Bootle - Lake District National Park
Bootle - Lake District National Park
Bootle - Lake District National Park
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Allocations of Land<br />
Preferred Site<br />
Assessments<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong>
<strong>Bootle</strong><br />
Site reference X112 Site area (Ha) 4.36<br />
Site name<br />
Wellbank Camp<br />
Suggested use at Issues and Mixed Use<br />
Options<br />
Key issues identified at Stage 2 Can issue be potentially overcome/mitigated?<br />
through Issues and Options<br />
consultation<br />
No (give reason)<br />
Further<br />
assessment<br />
required (see<br />
Isolated (unsustainable) site<br />
which will be reliant on private car<br />
use. Improved pedestrian and<br />
cycleway links back towards<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> should be secured,<br />
however, unlikely to overcome the<br />
accessibility problems associated<br />
with the location. The access is<br />
not considered to be feasible, and<br />
there are known highway issues.<br />
Concerns over the development<br />
of this site in its totality, due to its<br />
size, location, and resultant<br />
impacts upon the surrounding<br />
countryside. It is noted that the<br />
site contains areas of brownfield<br />
land, and is relatively well<br />
landscaped. Employment use<br />
may be appropriate should<br />
access issues be able to be<br />
resolved. The site is inappropriate<br />
for housing in our view, given its<br />
remoteness.<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
below)<br />
Stage 3<br />
No Yes<br />
Is the site available?<br />
<br />
Site characteristics<br />
This site is a former barracks used by the Ministry of Defence but sold by Defence<br />
Estates in 2002. A large part of the site comprises rough grass. A range of brick<br />
buildings and prefabricated buildings occupy part of the eastern side of the site, and<br />
these buildings are now vacant and in a poor state of repair. One building, a<br />
swimming pool used by the community, occupies the north west corner of the site.<br />
The site occupies a fold in the low lying coastal plain and consequently, except when<br />
viewed from the road to the north, it is not prominent in the landscape. Agricultural<br />
land surrounds this site to the north, south, east, and west, although there are<br />
highways along the southern boundary and part of the northern boundary of this site.<br />
The site is located approximately 700 metres from <strong>Bootle</strong> and 800 metres from<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> Station where the Cumbrian Coastal Railway stops.
This site will be assessed as a mixed use site as this was suggested for the Issues<br />
and Options consultation, and Policy CS06 of our Core Strategy states we will<br />
consider Wellbank Camp as a possible location for mixed use development.<br />
Further<br />
issues/opp<br />
ortunities to<br />
consider<br />
Accessibility<br />
Can issues be overcome/mitigated?<br />
Are there opportunities for enhancement?<br />
Issues and opportunities<br />
Green = no issue<br />
Amber = issues can be<br />
addressed through mitigation<br />
Red = Issue cannot be<br />
satisfactorily addressed<br />
= Opportunity for<br />
enhancement<br />
This site is approximately 700 metres from centre of the<br />
residential area of <strong>Bootle</strong>, and approximately 950 metres to the <br />
services and facilities including convenience store, school, and<br />
public transport. Pedestrian footways and cycleways would be<br />
required as part of any redevelopment proposed to enable<br />
access to <strong>Bootle</strong>, and this would result in a benefit to the local<br />
community. Development of this site would also offer<br />
opportunity to provide pedestrian footways and cycleways to<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> Station in order to link these settlements as this site is<br />
located approximately equidistant between these two locations.<br />
Archaeology<br />
Biodiversity/<br />
Geodiversity<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> Station is located approximately 800 metres from this site<br />
which is a stop for the Cumbrian Coastal Railway. Cumbria<br />
Highways have expressed concerns in relation to the relative<br />
distance and therefore accessibility/sustainability of this site.<br />
The Wellbank Camp site is however recognised in the Core<br />
Strategy (Policy CS06) as of strategic importance to <strong>Bootle</strong> for<br />
redevelopment. Any proposal on this site would be expected to<br />
offer pedestrian/cycle link enhancements between <strong>Bootle</strong> and<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> Station thereby mitigating against current accessibility<br />
concerns, and offering wider community benefits for the local<br />
community.<br />
There is no record of any archaeological designations or<br />
features within this site or in close proximity.<br />
A preliminary desk top assessment of designations has been<br />
undertaken to identify any sites which are located within 250<br />
metres of Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special<br />
Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, <strong>National</strong> Nature<br />
Reserves, Local Nature Reserves, RAMSAR sties, County<br />
Wildlife Sites, and Regionally Important Geological and<br />
Geomorphological Sites. This site is not located within 250<br />
metres of any of these nature designations so there is unlikely to<br />
be any adverse impact but any proposals that may have a direct<br />
or indirect effect on these features will be expected to give full<br />
consideration of the potential impact.<br />
It is also possible that this site hosts protected habitats and
Contaminate<br />
d land<br />
Flood risk<br />
Health and<br />
Wellbeing<br />
Highways<br />
Historic<br />
environment<br />
Landscape<br />
species which will require further consideration prior to the<br />
submission of any planning application for the development of<br />
the site. Mitigation measures may be required.<br />
This site is previously developed having most recently being<br />
used as barracks for the Ministry of Defence. Although it is<br />
considered unlikely to be contaminated further desk based<br />
investigations may need to be undertaken to establish if there is<br />
potential of contamination of this site given it is a previously<br />
developed site. If found to be contaminated remediation<br />
measures would be required.<br />
This site is in a low risk area. It is located within a Zone 1 Low<br />
Probability which is assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000<br />
annual probability of river flooding in any year. We are not<br />
aware of any reported localized flooding episodes.<br />
Any subsequent application for this site will need to address<br />
surface water run-off in order to comply with CS11 and CS17 of<br />
the Core Strategy.<br />
This site is not currently accessible via a Public Right of Way<br />
and the site is not designated as Important Open Space for<br />
Recreation under Local Plan Policy S1, therefore development<br />
would not result in the loss of recreational opportunities.<br />
Development proposals would be expected to have regard to<br />
the community’s aspiration (within the Parish Plan) to<br />
retaining/redeveloping community facilities (such as a swimming<br />
pool) on the site.<br />
Cumbria Highways commented that this is an ‘isolated<br />
(unsustainable) site which will be reliant on private car use.<br />
Improved pedestrian and cycleway links back towards <strong>Bootle</strong><br />
should be secured, however, unlikely to overcome the<br />
accessibility problems associated with the location. The access<br />
is not considered to be feasible, and there are known highway<br />
issues’.<br />
Whilst the concerns of Cumbria Highways are noted, this site is<br />
of strategic importance to the community of <strong>Bootle</strong>. The principle<br />
of its redevelopment is supported by the adopted Core Strategy,<br />
and the opportunity to provide high quality links between the<br />
site, and <strong>Bootle</strong> and <strong>Bootle</strong> Station offer wider community<br />
benefits which can be secured through the redevelopment of<br />
this site.<br />
This site is not located within 250 metres of a conservation area<br />
or listed buildings.<br />
This area is characterised by the flat to gently undulating<br />
topography of this area of coastal plain, with its regular network<br />
of pastoral fields, which are divided by a mixture of hedgerows,<br />
dry stone walls, kests, and wire fences, which provides stark<br />
contrast with the vast expansive open seascape to the west and<br />
the dramatic rising High Fells to the east.<br />
This site sits comfortably within this landscape but the vacant<br />
and derelict appearance of the buildings within this site makes a
negative contribution to the character of the landscape. Much of<br />
this site does appear have returned back to Greenfield land<br />
particularly in the south west portion of the site.<br />
Neighbour<br />
impact<br />
Planning<br />
history<br />
(including<br />
relevant<br />
appeals)<br />
Settlement<br />
character<br />
Tree and<br />
Woodlands<br />
Utilities<br />
(electricity/g<br />
as)<br />
The site occupies a fold in the low lying coastal plain and is<br />
relatively well screened by the trees along the boundary.<br />
Appropriate redevelopment of this site will enhance the<br />
appearance of this site, as it will result in the<br />
removal/redevelopment of the existing buildings which detract<br />
from the landscape character. The topography of the site and<br />
consideration of the scale and mass of development will ensure<br />
that redevelopment overcomes concerns raised by the Planning<br />
Inspector in reaching his conclusions for the 2004 planning<br />
appeal for a holiday lodge development.<br />
There is a residential dwelling located near the north eastern<br />
boundary of this site but it is located on the opposite side of the<br />
road. It is unlikely that there would be any unacceptable<br />
neighbour amenity issues resulting from an acceptable proposal<br />
including residential and employment uses.<br />
A series of planning applications has been submitted on this site<br />
in the past. Most recently planning permission was refused in<br />
2004 for a holiday lodge development, and an appeal was<br />
subsequently dismissed. The Inspector concluded that the<br />
proposal would be harmful to the landscape of the <strong>National</strong><br />
<strong>Park</strong>, and the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the harm.<br />
A certificate for lawfulness was refused in 2003 for a<br />
dwellinghouse. However also in 2003 planning permission was<br />
granted for the replacement of a substandard dwelling and this<br />
is an extant permission.<br />
Whilst not immediately adjacent to <strong>Bootle</strong>, the site is only a short<br />
distance from <strong>Bootle</strong>, and accessibility can be significantly<br />
improved. <strong>Bootle</strong> does not have a distinct vernacular or historic<br />
form and this lessens its sensitivity to new development.<br />
The majority of the existing buildings on the site are in a poor<br />
state of repair therefore the redevelopment of this site would<br />
have a positive effect on the settlement and surrounding<br />
landscape.<br />
There are some trees located along the boundary of this site<br />
and occasional individual specimens located within this site. If<br />
developed it may be necessary to remove the existing trees<br />
within the site but this would not lead the loss of any individually<br />
important specimens, nor could it adversely affect the overall<br />
amenity value of the site. Mitigation measures such as root<br />
protection areas may be required for trees located on the<br />
boundary on the site.<br />
Electricity- ENWL has a commitment to provide an electricity<br />
supply to new build development. ENWL determine the cost of<br />
connection and the developer would be expected to contribute<br />
part or all of this cost. Sites closer to sub-stations and existing<br />
developments are likely to result in lower connection
costs. Further information is required to provide a detailed<br />
response.<br />
Utilities<br />
(Sewerage/d<br />
rainage)<br />
Utilities<br />
(water)<br />
Gas- No capacity issues have been identified. It should be<br />
possible to supply sites on an individual basis from the existing<br />
low pressure system. However, to provide a firm response<br />
detailed information is required.<br />
Approximately 14 new dwellings can be accommodated by the<br />
existing waste water network and treatment facilities.<br />
Additionally, the redevelopment of Wellbank Camp should not<br />
create significant problems because the waste treatment plant<br />
will already have capacity for its former use as a Ministry of<br />
Defence base. UU would need further details of a proposal.<br />
There are no water supply issues or constraints in <strong>Bootle</strong>.<br />
Summary of consultation comments<br />
Housing: Support: 0 Object: 1 Don't mind: 0<br />
Employment: Support: 0 Object: 1 Don't mind: 0<br />
Waste Management: Support: 0 Object: 1 Don't mind: 0<br />
Open Space: Support: 0 Object: 0 Don't mind: 1<br />
Concerns over the development of this site in its totality, due to its size, location, and<br />
resultant impacts upon the surrounding countryside. It is noted that the site contains<br />
areas of brownfield land, and is relatively well landscaped. Employment use may be<br />
appropriate should access issues be able to be resolved. The site is inappropriate<br />
for housing given its remoteness.<br />
Isolated (unsustainable) site which will be reliant on private car use. Improved<br />
pedestrian and cycleway links back towards <strong>Bootle</strong> should be secured, however,<br />
unlikely to overcome the accessibility problems associated with the location. The<br />
access is not considered to be feasible, and there are known highway issues.<br />
Summary of assessment with regards to HRA/SA<br />
Housing Development<br />
Significant positive effect on SA objective (++):<br />
SA 3: To provide everyone with a decent home<br />
Significant negative effect on SA objective (--):<br />
SA 2: To improve access to services, facilities, the countryside and open space<br />
SA 5: To improve health and wellbeing<br />
SA 10: To improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions<br />
SA 15: To improve access to jobs<br />
Uncertain but potentially significant effect on SA objective (--? or ++?):<br />
None identified.<br />
Minor positive effect on SA objective (+):<br />
None identified.
Minor negative effect on objective (-):<br />
None identified.<br />
Uncertain, potentially minor effect on SA objective (-? or +?):<br />
SA 7: To protect and enhance biodiversity (-?)<br />
SA 17: To protect historic assets and their settings (-?)<br />
Uncertain effect on objective (?)<br />
SA 8: To preserve, enhance and manage landscape quality and character for future<br />
generations<br />
Negligible effect on objective (0)<br />
None identified.<br />
Employment Development:<br />
Significant positive effect on SA objective (++):<br />
None identified<br />
Significant negative effect on SA objective (--):<br />
None identified<br />
Uncertain but potentially significant effect on SA objective (--? or ++?):<br />
None identified<br />
Minor positive effect on SA objective (+):<br />
SA 5: To improve health and wellbeing<br />
Minor negative effect on objective (-):<br />
None identified<br />
Uncertain, potentially minor effect on SA objective (-? or +?):<br />
SA 7: To protect and enhance biodiversity (-?)<br />
SA 17: To protect historic assets and their settings (-?)<br />
Uncertain effect on objective (?)<br />
SA 8: To preserve, enhance and manage landscape quality and character for future<br />
generations<br />
Negligible effect on objective (0)<br />
SA 10: To improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions<br />
SA 11: To improve water quality and water resources<br />
SA 15: To improve access to jobs<br />
Summary of Habitats Regulations Assessment Evidence:<br />
The potential scale of development at this site is medium (1.0-10.0 ha).<br />
It does not lie within 250m of any European sites.<br />
Summary of assessment findings (i.e. above)<br />
There are few sites which offer such opportunities to seek improvements to the local<br />
area and community than this site does. The site is recognised in the Core Strategy<br />
(Policy CS06) as of strategic importance to <strong>Bootle</strong> for redevelopment. This former<br />
barracks site is currently vacant and the buildings on site are in a poor state of
epair, as a result this site is considered to make a negative contribution to the<br />
character of the landscape. The site occupies a fold in the land so is relatively well<br />
screened and it is considered that further development can be accommodated on<br />
this site subject to appropriate scale, design, and layout.<br />
The site is not located immediately adjacent to <strong>Bootle</strong> as it is approximately 700<br />
metres from the village, and 800 metres in the other direction to <strong>Bootle</strong> Station.<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> does not have a distinct vernacular or historic form so lessens its sensitivity to<br />
new development. Cumbria Highways commented ‘development will be reliant on<br />
private car use. Improved pedestrian and cycleway links back towards <strong>Bootle</strong><br />
should be secured.’ This site offers the opportunity, and would be a requirement of<br />
redevelopment, to improve pedestrian and cycleway links to both <strong>Bootle</strong> and <strong>Bootle</strong><br />
Station as the site is almost equidistant between the two. This improvement would<br />
be to the benefit of the wider community and not just this site. The Parish Plan<br />
highlights the community’s aspiration to retain/redevelop the swimming pool on the<br />
site as part of any scheme as this is seen as a valued community facility.<br />
As a result of the former use it may be necessary to undertake further investigations<br />
to determine if this site contains contaminated land. Redevelopment of the site would<br />
not result in the loss of individually important specimens of trees or affect the overall<br />
amenity value of the site.<br />
In order to redevelop this site to incorporate community facilities and open space it is<br />
assumed that 25% of the site would be developed for housing and 25% would be<br />
developed for employment land. Other uses on the remaining area of the site will be<br />
considered through the submission of a planning application.<br />
No Yes<br />
Is this site selected as a preferred option?<br />
If so, for what use?<br />
<br />
Mixed use – housing,<br />
employment, and open<br />
space (and other uses<br />
which will be assessed<br />
through submission of a<br />
planning application)<br />
Is boundary to be redrawn? (as No New site area (Ha) 4.36<br />
shown on ‘preferred options’ map)<br />
Suggested requirements if allocated<br />
Provision of pedestrian/cycle links between <strong>Bootle</strong> and <strong>Bootle</strong> Station<br />
Provision of open space and community facilities<br />
Site reference X112 Site area (Ha) 4.36<br />
Site name<br />
Wellbank Camp, <strong>Bootle</strong><br />
Suggested use at Issues and Open space amenity<br />
Options<br />
Key issues identified at Stage 2 Possible to overcome or mitigate the issue?<br />
through issues and options<br />
consultation<br />
No (give reason)<br />
Further<br />
assessment<br />
required (see<br />
below)<br />
Potential competing uses.<br />
Yes
Stage 3 – amenity open space<br />
Is there a local deficiency of this type of open space?<br />
Is there a local surplus of this type of open space?<br />
Is the site publicly accessible?<br />
Is the site used for recreation?<br />
Is the site within or well related to a settlement?<br />
Is the site or its use mentioned in the community plan?<br />
If applicable, does the community plan recognise it as<br />
worthy of retention for its current use?<br />
Does the site contribute to the character of the built<br />
environment, landscape, or settlement form?<br />
Has an alternative use or development been suggested?<br />
Description of reasonable alternative use(s):<br />
Housing, employment<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
If a new use is suggested what is the justification or considerations to justify<br />
an alternative use or development?<br />
The site is currently a disused MOD site, owned by a private landowner. There is an<br />
identified need for local housing in <strong>Bootle</strong>, and a need for local employment. The<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> community plan identifies the Wellbank Camp site as having potential for<br />
housing and employment development, and the community would like to retain the<br />
swimming pool currently there. There is an identified deficiency of amenity open<br />
space in <strong>Bootle</strong>, and a gap in provision of public parks.<br />
Site characteristics<br />
Large site with a series of single story buildings, which are now all vacant. The site is<br />
untidy where buildings are located. Quiet location between <strong>Bootle</strong> and <strong>Bootle</strong><br />
Station, with access directly from the road linking <strong>Bootle</strong> with <strong>Bootle</strong> Station. The<br />
road is a narrow country lane. <strong>Bootle</strong> train station is approximately 0.5 miles away.<br />
The site is close enough to walk to services in <strong>Bootle</strong>, but there is currently no<br />
footpath or cycleway access. As the site is privately owned, it is not currently publicly<br />
accessible, apart from limited access to the swimming pool.<br />
Street lighting and some roads are present within the site. Some of site appears to<br />
have gone back to greenfield status. Well screened from the road by trees.<br />
Summary of consultation comments<br />
One comment supporting open space designation. One comment objecting to each<br />
of housing, employment, and waste management allocations. Cumbria County<br />
Council has advised that there is a known highways issue. Objections are based on<br />
the impact of development on the surrounding countryside.<br />
Summary of qualitative assessment with regards to HRA/SA<br />
Housing Development
Significant positive effect on SA objective (++):<br />
SA 3: To provide everyone with a decent home<br />
Significant negative effect on SA objective (--):<br />
SA 2: To improve access to services, facilities, the countryside and open space<br />
SA 5: To improve health and wellbeing<br />
SA 10: To improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions<br />
SA 15: To improve access to jobs<br />
Uncertain but potentially significant effect on SA objective (--? or ++?):<br />
None identified.<br />
Minor positive effect on SA objective (+):<br />
None identified.<br />
Minor negative effect on objective (-):<br />
None identified.<br />
Uncertain, potentially minor effect on SA objective (-? or +?):<br />
SA 7: To protect and enhance biodiversity (-?)<br />
SA 17: To protect historic assets and their settings (-?)<br />
Uncertain effect on objective (?)<br />
SA 8: To preserve, enhance and manage landscape quality and character for future<br />
generations<br />
Negligible effect on objective (0)<br />
None identified.<br />
Employment Development:<br />
Significant positive effect on SA objective (++):<br />
None identified<br />
Significant negative effect on SA objective (--):<br />
None identified<br />
Uncertain but potentially significant effect on SA objective (--? or ++?):<br />
None identified<br />
Minor positive effect on SA objective (+):<br />
SA 5: To improve health and wellbeing<br />
Minor negative effect on objective (-):<br />
None identified<br />
Uncertain, potentially minor effect on SA objective (-? or +?):<br />
SA 7: To protect and enhance biodiversity (-?)<br />
SA 17: To protect historic assets and their settings (-?)<br />
Uncertain effect on objective (?)
SA 8: To preserve, enhance and manage landscape quality and character for future<br />
generations<br />
Negligible effect on objective (0)<br />
SA 10: To improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions<br />
SA 11: To improve water quality and water resources<br />
SA 15: To improve access to jobs<br />
Summary of Habitats Regulations Assessment Evidence:<br />
The potential scale of development at this site is medium (1.0-10.0 ha).<br />
It does not lie within 250m of any European sites.<br />
Summary of assessment findings (i.e. above)<br />
Any housing and/or employment development at Wellbank should include an<br />
element of open space and the designation of the open space areas. There is a<br />
deficiency of amenity open space in <strong>Bootle</strong>, and a gap in provision of public parks.<br />
Development of the overall site should provide publicly available open space,<br />
including informal recreation space (‘kickabout’ areas), and an element of public park<br />
space if future maintenance can be secured.<br />
It would be beneficial to the local community to retain access to a swimming pool on<br />
this site, whether it is in a new building or in the existing building.<br />
Yes No<br />
Should this site be designated as amenity open <br />
space?
Site reference X284 Site area (Ha) 1.93<br />
Site name<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> sports fields<br />
Suggested use at Issues and Open space recreation<br />
Options<br />
Key issues identified at Stage 2 Possible to overcome or mitigate the issue?<br />
through issues and options<br />
consultation<br />
No (give reason)<br />
Further<br />
assessment<br />
required (see<br />
below)<br />
No issues identified<br />
Stage 3 – Recreation open space<br />
Is there a local deficiency of this type of open space?<br />
Is there a local surplus of this type of open space?<br />
Is site still in recreational use?<br />
Is the site or its use mentioned in the community plan?<br />
If applicable does the community plan recognise it as<br />
worthy of retention for its current use?<br />
Does the site contribute to the character of the built<br />
environment, landscape, or settlement form?<br />
Is the site within or well related to a settlement?<br />
Is the site publicly accessible?<br />
Has an alternative use or development been suggested?<br />
Description of reasonable alternative use(s):<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
N/A<br />
No<br />
If a new use is suggested what is the justification or considerations to justify<br />
an alternative use or development?<br />
Site characteristics<br />
Playing fields and <strong>Bootle</strong> and <strong>District</strong> Bowling Club. Flat, good access to main road,<br />
well maintained.<br />
Comments from Sport England (required if an alternative use is pursued)<br />
Summary of consultation comments<br />
No comments received
Summary of assessment with regards to HRA/SA<br />
Summary of assessment findings (i.e. above)<br />
Playing fields and <strong>Bootle</strong> and <strong>District</strong> Bowling Club. Flat, good access to main road,<br />
well maintained.<br />
Should this site be designated as formal recreation<br />
open space?<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
No
Site reference X438 Site area (Ha) 0.67<br />
Site name<br />
Field off Church Lane<br />
Suggested use at Issues and Housing<br />
Options<br />
Key issues identified at Stage 2 Can issue be potentially overcome/mitigated?<br />
through Issues and Options<br />
consultation<br />
No (give reason)<br />
Further<br />
assessment<br />
required (see<br />
Acceptable in principle subject to<br />
securing a suitable access<br />
arrangement. The frontage of the<br />
site could be affected by a<br />
proposed footway/cycleway route.<br />
Access is considered to be<br />
feasible and there are no known<br />
highway issues.<br />
Yes<br />
below)<br />
Stage 3<br />
No Yes<br />
Is the site available?<br />
<br />
Site characteristics<br />
This site is an agricultural field located on the northern edge of <strong>Bootle</strong>. The site is<br />
located directly north of Church Lane, to the east of the site is an agricultural field<br />
and the graveyard, and to the north and west is agricultural land. There is no<br />
development on this side of Church Lane but residential dwellings are located on the<br />
opposite side of this road. This site is flat, there is a field gate off Church Lane, and<br />
hedgerows form the boundary of the site fronting the highway.<br />
Further Can issues be overcome/mitigated?<br />
issues/opp Are there opportunities for enhancement?<br />
ortunities to<br />
consider<br />
Issues and opportunities<br />
Green = no issue<br />
Amber = issues can be<br />
addressed through mitigation<br />
Red = Issue cannot be<br />
satisfactorily addressed<br />
= Opportunity for<br />
enhancement<br />
Accessibility This site is located within 600 metres of services and facilities in<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> including the Primary School, convenience store, GP<br />
Surgery and public transport facilities. There is a surfaced<br />
footpath opposite this site on Church Lane therefore this site is<br />
considered to be accessible.<br />
Archaeology There are no records of any archaeological features on this site.<br />
Biodiversity/<br />
Geodiversity<br />
A preliminary desk top assessment of designations has been<br />
undertaken to identify any sites which are located within 250<br />
metres of Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special<br />
Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, <strong>National</strong> Nature<br />
Reserves, Local Nature Reserves, RAMSAR sties, County<br />
Wildlife Sites, and Regionally Important Geological and
Geomorphological Sites. This site is not located within 250<br />
metres of any of these nature designations so there is unlikely to<br />
be any adverse impact but any proposals that may have a direct<br />
or indirect effect on these features will be expected to give full<br />
consideration of the potential impact.<br />
Contaminate<br />
d land<br />
Flood risk<br />
Health and<br />
Wellbeing<br />
Highways<br />
Historic<br />
environment<br />
Landscape<br />
It is also possible that this site hosts protected habitats and<br />
species which will require further consideration prior to the<br />
submission of any planning application for the development of<br />
the site. Mitigation measures may be required.<br />
This site is an agricultural field and the planning history does not<br />
indicate any alternative uses. Therefore, it is unlikely that there<br />
would be any contamination issues on this site.<br />
This site is in a low risk area. It is located within a Zone 1 Low<br />
Probability which is assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000<br />
annual probability of river flooding in any year. We are not<br />
aware of any reported localized flooding episodes.<br />
Any subsequent application for this site will need to address<br />
surface water run-off in order to comply with CS11 and CS17 of<br />
the Core Strategy.<br />
This site is not currently accessible via a Public Right of Way<br />
and the site is not designated as Important Open Space for<br />
Recreation under Local Plan Policy S1, therefore development<br />
would not result in the loss of recreational opportunities.<br />
Cumbria Highways commented that this site is acceptable in<br />
principle subject to securing a suitable access arrangement.<br />
The frontage of the site could be affected by a proposed<br />
footway/cycleway route. Access is considered to be feasible<br />
and there are no known highway issues.<br />
The site is located within 250 metres of listed buildings. The<br />
closest listed building is St Michael’s Church which is located to<br />
the east of the site on the opposite side of the A595. Although<br />
there are distant views of the church from the site it is<br />
considered that providing any development is of an acceptable<br />
scale there wouldn’t be an unacceptable adverse impact to the<br />
character and setting of this listed building.<br />
This area is characterised by the flat to gently undulating<br />
topography of this area of coastal plain, with its regular network<br />
of pastoral fields, which are divided by a mixture of hedgerows,<br />
dry stone walls, kests, and wire fences, which provides stark<br />
contrast with the vast expansive open seascape to the west and<br />
the dramatic rising High Fells to the east.<br />
This field forms the beginning of open countryside, when<br />
approaching along Church Lane from the west there are views<br />
across to the High Fell to the east, and closer to the site there is<br />
partially obscured views of the Church. However, these views<br />
are seen in the context of relatively modern residential<br />
development on the opposite side of the road.<br />
The site is flat therefore providing the scale of development is
Neighbour<br />
impact<br />
Planning<br />
history<br />
(including<br />
relevant<br />
appeals)<br />
Settlement<br />
character<br />
Tree and<br />
Woodlands<br />
Utilities<br />
(electricity/g<br />
as)<br />
appropriate there would not be a dominating impact on the open<br />
countryside as development could sit comfortably within its<br />
context on the edge of the settlement with further planting.<br />
There are no residential properties adjacent to this site as such<br />
there will be no detrimental impact on the neighbour amenity.<br />
Planning permission was granted in 1993 to move the gateway<br />
of the site.<br />
This site is located on the northern fringe of <strong>Bootle</strong>. Church<br />
Lane marks currently the beginning of open countryside as there<br />
is no development beyond this highway to the north. However,<br />
the presence of the graveyard adjacent to the site means<br />
Church Lane does not give way solely to agricultural land. If this<br />
site was developed it would be located close to existing<br />
residential dwellings, and some development could be seen as<br />
a natural evolution of the settlement. These dwellings opposite<br />
the site do not display characteristics of traditional vernacular<br />
buildings as they are relatively modern, as such development is<br />
considered to be more appropriate in this location than in the<br />
more historical parts of the settlement.<br />
The scale, design, and layout are important considerations to<br />
ensure development does not appear as a sporadic<br />
development in the open countryside. A comprehensive<br />
planting scheme would also be required to help mediate the<br />
transition from built development to open countryside. There is<br />
also a danger that development of this site would set a<br />
precedent for future development to the west of the site further<br />
extending into the open countryside.<br />
There are no trees within this site, although there are some<br />
located in around the boundary of this site which is<br />
predominantly hedgerow. There are two mature oak trees on<br />
the boundary, one on the southern boundary and one on<br />
northern boundary. Both of these have a diameter of<br />
approximately 500mm therefore requiring root protection areas<br />
of a minimum of 6m. This would particularly need to be taken<br />
into account for the access to the site off the southern boundary.<br />
It is not anticipated that development of the site would result in<br />
the loss of trees.<br />
Electricity- ENWL has a commitment to provide an electricity<br />
supply to new build development. ENWL determine the cost of<br />
connection and the developer would be expected to contribute<br />
part or all of this cost. Sites closer to sub-stations and existing<br />
developments are likely to result in lower connection<br />
costs. Further information is required to provide a detailed<br />
response.<br />
Gas- No capacity issues have been identified. It should be<br />
possible to supply sites on an individual basis from the existing<br />
low pressure system. However, to provide a firm response
Utilities<br />
(Sewerage/d<br />
rainage)<br />
Utilities<br />
(water)<br />
detailed information is required.<br />
Approximately 14 new dwellings can be accommodated by the<br />
existing waste water network and treatment facilities.<br />
There are no water supply issues or constraints in <strong>Bootle</strong>.<br />
Summary of consultation comments<br />
Housing: Support: 0 Object: 0 Don't mind: 0<br />
Employment: Support: 0 Object: 0 Don't mind: 0<br />
Waste Management: Support: 0 Object: 0 Don't mind: 0<br />
Open Space: Support: 0 Object: 0 Don't mind: 0<br />
Acceptable in principle subject to securing a suitable access arrangement. The<br />
frontage of the site could be affected by a proposed footway/cycleway route. Access<br />
is considered to be feasible and there are no known highway issues.<br />
Summary of assessment with regards to HRA/SA<br />
Housing Development<br />
Significant positive effect on SA objective (++):<br />
SA 3: To provide everyone with a decent home<br />
SA 15: To improve access to jobs<br />
Significant negative effect on SA objective (--):<br />
None identified.<br />
Uncertain but potentially significant effect on SA objective (--? or ++?):<br />
SA 17: To protect historic assets and their settings (--?)<br />
Minor positive effect on SA objective (+):<br />
None identified.<br />
Minor negative effect on objective (-):<br />
None identified.<br />
Uncertain, potentially minor effect on SA objective (-? or +?):<br />
SA 7: To protect and enhance biodiversity (-?)<br />
Uncertain effect on objective (?)<br />
SA 8: To preserve, enhance and manage landscape quality and character for future<br />
generations<br />
Negligible effect on objective (0)<br />
SA 2: To improve access to services, facilities, the countryside and open space<br />
SA 5: To improve health and wellbeing<br />
SA 10: To improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions<br />
Employment Development<br />
LDNPA does not consider that this site is a reasonable alternative for employment<br />
development.
Summary of Habitats Regulations Assessment Evidence:<br />
The potential scale of development at this site is small (
Site reference X441 Site area (Ha) 0.73<br />
Site name<br />
<strong>Bootle</strong> playing field and playground<br />
Suggested use at Issues and Open space recreation<br />
Options<br />
Key issues identified at Stage 2 Possible to overcome or mitigate the issue?<br />
through issues and options<br />
consultation<br />
No (give reason)<br />
Further<br />
assessment<br />
required (see<br />
below)<br />
No issues identified<br />
Stage 3 – Recreation open space<br />
Is there a local deficiency of this type of open space?<br />
Is there a local surplus of this type of open space?<br />
Is site still in recreational use?<br />
Is the site or its use mentioned in the community plan?<br />
If applicable does the community plan recognise it as<br />
worthy of retention for its current use?<br />
Does the site contribute to the character of the built<br />
environment, landscape, or settlement form?<br />
Is the site within or well related to a settlement?<br />
Is the site publicly accessible?<br />
Has an alternative use or development been suggested?<br />
Description of reasonable alternative use(s):<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
No<br />
N/A<br />
No<br />
If a new use is suggested what is the justification or considerations to justify<br />
an alternative use or development?<br />
Site characteristics<br />
Playground includes informal kickabout area, used by Captain Shaw School. Flat,<br />
well maintained, frequently used.<br />
Comments from Sport England (required if an alternative use is pursued)<br />
Summary of consultation comments<br />
No comments received
Summary of assessment with regards to HRA/SA<br />
Summary of assessment findings (i.e. above)<br />
Playground includes informal kickabout area, used by Captain Shaw School.<br />
Should this site be designated as formal recreation<br />
open space?<br />
Yes<br />
Yes<br />
No