South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
GREAT / LITTLE URSWICK
Fact File
This document provides an update to the fact file published January 2011
Table of Contents
What is a Fact File? ............................................................................................................................................................................3
Strategic Overview – Core Strategy..................................................................................................................................................4
Key characteristics of Great / Little Urswick ...................................................................................................................................5
Potential development sites ..............................................................................................................................................................8
Emerging Options ............................................................................................................................................................................10
Alternative Options ..........................................................................................................................................................................10
Proposed Allocations ......................................................................................................................................................................11
The Assessment Process (reasonable alternatives) .....................................................................................................................12
Proposed Allocation ........................................................................................................................................................................66
Yield...................................................................................................................................................................................................73
Defining boundaries / areas ............................................................................................................................................................74
 Development limits/boundary ...............................................................................................................................................74
 Green Gaps .............................................................................................................................................................................75
 Town Centre boundaries .......................................................................................................................................................76
 Existing Employment Sites to be protected.........................................................................................................................76
 Open Space, Sport and Recreation.......................................................................................................................................77
Appendix 1 – Consultation Responses: .........................................................................................................................................79
Appendix 1A – Consultation responses on potential development sites pre-November 2010..............................................80
Appendix 1B – Consultation responses on emerging site options from service providers (October 2010) ......................106
Appendix 1C - Consultation Responses on Land Allocation Emerging Options (January 2011 – April 2011)...................110
Appendix 1D - Consultation Responses on Land Allocation Further Options (July 2011 – September 2011) ..................110
Appendix 1E – Consultation responses on Further Consultation from service providers Summer 2011 ..........................111
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
1
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 2 – Evidence ..................................................................................................................................................................117
Appendix 3 - Sustainability Appraisal ..........................................................................................................................................123
Appendix 4 – Urswick Parish Plan Summary ..............................................................................................................................139
Appendix 5 - Green Gap Assessment for Great / Little Urswick: ...............................................................................................140
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
2
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
What is a Fact File?
This Fact File provides a summary of the information and reasons behind the Proposed Land Allocations.
The Fact Files reflect information available at the end of December 2011 and is therefore to some extent a ‘snap shot’ in time.
Information in the Fact Files includes summaries of:
o Previous consultations in Appendix 1, including more recent feedback from service and infrastructure providers (see Appendices 1A,
1B, 1C, 1D and 1E)
o Evidence from Studies in Appendix 2, including
 The Strategic Housing Land Availability Study (SHLAA), March 2009
 Employment and Housing Land Search Study (EHLSS) – March 2009 undertaken by Gillespies
(The SHLAA and EHLSS acronyms are sometimes used in this Fact File)
o The Sustainability Appraisal results for each site, which considers their social, economic and environmental impacts - Appendix 3
o The results of the Appropriate Assessment, which considers the likely impact of sites on sites of European nature conservation
importance.
o Comments from site visits to each site
o Relevant matters arising from Parish Plans or Community Plans - Appendix 4
For all sites under consideration the Fact Files set out the main reasons why a site has or has not been put forward as a proposed allocation for example, for housing or employment or for another designation such as open space or a ‘Green Gap’.
For each recommended proposed allocation, the Fact Files set out in more detail the main issues affecting the development of the site and any
steps (mitigation measures) which are considered important to have in place to address these issues. For example, for some larger or more
complex sites, a further more detailed Development Brief is proposed to set out more detailed guidance, in consultation with the local
community.
For details of the evidence base documents, consultation documents and settlement Fact Files, please see
http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/ldf
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
3
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Strategic Overview – Core Strategy
•
Great Urswick and Little Urswick are two villages to the southwest of Ulverston. Collectively, they are classified as a Local Service
Centre (LSC) in the Core Strategy. The overall development strategy states that:
o
New development (within LSCs) will support local services and the community’s need for further development, including access
to a reasonable choice of housing. Existing community assets will be protected with the provision of additional facilities that
improve community wellbeing and are justified.
o
Extensions to Local Service Centres will be pursued only where there is clear local need for development and significant
environmental impacts can be avoided, and once previously developed land has been utilised.
o
The amount of development will be dependent on the environmental capacity, existing size, role and infrastructure provision of
the settlement, and supporting identified local need (having regard to the Urswick Parish Plan).
o
On all sites of three or more dwellings no less than 35% of the total number of dwellings proposed should be affordable
o
The strategy supports small-scale economic development in Great / Little Urswick.
o
The strategy supports the designation (as required) of green gaps to prevent coalescence of individual settlements.
o CS7.5 states that the role of LSCs will be maintained, mainly through environmental improvements and seeking to restrict the
loss of services, whilst also supporting development to preserve and enhance the settlement’s vitality and viability.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
4
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Key characteristics of Great / Little Urswick
Housing
Housing Stock 1991
Housing Stock 2009
Built since 2003
Outstanding Planning
Permissions 2011
562
680
22
6
•
Between 1991 and 2009 the housing stock has increased by 118 dwellings, at a rate of around 6.5 dwellings per annum. Since 2003
there have been 22 housing completions in the area, and currently there is outstanding planning permissions for six dwellings.
•
The Parish Plan recognises that there is need for more affordable housing for young local families and / or those working in and around
the Parish. The area has become a location for immigration and the lack of affordable homes is contributing to the destruction of the
rural community.
•
The Parish Plan recognises that there is a need to preserve the Character of the Village in future house building.
The economy
•
There is no major industrial employment within Great / Little Urswick. Local employment in the area is at Stainton Quarry. Here they
make a number of products including ready mixed concrete and concrete blocks.
•
Surrounded by agricultural land, dairy, beef and sheep farming are dominant.
•
Within Urswick Church Parish, the small industrial estate near to Bardsea, hosts a variety of companies including one making
playground products and another recycled animal bedding.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
5
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
•
•
Other local employment is in the primary school, pubs, The Coot Restaurant and Longrigg Service Station. It is understood that the
village shop / post office has now closed (September 2010).
Most of the employed commute further a field throughout the Furness Peninsula and beyond.
Accessibility
•
Urswick lies just off the A590T in-between Ulverston and Barrow in Furness.
•
Bus services run frequently Monday to Saturday between Ulverston and Barrow in Furness connecting all the villages of the parish.
However the parish plan recognises that passenger numbers are in decline. A free, once weekly bus service to Booths supermarket in
Ulverston is well utilised. It is understood from consultation responses to the Spring 2011 Emerging Site Options Consultation, that the
“number 10 bus service in the Urswick area was under threat”.
•
The Parish Plan states that speeding and parking at key times are key issues for local residents
The environment
•
The parish of Urswick is centred on a valley, running parallel with the coast, with Urswick Tarn on a bed of impervious marl in a basin at
the head. The valley is drained only by a small stream, due presumably to the low rate of runoff from the pervious limestone catchment.
The high-point of the parish is Birkrigg Common, at 136m AOD.
•
Birkrigg Common is a Registered Common with an area of limestone pavement, which is protected by a Limestone Pavement Order. It
was formerly shared with Aldingham township, but is now wholly in Urswick. The common is on a hill, and has a large collection of
prehistoric remains. The most famous one is the so-called Druids' Temple
•
The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment delineated South Lakeland into zones of low, medium and high probability of flooding. There are
areas of zone 3a and 2 high probabilities and medium probability of flooding related to watercourses into and out of the tarn. There is
also the possibility of land to the south west of the settlement becoming a dry island during a flood event. Although this risk is classified
as low probability, the limestone geology of the area creates a degree of uncertainty and any development would have to consider the
consequences of flooding.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
6
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
•
Further localised drainage issues are identified with surface water run off near the church. And the parish plan identifies regular road
flooding to the north of Great Urswick
•
Open Farmland and Pavements. Lower Carboniferous limestone with calcareous brown soils. The landscape has steep scarp
slopes, exposed limestone pavement or other rough rocky outcrops. Around the coast there are open, rolling limestone hills rising to
between 130m and 230m. Inland the coastal limestone form distinctive scarp and rocky skyline features and rise to around 280m.
•
Key characteristics: steep scarp limestone slopes, pavements or other rocky outcrops, grazed land with stone wall field boundaries,
rough pasture as open common or fell, sporadic scrub and woodland on steep slopes, extensive open and uninterrupted views from
high ground.
•
Most of the land is improved or semi improved grazing. Settlements are generally small and dispersed. The high ecological value of
wooded pavements, outcrops and limestone grassland are sensitive to changed in land management practices.
•
The small dispersed settlement pattern could be sensitive to unsympathetic village expansion. The openness in higher parts and long
uninterrupted views to the Lakeland Fells and across Morecambe Bay are sensitive to large scale and infrastructure development.
•
The attractive and proximity to major towns has resulted in pressures to expand the historic villages; this may continue in order to
support housing and economic growth. Ensure new developments respect the scale, traditional form and materials of villages and do
not infill important open spaces such as orchards and gardens integral to their character. Enhance settlements through sensitive
environmental
improvements to village greens, ponds, lakes and other features.
•
Health and wellbeing
•
Surrounding open countryside, access to public footpaths and the nearby coastal strip make the area attractive for walkers.
•
The level of social and recreational activity is high, though there is concern within the parish of the low level of facilities for the young.
•
Local health facilities are at Ulverston
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
7
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Potential development sites
A total of 36 sites have been put forward for consideration for further development in Great / Little Urswick, of which 26 have been proposed for
residential development (prefixed R or RN), 4 has been proposed for mixed use (prefixed M or MN)
M10
ON2
R212
R218
R249
RN21
MN3
ON3
R213
R219
R671
RN216
MN7
ON4
R214
R220
RN1
RN29
MN8
ON40
R215
R221
RN138
RN48
ON15
R20
R216
R222
RN139
RN49
ON16
R210
R217
R240
RN2
RN88
A further 2 modified sites were created as part of the process to identify emerging option sites in January 2011. These are based on the original
36.
M10M RN216M
Those sites below the site size threshold of 0.3 hectares and therefore excluded from further analysis are:
R210
R217
R240
R212
R218
R20
R213
R219
R214
R220
R215
R221
R216
R222
Non-starters
ON16, ON4, ON3 – proposed only as green gap (assessed in the ‘Defining areas / boundaries – green gaps’ section of the fact file
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
8
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
ON40 – Important open space (proposed by Urswick Parish Council) and considered in the Safeguarding Land - Open Space, sport
and Recreation section of this fact file.
ON2 – below 0.3ha but considered in the – Safeguarding land - open space, sport and recreation section of this fact file.
ON15 - This site has been put forward for consideration by Urswick Parish Council for protection as important open space. For an
assessment of this proposal, please see the ‘Land to be Safeguarded - ‘open space, sport and recreation’ section of this fact file.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
9
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Emerging Options
Based on the evidence and site assessment conducted during 2010, a total of 2 sites were put forward as ‘emerging options’. These were
subject to public consultation between January and April 2011.
Emerging Option Site
Reference
M10M
RN216M
Original Site
Reference
M10 & Part of RN216
Part of RN216
The suffix ‘M’ at the end of a site reference indicates that an emerging site option is a ‘modified’ version of a site (or sites) put forward originally
for consideration.
Alternative Options
As part of the consultation exercise on the emerging option sites January to April 2011, no further new and alternative sites were identified.
Alternative options consultation took place between July and September 2011.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
10
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Proposed Allocations
Based on evidence and site assessment in the remainder of this document one site has been put forward for allocation.
Proposed Allocation
Site Reference
M10M & RN216M mod
ON57#
Proposed Use
Residential
Leisure – Multi use
Games Area (MUGA),
recreation area and
allotments.
Original Site
References
M10 / RN216 / Part of
R249
Part of ON3
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
11
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
The Assessment Process (reasonable alternatives)
Sites considered for housing
Site Ref:
R249
(same as
RN49 in
northern
part and
also
includes
part of site
ON3.
RN216 is
also within
part of the
site).
RN249
does not
include
M10, but
includes
part of
RN216
(relates in
part to
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
3.42 / 2.56
Possible
Yield
77
(30 dph)
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
Green field Local Plan / Evidence Base
This site, to the east of Little Urswick, was considered in the Housing and
Employment Site Study Addendum; as Site 1 Little Urswick. The study
concluded that development would have low localised landscape / visual
impact. In the study addendum report, the site is categorized as Category 3 –
medium sustainability and medium deliverability. With category 1 the highest
and 6 the lowest.
The site was not included in the Strategic Housing Land Availability
Assessment (SHLAA).
Sustainability Appraisal
The site performs very well in relation to access to a primary school, and with
regard to built environment and transport indicators. It scores well with regard
to shops, health services and village hall or civic building provision. However,
the site scores poorly in terms of access to a secondary school.
Also see Appendix3
Site Visit
This site is a large green field site in open countryside which is relatively flat
and linear in shape and extends along the whole eastern boundary of Little
Urswick. For the whole length of the site, there is no eastern boundary on the
ground. The site basically bisects a number of fields. The site does not extend
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
12
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
proposed
allocations
M10M &
RN216Mmod)
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
beyond Braithwaite’s Lane to the west. Boundaries are formed by a mix of iron
fencing on church road and hedgerows and fragmented walls elsewhere.
There are some trees within the hedgerows. Two lots of poles / utility poles
and wires cross the site. Church road gives access to the site on the northern
boundary. Church road which borders the northern part of the site has a
pavement adjacent to the site.
In terms of boundaries, Midtown Farm forms part of the western boundary and
the site has boundaries with some gardens on the northwestern part of the site
(rear of Greenbank Gardens). Existing housing - Greenbank Gardens, is
directly to the west of the site. To the rear of Greenbank Gardens, is a
footpath/green lane which runs the length of the site (borders the site to the
West). An additional second footpath runs across site West to East
There are localised impact re views especially from the green lane/path to the
rear of Greenbank Gardens. Development would also be visible in local views
from the public footpath - Braithwaite Lane to the east of the site (you can see
through gaps in the hedging and over walls).
The play ground, Church, Low Furness Church of England Primary School and
the Recreation Hall are to the north east of the site, off Church Road.
The main concern with this site is its size and potential capacity in relation to
the existing size of Little Urswick. Whilst the site is suggested as a potential
housing site in the EHLSS study, It is considered that the size / scale of this
site is out of character with the scale of Little Urswick. The site also cuts
across all of the tofts – field strips to the east of Little Urswick.
Landscape Issues
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
13
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 10 key species on the site.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues
None recorded
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E.
One site allocation for housing is proposed in Little Urswick. This
proposed allocation (ref M10M / RN216M – Mod ) is to include the area
covered by sites M10M and RN216M and a small bit of site R249 to allow
for vehicular access / highway safety (visibility splays).
R671
(also ON4
RN48)
2.27 / 1.7
51 (30
dph)
Greenfield
Local Plan / Evidence Base
The whole of this site has been identified as a potential housing development
site in the Employment and Housing Land Search Study (EHLSS). The EHLSS
site reference is site 1 - residential (Great Urswick). In terms of landscape, the
EHLSS, (Appendix 5) advises that the site (comprising sites R671 and most of
RN48) is “considered to be of lower landscape quality than that of the
surrounding area due to the visibility of farm warehouse buildings and a
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
14
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
garage, which overlooks the site. Development in this area could form a
natural extension to the housing west of Church Road, with the potential to
give a more sympathetic edge and connect the school to the village. Further
development would compromise the physical and visual separation between
Great Urswick and Little Urswick and would be visible in and detract from the
wider landscape”.
However, it is apparent from inviting comments on sites (through the informal
allocations of land discussion paper consultation (December 2008 to March
2009) that there are a large number of local residents who are opposed to
residential development on this site and would instead like to see the area
designated as a green gap (or if development was to take place, it should be
restricted to a smaller area – see site RN48). The majority of the site is located
within a medium flood risk zone, with some of the land to the north located
within a high probability flood area. Alongside other constraints, this has meant
that the site has only been identified in the Employment and Housing Land
Search Study as being of medium sustainability and low deliverability.
It is an EHLSS category 5 site. Category 6 being the lowest category.
Site R671 is not included in the Strategic Housing Land Availability
Assessment (SHLAA).
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix3. The site performs particularly well with regard to shops,
primary school facilities, transport and culture/leisure indicators; but poorly with
regard to greenfield/brownfield indicators and secondary school facilities.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
15
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
In terms of site constraints, site R671 scored least well in the Sustainability
Appraisal, as it is a green field site and has low scores for potential effect on
landscape character. The sites development is considered to have a moderate
negative effect on landscape character.
Site Visit:
This site is a green field site currently in agricultural use that has also been put
forward for consideration as part of a potential new green gap (part of site
ON4) along with other adjacent and nearby sites. The northern tip of the field is
excluded from site R671. The site is located in the valley bottom in open
countryside outside the existing Local Plan development boundary for Great
Urswick. The site is to the immediate south of the existing Kirk Flatt housing
area. The site is accessed off Church Road by a field gate. There is a
pavement on the site side of Church Road. The site is relatively flat apart from
localized undulations, especially in the corner of the field near the road.
Boundaries are formed by limestone walls. There are also some hawthorn
trees on the western boundary, on / next to the wall. There are views over the
site from the higher ground to the north, at Tosthills and from along Church
Road itself.
Surrounding land uses apart from open countryside and the existing housing at
Kirk flat are primarily community uses. On the opposite side of Church Road to
the site is a children’s playground with green amenity space. A detached
dwelling is adjacent. Further west towards Little Urswick, is the recreation hall,
the C of E Low Furness Primary School and off Hookes Lane, the garage, a
farm and sporadically located dwellings.
The Parish Church – grade 1 listed UID 75884, is located to the east of the
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
16
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
site, on the other side of Church Road. It is considered that the juxtaposition of
the site across from the grade 1 church, if the site was developed, could affect
the setting of the church. This issue is also identified in Appendix 7 of the
EHLSS for site 1 – Church Road under the column visual impact.
In addition, it is noted that the site may have archaeological interest. It is noted
from Appendix 7 of the EHLSS that at the time of the consultant’s site visit
there was an archaeological dig on the site. It is also noted from a previous
consultation (Sites Discussion Paper) that the County Council has also
advised that there is the possible remains of a prehistoric standing stone on
the site.
Site R671 was also put forward for consideration as part of a potential new
green gap. The site along with other sites put forward was separately
appraised, together with the need for a green gap (using objective criteria).
The appraisal concluded that there should be a new green gap to prevent the
coalescence of Great and Little Urswick. Site R671 is part of the proposed
green gap. The proposed new green gap is shown on the mapping for the
emerging site options. Further summary text is given in the ‘Green Gap’
section later in this fact file. The full appraisals of existing and potential new
green gaps (including Urswick) are also available for reference.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 16 key species on the site,
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
17
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
including the otter.
Commentary
Flooding Issues
The majority of the site is located within Flood Risk Zone 2, with a narrow strip
on east and west flank of site Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
In terms of previous consultation responses, it is apparent from inviting
comments on sites (through the discussion paper consultation) that there are a
large number of local residents who are opposed to residential development
on this site and would instead like to see the area designated as a green gap
(or if development was to take place, it should be restricted to a smaller area –
e.g. site RN48.
Other general concerns expressed about site R671 include:
– It would result in the coalescence of Great and Little Urswick
– Lead to the loss of important agricultural land
– Detrimental to character of the area
– Flooding occurs and
– Keep as open space.
Previous consultations: Cumbria County Council have advised that the level of
development on a site of this size is likely to be too great for the settlement.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
18
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
Another response from (Friends of the Lake District) expressed concern that
the sites development will impact on settlement character and result in
coalescence.
Finally, the EHLSS stated that their site 1 (which is larger and includes site
R671) has low deliverability.
Density Assumption
N/A
On balance, taking into account the above and the information in Appendix 1,
2 and 3, it is considered that this site should not be taken forward as a
proposed allocation for either residential or as a potential mixed use
land allocation.
RN1
0.56 / 0.5
15
(30 dph)
Green field
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This site has not been identified as having potential for housing development
in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Study (SHLAA) or the Employment
and Housing Land Search Study and its addendum (EHLSS).
The site had been put forward for consideration by local residents during an
earlier round of consultation on the basis that it would keep the village more
compact and retain character. There was, however, lack of identified public
support through evidence of public consultation. Comments from previous
consultations including the “08 / 09” Allocations Discussion Paper are
summarised as: - development would unacceptably impinge on the character
of Urswick, cause traffic problems, prime location in providing rural visual
impact of Great Urswick.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
19
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
Commentary
Great Urswick Parish Council put forward and supported the site at the Core
Strategy Preferred Options Stage (proposed 16 12 08), but the parish have
since withdrawn their support for site RN1. In terms of previous consultations,
there have been many objections from members of the public to the use of this
land for development.
It should be noted that Site RN1 is currently part of a relatively large proposed
leisure development planning application that has been submitted but not yet
determined by SLDC, (ref SL/2010/0182) as of 13th December 2010). The
current proposals (Spring 2011) for Bankfield Hall (the red line on the planning
application) includes the whole of this site. There have been a significant
number of objections to the leisure proposal from local residents.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix3. The site performs particularly well with regard to shops,
transport, culture/leisure and coalescence indicators; but performs poorly with
regard to secondary school facilities and built environment.
Site Visit:
This site is located next to alternative sites RN138 / MN8, on the north western
edge of Great Urswick, across the road from The Coot. The site is part of the
front landscaped garden of Bankfield Hall. The western site boundary is
directly adjacent to the hall building. Although the hall is not listed, it is a locally
important building. Access to the site as existing is via two gated vehicular
points onto the highway. A number of residential properties adjoin the site to
the south.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
20
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
From Church Road, visually the site is very well screened. The site is very
difficult to see, particularly in the summer, due to the screening effect of large
mature trees and shrubs. A relatively high limestone wall also surrounds the
sites frontage on to Church Road.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 16 key species on the site,
including the otter.
Trees within this site are a constraint. It is understood that there are protected
trees on the sites southern boundary.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues
Cumbria County Council Highways Authority states that development is
feasible, with spare capacity for the whole of the site.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
In terms of infrastructure consultation responses, the Environment Agency has
had reports of drainage problems in this area. They advise of possible
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
21
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
combination of highways drainage, high tarn levels and springs flowing during
wet weather. Flood zone 1. (Environment Agency, August 2010). Other
consultation responses from United Utilities, National Grid and Natural
England are given in Appendix 1 A of this fact file.
This site has not been put forward as a proposed allocation. There are a
number of factors why the site has not been proposed as an allocation;
the site is outside the Local Plan development boundary for Great
Urswick; the Parish Council have withdrawn their support for this site.
Furthermore, It is understood that the planning application on the site for
a mix of housing and leisure etc has now been approved subject to a
Section 106 agreement (Feb. 2012).
RN138
(same as
MN8 and
part of
MN3)
0.51 / 0.45
14
(30 dph)
Green field
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This site has not been identified as having potential for housing development
in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Study or the Employment and
Housing Land Search Study and its addendum. However, it has been put
forward for consideration during an earlier round of consultation.
Note that site RN138 put forward for residential use, is the same site that has
been put forward separately as a mixed use site – site MN8.
A member of the public has proposed this site – MN8 (understood that they do
not own site RN138/MN8) and would support MN3’s allocation for mixed
employment / residential use ’in conjunction with MN7 as it will allow for a
more spacious form of development protecting trees with Tree Preservation
Orders (TPOs)’.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
22
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
Commentary
Site RN138 was identified/proposed as a potential housing site by the Parish
Council (07 03 2009). In previous consultation, the Parish Council intimated
that site RN138 is one of two sites they consider as suitable, the other being
RN2. However, only one of these sites should be developed. There was much
public support for residential affordable development on site RN138 (based on
feedback from the 2008/2009 Allocations of Land Discussion Paper).
It should be noted that Site RN138/MN8 is currently part of a relatively large
proposed leisure development planning application that has been submitted
but not yet determined by SLDC, (ref SL/2010/0182) as of 13th December
2010.Part of the latter proposal would include a detached 12 bedroomed
annex (2 storey blocks) which would encroach onto the paddock area (Site
RN138/MN8). There have been a significant number of objections to the
leisure proposal from local residents.
Sustainability Appraisal
The site performs particularly well with regard to shop, transport,
culture/leisure and coalescence indicators, but poorly with regard to access to
secondary school facilities and built environment. Also see Appendix3.
Site Visit:
This site is located at the north western end of Great Urswick and has a
frontage on to Church Road, opposite The Derby Arms Public House and Bed
and Breakfast establishment. The site is outwith the Local Plan development
boundary. The site is to the north of the hall and whilst it is not listed, is a
locally important building. Site RN138/MN8 forms part of the hall’s extensive
curtilage.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
23
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
Commentary
Site RN138/MN8 basically comprises a more informal grassed area/ with
woodland / mature trees on the boundaries, being part of a garden, it is no
longer classed as a brown field site. There is a pole on the site. Current access
is a gated private driveway from Church Road. There is no pavement on this
part of Church Road.
Some of the trees next to the driveway on the southern site boundary are
protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The group of trees is marked
G1 on Tree Preservation Order (No 175). There are also other mature trees on
the site, including the site frontage with Church Road. It is understood that
these trees are not protected by a tree preservation order. Trees within and
overhanging this site in effect limit the yield / developable area of this site
(RN138 / MN8). Rooting areas should be protected from development.
A number of residential properties, including Bank End and the adjacent
residential conversions, bound RN138/MN8 to the north. To the west, except
for very low density housing (Cragland’s) within the wooded area, west of the
site is open countryside. The Derby Arms public House and Bed and Breakfast
is located across Church Road to the east.
Site RN138/MN8 has relatively good accessibility. There is a bus stop (outside
The Coot) – with a bus service between Ulverston and Barrow on a 2 hourly
frequency.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
24
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
Commentary
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 16 key species on the site,
including the otter.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
The Environment Agency has had reports of drainage problems in this area.
Possible combination of highways drainage, high tarn levels and springs
flowing during wet weather.
Highways Issues
Cumbria County Council Highways Authority states that development is
feasible and that there is spare capacity for the whole of the site.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
Infrastructure – the consultation responses from Cumbria County Council
(Highways), United Utilities and Natural England are given in Appendix 1A of
this fact file.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the parish council put forward and support
the site for residential use, there are a number of factors why the site has
not been proposed as an allocation; the site is outside the Local Plan
development boundary for Great Urswick, Furthermore, It is understood
that the planning application on the site for a mix of housing and leisure
etc has now been approved subject to a Section 106 agreement. The site
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
25
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
RN139
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
0.49 / 0.44
13 (30
dph)
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
is not proposed for allocation for any development.
Green field
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This is a proposed site, suggested by a member of the public during the earlier
2008 / 2009 Allocations of Land Discussion Paper consultation as a possible
location for an affordable housing scheme.
The site was not identified in the Employment and Housing Land search Study
(EHLSS) and its addendum study as having development potential, nor, the
Strategic Housing Land Availability Study (SHLAA).
Sustainability Appraisal
The site performs particularly well with regard to transport and culture/leisure
indicators; but performs particularly poorly in relation to landscape character.
Also see Appendix3
Site Visit:
This site is located on the south eastern edge of little Urswick. This site is a
wholly green field relatively flat site, in agricultural use. The site is in open
countryside, outwith but adjacent to the South Lakeland Local Plan
Development boundary for Little Urswick.
There is an existing field gate which accesses the site from the road on the
eastern boundary, opposite the semi detached houses. There are no
pavements along the unclassified road. A small-unmade lay by used by cars is
adjacent the site boundary wall. The whole of the site has either hedgerow or
limestone field boundaries (e.g. limestone wall that bounds the
site/unclassified road leading out of Little Urswick towards Scales). A stone
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
26
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
garden wall of the listed residential property (Redmayne Hall) also forms a
boundary with the site. There is some post and wire agricultural fencing and
mixed hawthorn (including a field gate) hedging which wholly bisects the site.
A small stream and this fencing currently divides/bisects the site. There is a
large mature tree whose canopy over hangs the sites western boundary. The
tree is located at the bottom of the garden of the barn conversion which is
outwith the site.
To the south and east is open countryside (grazing fields). To the north
(directly bounding the site) is the unclassified road leading out of Little Urswick.
On the opposite site of this road to the site is a line of 6 semi-detached
houses. These houses have views over the site. There is also an entrance off
the road by these houses, to the new housing, Park Garth. Other housing,
including barn conversion (s) and the older listed building Redmayne Hall have
garden boundaries with the site (west boundary). There are two further more
modern houses, including a bungalow, located on the road leading along to
Stainton. These two latter properties don’t have curtilage boundaries with the
site.
The site as put forward to be considered as a potential residential allocation
site would be unacceptable in terms of its location, its shape/ extent which
intrudes into the open countryside and its relationship to the existing village
boundary/form.
However, it is considered that there could be potential to reduce the site’s area
significantly, by more than about half, so that the site boundaries/shape of the
site would allow for a road frontage development. It is considered that the site
could be reduced to quite a small site, maybe less than the 0.3 ha threshold as
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
27
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
an ‘exceptions site’, - a small scale affordable housing development. If the
significantly reduced site was to be considered under the exceptions site policy
in the adopted Core Strategy, then the following issues will also need to be
addressed: any impact on the setting of the listed Redmayne Hall, any risk of
flooding from the small stream within the field and protection of the mature
tree, the crown spread of which overhangs a bit of the site and its rooting area
which is partly within the site boundary.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 10 key species on the site.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
Infrastructure responses received are set out in Appendix 1A. Details of
evidence relating to the site are given in Appendix 2 of this fact file.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
28
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
RN2
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
1.11 / 0.99
30
(30dph)
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
On balance, taking into consideration the above factors, it is considered
that the site as put forward for consideration should not be taken forward
as a proposed allocation. The site is not proposed for allocation for any
development / use.
Greenfield
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This site has not been identified as having potential for housing development.
The site was not included in the Employment and Housing Land Search Study
or its addendum or the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA). However, it has been put forward for consideration during an earlier
round of consultation. Consultation feedback reveals a large level of
opposition to development in this location, citing reasons such as the negative
impact of visual appearance of the village, the loss of agricultural land and the
impact on the character of an old part of Great Urswick.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well with regard to shops,
primary school facilities, transport and culture/leisure indicators. However, the
site performs less well with regard to secondary school facilities.
Site Visit:
This site is a relatively flat field located to the north of Kirk Flatt Field and the
Kirk Flatt Housing area in Great Urswick. The boundaries to the site are
formed primarily by limestone walls and hedgerows. One or two mature trees
on land out with the site overhang the site. To the north and west the site is
bounded by a field and agricultural land respectively. A public right of
way/footpath (unmade track) is directly adjacent to the site to the north. To the
east, are residential properties, their curtilages and the General Burgoyne
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
29
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
Public House and it’s associated car park.
In sustainable and locational terms this site is considered preferable to all the
other alternative sites in Great Urswick that have been put forward for
consideration. In sustainable terms the site is within easy walking distance of
the bus stop on Church Road, next to The Coot, the primary school, church,
and recreation facilities on Church Road. In addition, the site would not
compromise the proposed new Green Gap for Little and Great Urswick.
The site has a good juxtaposition with the existing built development, and
could, if developed, be considered as an extension to the settlement. It is not
considered that the site would have a negative impact on the visual
appearance of the village, or it’s impact on the ‘old character of Great Urswick’,
as put forward during a previous round of public consultation. Indeed, the site
effectively sits behind existing development and cannot be seen easily from
Church Road. Great Urswick is not a designated Conservation Area
Development of this site (land behind north side of Kirk Flatt) is preferred by
Urswick Parish Council (e mail and attachment 17 03 09).
There is however an issue with this site concerning vehicular access to this
site. There is no existing access on to/ off Church Road except for agricultural
access to the field via an unmade track immediately to the north. This track is
also a public right of way and is quite a narrow access where it passes
between houses at the junction with Church Road.
One other possibility that was considered was to possibly extend the site to
include the General Burgoyne Public House Car Park, so as to allow access,
and to compensate by providing car parking for the public House within part of
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
30
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
any allocated site. However, this option is not possible. The owners of the
General Burgoyne Public House have confirmed in writing that they do not
want to lose any of their existing car park to allow access to the site, nor,
would they want to exchange the car park land for another area for car parking
- within the site put forward. Effectively, this means that vehicles cannot
access the site. In addition, Cumbria County Council Highways have advised
that for a residential development, vehicular access on to Church Road next to
the Public House would be unacceptable, due to poor visibility/sight lines.
Without acceptable vehicular access, this site is not deliverable/viable.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 16 key species on the site,
including the otter.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues:
Cumbria County Council Highways have advised that for a residential
development, vehicular access on to Church Road next to the Public House
would be unacceptable, due to poor visibility/sight lines. Without acceptable
vehicular access, this site is not deliverable/viable
Consultation Feedback
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
31
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E.
It is therefore considered that the site is not put forward as a proposed
allocation. The site is not proposed for allocation for any development /
use.
RN21
1.27 / 1.14
34
(30 dph)
Greenfield
Local Plan / Evidence Base
The site has not been suggested as a potential site in the Employment and
Housing Land Search Study, its addendum or the Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The site has been put forward for
consideration by a local resident during an earlier round of consultation. Whilst
there was not outright support for the scheme, there was a number of
representations stating that development in this location would not impinge of
the character of the village and would retain access to amenities, and was of
lower quality than Kirk Flatts.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well with regard to
transport and culture/leisure indicators, but only moderately well for shop,
primary school and health services indicators.
Site Visit:
This site is a green field site located directly adjacent to Stone Dyke Lane to
the north of Great Urswick and comprises two fields including a horse shelter
in open countryside. There are also electricity / BT poles within the field.
Hedges (hawthorn) and walls form the site boundaries, plus post and wire and
wooden fencing. Existing access to the field is via a field gate on the western
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
32
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
site boundary with Stone Dyke Lane. The site is quite elevated and is gently
sloping. Alternative site RN88 directly adjoins the site to the east. The land on
this hillside slopes down to the east toward site RN88 and Horse Close Lane.
The site is mostly bounded by undeveloped open countryside, although to the
Southwest is housing; low density development within woodland (Craglands)
and Causey Wood House and farm steading.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 16 key species on the site,
including the otter.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues
See Appendix 1A.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
Concerning infrastructure consultation responses, United Utilities (e mail 29 07
10) responded that there should be foul flows only into the sewer network and
separate systems of drainage are required; sustainable drainage systems
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
33
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
(SUDS). Surface water management plans to be formulated and presented to
United Utilities. The consultation response from Natural England is detailed in
Appendix 1A of this fact file.
On balance, taking into consideration the above factors, it is considered
that the site should not be taken forward as a proposed allocation. The
site is not proposed for any development / use.
RN216
(relates in
part to
proposed
allocation
M10M &
RN216Mmod)
This site
comprises
sites M10
(M10M)
and part of
R249.
1.69/1.52
45 (30
dph)
Primarily
green field
(fields and
agricultural
steading)
and farm
house
(brown
field)
Local Plan / Evidence Base
Part of site RN216 comprises emerging option site RN216M.
Part of site RN216 also comprises sites M10 (M10M – emerging option site –
consulted on in the spring of 2011) and part of site R249.
Part of site RN216 (Mid Town Farm) was identified as being potentially
suitable for housing in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment or
SHLAA (ref site 425, Category 2).
Site RN216 within/part of Site 1 (Little Urswick) in the Employment and
Housing Land Study Addendum (Category 3 site). Category 3 site considered
to have both medium sustainability and deliverability. The EHLSS Study
addendum concluded that development would have low localised landscape /
visual impact. The addendum study suggested a much larger potential
residential site (– Site 1 – Little Urswick refers) than site RN216/RN216M,
extending eastwards towards Braithwaite Lane.
Note that this site, RN216, was submitted after the 2008 / 2009 Allocations of
Land Discussion Paper informal consultation. Previous consultation comments
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
34
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
summarized in Appendix 3 of this fact file relate to the larger site R249, of
which RN216 forms a part.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well with regard to
transport, culture/leisure and coalescence indicators, and moderately well in
relation to access to shops, primary school facilities, open space provision and
health services.
Site R216, (smaller site of RN216) was assessed for its sustainability scoring.
The site was one of the sites which scored best overall in the Sustainability
Appraisal (SA) Scoring – see summary towards the end of this fact file. – See
Appendix 3.
Site Visit: The site (RN216) was put forward for consideration for residential
use in May 2010.Technically the site is nearly all green field (farm steading
and agricultural fields) except for the farm house itself. However, about two
thirds of the site (the farm steading foot print) is within the Local Plan’s Little
Urswick development boundary (Site M10/M10M).
The part of site RN216 which comprises the farm steading (Site M10/M10M)
includes both traditional and more modern agricultural buildings. There is also
a traditional pre 20th century farmhouse. The site slopes slightly down from
Church Road then flattens out nearer the more modern farm buildings and to
the fields beyond.
Site RN216 is bounded to the west by the village green on the other side of
Church Road. Surrounding the site there is existing housing at the Park Garth
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
35
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
and Low House Garden developments. Some of the Park Garth development
looks as though it still has to be completed (Aug. 2010), near the site entrance.
A barn conversion next to site the site, on the Church Road frontage, is in
separate ownership. This residential conversion is outwith the site. Green
undeveloped land (agricultural fields) is to the east, towards Braithwaite Lane/
Gleaston Beck.
As for site boundaries, no clear boundary exists on the ground for the
proposed eastern site boundary (within the fields). The eastern boundary
proposed would cut across the west/east public footpath to Braithwaite Lane
and Gleaston Beck. This public footpath bisects the site. There is also another
second footpath which bisects the site north to south.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 10 key species on the site.
Constraints - Cumbria Wildlife Trust, November 2010, have advised that
development is feasible, but there is possible waders interest/ mitigation will
probably be required.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1. The Environment Agency (Nov.
2010) have advised that the site is within Flood Zone 1and that surface water
management needs to be carefully considered.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
36
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
Commentary
Highways Issues
Existing access to the site is via a field gate, off the road on the site’s southern/
south western boundary. Cumbria County Council, Highways, (Nov. 2010)
have advised that It would be preferable for access to come off the road to the
south west of the site (via the existing Park Garth housing development) to
serve both M10M and RN216M. Vehicle access to the site should be via Park
Garth.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
United Utilities (July 2010) have advised that foul flows only are to be
connected into the sewer network; separate systems of drainage required.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) type drainage systems, surface water
management plans to be formulated and presented to United Utilities. United
Utilities would need to undertake flow and load investigations at works being
impacted on by significant housing or new housing discharging to a small rural
works (United Utilities, e mail 3rd Nov 2010).
Natural England, 26 November 2010, commented that green spaces should be
conserved and enhanced wherever possible. If exceptionally, any small areas
are developed, are to be partly developed, we would wish to see
compensatory provision of green space and enhancement of spaces
elsewhere. Natural England’s consultation response is given in Appendix 1 A
and B of this fact file.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
37
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
Commentary
The Council’s Conservation Officer has advised with regard to heritage and
building retention. Appendix 1E refers.
Re Archaeology, the County Council advises mitigation re on site recording.
Appendix 1E refers.
Please see Appendix 1E for other infrastructure consultation responses
received in the summer of 2011 .For earlier 2010 / 2011 responses see
Appendix 1A.
There is support from the landowner for site RN216 / RN216M. Concerns /
objections relate to the need for housing development, the scale of
development (scale has been reduced ) indicative yield for sites RN216M /
M10M – 27 units .Other concerns relate to social infrastructure, traffic
congestion, access, safety and surface water.
Density Assumption
The density assumptions are - Gross / net ratio 75%. Density 25 dwellings per
hectare. The indicative yield is 27 units in phase 2 of the 15 year plan period.
On balance, taking the above into consideration, part of site RN216 is
put forward as a proposed allocation for residential development (note
that the proposed allocation site includes site M10M).
The proposed residential allocation site reference is M10M / RN216M Mod. Please see Map 14 - Great / Little Urswick.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
38
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
RN216M
(relates to
proposed
allocation
M10M &
RN216Mmod)
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
0.9 / 0.81
Possible
Yield
24 (30
dph)
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
For site commentary please refer to RN216 above (virtually the same site as
RN216M - Mod).
Site RN216M is proposed as an allocation for residential development
(note that the proposed allocation site ref. M10M/ RN216M – Mod also
includes site M10M and a small bit of site R249 to allow for vehicular
access / highway safety (visibility splays).
The proposed residential allocation site reference is M10M / RN216M Mod. Please see Map 14 - Great / Little Urswick.
RN29
0.96 / 0.86
26
(30 dph)
Mix of
green and
brown
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This was a newly proposed site, suggested during the earlier 2008 / 2009
Allocations of Land Discussion Paper consultation However, it was not
identified in the Employment and Housing Land Search study (EHLSS) and its
addendum, or the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) as
having residential development potential. It would constitute a significant
extension into the open countryside to the west of Little Urswick. The EHLSS
states “…there are Limestone Pavement Orders on the hills to the west of the
village, with a local landscape character of hawthorn shrubs and limestone
outcrops. In order to conserve this character, development has been restricted
to lower level areas directly adjacent to the main road”.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well with regard to
transport, culture/leisure and coalescence indicators; and moderately well in
relation to a range of facilities including shops, access to primary school and
health services. The site performs less well in relation to the secondary school
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
39
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
and landscape character indicators. There are no areas indicating particularly
poor performance.
Site Visit - This site has been put forward (January 2009) for consideration for
residential use as either starter homes or affordable units.
This is a mixed brown field / green field site partly on an elevated site / hillside
on the western edge of Little Urswick. On the field part of the site, there are
one or two sheds / stables. Boundaries in the main consist of limestone walls /
hedgerows, including a few trees. The site apart from the undeveloped field
includes a lower existing developed part of the site which includes domestic
garages, a turning/parking area and existing housing; two semi detached
traditional cottages fronting onto Church Road (main road through Little
Urswick) and their curtilages. Directly adjacent to part of the site to the north, is
a link/terrace of housing called ‘Beechfield’. Part of the access road to the
housing on ‘Beechfield’ is included in site RN29.
The most westerly part of the site, the field, is quite elevated above the village
and is beyond the existing South Lakeland Local Plan development boundary.
This part of the site is clearly in open countryside, there is a protected
limestone pavement nearby. There are limestone outcrops on the site.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 10 key species on the site.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
40
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
Commentary
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues
See Appendix 1A. No Highway comments from Cumbria County Council at the
emerging site option stage consultation.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
Infrastructure responses received are set out in Appendix 1A. Details of
evidence relating to the site are given in Appendix 2 of this fact file.
On balance, taking into consideration the above factors, it is considered
that the site should not be taken forward as a proposed allocation for
residential development or for any other use.
RN48
N/a
N/a
Green field
Forms part of R671 (see commentary and tables relating to site R671).
On balance, taking into consideration the above factors, it is considered
that the site should not be taken forward as a proposed allocation for
residential development or for any other use.
RN49
(includes
part of
0.86 / 0.78
23
(30 dph)
Green field
Site RN49 overlaps with part of site RN249 and part of ON3 (ON3 put forward
for consideration as a green gap by the Parish Council).
Revised
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
41
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
R249 and
part of
ON3)
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
size
0.57 / 0.51
Possible
Yield
15
(30 dph)
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This is a newly proposed site, suggested during the earlier 2008 / 2009
Allocations of Land Discussion paper consultation, as a possible location for
an affordable housing scheme by a member of the public.
Site RN49 was not identified in the Employment and Housing Land Search
study (EHLSS) and its addendum, or the Strategic Housing Land Availability
Assessment (SHLAA) as having residential development potential.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well in relation to primary
school facilities, transport and culture/leisure indicators; but does not perform
positively in relation to landscape character and secondary school facilities.
Site Visit:
This is a green field site which is relatively flat and is located at the north
eastern end of Little Urswick. The site can be seen from and is directly
adjacent to Church Road (south west of the recreation hall). Overhead wires /
poles cross the site. The site is adjacent to but outwith the South Lakeland
development boundary for Little Urswick. In effect the site is in open
countryside. It is considered that the shape and extent of the site along Church
road does not relate well to the existing built form of the northeastern end of
Little Urswick.
The main site boundaries are formed by Church Road which has a pavement
along the majority of the northern boundary. The public footpath, Braithwaite
Lane, (hedges / walls) bounds the site to the east.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
42
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
A key concern of the Parish Council is the coalescence of Great and Little
Urswick. The site is located on the valley bottom. It is considered that this site,
if developed, would extend Little Urswick towards Great Urswick, increasing
the risk of coalescence. There are open views (except for hedges) to the north
and south into and out of the site. The site falls directly adjacent to / just south
of the ‘North Little Urswick Landscape Character Area’ in the Employment and
Housing Land Search Study addendum report. Appendix 1 - Land Search
Surveys, states, “a key concern for development around Little Urswick is the
desire to prevent coalescence with Great Urswick. As the villages are located
a field’s width apart, it has been considered inappropriate for any development
to occur to the north”. The site would constitute a significant extension into the
open countryside to the north east, reducing the physical separation between
Little Urswick and Great Urswick.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 10 key species on the site.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues
See Appendix 1. No consultation response from Cumbria County Highways
following the emerging site option consultation, spring 2011.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
43
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
On balance, taking into consideration the above factors, it is considered
that the site not be proposed for allocation for development for
residential use or any other use...
RN88
1.96 / 1.76
53
(30 dph)
Greenfield
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This site, to the north of Great Urswick, has not been identified as having
potential for housing development in the Employment and Housing Land
Search Study and its addendum. However, it has been put forward for
consideration by local residents during an earlier round of consultation. Whilst
there was not outright support for the scheme, there was a number of
representations stating that development in this location would not impinge of
the character of the village and would retain access to amenities and was of
lower quality that Kirk Flatts. In contrast, some people did not support the site
as it protrudes into open countryside, has poor access bounded by narrow
lanes, would ruin the entrance to the village and overload the drainage system.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well with regard to shop,
transport and culture/leisure indicators, moderately in relation to access to
primary school and health service facilities, but less well regarding secondary
school facilities and landscape character indicators.
Site Visit:
This is a wholly green field site in agricultural use. The site is in open
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
44
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
Commentary
or
Greenfield
countryside outwith the Local Plan development boundary for Great Urswick. It
is considered that the site’s location, size and shape does not relate well to the
existing built form/development boundary. The existing wooded area of
Cragland’s Park/Bankfield, that includes low density housing, effectively
screens this existing housing, and also acts as a visual buffer/stop to
development. The whole sense of place/character of the northern part of Great
Urswick is a sense of enclosure – due to the topography and the wooded
area/trees at the head of the valley. Development of R88 a large open site
would contradict this. The site does not benefit from existing screening/tree
planting.
The site slopes from its eastern boundary with Horse Close Lane up to the
west and its boundary with alternative site RN21. The slope of the site
generally is quite gentle. The site is accessed currently from a field gate on the
corner of Horse Close Lane and Stone Dyke Lane. There are no pavements
on either lane. There is a small Utilities unit? in the fields south east corner.
To the immediate west is a field (with stable) – alternative site R21. Beyond
this are one or two houses and a farm steading. To the south is a low density
area of houses set amidst woodland (Craglands), with one or two houses
facing onto Stone Dyke lane itself. Gordon Terrace is to the south east of the
site.
The site can be seen in mid distance views from the west, stood at the top of
Stone Dyke Lane looking downhill across the site towards the east. The site is
also quite visually prominent from Horse Close Lane when approaching Great
Urswick down hill from High Carley Cross roads. There is a rolling hill (quite
steep) immediately to the east beyond site across Horse Cross Lane which
screens the site from the east.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
45
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
Commentary
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 17 key species on the site,
including otters and bats.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
The Environment Agency has had reports of drainage problems in this area.
Possible combination of highways drainage, high tarn levels and springs
flowing during wet weather (Environment Agency, August 2010).
Highways Issues
Cumbria County Council Highways Authority states that development of this
site is feasible; there is spare capacity for the whole site and minor
infrastructure / service constraints. States that a Transport Statement would be
required, and that some infrastructure improvement would be necessary to
ensure adequate connectivity to Great Urswick.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
Density Assumption
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
46
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Gross /
Net Area
(hectares)
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for housing
Brownfield
or
Greenfield
Commentary
On balance, taking into consideration the above factors it is considered
that the site should not be taken forward as a proposed allocation for any
use / development. The site is outwith the existing local plan settlement
boundary and is locally visually prominent on a sloping hillside.
Sites considered for employment
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for employment
Brown or
Commentary
Green
No sites put forward for consideration solely for employment use.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
47
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
M10M
0.79 /
(proposed .071
allocation,
also
relates to
RN216Mmod)
(comprises
M10)
Possible
Yield
14
(SHLAA)
Brown or
Green
Greenfield
(agricultural
buildings)
Commentary
See also other site put forward which includes this site – RN216 and part of
R249. M10M is also within site RN216.
Local Plan / Evidence Base
The site identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA) as a potential housing site. SHLAA site ref. 425.
Site M10/M10M was not put forward as a potential residential site in the
Employment and Housing Land Search Study (EHLSS) Addendum as the farm
steading (Mid Town Farm) is within the local plan development boundary for
Little Urswick. The brief/remit for the EHLSS looked for potential sites out with
the existing development boundaries.
Urswick Parish Council in their early consultation response (informal
consultation 2008 / 2009 Allocations of Land Discussion Paper) supports the
redevelopment of this site (Mid Town Farm) for residential use rather than
mixed use, unless this is for the use of local residents for workspace or rural
diversification of local businesses. Housing must be affordable. (Urswick
Parish Council Consultation response, e mail 17 03 09)
The Landowner of M10 / M10M supports residential development, incorporating
an element of affordable housing rather than a mixed residential/employment
use.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well in relation to
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
48
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
greenfield/brownfield, built environment, transport, culture/leisure and
coalescence indicators. The site performs moderately well across a range of
facilities including access to a primary school, shop and health services, but
less well with regard to secondary school facilities.
Site Visit: Site M10/ M10M has been put forward for consideration for mixed
use – residential and employment. Technically a greenfield site (farmsteading
footprint / use), but the site is mostly wholly within the existing development
boundary. As such it would be appropriate for development as it relates well to
the existing built form. A small part of the site is green field. The site slopes
gently/slightly down from Church Road, then flattens out nearer the more
modern farm buildings and to the fields beyond.
Within the site is a farmhouse and a mix of other farm buildings, some
traditional stone and slate, some modern. Within the Farm steading, several of
the existing buildings occupy a road frontage with Church Road. This portion of
site M10 / M10M lies within the existing settlement boundary.
There is existing housing to the north and south e.g. Low House Gardens and
Park Garth. Given the surrounding land uses, it is considered that residential
use of this site would be most appropriate/ compatible rather than mixed
employment / residential use.
In terms of constraints, two public footpaths cross the site west to east and
north to south.
Site M10 / M10M was one of the sites which scored best overall in the
Sustainability Assessment (SA) Scoring – see SA summary towards the end of
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
49
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
this fact file.
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
Cumbria Wildlife Trust states that opportunities for biodiversity mitigation and
enhancement should be taken. Hedgerows at the site should be retained.
Observes that there may be bats and breeding birds using existing buildings for
roosting.
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 10 key species on the site.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Key concerns are; ground water entering the system, need for a diversion of
flows and keep to foul only. Require significant Improvement to Foul / surface
water Drainage. No surface water to foul sewer and public sewer crosses – no
build over (United Utilities).
Highways Issues
There is an issue with the site concerning using the existing vehicular access
off Church Road. Visibility is restricted particularly when turning out of Mid
Town Farm (off Church Road). As regards any residential development, the
Highways Agency, Cumbria County Council (Nov. 2010), have advised that It
would be preferable for vehicular access to come off the road to the south west
of site RN216M (via the existing Park Garth development) to serve both
residential emerging site option sites M10M and RN216M. Vehicle access to
the sites should be via Park Garth (Cumbria County Council Highways). The
land owner’s planning agent has confirmed that the owner of site M10M /
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
50
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
RN216M also owns the land / plots access to Park Garth development.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
On balance, taking the above into consideration, site M10M is put forward
as a proposed allocation for residential development / redevelopment
(Note that the proposed allocation also includes part of Site RN216M.
(Allocation reference M10M / RN216M - Mod), and a small bit of site R249
to allow for vehicular access / highway safety (visibility splays).
M10M
(proposed
allocation,
also
relates to
RN216Mmod)
0.75 /
0.67
Modified site M10M – omits a barn conversion in site M10’s south west
corner).
Please see above site commentary.
On balance, taking the above into consideration, site M10M is put forward
as a proposed allocation for residential development / redevelopment
(Note that the proposed allocation also includes part of Site RN216M.
(Allocation reference M10M / RN216M - Mod), and a small bit of site R249
to allow for vehicular access / highway safety (visibility splays).
Modified site M10M – omits a barn conversion in site M10’s south west
corner).
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
51
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
MN3
Site
excludes
RN1 but
includes
Bankfield
Hall.
Includes
sites MN7,
MN8, and
RN138 all part of
larger site
MN3
5.85 /
4.39
Possible
Yield
117 (30
dph)
reduced
due to
duplication
with
RN138
Brown or
Green
Mix of
Greenfield/
brownfield
(majority of
site not
developed)
Commentary
Site MN3 - Site excludes RN1 but includes Bankfield Hall.
Includes sites MN7, MN8, and RN138 - all part of larger site MN3
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This site includes a large area of woodland to the north west of Great Urswick.
No development potential was identified in this location in either the Strategic
Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), or the Employment and
Housing Land Search Study (EHLSS). The following text is taken from
Appendix 5 of the Employment and Housing Land Search Study. “To the west
of the village the topography gently rises to naturally enclose the village and
limits the potential for expansion beyond the existing development boundary.
Existing deciduous woodland screens the western side of the village with
undulating fields enclosed by stone walls and including rocky outcrops and
single mature trees forming an attractive landscape visible in views from the
south “.
As a newly proposed site, (submitted for consideration post the 2008 / 2009
Allocations of Land Discussion Paper Informal Consultation), there is little
evidence/very few comments and none to say objection. Cross reference with
sites MN8/RN138 and MN7.
This site/ area was also put forward by Urswick Parish Council (comments 7th
March 2009) to be considered for inclusion within the Great Urswick
development boundary (as a potential settlement boundary change /
modification). This is considered later on within this fact file under the heading
‘Defining boundaries / areas - and sub heading - Development limits/boundary’.
This site/ area was also put forward by Urswick Parish Council (comments 7th
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
52
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
March 2009) to be considered for inclusion within the Great Urswick
development boundary (as a potential settlement boundary change /
modification). This is considered later on within this fact file under the heading
‘Defining boundaries / areas - and sub heading - Development limits/boundary’
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well with regard to transport
and culture/leisure indicators, moderately well across a range of community
facilities, except access to a secondary school, but performs less well in
relation to landscape character and built environment. The site performs
moderately well in relation to the greenfield/brownfield indicator.
Site Visit:
This is a relatively large area, comprising a mix of developed and undeveloped
areas including existing housing and their curtilages together with undeveloped
wooded areas. The area includes the existing housing within the wooded areas,
Cragland’s, as well as existing housing on Church Road / Gordon Terrace. The
locally important building, Bankfield Hall, is also within the site. Throughout the
site are limestone outcrops, which in places, result in steep changes in site
levels. Vehicular access to the site is via the entrance to ‘Cragland’s’ off Stone
Dyke Lane. There is a closed gated access to part of the site MN3 off Church
Road (via the BankEnd Farm conversions/ development) and via site MN7.
The site is very well wooded. There is an existing woodland tree preservation
order (TPO) on part of the site and other group TPO’s within the curtilage of
Bankfield Hall itself.
Consultation responses received from infrastructure providers and other
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
53
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
consultees are set out in Appendix 1A and B of this fact file; including from
United Utilities, Cumbria County Council and Natural England.
Part of site MN3 (RN138) is currently part of a relatively large proposed leisure
development planning application / proposal. Note that it is understood that the
proposal has now got planning approval subject to a legal Section 106
agreement being finalized (February 2012). South Lakeland District Council,
(ref SL/2010/0182). The proposals for Bankfield Hall (the red line on the
planning application) includes part of MN3. There have been a significant
number of objections to the leisure proposal from local residents.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 17 key species on the site,
including otters and bats.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues
Please see Appendix 1A.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
54
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
On balance, taking the above into consideration, it is considered that the
site should not be put forward as a proposed allocation for potential
mixed-use allocation or for any other use; the site includes existing
housing, protected tree groups and a woodland area TPO. The area also
has changes in site levels with limestone outcrops.
MN7
0 (part of
MN3)
Green field
(part of
wood, with
crags,
clearing
and access
track)
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This site has not been identified as having potential for housing development in
either the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) or the
Employment and Housing Land Search Study and its addendum (EHLSS).
This site has been proposed by the site’s landowner(s), only if site MN8 is
developed. In a previous informal public consultation (Allocations of Land
Discussion Paper - 2008 / 2009), a member of the public proposed and
supported site MN7 in conjunction with site MN8, as it will allow for a more
spacious form of development protecting trees with Tree Preservation Orders
(TPOs).
The site is within a small part of site MN3. Urswick Parish Council advised that
they would like the site to be considered for inclusion within the development
boundary of Great Urswick/ boundary modification. This is considered later on
within this fact file under the heading ‘Defining boundaries / areas - and sub
heading - Development limits/boundary ’.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well in relation to shop,
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
55
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
transport, culture/leisure and coalescence indicators. The site performs
moderately well in respect of the greenfield/brownfield indicator and across a
range of community facilities including village hall, primary school and health
services. The site performs less well with regard to secondary school and built
environment indicators.
Site Visit:
This is a green field site, in that it is undeveloped and comprises a track/gravel
area, surrounded by limestone crag sides/faces. Apart from on the steep parts
of the limestone outcrops, the area is almost wholly covered in trees. Although
it is noted that there appears to have already been some tree felling in / near
this area. Changes in ground levels occur within the woodland next to Cragland
Park. To the north of Bankfield Hall, the site is adjacent to other existing
detached low density housing set within the woods. Access to site MN7 is via
the Bank End Farm conversions / development, off Church Road.
The Landowner supports site MN7 in conjunction with the potential
development of site MN8, as it will allow for a more spacious form of
development protecting trees with Tree Preservation Orders (TPO’s) on them.
Consultation responses received from infrastructure providers and other
consultees are set out in Appendix 1A and B of this fact file, including from
United Utilities and Natural England.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
56
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 17 key species on the site,
including otters.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
Highways Issues
See Appendix 1A.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
On balance, taking the above into consideration, it is considered that site
MN7 should not be put forward as a proposed allocation for potential
mixed-use allocation or for any other use; the site is outwith the existing
local plan development boundary for Great Urswick. In addition, the site
includes many trees and has steep changes in site levels with limestone
outcrops. Further development of this site could lead to further tree
felling. The wooded area (MN3) as a whole is quite elevated and a local
feature in the landscape to the north west of Great Urswick.
MN8
(Same
area as
RN138)
0 (same
Green field
as RN138)
Site MN8 is the same site as site RN138.
For site visit commentary, please see site RN138.
Local Plan / Evidence Base
This site has not been identified as having potential for housing development in
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
57
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
either the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) or the
Employment and Housing Land Search Study and its addendum (EHLSS).
However, it has been put forward for consideration during an earlier round of
consultation.
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well with regard to shop,
transport, culture/leisure and coalescence indicators; moderately in respect of a
range of community facilities including access to a primary school, village hall
and health services; but less well with regard to secondary school and built
environment indicators.
Site Visit
For site visit commentary, please see site RN138.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
The Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base records 16 key species on the site,
including otters.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1.
The Environment Agency has had reports of drainage problems in this area.
Possible combination of highways drainage, high tarn levels and springs
flowing during wet weather (Environment Agency, August 2010).
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
58
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Sites considered for mixed use
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Brown or
Green
Commentary
Highways Issues
Cumbria County Council Highways Authority states that development is
feasible and that there is spare capacity for the whole of the site.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
It is proposed that site MN8 not be allocated for mixed residential /
employment use or for any other use.
Reasonable alternatives – sites considered for other uses (open space, gypsies and travellers housing, tourism / cultural
facilities, transport facilities, renewable energy facilities, water facilities and community facilities.
Site Ref:
ON3 (also
considered
as part of
new green
gap). Note
that part of
Area
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for other uses
Brown or
Green
Green field
Site ON3 = RN49 = R249 part
Commentary
Note that part of ON3 forms part of the proposed leisure allocation site ON57#.
This site has been put forward for consideration as a new green gap (or
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
59
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
ON3 forms
part of the
proposed
allocation
site
ON57#.
Area
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for other uses
Brown or
Commentary
Green
forming part of a new green gap). Within ‘Urswick’, the level of social and
recreational activity is high, though there is concern within the parish of the low
level of facilities for the young (taken from the Parish Plan).
Urswick Parish Council proposed and supports the use of this site, ON3,
located to the side of the Recreation Hall, where a multi-use games and
recreation area could be built for the young people of the village. Any use
should be recreation only or in association with Urswick Recreation Hall.
(UPC Consultation response, e mail 17 03 09)
Urswick Parish Council wishes to identify a piece of land that could be used as
allotments, as the Parish Council has been approached by at least 10 people
requesting allotment space. They have suggested that a site could possibly be
behind the Recreation Hall or some other area. (UPC Consultation response,
e. mail 17 03 09)
Local Plan / Evidence Base
The site is not within the Local Plan development boundary for Great or Little
Urswick. The site is not identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability
Assessment or the Employment and Housing Land Search Study (EHLSS).
Sustainability Appraisal
Also see Appendix 3. The site performs particularly well with regard to shop,
primary school, transport and culture/leisure indicators, but less well with
regard to secondary school, landscape character and coalescence indicators.
Site Visit:
Notwithstanding the Recreation Hall, this site is a green field site (part of a
field) put forward by the Parish Council for consideration as potential open
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
60
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for other uses
Brown or
Commentary
Green
space / new green gap. East of the recreation hall generally there is a slight
slope. Eastwards, down towards Gleaston Beck, there is also a slight
undulation in the western part of the site behind the Recreation Hall .The
Primary School bounds the site to the north. Agricultural land bounds ON3 to
the south and east. There is no clear eastern site boundary on the ground.
Generally boundaries are formed by hedges and limestone walls. The site
includes part of 2 public footpaths, part of Braithwaite Lane and part of
footpath to Holme Bank. Overhead wires cross the southern / western part of
the site.
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
Refer to Appendix 1A etc.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zones 1(southern part of site) and 2
(northern part of site).
Highways Issues:
Refer to Appendix 1A.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
61
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for other uses
Brown or
Green
Density Assumption
Not applicable.
Commentary
Propose allocating part of ON3 ( the western half of the relatively narrow
field, that is located in-between the Primary School and the Recreation
Hall) for use as multi-games area and also allotments, recreation area
(the proposed allocation area also to be included in new proposed green
gap, of which this site will form a part). The allocation (ref. ON57#) is
identified to enable Urswick Parish Council to develop these community
leisure facilities.
The area proposed for allocation for a multi use games area / recreation
area/allotments is shown on the Proposed Allocation Map 14 - for Great
and Little Urswick. The allocation site reference is ON57#.
ON2
<0.3ha
Existing playground and amenity green space not protected as important open
space with in the existing Local Plan.
This site is assessed in the ‘Land to be safeguarded - open space, sport and
recreation’ section of this fact file.
ON40
Non-starter in terms of development potential – This site has been proposed
by Urswick Parish Council for consideration as important open space
designation / protection. The site and its assessment, is considered in the
Land to be safeguarded - open space, sport and recreation section of this fact
file.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
62
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for other uses
Brown or
Green
ON15
Commentary
This site has been put forward for consideration by Urswick Parish Council for
protection as important open space. For an assessment of this proposal,
please see the ‘Land to be Safeguarded - ‘open space, sport and recreation’
section of this fact file.
In addition this site has also been proposed by Urswick Parish Council to be
considered for removal from being within the development boundary to
prevent people building in their back gardens. No one has proposed this exact
site for development, except for site R219 which is considered separately (non
starter as under the 0.3ha site size threshold). For an assessment of the
proposal for a development boundary change, please refer to the section of
this fact file called ‘Defining boundaries/areas – development limits/boundary’.
ON57# 1.25 ha proposed
gross
community
leisure
allocation
(also
considered
as part of
the
proposed
green gapPart of site
ON3)
n/a
All green
field
ON57# is part of site ON3.
Availability verbally confirmed from the site / field’s owner (the same site
owner as M10M / RN216M mod). Repeated requests for written confirmation –
still awaited
Urswick Parish Council proposed and supports the use of this site, (ON3 –
ON57# is part of site ON3), located to the side of the Recreation Hall, where a
multi-use games and recreation area could be built for the young people of the
village. Any use should be recreation only or in association with Urswick
Recreation Hall. (UPC Consultation response, e mail 17 03 09)
Urswick Parish Council wishes to identify a piece of land that could be used as
allotments, as the Parish Council has been approached by at least 10 people
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
63
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for other uses
Brown or
Commentary
Green
requesting allotment space. They have suggested that a site could possibly be
behind the Recreation Hall or some other area. (UPC Consultation response,
e. mail 17 03 09)
Local Plan / Evidence Base
The site is not within the Local Plan development boundary for Great or Little
Urswick. The site is not identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability
Assessment or the Employment and Housing Land Search Study (EHLSS).
Sustainability Appraisal
See Appendix 3 – Note that Site ON57# is also part of site ON3 – assessed in
the Sustainability Appraisal. The Sustainability appraisal for ON3 / ON57#
scores well against the indicator for primary schools, and transport amber –
less well for landscape character and red – poorly as within a proposed green
gap.
Site Visit
Please refer to the site visit commentary for the whole of site ON3, see above
(a larger area than what is proposed with site (allocation reference - ON57#).
Landscape Issues
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as
belonging to the landscape character type 3a – Open Farmland & Pavements
Biodiversity/Geodiversity
Refer to Appendix 1A etc.
Flooding Issues
The site is located within Flood Risk Zones 1 (southern part of site) and 2
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
64
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site Ref:
Area
Possible
Yield
Sites considered for other uses
Brown or
Green
(northern part of site).
Commentary
Highways Issues:
Refer to Appendix 1A.
Consultation Feedback
We have taken into account consultation feedback in the consultation
responses Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D & 1E
It is proposed that site ON57# be allocated for Leisure use – proposed
allocation for multi Use Games Area (MUGA), recreation area and
allotments identified to enable Urswick Parish Council to develop these
facilities. The land is not proposed to be allocated for any other use.
The Council’s Core Strategy Policy re Green Gaps will apply as the site
ON57# is within the new proposed green gap.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
65
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Proposed Allocation
Reference:
Gross / Net Site
Area (hectares):
Use:
Indicative
Development
Potential:
Site Availability
Justification /
issues to be
addressed
Proposed Allocation
M10M / RN216M - Mod
1.46 / 1.1
Residential
27 dwellings (25 dph)
Availability confirmed from the owner’s planning agent in writing.
Justification:
• Development on a partly brown field site (M10M) / partly green field (RN216M). Site M10M/RN216M would naturally
extend the existing development boundary.
• The site (M10M/RN216M) is not within the proposed new green gap.
• The site (RN216M part) forms a very small part of a much larger area identified as having potential for residential
development in the Employment and Housing Land Search Study Addendum. The larger site (Site 1 Little Urswick) in
the study was identified as a category 3 site. Category 3 sites scoring medium re sustainability and medium re.
Deliverability. Even the much larger site in the study was considered in landscape terms to have a low localized
landscape / visual impact.
Foul drains / waste water:
• Foul flows only into the sewer network, separate system of drainage required, Sustainable Drainage Systems
(SUDS) required. Surface water management plans to be formulated and presented to United Utilities (United
Utilities, e mail 29 07 10)
• Groundwater entering the system, need for a diversion of flows and keep to foul only. (United Utilities 4th Nov. 2010)
Surface Water:
• Surface water management needs to be carefully considered (Environment Agency, November 2010)
Biodiversity / Nature Conservation Interest:
• Development feasible. Possible Biodiversity interest – waders (birds) – (Cumbria Wildlife Trust, Nov 2010)
• Green spaces should be conserved and enhanced wherever possible. If exceptionally, any small areas are
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
66
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Reference:
Mitigation
Measures
Proposed Allocation
M10M / RN216M - Mod
developed, are to be partly developed, we would wish to see compensatory provision of green space and
enhancement of spaces elsewhere. (Natural England, 26 November 2010)
• Where development is proposed, the proposals should of course take full advantage of opportunities to provide new
habitat and accessible natural green space, as well as conserving and enhancing existing habitat (Natural England,
November, 2010)
• General comment - General comment - Measures need to put in place to ensure that Urswick Tarn is not adversely
affected by any development proposals and that Great and Little Urswick Waste Water Treatment Works have the
capacity to cope with the increased demand these developments will make. Foraging habitat for bats should be
incorporated into any development and landscaping proposals, for example by using native species and including bat
roosting opportunities into building design, by, for example, providing bat tiles. Nesting sites and suitable habitat
should also be provided for birds. (Natural England, 6th July, 2010)
• Natural England advise that the following interests should be considered when considering sites – biodiversity,
protected species, geodiversity ,landscape character and quality, green space, access to the countryside and other
green space, soil conservation, sustainable design and construction, environmental land management, adaption to
and reduction in the contribution to climate change. (Natural England, 26 November 2010)
Built Environment / Heritage:
• Heritage - Some buildings retained
Archaeology:
• Medieval field tofts.
Highways:
• Vehicular access to site – improving visibility
• Improving Accessibility on foot from / to site to Great Urswick and existing and proposed community facilities
• Incorporate / retain existing public footpaths and upgrade foot path
Mitigation
Foul Drains / Waste Water:
• SUD’s – Sustainable Drainage Scheme required (United Utilities)
• Groundwater entering the system, need for a diversion of flows and keep to foul only. (United Utilities 4th Nov. 2010)
• No build over existing public sewer which crosses the site (United Utilities)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
67
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Reference:
Proposed Allocation
M10M / RN216M - Mod
Flooding / Surface Water Drainage:
• Flooding - The South Lakeland Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) advises that any submitted planning
application / development proposal (s) will need an associated Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) as the site is in flood
risk zone 1 (the site is more than 1 hectare in area)– see Appendix C, Table D1, of the SFRA).
• The Environment Agency advise that for site RN216M (part of the proposed allocation site) surface water
management needs to be carefully considered.
Highways:
• Highways - November 2010 site area modified to include part of the existing vehicular access to Park Garth (Cumbria
County Council, Highways, November and 12 November 2010) Access further modified / widened with County road
and consulted on with County Highways 2011.
• Vehicular access should not be off Church Road (opposite the village green). Vehicular access should be off the road
(adjacent the southern end of the site and / or via Park Garth). The existing access will need to be modified / widened
to allow greater visibility. (Cumbria County Council, Highways).
• Transport Statement required / submitted as part of any planning application.
• Footway required on Little Urswick village green to bus stop. Cumbria County Council Highways Authority (October
2011 FCEM306)
Biodiversity
•
•
•
•
In assessing the suitability of this site (M10M/RN216M), the evidence set out for this site in the separate biodiversity
evidence document has been taken into account. The development of this site will require the incorporation of
mitigation measures, again, taking into account the particular biodiversity features of the site identified in the
biodiversity evidence document. A full ecological assessment will be required at such time as a planning application
is submitted for this site (M10M/RN216M)...
Natural England advise that the following interests should be considered when considering sites – biodiversity,
protected species, geodiversity, landscape character and quality, green space, access to the countryside and other
green space, soil conservation, sustainable design and construction, environmental land management, adaption to
and reduction in the contribution to climate change. Natural England, 26 November 2010)
Foraging habitat for bats should be incorporated into development including bat roosting opportunities. Nesting sites
and suitable habitat should also be provided for birds. (Natural England, 26 November 2010
There may be bats and breeding birds using existing buildings for roosting. Opportunities for biodiversity mitigation
and enhancement should be taken Some of the land looks to be brownfield rough grassland with scrub, this may be
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
68
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Reference:
Proposed Allocation
M10M / RN216M - Mod
used by protected species such as amphibians and reptiles. Opportunities for biodiversity mitigation and
enhancement should be take / incorporated into any proposed development scheme and planning application.
(Cumbria Wildlife Trust – emerging site options consultation)
• Waders interest – habitat mitigation/compensation measures.
• Hedgerows at the site should be retained.(Emerging site options consultation – Cumbria Wildlife Trust)
• General comment - Measures need to put in place to ensure that Urswick Tarn is not adversely affected by any
development proposals and that Great and Little Urswick Waste Water Treatment Works have the capacity to cope
with the increased demand these developments will make. Foraging habitat for bats should be incorporated into any
development and landscaping proposals, for example by using native species and including bat roosting opportunities
into building design, by, for example, providing bat tiles. Nesting sites and suitable habitat should also be provided for
birds. (Natural England, 6th July, 2010)
Public Rights of Way:
• Existing public footpaths to be retained. If retained / realigned, green space of site to be used and avoid moving the
footpaths on to the development’s roads. (Cumbria County Council, Highways)
• Public Rights of Way Retention and Connectivity – consider pedestrian links to public footpaths / bridleways near the
site (Cumbria County Council Highways)
• There is no existing pedestrian link to the centre of the village (Great Urswick) - (response from Cumbria County
Council Highways – Spring 2011) and the area in-between Great and Little Urswick with its associated community
facilities such as the primary school, children’s play area, the recreation hall and proposed allocated recreation area.
It is essential that accessibility on foot to and from the site to the aforementioned areas is considered by any
developer. Any proposed submitted planning proposal / planning application should consider and include measures
to incorporate / upgrade the existing public footpath that has the potential to link the site (M10M / RN216M) with the
village (great Urswick) . A footpath runs from and through the site along the rear of the housing – Green bank
Gardens. This footpath meets with the main Church Road at the northern end of Little Urswick.
Landscaping:
• Special care will need to be taken with regard to landscape in accordance with the landscape evidence base
documents.
Building Retention / Heritage:
• The existing farmhouse should definitely be retained. Although altered it is still an early building and its form and
visual character are still of some importance. (SLDC Conservation Officer – Summer 2011)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
69
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Reference:
Proposed Allocation
M10M / RN216M - Mod
• Clearance of C18th combination barn on church road frontage acceptable - Although this farmstead site is quite
extensive it only contains three traditionally constructed buildings and these are all located at the north west edge of
the site. All three are in varying states of disrepair. Flanking the road is a large mid to late C18th combination barn
that has seen significant alteration to its long elevations and which is now in a very poor structural condition. The
slate roof and timber roof structure has collapsed, there are significant structural fractures to its rubble stone masonry
walls, and much of the joinery to the openings is now decayed or missing. It is anticipated that approx. 50% of its
walls would need to be dismantled and rebuilt, and a new roof and slate cover would need to be erected if it were to
be considered for some sort of adaptive reuse. This is likely to be economically prohibitive and so the clearance of
the site and the erection of a new dwelling on the footprint of the barn would be a feasible option. (SLDC
Conservation Officer – Summer 2011)
• The smallest of the buildings is immediately to the south east corner of the house. This looks to have been a mid
C19th two storey bake house and granary but it too is now in a parlous structural condition with some small areas of
localised collapse of the walls and other areas showing instability, with some deflection to the roof and numerous
slipped slates. This building may be capable of economic repair but its position adjacent to the main house means
that it is unlikely that this would be an attractive proposition for whoever lives in the house itself and conversion to a
dwelling may not be an attractive option. (SLDC Conservation Officer – Summer 2011)
• The third building is a long linear range built in two or three phases during the C19th, of single and two storey heights,
which is orientated at 90% to the main barn, and which forms the northern edge of the farm group. Parts of this
building have been abandoned and sections of wall and roof have collapsed, making it now difficulty to gauge its
heritage value. It seems unlikely that much of this building could be saved and it is uncertain if its heritage potential
would in any case warrant this. Further close examination would need to be made to ascertain this but it is felt that
demolition might represent the only viable option. Recording in mitigation of loss would be necessary for all three of
these traditionally constructed buildings prior to any controlled demolition. (SLDC Conservation Officer – Summer
2011)
• All of the other ten or so buildings which occupy the land here are modern agricultural sheds of various sizes and
types of construction, and none of them of them have any intrinsic merit which would warrant retention. Clearance of
this group for the construction of new dwellings would not be considered a problem but access to the land from the
site vacated by the large roadside barn would not be seen as conducive to good place making in terms of protecting
the character and appearance of the village. An alternative route into the site would need to be considered and the
PROW which runs through the rear portion of the site from south to north east would also probably need to be
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
70
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Reference:
Reference:
Gross / Net Site
Area (hectares):
Use:
Indicative
Development
Potential:
Site Availability
Justification /
Proposed Allocation
M10M / RN216M - Mod
retained. (SLDC Conservation Officer – Summer 2011)
Archaeology:
• Mitigation by record of any underground archaeology required. (Cumbria County Council Archaeology)
• Consideration should be given to respect the historic field pattern of the field boundaries within any development.
(Cumbria County Council Archaeology)
Proposed Allocation
ON57#
1.25 ha gross
Leisure – proposed allocation for multi Use Games Area (MUGA), recreation area and allotments identified to enable
Urswick Parish Council to develop these facilities
n/a – no yield – no housing proposed.
Availability verbally confirmed from the site / field’s owner (the same site owner as M10M / RN216M - Mod). Repeated
requests for written confirmation – still awaited.
Justification:
• The site and proposed uses put forward for consideration and supported by Urswick Parish Council. The Parish
Council say they have a need for such facilities.
• The site relates well to, being located in-between Great and Little Urswick. An existing pavement on the same side of
the road as the site links Great and Little Urswick.
• The site is adjacent to the Furness Primary School and in an area which already has community uses; the play
ground / green space area next to the Parish Church and the Recreation Hall on the other side of the site.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
71
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Reference:
issues to be
addressed
Mitigation
Measures
Proposed Allocation
ON57#
• A car parking / off road parking area already exists in front of the Recreation Hall located directly adjacent the site
• Note - Site is within the new proposed green gap between Great and Little Urswick. As such Core Strategy
Policy re Green Gaps will apply.
• Note – this proposal assumes people using / visiting the site / proposed uses will either do so on foot or cycle or if by
car, use the existing off road car parking area outside the existing adjacent Recreation Hall.
• Biodiversity / Geodiversity – ecological survey
• Contamination Assessment – see below advice from SLDC Environmental Protection – Contamination.
Mitigation
Biodiversity / Geodiversity:
• A full ecological assessment will be required at such time as a planning application is submitted for this site.
• Mitigation will be required, extent unknown. Where development includes sensitive end use, such as Housing, Public
Open Space, Allotments, a contamination assessment is required by 1APP and advocated in Planning Policy
Statement (PPS) 23. SLDC Environmental Protection – Contamination (Summer 2011)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
72
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Yield
Site Details
Site option
Pdl
M10M / RN216M
Y
ON57#
N
Small site
potential
Sites – under
construction
Sites – not started
(80%)
Total
Site
area
1.46
Total
Dwellings
27
1.25
0
(gross)
Development Phase
Employment
land
Other
Leisure use –
Multi games
area,
recreation
area and
allotments
1
2
10
17
n/a
n/a
8
8
4
4
2
2
41
24
3
n/a
17
Estimated capacity of small sites as identified in SHLAA (below 0.3 hectares threshold) 80% completion rate:
• R217 up to 1 dwelling
• R218 up to 1 dwelling
• R219 up to 8 dwellings
• R222 up to 0 dwelling – County Wildlife Site
• R20 / R214 up to 0 dwelling – possible employment land provision)
Total 10 80% = 8
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
73
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Defining boundaries / areas
• Development limits/boundary
Settlement development boundaries have been reviewed in accordance with criteria outlined in paragraph 2.2 of the Land Allocation
Development Plan Document (DPD) and consultation response feedback (Appendices 1C and 1D, Parts C and D)
Site ON15
This site / area has been suggested for removal from the settlement boundary ’… to avoid any building in the gardens adjacent to the tarn’.
The site was put forward for consideration by Urswick Parish (07 03 2009) who want the site to be removed from the existing development
boundary. No one has proposed this site (ON15) for development, except for site R219 which is considered separately. (Note that the same
site is considered in the open space, sport and recreation section of this fact file (below) as consideration for protection as important open
space).
Development boundary assessment - ON15 – It is considered that site ON15 should not be excluded from the development boundary for Great
Urswick. The area of ON15 is included within the South Lakeland Local Plan’s development boundary for Great Urswick. Inset Map 14 of the
Local Plan refers. The area of ON15 includes existing houses and their curtilages and the Methodist (United Reform) Chapel. The majority of
the area has no public access, except if using the Chapel or accessing the tarn via a small bit of open space towards the east of the area.
If development is outwith a development boundary, (usually in open countryside) then the presumption is against development in principle. It is
considered that peoples back gardens, in which have already been built garages, sheds etc should not now be re categorized as being outside
the development boundary. It is considered reasonable that people’s private gardens, where there is no public access, have permitted
development rights.
On balance taking into consideration the above, and after reviewing the proposal following the emerging site options consultation,
it is still proposed not to modify (reduce) the existing Great Urswick development boundary to the north of the tarn at Great
Urswick, so as to exclude site ON15 from the existing local plan development boundary.
Site MN3 (also includes MN7, MN8 and RN138)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
74
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site MN3 has been put forward by Urswick Parish Council (16 12 2008) for consideration as mixed development site as well as a development
boundary change to include the site.
Development boundary assessment - MN3 (includes MN7) – It is considered that site MN3 should not be included within the development
boundary as inclusion could lead to the intensification of development in what is quite an elevated, tree’d and prominent woodland in the local
landscape on the village edge. Parts of site MN3 are already protected – trees for their public amenity value. There is a woodland area Tree
Preservation Order (TPO) on part of MN3 and a group TPO within the grounds of Bankfield Hall. There is potential to increase the visual impact
of this area which is elevated and can be seen beyond the tarn (from Birkrigg). The following text is taken from Appendix 5 of the Employment
and Housing Land Search Study. “To the west of the village the topography gently rises to naturally enclose the village and limits the potential
for expansion beyond the existing development boundary. Existing deciduous woodland screens the western side of the village with undulating
fields enclosed by stone walls and including rocky outcrops and single mature trees forming an attractive landscape visible in views from the
south “. Cumbria County Council in a previous consultation response advised that prehistoric remains found within Site MN3.
On balance taking into consideration the above, it is proposed not to modify (extend) the existing Great Urswick development
boundary to the north west of Great Urswick, so as to include site MN3 (MN3 also includes site MN7).
• Green Gaps
Approved Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 advises that land will be identified in the Allocations of Land Development Plan Document as forming a
green gap where if developed it would cause or add to the risk of future coalescence of two or more individual settlements between which it is
important to retain a distinction. Green Gaps should:
-
contribute to maintaining a settlements identity, landscape setting and character;
comprise predominately open land maintaining an ‘open’ aspect;
Where possible afford recreational and biodiversity opportunities.
The policy goes on to advise that development will be supported within green gaps where it is essential for the needs of agriculture, forestry
and local community infrastructure and where it cannot be located elsewhere.
The boundaries of a newly proposed green gap for Great / Little Urswick is considered here, below, and assessed in detail in Appendix 5 of this
fact file. The proposed new green gap (emerging option) is based on an assessment of the value of the function of a new green gap. The
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
75
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
assessment in Appendix 5 provides the evidence needed to justify the location, and extent of a green gap and set out reasoning as to why
retaining the identity / distinction between Great and Little Urswick is important.
The following sites have been put forward for consideration as potential green gap sites (or to form part of a green gap) by Urswick Parish
Council. These sites are - ON16, ON4, ON3 and ON2.
Site ON4 - In previous consultations, including the Allocations of Land Discussion Paper (informal public consultation December 2008 – March
2009) there were many comments of public support, including from the Parish Council especially concerning site ON4, “to retain land as open
space” – “…consider as a new green gap”. The purpose of a green gap essentially being in land use/development terms to ensure that Great
and Little Urswick do not lose their identifies due to coalescence
Taking into account the green gap assessment in Appendix 5, site visits and comments from Urswick Parish Council, sites
suggested in the emerging site options document as forming a potential new green gap between Great and Little Urswick include the
following sites - (RN49, part ON3, ON4, ON16, together with some additional land to the north of ON16 and east of ON4).
The delineation of the proposed new green gap (see light green shading) is shown on the Proposed Land Allocation Map No. 14 for
Great / Little Urswick.
•
Town Centre boundaries
Not applicable
•
Existing Employment Sites to be protected
The LDF evidence base identifies shortfalls in the supply of employment land and premises in all areas. This is why the Council proposes to
safeguard most existing employment sites from change or redevelopment for other uses. Exceptions have been made for unsuitably located or
poor quality sites. In these cases, redevelopment will often have local environmental benefits.
Policy LA1.5 of the Land Allocations Document identifies the employment land and premises to be safeguarded. Sites which are too small to
identify on the map (i.e. less than 0.3 ha) are covered by saved Local Plan Policy E6.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
76
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
It is proposed that Existing Employment site ref OES4 (See Map 14 – Great / Little Urswick) be safeguarded for employment use.
•
Open Space, Sport and Recreation
Both Great and Little Urswick fall within cemeteries catchment and most of Little Urswick also falls within amenity greenspace catchment. The
cemetery serving the area is at St. Mary’s church at Great Urswick and this land should be maintained to current standards. The amenity
greenspace at Little Urswick is opposite the old ‘Swan’ pub – the quality of this site should be increased in order to meet the standard. It is
unclear why the play area and amenity greenspace between St. Mary’s church and Low Furness School have not been assessed as part of the
Open Space, Sport and Recreation study but these should contribute to provision. As it was covered in the study, although it is mapped as a
private open space, it is publicly accessible and DC and the Parish Council were therefore not consulted separately on this site during the
consultation on private sites.
During consultation it was suggested that Urswick Tarn and surrounds (ON40) & the grounds of The Coot and gardens of the houses backing
onto the north of the tarn (ON15) should be identified as Important open space.
Recommendations for these sites are based on whether the site meets any of the criteria set out for non-publically accessible important open
space sites, or if it is a publicly accessible site the recommendation is based on how similar in use/community value it is compared to existing
important open space sites.
Recommendations / Proposal regarding suggested new Important Open Space
-
-
Whilst the Tarn (ON40) is outside the development boundary, it is largely encircled by houses due to the fact that the village has
built up around the tarn. The tarn is indeed a focal point and key part of the setting and character of the village and as such it could
be suggested that the tarn and surrounds should be considered for designation as Important Open Space. However, it is also
acknowledged that the site is unlikely to become further enclosed and that the development boundary is unlikely to be amended in
such a way that would cause the tarn to fall within it. Furthermore, it’s very nature and local importance means that it is unlikely to
fall under threat from development.
Site ON15 falls entirely within ON40 and as such it is not considered necessary to designate this area as Important Open Space for
the same reasons as described in relation to ON40. Furthermore, a planning application has been submitted for development on the
land currently occupied by The Coot
- In addition, it is proposed that the play area and amenity green space between St. Mary’s church and Low Furness school
should be designated as important open space (ON2). This site is also outside the boundary, however, the boundary was drawn
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
77
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
-
before the school was built and the site should have been assessed as part of the open space study (unclear why it was not). It
contains amenity greenspace and a good children’s play area, which warrant protection. Protection as important open space
would also be in line/ be supported by Urswick’s Parish Council support for site ON2 to form part of a green gap or important
open space. It is proposed that the site be protected / designated ref. PS2 –relating to the amenity open green space etc
playground next to the Parish Church.
Proposed Designation of open space in Little Urswick – designation ref. PS3 – Proposed protection of Little Urswick Village
Green. See also the Allocation Map No 14 for Great and Little Urswick which shows the areas protected as public space.
Designation references have a PS prefix.
2.
OPEN SPACE SITE SUGGESTED LESS THAN 0.3 HECTARES
Site
Reference
ON2
Site Area
(GROSS)
0.21 ha /
Green Gap
Support
•
Issues and Concerns
Proposed by Urswick
Parish Council
General
Comment
Propose
designating as
important open
space
No existing open spaces would be lost if any of the emerging site options/ and or proposed land allocation sites were to be taken forward as
proposed land allocations.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
78
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1 – Consultation Responses:
Appendix 1A – Consultation responses on potential development sites pre-November 2010
Appendix 1B – Consultation responses on emerging site options from service providers (October 2010)
Appendix 1C – Consultation responses on land allocations Emerging Options Document Jan – April
2011
Appendix 1D – Consultation responses on Further Consultation Summer 2011
Appendix 1E – Consultation responses on Further Consultation from service providers Summer 2011
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
79
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A – Consultation responses on potential development sites pre-November 2010
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
M10
(relates
to
propose
d
allocatio
n M10M
/
RN216M
)
Site Area /
Proposal
0.78 ha / Mixed –
employment and
residential
Support
Issues and Concerns
Support for residential but not mixed unless
this is for the use of local residents for
workspace or rural diversification of local
businesses. Housing must be affordable
(Urswick Parish Council)
Landowner supports residential
development, incorporating an element of
affordable housing rather than a mixed
residential/employment use
Run down farm provides good opportunity
If not viable as a farm then suitable for
affordable housing (easily accessible)
No surface water to foul sewer
and public sewer crosses – no
build over (United Utilities)
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Comments from previous
consultations – including the
‘08/’09 Discussion Paper:
Comments summarized as:
Public footpath
Not preferred would require
significant improvement to
drainage/sewage system
Agricultural land does not lend
itself to residential
development.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
80
General Comment
Much public support
Surface water flooding – no
history re this site (SLDC
Environmental Protection,
September 2010)
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
No consultation unless site >
1Ha. Flood Zone 1
(Environment Agency, August
2010).
Re Highways – development
feasible, spare capacity for
whole of site, (Cumbria County
Council, Highways, August
2010).
Development feasible and
spare capacity for the whole of
the site. (National Grid, August
2010)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
81
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
MN3
5.85 ha / Mixed
Urswick Parish Council would like to see the
boundary shown for MN3 to be proposed as
the settlement boundary for Great Urswick..
Prehistoric remains found on
site (Cumbria County Council)
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
82
Very few comments and none
to say objection, cross
reference with MN8/RN138
and MN7
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
MN7
0.33 ha / Mixed –
employment/resid
ential
Landowner would support in conjunction
with development of MN8 as it will allow for
a more spacious form of development
protecting trees with Tree Preservation
Orders (TPO’s).
Urswick Parish Council would like the site to
be included within the ‘development line’.
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
Few comments - new site
(cross reference with MN3)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
83
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
MN8/RN
138
0.5 ha / Mixed –
employment/resid
ential
Member of public proposes and would
support in conjunction with MN7 as it will
allow for a more spacious form of
development protecting trees with Tree
Preservation Orders (TPOs)
RN138 - Urswick Parish Council support the
use of the site for development – one of two
sites they consider as suitable, the other
being RN2, however, only one of these sites
should be developed. Considered suitable
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Re Flood risk / surface water
flooding - No consultation
unless site > 1Ha, Flood Zone
1. Agency has had reports of
drainage problems in this area.
Possible combination of
highways drainage, high tarn
levels and springs flowing
during wet weather.
(Environment Agency, August
2010).
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
84
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
for affordable housing development.
Re Highways – development
feasible and spare capacity for
the whole of the site. (Cumbria
County Council Highways,
August 2010).
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
85
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
ON15
Site Area /
Proposal
1.47 ha / other
Support
Issues and Concerns
Proposed by Urswick Parish Council as an
area of green space to be protected against
development
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
86
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
ON16
ON3
ON4
3.98 ha /
Proposed open
space/green gap
4.12 ha /
Proposed open
space/green gap
Support by Urswick Parish Council
2.57 ha /
proposed open
space/green gap
Protect as open space /green gap important grazing land also help to prevent
coalescence of two settlements
New site – no comments
See comments made against
New site – few comments
M10 and R249
Proposed by Higham and Co on
behalf of landowners. Owners
consider development of site
above, would constitute
rounding off and that it is
available, achievable and
deliverable – planning
statement has been submitted.
Urswick Parish Council would like the land to
be allocated as open space/green gap
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
Site overlaps with R671 and
RN48 read in conjunction,
many comments of public
support to retain land as open
space/green gap
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
87
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July , 2010)
R249
(relates
in part to
propose
d
allocatio
n M10M
/
RN216M
)
R671
3.42 ha /
Residential
2.2 ha /
Residential
This site, to the east of Little Urswick, was
considered in the Housing and Employment
Land Search Study addendum. The study
concluded that development would have low
localized landscape / visual impact.
Would not adversely affect area as it is
already intensely developed
Small section only to allow access to site
RN2
Foul flows only in to the
sewer network, separate
systems of drainage
required. SUDS type
drainage systems of
drainage required. Surface
water management plans to
be formulated and
presented to United Utilities
(United Utilities e mail 29 07
10)
Comments from previous
consultations, including the
Discussion Paper. Comments
summarised as:
Result in coalescence of
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
88
No comments from the
Environment Agency, August
2010.
Highways Agency – No
comments made, Aug 2010.
National Grid – No comments
made August 2010
Natural England – no
comments specific to this site,
July 2010.
Fairly large level of public
opposition
Site includes RN48
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
Access from main route, proximity to school
Great and Little Urswick
Loss of important
agricultural land
Detrimental to character of
the area
Flooding occurs
Keep as open space
General Comment
Surface water flooding – No
comments received from
SLDC Environmental
Protection, September 2010.
Urswick Parish Council object,
would like to the site to be an
open space.
Level of development likely to
be too great for the settlement
(Cumbria County Council)
Possible remains of a
prehistoric standing stone
(Cumbria County Council)
Concern over the impact on
settlement character and
resulting coalescence (Friends
of the Lake District)
Flood risk - ~ /  (80% zone
2. Thin West strip and Eastern
20% zone 1).
No further comment from the
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
89
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
Environment Agency, Aug.
2010.
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
90
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
RN1
Site Area /
Proposal
0.56 ha /
Residential
Support
Issues and Concerns
Considered suitable as it would keep village
more compact and retain character (resident
(s)
(Supported originally by Urswick Parish
Council at preferred options stage but since
withdrawn)
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
Comments from previous
consultations – including the
‘08/’09 Discussion Paper:
Comments summarised as:
Development would
unacceptably impinge on the
character of Great Urswick
Cause traffic problems
Prime location in providing rural
visual impact of Great Urswick.
General Comment
Many objections from
members of the public to
the use of this land for
development
No consultation unless site >
1Ha. Agency has had reports of
drainage problems in this area.
Possible combination of
highways drainage, high tarn
levels and springs flowing
during wet weather.
Flood zone 1. (Environment
Agency, August 2010)
Re Highways – development
feasible yes, spare capacity for
the whole of the site. (Cumbria
County Council Highways,
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
91
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
August 2010).
Development feasible and
spare capacity for the whole of
the site. (National Grid, August
2010)
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
92
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
RN139
0.49 ha /
Residential
Proposed by member of public as suitable
for a row of terraced properties. This would
not extend the village boundary at all.
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
No comments – new site
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
93
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
RN2
1.11 ha /
Residential
Not preferred but not out of question –
access problems to main village road.
Urswick Parish Council support the use of
the site for development – one of two sites
they consider as suitable, the other being
RN138, however, only one of these sites
should be developed. Considered suitable
for affordable housing development.
Comments from previous
consultations – including the
‘08/’09 Discussion Paper:
Comments summarized as:
Poor access
Negative impact on visual
appearance of village loss of
parking for PH Non-preferred,
too large scale would impinge
on character of Great Urswick.
Enough housing already
Historical and agricultural loss
Loss of agricultural land
Limestone pavements. Affect
character of old part of Great
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
94
Re surface water drainage/
flooding – no comments
received (SLDC
Environmental Protection,
September 2010)
Many objections from
members of the public to the
use of this land for
development
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
Urswick.
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
95
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
RN21
Site Area /
Proposal
1.27 ha /
Residential
Support
Issues and Concerns
Proposed by member of the public – also
supports RN88
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
96
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
RN216
(relates
to
propose
d
allocatio
n M10M
/
RN216M
)
Site Area /
Proposal
1.69 ha /
Residential
Support
Issues and Concerns
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
Site RN216 includes part of site
R249 - Comments from
previous consultations –
including the 2008/2009
Allocations of Land Discussion
Paper: The following comment
relates to the larger site in the
Employment and Housing Land
Search Study Addendum site 1
(Little Urswick) and also site
R249 - Comments summarized
as
• Level of development too
great for settlement
• Public footpath on site
(Cumbria County Council)
• Boundary should remain at
footpath and not consume
good agricultural land
• Detrimental to character
• Would result in
coalescence of Great and
Little Urswick
General Comment
Includes M10 and part of
R249
Re surface water
drainage/flooding – no
comments received (SLDC
Environmental Protection,
September 2010)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
97
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
•
•
Poorly drained
Would challenge village
boundary
• 3 objections no reason
given
Keep as green open space
See also comments made
against M10 and R249
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
98
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
RN29
0.96 ha /
Residential
Proposed by Datum Design on behalf of
client. Considered a suitable site for either
starter or housing association use.
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Few comments – new site
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
99
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
RN48
1.0 ha /
Residential
Support for affordable housing, has services
in place (member of public)
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
100
Need to cross
reference with comments
against R671 as this site
encompasses RN48
No Environment Agency
consultation response for the
Site, August 2010
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
RN49
Site Area /
Proposal
0.86 ha
/Residential
Support
Issues and Concerns
Proposed by member of the public as
suitable for affordable housing,
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
General Comment
Few comments – new site
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
101
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
letter 6th July 2010)
RN88
1.96 ha /
Residential
Support would not impinge on character of
old village. Would retain access to amenities
Agricultural land of lower quality than Kirk
Flatt field. Easy access to Horse Close and
less interruption to traffic
Comments from previous
consultations – including the
‘08/’09 Discussion Paper:
Comments summarized as Protrude into open countryside
Poor access bounded by
narrow lanes.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
102
Fairly large public support but
not outright
No history of surface water
flooding for site RN88 (SLDC,
Environmental Protection,
September 2010).
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
2 objections – no reasoning:
Ruin entrance to village
Overload drainage system
Re flood risk - No consultation
unless site > 1Ha. Flood Zone
1. Agency has had reports of
drainage problems in this area.
Possible combination of
highways drainage, high tarn
levels and springs flowing
during wet weather
(Environment Agency, August
2010).
Development feasible and
spare capacity for the whole of
the site. (National Grid, August
2010)
Development feasible, spare
capacity for the whole site and
minor infrastructure / service
constraints/. A Transport
Statement would be required.
Some infrastructure
improvement would be
necessary to ensure adequate
connectivity to Great Urswick.
(Cumbria County Council,
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
103
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
Highways, August 2010).
Measures need to be put in
place to ensure that Urswick
Tarn is not adversely affected
by any of the development
proposals and that Great
Urswick and Little Urswick
Waste Water Treatment Works
have the capacity to cope with
the increased demand these
developments will make.
Foraging habitat for bats should
be incorporated into any
development and landscaping
proposals, for example by using
native species, and including
bat roosting opportunities into
building design, by, for
example, providing bat tiles.
Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided
for birds. (Natural England,
July 2010)
Foul flows only into sewer
network, separate systems of
drainage required. SUDS type
drainage systems, surface
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
104
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1A
Site Ref
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
water management plans to be
formulated and presented to
United Utilities. (United Utilities,
e mail 29 07 10)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
105
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1B – Consultation responses on emerging site options from service providers (October 2010)
Site
Reference
M10M
(proposed
allocation –
also relates
to RN216M))
Site Area /
Proposal
0.75 ha /
Residential
Appendix 1B
Issues and Concerns
Support
•
Response awaited from Graham
Darlington, SLDC’s Conservation
Officer – re retention of some of the
traditional stone buildings on the site
(especially the site frontage with
Church Road).
•
Whilst in principle proposed
development is acceptable given
previous use achieving a safe access
to serve the proposed yield is
extremely problematic if all existing
buildings are to be retained. (Cumbria
County Council Highways, Nov 2010).
•
Vehicle access to the site should be
via Park Garth (Cumbria County
Council Highways, 12 November 2010)
•
Flood Risk – Flood Zone 1, low risk, no
comments (Environment Agency, e
mail 15th November 2010)
•
Groundwater entering the system,
need for a diversion of flows and keep
to foul only. Not a significant constraint.
General Comment
United Utilities require for all sites, a
separate system of drainage, foul flows only
to the public sewer network, United Utilities
would need to undertake flow and load
investigations at works being impacted on by
significant housing or new housing
discharging to a small rural works (United
Utilities, e mail 3rd Nov 2010)
No further comments from the Environment
Agency – flood zone 1 low risk (Environment
Agency, November 2010)
Green spaces should be conserved and
enhanced wherever possible. If
exceptionally, any small areas are
developed, are to be partly developed, we
would wish to see compensatory provision of
green space and enhancement of spaces
elsewhere. (Natural England, 26 November
2010)
Where development is proposed, the
proposals should of course take full
advantage of opportunities to provide new
habitat and accessible natural green space,
as well as conserving and enhancing existing
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
106
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site
Reference
Site Area /
Proposal
Appendix 1B
Issues and Concerns
Support
(United Utilities Clarification Meeting
following earlier Oct/Nov UU
spreadsheet response. (Notes of
meeting / comments 4th November
2010). Note earlier response (Oct
2010) that predated the clarification
meeting, said development not feasible
due to ground water problems in the
network.
R216M
(proposed
allocation –
also relates
to M10M))
0.9 ha /
Residential
•
Development feasible (Cumbria
Wildlife Trust, November 2010)
•
Response awaited from Graham
Darlington, SLDC’s Conservation
Officer – re field strips. Note - English
Heritage no specific comments re this
site.
(M10 part of site RN216M) Response
awaited from Graham Darlington,
SLDC’s Conservation Officer – re
retention of some of the traditional
stone buildings on the site (especially
the site frontage with Church Road).
•
General Comment
habitat (Natural England, November, 2010)
Natural England advise that the following
interests should be considered when
considering sites – biodiversity, protected
species, geodiversity ,landscape character
and quality, greenspace, access to the
countryside and other greenspace, soil
conservation, sustainable design and
construction, environmental land
management, adaption to and reduction in
the contribution to climate change. Foraging
habitat for bats should be incorporated into
development including bat roosting
opportunities. Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided for birds.
(Natural England, 26 November 2010)
United Utilities require for all sites, a
separate system of drainage, foul flows only
to the public sewer network, United Utilities
would need to undertake flow and load
investigations at works being impacted on by
significant housing or new housing
discharging to a small rural works (United
Utilities, e mail 3rd Nov 2010)
Green spaces should be conserved and
enhanced wherever possible. If
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
107
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site
Reference
Site Area /
Proposal
Appendix 1B
Issues and Concerns
Support
•
It would be preferable for access to
come off road to the south west of the
site (via existing development) to serve
both M10M and RN216M (Cumbria
County Council Highways, Nov. 2010)
•
Vehicle access to the site should be
via Park Garth (Cumbria County
Council Highways, 12 November 2010)
•
Groundwater entering the system,
need for a diversion of flows and keep
to foul only. Not a significant constraint.
(United Utilities Clarification Meeting
following earlier Oct/Nov UU
spreadsheet response. (Notes of
meeting / comments 4th November
2010). Note earlier response (Oct
2010) that predated the clarification
meeting, said development not feasible
due to ground water problems in the
network.
•
Development feasible, possible
waders interest (Cumbria Wildlife
Trust, November 2010)
•
Flood Zone 1. Surface water
General Comment
exceptionally, any small areas are
developed, are to be partly developed, we
would wish to see compensatory provision of
green space and enhancement of spaces
elsewhere. (Natural England, 26 November
2010)
Where development is proposed, the
proposals should of course take full
advantage of opportunities to provide new
habitat and accessible natural green space,
as well as conserving and enhancing existing
habitat (Natural England, November, 2010)
Natural England advise that the following
interests should be considered when
considering sites – biodiversity, protected
species, geodiversity ,landscape character
and quality, greenspace, access to the
countryside and other greenspace, soil
conservation, sustainable design and
construction, environmental land
management, adaption to and reduction in
the contribution to climate change. Foraging
habitat for bats should be incorporated into
development including bat roosting
opportunities. Nesting sites and suitable
habitat should also be provided for birds.
(Natural England, 26 November 2010)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
108
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site
Reference
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Appendix 1B
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
management needs to be carefully
considered. (Environment Agency,
November 2010)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
109
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1C - Consultation Responses on Land Allocation Emerging Options (January 2011 – April
2011)
See Consultation Statement Appendix 8
Appendix 1D - Consultation Responses on Land Allocation Further Options (July 2011 – September
2011)
See Consultation Statement Appendix 9
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
110
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 1E – Consultation responses on Further Consultation from service providers Summer 2011
Site
Reference
M10M
(proposed
allocation –
also relates
to RN216M)
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Appendix 1E
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
Biodiversity -Hedgerows at the site should be
retained. There may be bats and breeding birds
using existing buildings for roosting.
Opportunities for biodiversity mitigation and
enhancement should be taken. Cumbria
Wildlife Trust (EM411)
Whilst in principle proposed development is
acceptable given previous use achieving a safe
access to serve the proposed yield is extremely
problematic if all the existing buildings are to be
retained Vehicle access to the site should be
via Park Garth. Cumbria County Council
Highways Authority (April 2011 EM454)
Footway required on village green to bus stop.
Cumbria County Council Highways
Authority (October 2011 FCEM306)
Larger site M10M/RN216M. Confirm larger site
would help to provide an acceptable access to
serve this development. There is no existing
pedestrian link to the centre of the village. This
is essential. The public rights of way will need to
be accommodated into the plans. Cumbria
County Council (Highway Officer Comments
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
111
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site
Reference
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Appendix 1E
Issues and Concerns
(letter, November 2011)
The farmhouse should definitely be retained.
Although altered it is still an early building and
its form and visual character are still of some
importance.
Although this farmstead site is quite extensive it
only contains three traditionally constructed
buildings and these are all located at the north
west edge of the site. All three are in varying
states of disrepair. Flanking the road is a large
mid to late C18th combination barn that has
seen significant alteration to its long elevations
and which is now in a very poor structural
condition. The slate roof and timber roof
structure has collapsed, there are significant
structural fractures to its rubblestone masonry
walls, and much of the joinery to the openings is
now decayed or missing. It is anticipated that
approx. 50% of its walls would need to be
dismantled and rebuilt, and a new roof and slate
cover would need to be erected if it were to be
considered for some sort of adaptive reuse.
This is likely to be economically prohibitive and
so the clearance of the site and the erection of a
new dwelling on the footprint of the barn would
be a feasible option.
The smallest of the buildings is immediately to
the south east corner of the house. This looks
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
112
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site
Reference
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Appendix 1E
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
to have been a mid C19th two storey bake
house and granary but it too is now in a parlous
structural condition with some small areas of
localised collapse of the walls and other areas
showing instability, with some deflection to the
roof and numerous slipped slates. This building
may be capable of economic repair but its
position adjacent to the main house means that
it is unlikely that this would be an attractive
proposition for whoever lives in the house itself
and conversion to a dwelling may not be an
attractive option.
The third building is a long linear range built in
two or three phases during the C19th, of single
and two storey heights, which is orientated at
90% to the main barn, and which forms the
northern edge of the farm group. Parts of this
building have been abandoned and sections of
wall and roof have collapsed, making it now
difficulty to gauge its heritage value. It seems
unlikely that much of this building could be
saved and it is uncertain if its heritage potential
would in any case warrant this. Further close
examination would need to be made to
ascertain this but it is felt that demolition might
represent the only viable option. Recording in
mitigation of loss would be necessary for all
three of these traditionally constructed buildings
prior to any controlled demolition.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
113
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site
Reference
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Appendix 1E
Issues and Concerns
All of the other ten or so buildings which occupy
the land here are modern agricultural sheds of
various sizes and types of construction, and
none of them of them have any intrinsic merit
which would warrant retention. Clearance of
this group for the construction of new dwellings
would not be considered a problem but access
to the land from the site vacated by the large
roadside barn would not be seen as conducive
to good placemaking in terms of protecting the
character and appearance of the village. An
alternative route into the site would need to be
considered and the PROW which runs through
the rear portion of the site from south to north
east would also probably need to be retained.
Graham Darlington – SLDC Conservation
Officer (Summer 2011)
Mitigation will be required, extent unknown.
Where development includes sensitive end use,
such as Housing, Public Open Space,
Allotments, a contamination assessment is
required by 1APP and advocated in PPS 23.
SLDC Environmental Protection –
Contamination (Summer 2011)
Has Gas. National Grid – Gas Distribution
(Summer 2011)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
114
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site
Reference
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Appendix 1E
Issues and Concerns
General Comment
Minor concern. Size??? field system shown in
hedgerow pattern. SLDC Arboriculturalist
Officer – Trees (Summer 2011)
Please refer to CWT who have commented on
this in their response. Natural England
(September 2011)
RN216M
(proposed
allocation –
also relates
to M10M)
No knowledge of flooding. Environment
Agency (EM129)
Biodiversity - Hedgerows on site should be
retained. There may be bats and breeding birds
using existing buildings for roosting and nesting.
Some of the land looks to be brownfield rough
grassland with scrub, this may be used by
protected species such as amphibians and
reptiles. Opportunities for biodiversity mitigation
and enhancement should be taken (Cumbria
Wildlife Trust - EM411)
Vehicle access to the site should be via Park
Garth. Cumbria County Council Highways
Authority (April 2011 EM454)
Access will require further improvement - no
footways to the village, visibility at the junction
with the main road cuts across private gardens.
Transport Statement required. New footway
required on bus stop side. Gradient. Cumbria
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
115
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Site
Reference
Site Area /
Proposal
Support
Appendix 1E
Issues and Concerns
County Council Highways Authority
(October 2011 FCEM306)
Where development includes sensitive end use,
such as Housing, Public Open Space,
Allotments, a contamination assessment is
required by 1APP and advocated in PPS 23.
SLDC Environmental Protection –
Contamination (Summer 2011)
Has Gas. National Grid – Gas Distribution
(Summer 2011)
Minor concern. Size??? field system shown in
hedgerow pattern. SLDC Arboriculturalist
Officer – Trees (Summer 2011)
Please refer to CWT who have commented on
this in their response. Natural England
(September 2011)
No knowledge of flooding. Environment
Agency (EM129)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
116
General Comment
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 2 – Evidence
Appendix 2
Site
Reference
M10 (relates
to proposed
allocation
M10M /
RN216M)
Site
Area /
Proposal
0.78 ha /
Mixed –
employ
ment
and
residenti
al
Suitability
Good candidate for residential development.
Roads in place
Services in place
Availability
Viability
General
No information,
but thought likely
to be in private
and/or multiple
ownership
because of the
nature of the use
Excellent
marketability
and viability
(no known
exceptional
costs)
Identified as suitable for
housing in the SHLAA (ref
425, Category 2)
Wholly within County Landscape area
Flood Risk Zone 1
M10M
(proposed
allocation –
also includes
RN216M)
MN3
Not identified in the
Employment and Housing
Land Search Study
Addendum as a potential
development area. Out
with the scope of the study
– within the settlement
boundary.
See M10 above
5.86
(gross)
To the west of the village the topography gently
rises to naturally enclose the village and limits
the potential for expansion beyond the existing
development boundary. Existing deciduous
woodland screens the western side of the village
with undulating fields enclosed by stone walls
and including rocky outcrops and single mature
Not identified in any
studies as being
appropriate for
development.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
117
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 2
Site
Reference
Site
Area /
Proposal
Suitability
Availability
Viability
General
trees forming an attractive landscape visible in
views from the south. (taken from Appendix 5 of
the Employment and Housing Land Search
Study).
Would involve the felling of significant amounts
of woodland
MN7
0.33 ha /
Mixed –
employ
ment/res
idential
MN8
R249 (relates 3.42 ha /
in part to
Resident
proposed
ial
allocation
M10M /
RN216M)
Not identified in any
studies as being
appropriate for
development
The Employment and Housing Land Search
Study Addendum concluded that development
would have low localised landscape / visual
impact.
‘Any development beyond the PROW boundary
would be open to views from the west and as
such development would not be supported in this
area – beyond the PROW.
Development would require combined sewerage
investment and national grid services are located
nearby’.
Good large
site will
provide
economies of
scale and
attract larger
developers…
(Source
Employment
and Housing
Land Search
Study
Addendum)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
118
Site identified as Site 1
(Little Urswick) in the
Employment and Housing
Land Search Study
Addendum (Category 3) –
medium sustainability and
medium deliverability.
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 2
Site
Reference
R671 / RN48
Site
Area /
Proposal
2.2 ha /
Resident
ial
Suitability
Availability
Viability
Identified in the
Employment and Housing
Land Search Study
Addendum (site 1,
however, identified as a
category 5 site)
Medium Sustainability:
– Potential impacts on sensitive landscape
– Good bus access
– Limited local facilities
– No employment
Low Deliverability:
–
–
–
RN1
0.56 ha /
Resident
ial
RN138 /
MN8
0.5 ha /
Mixed –
employ
ment/res
idential
0.49 ha /
Resident
ial
RN139
RN2
1.11 ha /
Resident
General
Flood risk potential to north of site
Potential site access issues
Treatment works and sewers at capacity
Not identified in any
studies as being
appropriate for
development
Not identified in any
studies as being
appropriate for
development
Cannot access
the site off
Not identified in any
studies as being
appropriate for
development
Not identified in any
studies as being
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
119
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 2
Site
Reference
Site
Area /
Proposal
ial
RN21
1.27 ha /
Resident
ial
RN216
(relates to
proposed
allocation
M10M /
RN216M)
1.69 ha /
Resident
ial
Suitability
Availability
Viability
Church Road via
the General
Burgoyne Public
House Car Park.
Owners of
aforesaid
confirmed in
writing,
November 2010.
RN216 = M10 and part of R249)
Site supported by landowner –
Good candidate for residential development.
Site available put
forward by
landowners’
agent May 2010.
This site forms part of site R249. So see also
comments re site R249 – evidence Appendix 2.
e.g. Flood Risk Zone 1
Site within/part of Site 1 (Little Urswick) in the
Employment and Housing Land Study
Addendum (Category 3). The Employment study
concluded that development would have low
localised landscape / visual impact.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
120
General
appropriate for
development
Not identified in any
studies as being
appropriate for
development
Site forms M10 and part of
R249
Part of site (Mid Town
Farm) Identified as suitable
for housing in the SHLAA
(ref 425, Category 2)
Site within/ part of Site 1
(Little Urswick) in the
Employment and Housing
Land Study
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 2
Site
Reference
Site
Area /
Proposal
Suitability
Availability
Viability
General
Addendum(Category 3)
Any development beyond the PROW boundary
would be open to views from the west and as
such development would not be supported in this
area. (beyond the PROW)
RN216M
(proposed
allocation –
also relates
to M10M)
RN29
RN48
RN49
Development would require combined sewerage
investment and national grid services are located
nearby (Site R249)
See RN216 above
0.96 ha /
Resident
ial
0.86 ha
/Residen
tial
The Employment and Housing Land Search
Study states that there are Limestone Pavement
Orders on the hills to the west of the village, with
a local landscape character of hawthorn shrubs
and limestone outcrops. In order to conserve this
character, development has been restricted to
lower level areas directly adjacent to the main
road.
The site falls directly adjacent to / just south of
the ‘North Little Urswick Landscape Character
Not identified in any
studies as being
appropriate for
development
Not identified in any
studies as being
appropriate for
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
121
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 2
Site
Reference
Site
Area /
Proposal
Suitability
Availability
Viability
Area’ in the Employment and Housing Land
Search Study addendum report. It states, “a key
concern for development around Little Urswick is
the desire to prevent coalescence with Great
Urswick. As the villages are located a field’s
width apart, it has been considered inappropriate
for any development to occur to the north”.
RN88
1.96 ha /
Resident
ial
development
Not identified in any
studies as being
appropriate for
development
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
122
General
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 3 - Sustainability Appraisal
The following scoring system is applied although a smaller range of scoring options will be used against some criteria as appropriate (in
brackets, the source of information used to derive scores for each criterion is shown):


~
X
XX
?
Contributes significantly towards sustainability objectives
Contributes moderately towards sustainability objectives
Neutral (may include positive and negative effects balancing one another out)
Detracts moderately from sustainability objectives
Detracts significantly from sustainability objectives
Unknown
SP1
Access to a Village Hall or other civic buildings (GIS layer showing location of village halls with buffer rings to indicate distances)


~
X
More than one VH or CB in settlement
One VH or CB in settlement
Haven’t got one in settlement, but one nearby (about 2km walking distance)
No VH or CB in settlement or nearby
SP2
Access to a shop selling goods to meet day-to-day needs (GIS layer showing location of shops with buffer rings to indicate
distances, local knowledge of type of shop/goods sold)


~
X
Shop within 500m
Shop between 500m and 3km away
Shop 3-5km away
Shop over 5km away
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
123
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
SP3
No criteria were used to assess sites against this objective as all housing sites will automatically help to provide people with homes and all
employment sites will support access to homes by helping to raise average incomes and provide jobs, which in turn will help people to access
housing.
SP4
Access to educational facilities (GIS layer showing location of schools with buffer rings to indicate distances)
Primary Schools


X
XX
Primary School within 500m
Primary School within 1km
Primary School within 3km
Primary school over 3km away
Secondary Schools


X
XX
Secondary school within 1.5km
Secondary school within 3km
Secondary school within 5km
Secondary school over 5km away
SP5
Access to health services (GIS layer showing location of village halls with buffer rings to indicate distances)


X
XX
GP surgery within 1km
GP surgery 1-4km
GP surgery 4-6km away
GP surgery over 6km away
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
124
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
SP6
Location in relation to existing communities 1 (maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs)


~
X
XX
Site is within an existing community
Site is on the edge of an existing community
Site is attached to an existing group of buildings no more than around 2km from an existing community
Site is attached to an existing group of buildings over around 2km from an existing community
Site is not with a group or is attached to an existing group that is over 2km from an existing community
EN1
Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and potential to contribute (GIS layers of sites of biodiversity importance and species records)
To score this criterion, notes were made as to any biodiversity/geodiversity designation of species recorded that might be affected by the site.
EN2
Effect on landscape character (maps, local knowledge and aerial photographs)


~
X
XX
Potential for significant positive effect on landscape character
Potential for moderate positive effect on landscape character
Likely neutral effect on landscape character
Potential for moderate negative effect on landscape character
Potential for significant negative effect on landscape character
EN3
Effect on built environment and potential to contribute (GIS layers showing Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings, local
knowledge, aerial photos)


Clear potential to significantly improve built environment, including where this would enhance the setting of a listed building or SAM
Clear potential to moderately improve built environment, including where this would enhance the setting of a listed building or SAM
1
within existing community does not automatically mean within the development boundary, this criterion relates to the sense of being within
community rather than access to services.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
125
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
~
X
XX
Limited potential to improve built environment but no evidence to suggest negative effects to built environment likely
Moderate potential to detract from built environment, including where this would detract from the setting of a listed building or SAM
Significant potential to detract from built environment, including where this would detract from the setting of a listed building or SAM
NR1
Effect on air quality (size, development type and location of site, local knowledge, proximity to known areas of air quality issues)


~
X
XX
Potential to significantly contribute to addressing air quality issues
Potential to moderately contribute to addressing air quality issues
Limited potential to contribute to addressing air quality issues but no evidence to suggest exacerbation of them
Potential to moderately exacerbate air quality issues
Potential to significantly exacerbate air quality issues
NR2
Water supply and effect on water resources and services (comments provided by United Utilities)
United Utilities’ comments on sites were used to ‘score’ against this criterion. In cases where they did not comment, a ‘?’ is given as the score.
There are many sites that had not been put forward for consideration at the time that UU made comments on sites and thus, many have been
given a ‘?’, whilst there are others that UU simply chose, for whatever reason not to comment on. Sites proposed subsequently have still been
commented on by United Utilities, although the comments have not been used to rescore sites in relation to the SA.
NR3
Greenfield or Brownfield (local knowledge, maps, aerial photos)
Along with the score given, it was also noted if the site could be considered infill or rounding off e.g. even if a site scored XX it could be more
favourable if it was also a rounding off site.


~
X
XX
Brownfield site within existing development boundaries
Brownfield site on edge of settlement
Greenfield site within existing development boundaries
Brownfield site not joined to an existing settlement
Greenfield extension to settlement OR Greenfield open countryside
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
126
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
NR4
Proximity to recycling facilities (GIS layer showing location of recycling bring sites with buffer rings to indicate distances)


~
X
Within 500m of recycling site.
Within 1km of recycling site
1-5km of recycling site
Over 5km of recycling site
EC1, EC3
Access to further/higher education and training facilities including main adult education centre locations, colleges, universities (GIS
layer showing location of such facilities with buffer rings to indicate distances)


~
X
XX
Within 1km of further/higher education or training facility
1-4km away from further/higher education or training
4-6km away from further/higher education or training facility
6-10km away from further/higher education or training facility
10 or more km away from further/higher education or training facility
EC2
Access to jobs (GIS layer showing location of key employment areas with buffer rings to indicate distances)


X
XX
Within 1km of key employment area
1-4km away from key employment area
4-6km away from key employment area
6km or more away from key employment area
Additional cross-cutting criteria (relevant to more than one sustainability objective)
Access to Transport (GIS layers showing bus routes and buffers to indicate distances)


Within 0.4km of a frequent bus route
Between 0.4 and 0.8km of a frequent bus route
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
127
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
~
X
XX
Within 0.4km of an infrequent bus route
Between 0.4 and 0.8km of an infrequent bus route
More than 0.8km of any bus route
Access to open space and potential to contribute (GIS layers showing location and type of open spaces and buffer rings to show
their catchments)
A note should be made alongside the score given if the development of a site would result in the loss of Important Open Space.


~
XX
Within catchment of at least 3 existing open space typologies
Within catchment of at least 2 existing open space typologies
Within catchment of at least 1 existing open space typology
Not within catchment of any open space typology OR removes provision with little or no potential to contribute to provision
Flood risk (GIS layers showing Flood Risk Zones – provided by the Environment Agency)

~
X
XX
Within Zone 1
Within Zone 2
Within Zone 3a
Within Zone 3b
Flood risk (GIS layers showing Surface Water Flood Risk Zones – provided by the Environment Agency)

X
XX
No surface water issues
1:200 year occurrence to a depth of >0.1m
1:200 year occurrence to a depth of >0.3m
Potential for incorporating energy efficiency and renewable energy (local knowledge, maps, aerial photos)


~
X
Excellent potential for incorporating energy efficiency and renewable energy
Good potential for incorporating energy efficiency and renewable energy
Some potential for incorporating energy efficiency and renewable energy
Possible constraints to incorporating energy efficiency and renewable energy
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
128
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
XX
Clear constraints to incorporating energy efficiency and renewable energy
Access to Cultural and Leisure facilities (GIS layers showing location of such facilities and buffer rings to show distances)


~
X
XX
At least 2 leisure or cultural facilities within 6km.
At least 2 leisure or cultural facilities within 8km.
1 leisure or cultural facility within 8km.
1 leisure or cultural facility within 10km
No major leisure or cultural facility within 10km
Potential to use existing recycled materials (maps, aerial photos and local knowledge were used to check whether the development
of a site could use existing buildings)


~
X
Potential for all of development to make use of existing buildings.
Potential for part of development to make use of existing buildings and the remainder has potential for use of recycled building
materials.
All new build but potential for use of recycled building materials.
Limited potential for use of recycled building materials.
Potential for coalescence (maps, aerial photos and local knowledge)


~
X
XX
Development of site has no potential to contribute to coalescence of settlements currently or in the foreseeable future
Development of site unlikely to contribute to coalescence of settlements currently or in the foreseeable future
Development of site unlikely to contribute to coalescence of settlements now but could in the future
Development of site likely to contribute to coalescence of settlements now or in the future
Development of site will cause coalescence of settlements
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
129
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Colour Code


Positive
↑
~
XX
XX
↓
Negative
(NB. Please ignore the  symbol.)
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
130
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 3 – Sustainability Appraisal
Ref.
No.
Land
use
Village
Hall or
Other
Civic
Building
M10
(relates
to
propos
ed
allocati
on
M10M /
RN216
M)
M
MN3
M
MN7
M
MN8
M
 (1
facility,
Little
Urswick)
 (1
facility,
Great
Urswick)
 (1
facility,
Great
Urswick)
 (1
facility,
Great
Urswick)
ON3
O

Shop
Access to
Educational
Facilities:
P S
Biodiversity
Health
Services
(GPs)
Flood Risk
Location in relation to
Surface Water Flooding existing communities


x
various key species


 /xx/x 60:30:10
50:50
:

x
various key species


 /x/xx 93:5:2


x
various key species






(small
part )

x
various key species


 /x 98:2

 x
various key species

 / ~ (Northern
33% zone 2)
 /x 95:5
~


Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
131
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 3 – Sustainability Appraisal
Ref.
No.
R216
R249
(relates
in part
to
propos
ed
allocati
on
M10M /
RN216
M)
R671
Village
Hall or
Land
Other
Shop
use
Civic
Building
 (1
facility,
Great
R Urswick) 
R
R
R
RN1
R
RN138
 (1
facility,
Little
Urswick)
 (1
facility,
Great
Urswick)
 (1
facility,
Great
Urswick)
 (1
facility,
Great
Urswick)
Access to
Educational
Facilities:
P S
Biodiversity
Health
Services
(GPs)
Flood Risk
Location in relation to
Surface Water Flooding existing communities
x
various key species

 / ~ (88:12 SE corner zone 2)

50:50
:
x

various key species


 /x/xx 89:10:1


 x
various key species

~ //X 70:20:10
 /xx/x 60:30:10



x
various key species






x
various key species


 /x 98:2



Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
132

South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 3 – Sustainability Appraisal
Ref.
No.
RN139
RN2
RN21
RN216
(propos
ed
allocati
on)
Village
Hall or
Land
Other
Shop
use
Civic
Building
 (1
facility,
Little
Urswick) 
R  (1
facility,
Great
Urswick) 
R  (1
facility,
Great
Urswick) 
R
R
RN29
R
RN48
 (1
facility,
Little
Urswick) 
 (1
facility,
Little
Urswick) 
 (1
facility,
Great
Urswick) 
Access to
Educational
Facilities:
P S

x
Biodiversity
various key species
Health
Services
(GPs)
Flood Risk


Location in relation to
Surface Water Flooding existing communities
 /xx/x 50:30:20

 /x 90:10

 x
various key species

 / ~ (98:2
Southern edge
zone 2)

x
various key species


 /x 90:10


X
various key bird
species


 /x 75:25
part part 
50:50
:
x

various key species




 x
various key species

~/X/ (40:30:30
)
 /xx/x 60:33:7

Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
133
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 3 – Sustainability Appraisal
Ref.
No.
RN49
RN88
Village
Hall or
Land
Other
Shop
use
Civic
Building
 (1
facility,
50:50
Little
Urswick) :
R  (1
facility,
Great
Urswick) 
Access to
Educational
Facilities:
P S
Health
Services
(GPs)
Biodiversity
Location in relation to
Surface Water Flooding existing communities
Flood Risk
 x
various key species





various key species


 /x/xx 85:14:1

x
Appendix 3 – Sustainability Appraisal
Ref. No.
M10
(relates to
proposed
allocation
M10M /
RN216M)
Land
use
M
Landscape
character
 (CL)
Built envn

X (a lot of
Air quality
Water Supply
X
No surface water to foul sewer
and public sewer crosses - no
build over - UU seems odd as
site is an existing development
X
?
X
?
X (a lot of mature mature trees
MN3
MN7
M
M
trees would need to would need to
be felled) (CL)
be felled)
~
X (mature
trees would
Greenfield
or
Recycling Education and Training
brownfield

~

XX
~


~

Part  part
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
134
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 3 – Sustainability Appraisal
Ref. No.
Land
use
Landscape
character
Built envn
Air quality
Water Supply
Greenfield
or
Recycling Education and Training
brownfield
have to be
felled)
MN8
ON3
R216
R249
(relates in
part to
proposed
allocation
M10M /
RN216M)
R671
RN1
RN138
M
O
R
RN29
X
X
XX
XX ( if
ancient field pattern
even if allocated for
~
'soft' use) (CL)
~
?
~
~

X if developed
?
allocated as a
green gap)
~
X
No surface water to foul sewer UU

~

~
~
X
X
X (consider
X
X
X
X
XX
XX

XX
~
~
~
~




mainly ~ part 
X (would destroy
R
R
R
R
RN139
RN2
RN21
RN216
(proposed
allocation)
~
X (could ruin
R
ancient field
pattern) (CL)
X (CL)
~
~
XX (CL)
~ (limestone
Public sewers pass through all
this site - no build over - UU
?
?
?
setting of
Redmayne
Hall LB)
X
?
XX
~ (though
SW part of
site is x)

R
X
~
~
X
X
?
?
XX
XX
~
~


R
part  part X
(CL)
X (limestone

~ (consider
XX
?
part
part XX
~

X
?
part 
part X part ~

pavement nearby)
pavement nearby) setting of
(CL)
ancient
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
135
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 3 – Sustainability Appraisal
Ref. No.
Land
use
Landscape
character
Built envn
Air quality
Water Supply
romano-british
settlement
SAM to NW)
RN48
RN49
RN88
R
X
X (would impact
negatively on
ancient field
pattern) (CL)
R
X (CL)
Greenfield
or
Recycling Education and Training
brownfield
XX
~
X
?
XX
~

~
~
X
X
?
?
XX
XX
~
~


Appendix 3 – Sustainability Appraisal
Ref. No.
Land Access to Transpo
use
jobs
rt
Open
Space
Energy Efficiency
Culture
and
Leisure
Recycled
materials
M10
(relates to
proposed
allocation
M10M /
RN216M))
M
~


~


MN3
MN7
MN8
M
M
M



~
~
~
~
~
~




~
~
ON3
R216
R249
(relates in
O
R



half ~ half




~
~
~
~


~
~
R
~

~/ 93:7
~

~
Coalescence

 (but would contribute to
swallowing up of farms)


X (but  if allocated as a green
gap)


Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
136
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 3 – Sustainability Appraisal
Ref. No.
part to
proposed
allocation
M10M /
RN216M)
R671
RN1
RN138
RN139
RN2
RN21
RN216
(proposed
allocation)
RN29
RN48
RN49
RN88
Land Access to Transpo
use
jobs
rt
Recycled
materials
Coalescence





~
~
~
~
~
X

~
~
~
~
~


~
~

~
up farms/rural blgs)

~




part  part
~
 (hydro from beck)
/~ 65:35 ~
~
~
~
~






~

R
R
R
Culture
and
Leisure
~
~
~
~
~
~
R
Energy Efficiency





R
R
R
R
Open
Space


~
X
~
~
part 
part ~

~
~
~


~

~ (but would contribute to swallowing


X
X
~ (but would mean that cluster of
rural dwellings became part of sett.)
SA Score Summary Great & Little Urswick
Appraisal was undertaken of all sites except those proposed for open space/green gap uses, as it is not considered that these are
likely to result in negative impacts on sustainability and few criteria would apply.
Overall, Great & Little Urswick scores best in terms of access to transport and to cultural and leisure facilities. Sites also scored
generally well in terms of access to health facilities, education and training opportunities, jobs, a shop, village hall, a primary school
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
137
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
and in terms of flood risk and sites’ locations in relation to the existing communities. It is noted that the shop has now closed in
Great Urswick.
Great & Little Urswick sites score least well in terms of access to a secondary school and impacts on landscape, the built
environment and air quality as well as the take up of Greenfield land.
The mediocre scores against access to recycling facilities and open space suggest that Great & Little Urswick would benefit from
more local provision of such facilities.
Mediocre scores were also given against impact on biodiversity, potential for energy efficiency and the use of renewables and the
use of recycled materials and in terms of the capacity of water supply and sewerage systems. Care will need to be taken to ensure
that use of recycled materials and energy efficiency/renewable energy measures are encouraged as only one site in Great & Little
Urswick show clear potential for these.
Care will need to be taken to ensure that impacts on the landscape, biodiversity, air quality and the built environment are avoided or
minimised and that adequate water supply/sewer capacity is in place.
Sites RN1, R216, MN7 and M10 scored best overall whilst sites ON3 and R671 scored least well.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
138
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 4 – Urswick Parish Plan Summary
Urswick
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reasonable bus service but user numbers in decline
Only one shop/post office in Gt. Urswick open every day and one in Bardsea but this is only open 1.5 days per week (note the shop /
post office in Great Urswick has now closed – since the Parish Plan was published)
Mixed but limited employment (mostly pubs/catering establishments and agriculture)
Many clubs and activities but limited for teens and young adults
No pub in Little Urswick (closed a few years ago)
Lack of affordable homes for locals
Preserving local character and heritage important
Speeding, congestion at start/end of school day a problem
Flooding of roads a problem
Public toilets at Bardsea (concern over threat of closure)
Protect and maintain Bardsea Country Park
Relocation of industrial site at Bardsea to a Key Service Centre as it is out of character with the area, very close to the sea shore
(Morecambe Bay SAC/RAMSAR site), appropriate restrictions on further expansion should be applied in LDF
Limited facilities for young in Bardsea
Shortage of burial plots in Bardsea graveyard
Parking an issue in Gt and Lt Urswick
Social/community activities, esp. for the young/young adults need improving
Village playground equipment needs replacing Gt. Urswick
New access points and facilities required around the tarn (not sure to what facilities this refers)
Maintenance and retention of character of Lt Urswick village green
Stainton Village green (footpath, parking, appearance)
Need open air informal play area for young children (Stainton)
Serious parking troubles associated with the Stagger Inn
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
139
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 5 - Green Gap Assessment for Great / Little Urswick:
Great and Little Urswick’s Green Gap Assessment
Note: There is no existing Green Gap between Great and Little Urswick in the South Lakeland Local Plan.
Urswick Parish Council propose and support a local designation of a new green gap between
Great and Little Urswick (letter dated 7th March 2009).
Urswick Parish Council proposes that a green gap should cover the suggested sites ON16, ON2, ON3 and ON4.
Note that the Parish Council wish to see site ON3 – as proposed open space
(inc recreation use/multi games / allotments - letter dated 7th March 2009).
This assessment considers whether new areas of land should be designated for green gap purposes in
- between Great and Little Urswick.
Appendix 5 – Green Gap Assessment
CRITERIA 1 Location: LAND IN BETWEEN LITTLE AND GREAT URSWICK
•
Scale of risk of coalescence
Adopted Local Plan Settlement Development boundaries currently seek to contain
built development in both Great and Little Urswick.
Outwith the existing development boundary north of church Road, in between Great
and Little Urswick, are a series of undeveloped fields including site ON16 and ON4.
It is considered that the greatest risk of coalescence is along Church Road, west of
Kirk Flatt housing estate (Great Urswick) and east of the Longrigg garage, house
and farm on Hookes Lane (north of Little Urswick). The scale of coalescence re site
ON16 and site ON4 is medium. ON16 is a large un- developed relatively flat field,
open in character with views out to/into the surrounding countryside, as is site ON4.
The character/nature of this land ON16/ON4 is very much one of open countryside.
There are no existing physical barriers such as hills, trees, etc. on the site to act as
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
140
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
Appendix 5 – Green Gap Assessment
a barrier to prevent the physical coalescence of the two settlements. The ponding
on site ON16 is intermittent. The only other landscape character features include
limestone walls and hedging.
In between Great and Little Urswick south of church Road, but again outwith the
settlement boundary, there has been more sporadic development. It is considered
that the scale of coalescence is high south of Church Road. Development consists
of recreation/community uses intermittent with undeveloped pastoral fields. Site
ON2 is a public children’s playground and green space area that has no local
protection/designation in the existing Local Plan. Site ON3 includes the Recreation
Hall, the field to the east (in-between the hall and the northern boundary of Little
Urswick), part of the field to the rear of the recreation hall and the field in-between
the recreation hall and the Low Furness C of E Primary School. There are no
topographical features on the fields such as hills or high ground that can act as
buffers to development. Note that part of site ON3 is the proposed allocation for a
multi use games area (MUGA), recreation area and allotments. Proposed allocation
site reference ON57# refers. This site is identified as a proposed allocation to
enable Urswick Parish Council to develop these facilities.
It is considered that the area identified as a new green gap on the emerging sites
mapping needs to be protected from development that would detract from its open
aspect/character. The land identified is important at maintaining the separateness
of Great and Little Urswick.
CRITERIA 2 • Identity
Great and Little Urswick have separate and distinct characters/identities. There is
both physical and visual separation between the two settlements. One village
formed around the tarn and has the Parish Church, the other around a green.
Without a green gap there is potential for coalescence and the separate identities
/character of the two settlements to be lost. Particularly north of Church Road, in the
undeveloped area in between the two settlements, you get a strong sense of
leaving each settlement. The undeveloped open area is at its widest here. South of
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
141
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
•
Landscape Setting
•
Character
CRITERIA 3 • Level open aspect
Appendix 5 – Green Gap Assessment
Church Road, although this perception is less strong, (due to the sporadic
development mixed with undeveloped fields), the two settlements are nonetheless
distinct. The open aspect of the countryside between the two settlements can be
seen from the public footpath on higher ground known as Tosthills, west of Great
Urswick. From Tosthills you can look down over the landscape as it opens out to
undulating pastoral views to the south.
ON16 and ON4 –The area in between Great and Little Urswick is an important
parcel of open undeveloped land forming part of the open countryside in-between
the higher topography of the limestone escarpment (at the foot of which Little
Urswick is located) and the higher ground of the valley head and tarn at its foot,
around which Great Urswick is focused. ON16 and ON4 - area of open ground Separation between the settlements is likely to be weakened if sites ON16 and ON4
site were developed/not protected as a green gap. This land is important in the
landscape setting – open aspect in-between the two settlements.
Site ON3 – an open area of undeveloped land (except for the recreation hall). It is
considered that most of this land contributes to the open character and is required
as part of a green gap to retain the two settlements identity and prevent
coalescence. The aforementioned proposed allocation ON57#, will be covered by
the proposed new green gap.
Need green gap (including ON16, ON4 and part of ON3) to protect the separate and
distinct historic character and settlement form of Great and Little Urswick. Each of
the two settlements has a distinctive sense of place. Great Urswick is located at the
head of a valley and its settlement form is focused on the tarn and along the road
which follows around the tarn and past the historic listed St. Mary and St. Michael’s
Parish Church. In contrast, Little Urswick which is spatially separated from Great
Urswick, is linear in form and focused on a green and along the road passing
through the village. Little Urswick is located at the foot of a limestone escarpment.
ON16 /ON4 – open land which is not built upon. Maintains an open aspect to south
and north.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
142
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
•
Recreational and biodiversity
opportunities
Appendix 5 – Green Gap Assessment
Inter – visibility – (the ability to see from one edge of a green gap to another). You
can view from the eastern edge (Site ON4) next to Kirk Flatt and across to the other
edge on Hookes Lane (Site ON16). You can see most of the northern edges of the
proposed green gap; however part of the southern edge is obscured by the existing
Recreation Hall. In terms of Intra – visibility - (the ability to see both edges of the
green gap from a single point), this is possible north of Church Road (ON16 and
ON4). South of church Road Intra – visibility is more difficult due to the Recreation
Hall, hedges and slight differences in ground levels across site ON3. Church Road
bisects the proposed green gap.
ON16 – biodiversity opportunity – intermittent pond/ponding. Existing hedges. –
Opportunity for habitat creation on wetter land.
ON4 – green infrastructure - hedges.
ON2 – Is an existing recreational opportunity, being a children’s playground and
green space with public access.
ON3 - existing fields surrounding the existing recreation hall. Two public footpaths
cross the site.
There is an opportunity to build on this recreational area in-between the playground
(site ON2) and the area near to the recreation hall - part of site ON3. Other than
proposing/identifying a green gap, it is considered to propose a further recreational
/allotment area in-between the recreation hall and the primary school. This
proposed further recreational area would include part of a new green gap. Note
that part of site ON3 is the proposed allocation for a multi use games area (MUGA),
recreation area and allotments. Proposed allocation site reference ON57# refers.
This site is identified as a proposed allocation to enable Urswick Parish Council to
develop these facilities.
•
Employment and Housing Land
Search Study (EHLSS), - what
the study says in landscape
terms concerning the land in-
Page 38 “ To the south of Great Urswick the landscape opens out and provides long
views of open, gently undulating farmland and pasture… The area in between
Great and Little Urswick is characterized by pockets of pastoral land and regular
field patterns edged with stone walls”. “The small size of the settlement together
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
143
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
between Little Urswick and
Great Urswick
Appendix 5 – Green Gap Assessment
with its rural setting gives a character which would be highly sensitive to expansion
and development”.
Re south west of Great Urswick – “… There are views from this area to the wider
landscape and to Little Urswick to the south. Generally development should be
avoided to maintain the scale and rural quality of the village, however there is some
potential to develop the pastoral field at kirk Flatt. This is considered to be of lower
landscape quality than that of the surrounding area due to the visibility of farm
warehouse buildings and a garage, which overlooks the site. Development in this
area could form a natural extension to the housing west of Church Road, with the
potential to give a more sympathetic edge and connect school to the village. Further
development would compromise the physical and visual separation between Great
and Little Urswick and would be visible in and detract from the wider landscape”.
“Landscape Character and classification – “ The area around little Urswick falls
within the Morecambe Bay Limestone character area and is typified by the low
undulating farmland of pastures, often species rich, divided by dry limestone walls
with infrequent individual trees and areas of deciduous woodland. The land is
generally grazed and the fields are small, with evidence of medieval field patterns
around Great and Little Urswick. Limestone hills, providing rough grazing, rise
above the lower lying pastures with limestone outcrops visible in the open
landscape.
•
Addendum to the Employment
and Housing Land Search
Study (EHLSS), February 2009
– what the study says in
landscape terms concerning the
Addendum, Appendix 1 – Land Search Surveys for Little Urswick - Topography and
Views “ Due to the desire to prevent the coalescence of Little Urswick and the
neighboring Great Urswick, key views exist between the two settlements to
demonstrate this”. The topography and views map is annotated to show significant
views on Kirk Flatt field and the adjacent field located between Little and Great
Urswick.
Concerning Development potential - “A key concern for development around Little
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
144
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations Development Plan Document
land in-between Little Urswick
and Great Urswick
•
Conclusion of the Green Gap
Assessment
Appendix 5 – Green Gap Assessment
Urswick is the desire to prevent coalescence with Great Urswick. As the villages are
located a fields width apart, it has been considered inappropriate for any
development to occur in the north “(see area shaded purple in the appendix).
Propose a local designation of a green gap to prevent coalescence between Great
and Little Urswick – Propose that areas covered by sites ON16, ON4 and most of
ON3 (but not all) be protected from development by a new green gap local
designation. It is proposed that site ON2 (existing public playground and green
space) be protected by a public open space local designation, but not the green gap
designation. See the emerging site allocations mapping for the extent of the
emerging proposed new green gap.
Note that part of site ON3 is the proposed allocation for a multi use games area
(MUGA), recreation area and allotments. Proposed allocation site reference ON57#
refers. This site is identified as a proposed allocation to enable Urswick Parish
Council to develop these facilities. The proposed new green gap will cover the
proposed allocation reference ON57#.
Great / Little Urswick Fact File – February 2012
145