an ancillary use would be required on the site (e.g. a small 1 supermarket) to financially support it. This would disturb nearby residents and there would be the potential dan- ger in vehicles turning right into the site. If such a facility is needed, the hierarchy principle would demand that it should be adjacent to the existing Cockermouth settlement 1/PAP/005/R This site is within the village envelope of Papcastle 1 Access and services are available 1

109 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

1/PAP/005/R If development did occur on the site, it should be well designed in relation to existing buildings on site and 2 neighbouring development. Design should meet requirements set out in Policy S5 2/PAP/006/R Development of a single, small house here would represent a rounding off of the present Papcastle village, be- 1 tween Camp House Farm and Avalon Mature trees on the site should be retained and access from the narrow village road should be shared with Av- 1 alon if possible There are extensive Roman remains, much of which are a Nationally Important scheduled ancient monument 1 The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 This is a site which is surrounded by existing dwellings on three sides 1 Pardshaw 2/PRW/001/R The site is not easily accessible to services and facilities 1 Development on this site is likely to generate additional car traffic and congestion/air pollution, with require- 1 ments for enhanced local highway infrastructure The site is within the vicinity of the sewer network 1 The site would double the size of the settlement and is disconnected from the rest of the village. It is inappropri- 1 ate due to its size and position Parsonby 1/PAR/001/R This site is unsuitable for housing development. 1 The road to that field passes by Plumbland Church of England School. It is narrow with high walls either side 1 with no footpath. Access even as far as the school is difficult with a very narrow road from the B5301 with very few passing places along a residential road and an equally difficult road from The Muslins. The corner at the school is a blind one adding to the problems. This has resulted in the school encouraging parents to adopt a one-way traffic system at drop-off and pick-up times Ullock 1/ULL/001/R This location is acceptable in principle 1 1/ULL/004/R This proposed site is completely disproportionate to the scale of the existing settlement and does not align with 1 a policy of rounding/infilling

Suggested Areas for Growth

Bolton Low Houses BLH01 This is supported 1

110 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement Ma y 2 0 1 5

Branthwaite BRA10 If extended to align with the housing estate boundary to the north-east, it would be of a scale that would support a 1 significant proportion of affordable housing. It is probably a better location than 1/BRW/002/R and 1/BRW/003/R. 1 If developed, the inclusion of a children's play area would be welcomed and might be made as part of a 1 community benefits package associated with developing the site. The area is greenfield and located in a visually prominent location at an important entrance to the settlement 1 Development in this area would result in developed projections into the open countryside 1 The area will not deliver a scale of development appropriate to the growth aspirations for the settlement outlined 1 in Policy S3 without significant landscape and settlement character impacts The deliverability of the area is questioned as the sites have not been promoted for development to date by the 1 respective landowners through the Site Allocations process The area is distant to the services and public transport links located centrally within the settlement 1 BRA11 No strong views on this suggested location 1 The area is greenfield and located in a visually prominent location at an important entrance to the settlement 1 Development in this area would result in developed projections into the open countryside 1 The area will not deliver a scale of development appropriate to the growth aspirations for the settlement outlined 1 in Policy S3 without significant landscape and settlement character impacts The area is distant to the services and public transport links located centrally within the settlement 1 The area is constrained by its topography as it slopes north from the adjacent public highway 1 The deliverability of the area is questioned as the sites have not been promoted for development to date by the 1 respective landowners through the Site Allocations process The area is constrained by the capacity and alignment of the adjacent public highway, which may limit the 1 potential to deliver a satisfactory access arrangement Greysouthen GRE01 This site would have the same poor access/visibility issues as proposed allocation 1/GRE/002/R which was 1 previously discarded by the SHLAA GREY02 This site would have the same poor access/visibility issues as proposed allocation 1/GRE/002/R which was 1 previously discarded by the SHLAA

111 Site Allocations — Issues and Options Consultation Statement M a y 2 0 1 5

“Allerdale – a great place to live, work and visit”