SLDC's 5,200 homes plan passed by full council - 32 for and 13 against

First published in News
Last updated
The Westmorland Gazette: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

CONTROVERSIAL plans for 5,200 new homes and 20 employment sites in South Lakeland have tonight been agreed.

Councillors at a full meeting of South Lakeland District Council in Kendal voted 32 for and 13 against to formally adopt the Local Plan.

The plan sets out where potential homes and businesses might go in future.

It was described by SLDC’s ruling Liberal Democrats as ‘a blueprint for the social and economic future of South Lakeland’.

But opposition Conservatives branded it a ‘developers charter’ and a ‘disaster for the district.’

Around 68 greenfield sites in towns and villages across South Lakeland are earmarked for new homes in the plan with 20 new employment sites.

The council’s adoption means developers are now expected to come forward with building projects.

Under the plan, thirty five per cent of any homes have to be affordable.

However any applications would still need to pass through the council planning process.

However, critics say the adoption by council of the plan now 'binds' the hands of the council to passing applications on allocated sites – or face costly legal battles with developers.

Presenting the plan, development portfolio holder Coun Jonathan Brook (Lib Dem) said it represented ‘seven years of hard work’ which had been ‘complex and contentious’.

But he said the plan had been found ‘sound’ by an independently-appointed planning inspector and that it had involved 'extensive' consultation with local residents.

“We simply will not be able to please everyone,” said Coun Brook. “This is the nature of democracy and this document is democracy in action.”

“If we do not have a plan, we have no ability to defend land from speculative developers who will get planning permission under the assumption of favoured development," said Coun Brook.

He said if the council did not accept the plan, it would lead to ‘chaos’ and an ‘economic and social catastrophe’ for South Lakeland.

But Coun James Airey for the Conservatives, accused him of ‘scaremongering’ and claimed the Lib Dem benches had been ‘whipped’ into voting for the plan by party MP Tim Farron.

Coun Airey said: “Tonight is the night to say ‘Woah. Hang on. We’ve got this wrong’. If you think the pressure is going to be off after tonight you’re sorely mistaken.

“The anger of the public is just about to start. When they see the damage you are going to let happen to this beautiful area, you lot are in a lot of trouble.”

He said those who believed SLDC's planning committee could turn down development if the site was in the Local Plan were ‘living in cloud cuckoo land’.

However, Lib Dem councillor Ian Stewart told the meeting how one council had rejected its Local Plan but had then not been able to block housing developments imposed on its community by the Bristol-based Planning Inspectorate.

Coun Stewart said: “The experience of other places is there for all to see. This plan ensures 99 per cent of this area will not be developed. I don’t regard less than one per cent of development in South Lakeland as a blight. I regard not backing this plan as a blight on South Lakeland.”

Tory leader Coun David Williams described it ‘a beast’ and said it was ‘bungled’.

“We on this side appreciate the plan has been approved by the inspector but we have grave concerns about many of its aspects,” said Coun Williams.

“This one doesn’t reflect the wishes of the local community – indeed it ignores many of them. Roads, schools and infrastructure have not been considered.”.

Long-serving councillor Roger Bingham (Con) said he had never known residents more upset.

“The bulldozers move in tomorrow and will forever blight our countryside,” said Coun Bingham, who added that the council had a responsibility as ‘stewards’ to the area.

But Coun Janet Willis, for the Lib Dems, told the meeting: “We must not forget that all of these sites have been offered up for development by the landowners already. Without or without the plan - development would still go ahead.”

Coun Bharath Rajan, for Labour, pointed out that each application would still be subject to the planning process and would not mean that ‘every field’ in the plan would end up with a house in it.

Addressing Coun Airey, Lib Dem Coun Clare Feeney-Johnson said: “I think you’re the one scaremongering James. You’re whipping people up into a frenzy. We are not the retirement corner of Cumbria. Words are easy when you sit in opposition; to say what people want to hear. It’s more difficult to make hard decisions.”

Coun Joss Curwen (Con) described what he had heard as ‘rubbish’.

Coun Graham Vincent (Lib Dem) spoke of how the area was losing out on job-creating companies moving into the area – including 900 jobs at a technology park because there was not the dedicated space to build.

Coun Amanda Rigg (Con, Ulverston) has concerns about its impact on the town.

“Ulverston is a beautiful historic market town and this would change and spoil it. I’m not against development but this amount of houses is ludicrous," she said.

Lib Dem Coun Mary Wilson asked: “Where are all these fantastic bits of new land going to come from? Spending another year thinking about is not going to come up with another plan.”

Lib Dem councillor Andy Shine said he was ‘appalled at the negativity’ from the Conservative benches.

“It’s a bit late for promises to co-operate,” said Coun Shine, adding: “Where have you been these last eight years? You call it a developers charter but it protects the area from developers.”

Coun Janette Jenkinson (Con), a former chairwoman of SLDC’s planning committee, said: “There is no chance now of anybody being able to oppose this (at committee) – and people are just starting to wake up to that. The public see empty homes and then us allowing building on greenfield sites and they don’t understand it.”

Coun Viv Rees (Lib Dem) said: “Most of this discussion tonight has been very downbeat but actually this is something we ought to be rejoicing about. We can actually deliver something for South Lakeland.”

Coun Andrew Gardner (Con) said one of the aims of the plan was to bring down local house prices by making more homes available. “Cheaper houses will put people in negative equity. Merry Christmas South Lakeland!” said Coun Gardner.

Last to speak on the issue was council leader Peter Thornton (Lib Dem), who seconded the plan.

Coun Thornton said: “If you don’t back this plan you won’t be able to move tomorrow for developers turning up in their 4x4s wanting to build anywhere.”

“This plan is also about the 99.4 per cent of sites that haven’t been allocated."

He said the process had taken so long it had involved three different council leaders, three different chief executives and three different Prime Ministers.

“This isn’t something cooked up by the Lib Dems in the last few weeks. This development will happen, whatever you do tonight," said Coun Thornton.

Despite public objection, just two residents spoke against the plan being adopted and its impact on Swarthmoor and Ulverston .

Some residents groups are reportedly ‘disillusioned’ by the process following the recent decision of the planning inspector to find the plan ‘sound’.

After the meeting, a spokesman for Mr Tim Farron strongly denied the accusation by Coun Airey that local Lib Dem party members had received the 'party whip' to vote in favour if the scheme.

Dennis Reed, chairman of the Green Spaces Committee, which opposed certain elements of the plan, said the Liberal Democrat-run authority had 'railroaded through their plans to despoil many of our green spaces'.

"Public consultation has been a complete farce and the political price will be paid when the damage becomes clear to local residents as the bulldozers plough up our fields," said Mr Reed.

 

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:33pm Tue 17 Dec 13

craggy says...

Will you be publishing a response from Farron?

No? I thought not
Will you be publishing a response from Farron? No? I thought not craggy
  • Score: 9

7:52am Wed 18 Dec 13

oceancloud says...

The "vandals" have already made their mark at the top of Windermere Road!
The "vandals" have already made their mark at the top of Windermere Road! oceancloud
  • Score: 5

10:07am Wed 18 Dec 13

boris plasticmac says...

It would be nice to know which way Councillor Boden voted last night?
It would be nice to know which way Councillor Boden voted last night? boris plasticmac
  • Score: 2

12:04pm Wed 18 Dec 13

TomHarvey says...

boris plasticmac wrote:
It would be nice to know which way Councillor Boden voted last night?
He voted in favour.

It was a named voted so you will be able to check from the minutes exactly how each Councillor voted.

The minutes with all the details will be available here in due course once they are written up fully http://bit.ly/1hki9Q
F
[quote][p][bold]boris plasticmac[/bold] wrote: It would be nice to know which way Councillor Boden voted last night?[/p][/quote]He voted in favour. It was a named voted so you will be able to check from the minutes exactly how each Councillor voted. The minutes with all the details will be available here in due course once they are written up fully http://bit.ly/1hki9Q F TomHarvey
  • Score: 2

12:24pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Kent123 says...

Coun Graham Vincent (Lib Dem) spoke of how the area was losing out on job-creating companies moving into the area – including 900 jobs at a technology park because there was not the dedicated space to build.

Where does the 900 figure come from? Is it one company? Unlikely! Is it based on guesswork?
Coun Graham Vincent (Lib Dem) spoke of how the area was losing out on job-creating companies moving into the area – including 900 jobs at a technology park because there was not the dedicated space to build. Where does the 900 figure come from? Is it one company? Unlikely! Is it based on guesswork? Kent123
  • Score: 3

12:27pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Kent123 says...

Also, is anyone able to point me to a map showing where the development sites are please? I've tried the SLDC website and just gone round in circles.
Also, is anyone able to point me to a map showing where the development sites are please? I've tried the SLDC website and just gone round in circles. Kent123
  • Score: 1

1:16pm Wed 18 Dec 13

fellsman says...

The majority if not all the Kendal SLDC seats are coming up in May 2014 - It is time the Liberals were kicked out. Whilst people may not like some Conservative policies nationally, their councillors are the only ones who have tried to stand up to the Liberal bullies. We need good quality local candidates to stand against these people - people who have the interests of the local people at heart - no those who will be whipped in to supporting wacky party ideals. Contact the local office at Plumgarths if you are interested.
The majority if not all the Kendal SLDC seats are coming up in May 2014 - It is time the Liberals were kicked out. Whilst people may not like some Conservative policies nationally, their councillors are the only ones who have tried to stand up to the Liberal bullies. We need good quality local candidates to stand against these people - people who have the interests of the local people at heart - no those who will be whipped in to supporting wacky party ideals. Contact the local office at Plumgarths if you are interested. fellsman
  • Score: 4

4:35pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Red Doc says...

There's no point voting Tory, at the planning committee meeting for the land to the south of Natland Mill Beck Lane, councillor Williams, leader of the Tories, was one of the main instigators of rubber stamping the application along with labour & Libdem councillors, so there doesn't seem to be any hope of stopping this vandalism with any of the established parties. To say that any applications have to go through the planning process is just nonsense, if our experience is anything to go by, there was no give at all to ameliorate the destruction of this beautiful area of Natland. Also just because some greedy landowners can't be bothered to work for their living like the rest of us should not be qualification enough to destroy accessible countryside.
There's no point voting Tory, at the planning committee meeting for the land to the south of Natland Mill Beck Lane, councillor Williams, leader of the Tories, was one of the main instigators of rubber stamping the application along with labour & Libdem councillors, so there doesn't seem to be any hope of stopping this vandalism with any of the established parties. To say that any applications have to go through the planning process is just nonsense, if our experience is anything to go by, there was no give at all to ameliorate the destruction of this beautiful area of Natland. Also just because some greedy landowners can't be bothered to work for their living like the rest of us should not be qualification enough to destroy accessible countryside. Red Doc
  • Score: 6

6:06pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Local Angel says...

South lakeland needs more houses, needs industrial/technolog
y parks with easy access but more importantly businesses to fill and employ.
You'll never please everyone but give people a good job and an affordable home and they'll soon forget it was once a field.
So long as developers are sympathetic to the landscape and area it'll be good for the area.
South lakeland needs more houses, needs industrial/technolog y parks with easy access but more importantly businesses to fill and employ. You'll never please everyone but give people a good job and an affordable home and they'll soon forget it was once a field. So long as developers are sympathetic to the landscape and area it'll be good for the area. Local Angel
  • Score: 2

8:20pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Red Doc says...

Local Angel wrote:
South lakeland needs more houses, needs industrial/technolog

y parks with easy access but more importantly businesses to fill and employ.
You'll never please everyone but give people a good job and an affordable home and they'll soon forget it was once a field.
So long as developers are sympathetic to the landscape and area it'll be good for the area.
Sympathetic to the landscape!!!??? Not a chance.Take a look at the monopoly board houses they 're going to build behind Natland Mill Beck. They bear no resemblance to anything else around them.
[quote][p][bold]Local Angel[/bold] wrote: South lakeland needs more houses, needs industrial/technolog y parks with easy access but more importantly businesses to fill and employ. You'll never please everyone but give people a good job and an affordable home and they'll soon forget it was once a field. So long as developers are sympathetic to the landscape and area it'll be good for the area.[/p][/quote]Sympathetic to the landscape!!!??? Not a chance.Take a look at the monopoly board houses they 're going to build behind Natland Mill Beck. They bear no resemblance to anything else around them. Red Doc
  • Score: 3

8:46pm Wed 18 Dec 13

jazzactivist says...

The heart of the objections doesn't seem to be about houses and businesses being built, but WHERE they are being built. In this plan there's an unfair concentration of building around towns on the periphery of the LDNP, and hardly any within it, where the most housing and business premises are really needed. I don't object to affordable housing being built where it is needed, including on an identified site at the end of the road I live in, but I don't like the idea that a few towns are expected to absorb all the extra building and people. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Council to make the right decision but it seems to me as if this is the easy option and Councillors and officials didn't fight hard enough with the LDNP to ensure there is an even spread of new building across the region.
The heart of the objections doesn't seem to be about houses and businesses being built, but WHERE they are being built. In this plan there's an unfair concentration of building around towns on the periphery of the LDNP, and hardly any within it, where the most housing and business premises are really needed. I don't object to affordable housing being built where it is needed, including on an identified site at the end of the road I live in, but I don't like the idea that a few towns are expected to absorb all the extra building and people. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Council to make the right decision but it seems to me as if this is the easy option and Councillors and officials didn't fight hard enough with the LDNP to ensure there is an even spread of new building across the region. jazzactivist
  • Score: 2

9:31pm Wed 18 Dec 13

boris plasticmac says...

jazzactivist wrote:
The heart of the objections doesn't seem to be about houses and businesses being built, but WHERE they are being built. In this plan there's an unfair concentration of building around towns on the periphery of the LDNP, and hardly any within it, where the most housing and business premises are really needed. I don't object to affordable housing being built where it is needed, including on an identified site at the end of the road I live in, but I don't like the idea that a few towns are expected to absorb all the extra building and people. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Council to make the right decision but it seems to me as if this is the easy option and Councillors and officials didn't fight hard enough with the LDNP to ensure there is an even spread of new building across the region.
Spot on.
[quote][p][bold]jazzactivist[/bold] wrote: The heart of the objections doesn't seem to be about houses and businesses being built, but WHERE they are being built. In this plan there's an unfair concentration of building around towns on the periphery of the LDNP, and hardly any within it, where the most housing and business premises are really needed. I don't object to affordable housing being built where it is needed, including on an identified site at the end of the road I live in, but I don't like the idea that a few towns are expected to absorb all the extra building and people. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Council to make the right decision but it seems to me as if this is the easy option and Councillors and officials didn't fight hard enough with the LDNP to ensure there is an even spread of new building across the region.[/p][/quote]Spot on. boris plasticmac
  • Score: 2

7:18am Thu 19 Dec 13

A view From Cumbria says...

In a planning committee a councillor has to vote according to the law of the land, he is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. I suspect, but do not know that David Williams believed the Natland application was consistent with the emerging Local Plan and that any rejection of the application would have lead to a successful appeal and the potential of costs against the council.

And this is the tragedy of the path taken by the Lib Dems on South Lakeland. I thought Ian Stewart, as so often, summed up their mis-apprehension completely in his presumably off the cuff comments reported above.

Clearly Ian is under the impression that a new Local Plan will strengthen the councillors' hands when an application is submitted. The reality is that it will do exactly the opposite. There will be more Natland Mills type applications where the LDF has effectively given outline permission regardless of the views of the particular application. It requires a very stupid applicant not to get a grant of permission under those circumstances.

Meanwhile, Peter Thornton has told his group that the new land allocation will mean that applications outside the areas marked will be easily turned down. And that is where he and his group are completely wrong. An application will be determined on its merits.

Unlike the Lib Dems on South Lakeland I have operated under an over tight local plan, that in Yorkshire Dales before 2006. It led to officers and the then chairman attempting to bully members, even in defiance of the self-evident facts.

This policy is an indictment of all those who have voted for it. Sadly there is a weak acceptance that it is all inevitable, the councillors are all useless and always will be. Well no, that wasn't always the case, prior to 2006 SLDC was a four way divided council that did a great deal of good, at least for the local areas. It had its weakensses, no-one speaking for the district as a whole being the most obvious.

But, the orange signs, promoted by the alleged sex-fiend Lord Rennard, will all be going up the first week after Easter as if those who allow them in their gardens or deliver the lying little leaflets have no responsibility for the disaster they have personally contribued to.
In a planning committee a councillor has to vote according to the law of the land, he is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. I suspect, but do not know that David Williams believed the Natland application was consistent with the emerging Local Plan and that any rejection of the application would have lead to a successful appeal and the potential of costs against the council. And this is the tragedy of the path taken by the Lib Dems on South Lakeland. I thought Ian Stewart, as so often, summed up their mis-apprehension completely in his presumably off the cuff comments reported above. Clearly Ian is under the impression that a new Local Plan will strengthen the councillors' hands when an application is submitted. The reality is that it will do exactly the opposite. There will be more Natland Mills type applications where the LDF has effectively given outline permission regardless of the views of the particular application. It requires a very stupid applicant not to get a grant of permission under those circumstances. Meanwhile, Peter Thornton has told his group that the new land allocation will mean that applications outside the areas marked will be easily turned down. And that is where he and his group are completely wrong. An application will be determined on its merits. Unlike the Lib Dems on South Lakeland I have operated under an over tight local plan, that in Yorkshire Dales before 2006. It led to officers and the then chairman attempting to bully members, even in defiance of the self-evident facts. This policy is an indictment of all those who have voted for it. Sadly there is a weak acceptance that it is all inevitable, the councillors are all useless and always will be. Well no, that wasn't always the case, prior to 2006 SLDC was a four way divided council that did a great deal of good, at least for the local areas. It had its weakensses, no-one speaking for the district as a whole being the most obvious. But, the orange signs, promoted by the alleged sex-fiend Lord Rennard, will all be going up the first week after Easter as if those who allow them in their gardens or deliver the lying little leaflets have no responsibility for the disaster they have personally contribued to. A view From Cumbria
  • Score: 2

8:01am Thu 19 Dec 13

Pringle1982 says...

Coun Andrew Gardner (Con) said one of the aims of the plan was to bring down local house prices by making more homes available. “Cheaper houses will put people in negative equity. Merry Christmas South Lakeland!” said Coun Gardner.

Hmm....5200 new homes and only 35% need to be "affordable" guess what councillor that means 1820 available for those who can't afford and then another 3380 available for those who can push up prices.

Where I live there is a plan but it's already been accepted the sewage can't cope. Regardless of this, and that there are no plans or funds from united utilities to upgrade SLDC have approved the site anyway.

Flawless logic all round really.

Jazz activist is completely right with his statement. No one denies we need more affordable housing (me included, I can't afford to buy in Kendal, would love to but just can't afford it because of the disparity between house prices and wages) as long as it's done properly, all sides are looked at including access (tried to cross burneside road lately? It's a nightmare) and it's evenly spread. Most importantly though it has to actually be affordable - price and mortgage wise. Otherwise it's just pointless.
Coun Andrew Gardner (Con) said one of the aims of the plan was to bring down local house prices by making more homes available. “Cheaper houses will put people in negative equity. Merry Christmas South Lakeland!” said Coun Gardner. Hmm....5200 new homes and only 35% need to be "affordable" guess what councillor that means 1820 available for those who can't afford and then another 3380 available for those who can push up prices. Where I live there is a plan but it's already been accepted the sewage can't cope. Regardless of this, and that there are no plans or funds from united utilities to upgrade SLDC have approved the site anyway. Flawless logic all round really. Jazz activist is completely right with his statement. No one denies we need more affordable housing (me included, I can't afford to buy in Kendal, would love to but just can't afford it because of the disparity between house prices and wages) as long as it's done properly, all sides are looked at including access (tried to cross burneside road lately? It's a nightmare) and it's evenly spread. Most importantly though it has to actually be affordable - price and mortgage wise. Otherwise it's just pointless. Pringle1982
  • Score: 4

11:01am Thu 19 Dec 13

Local Angel says...

Red Doc wrote:
Local Angel wrote:
South lakeland needs more houses, needs industrial/technolog


y parks with easy access but more importantly businesses to fill and employ.
You'll never please everyone but give people a good job and an affordable home and they'll soon forget it was once a field.
So long as developers are sympathetic to the landscape and area it'll be good for the area.
Sympathetic to the landscape!!!??? Not a chance.Take a look at the monopoly board houses they 're going to build behind Natland Mill Beck. They bear no resemblance to anything else around them.
I think "monopoly board" houses as you put it, can look quiet nice actually. Kendal is full with different looking houses, Rinkfield for instance, is only a short walk from Natland Mill Beck and bears no resemblance to Heron Hill, The Oaks and when you think about it every area of Kendal looks completely different.
My original point about the landscape was that we don't get carried away with too big of sites and put I-sores up, just for the sake of it in areas where they are not needed.
And speaking of I-sores Red Doc, I bet you love "the cube" behind the county hotel - now that bears no resemblance to anything around it!!
[quote][p][bold]Red Doc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local Angel[/bold] wrote: South lakeland needs more houses, needs industrial/technolog y parks with easy access but more importantly businesses to fill and employ. You'll never please everyone but give people a good job and an affordable home and they'll soon forget it was once a field. So long as developers are sympathetic to the landscape and area it'll be good for the area.[/p][/quote]Sympathetic to the landscape!!!??? Not a chance.Take a look at the monopoly board houses they 're going to build behind Natland Mill Beck. They bear no resemblance to anything else around them.[/p][/quote]I think "monopoly board" houses as you put it, can look quiet nice actually. Kendal is full with different looking houses, Rinkfield for instance, is only a short walk from Natland Mill Beck and bears no resemblance to Heron Hill, The Oaks and when you think about it every area of Kendal looks completely different. My original point about the landscape was that we don't get carried away with too big of sites and put I-sores up, just for the sake of it in areas where they are not needed. And speaking of I-sores Red Doc, I bet you love "the cube" behind the county hotel - now that bears no resemblance to anything around it!! Local Angel
  • Score: -1

2:48pm Fri 20 Dec 13

jazzactivist says...

Modern buildings adjacent to old, characterful ones can enhance the architecture of both, and the landscape around, just by the contrast. Just think of how miners and farm workers created beautiful cottage gardens that contrasted sharply with the agricultural fields / industrial landscape around them, making both striking. However, cheaply built, boxy, characterless buildings with tarmac for car parking instead of gardens doesn't look good. Although it can be argued that it is possible to make any home look nice if people take pride in it.

Although just about everyone agrees that there needs to be some new houses built across the Lakes, the next big problem after location will be style. Volume builds of similar boxy detached houses don't look appealing, and take up a lot of space, but a row of 10 terraced houses of different sizes alongside each town and village in and around the Lakes would look in-keeping, take up less space, and provide all the housing needed.
Modern buildings adjacent to old, characterful ones can enhance the architecture of both, and the landscape around, just by the contrast. Just think of how miners and farm workers created beautiful cottage gardens that contrasted sharply with the agricultural fields / industrial landscape around them, making both striking. However, cheaply built, boxy, characterless buildings with tarmac for car parking instead of gardens doesn't look good. Although it can be argued that it is possible to make any home look nice if people take pride in it. Although just about everyone agrees that there needs to be some new houses built across the Lakes, the next big problem after location will be style. Volume builds of similar boxy detached houses don't look appealing, and take up a lot of space, but a row of 10 terraced houses of different sizes alongside each town and village in and around the Lakes would look in-keeping, take up less space, and provide all the housing needed. jazzactivist
  • Score: -7

10:06pm Sat 21 Dec 13

mailman1964 says...

the conservative councillors concerned need to resign as clearly they don't follow national party policy & are an embarrassment to the party itself.

utterly clueless
the conservative councillors concerned need to resign as clearly they don't follow national party policy & are an embarrassment to the party itself. utterly clueless mailman1964
  • Score: -4

10:47am Sun 22 Dec 13

shirtbox2003 says...

hooray,does this mean grange over sands will get its share of affordable housing.if so ,well done sldc.thank you.
hooray,does this mean grange over sands will get its share of affordable housing.if so ,well done sldc.thank you. shirtbox2003
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Sun 22 Dec 13

A view From Cumbria says...

I think the comments show this is a complex issue. There is no doubt Andy Gardiner would be right if there were a sizeable number of owners with very high percentage mortgages and then there was a serious influx of new uncontrolled housing, that is how they managed to engineer the crash in Southern Ireland, with truly disastrous consequences. So, the point is not frivolous.

Actually I don't think that will happen because of the fundamental illogicality of the policy. The offer being made by the South Lakeland LDF is, hey man, you build three houses and we'll taken one of them. The likely result is that often owners of land will not develop it, until the offer is improved.

Changes to national planning policy will make this offer seem increasingly unappealing. There is a much more positive attitude to open market housing being built. Given the choice which would you prefer, an open market house or one with a local 106 ? Presumably the former if you can afford it. That makes the 106 house harder to make money on.

I know of cases in South Lakeland but not in the SLDC planning area where it has proved impossible to find anyone who would take on the 106 houses. That has stymied the open market houses as well.

When I was a councillor I had a steady steam of residents who had problems arising from houses with 106 agreements on them. Such houses are in the generality easy to buy but difficult to sell. Serious point, if you are making that decision and have the choice go for the house without the 106 agreement even if it doesn't meet your needs as well as the 106 house. You can always sell an open market house and trade up when you can afford to do it. I have seen too many people stuck with a 106 house which they can't get rid of.
I think the comments show this is a complex issue. There is no doubt Andy Gardiner would be right if there were a sizeable number of owners with very high percentage mortgages and then there was a serious influx of new uncontrolled housing, that is how they managed to engineer the crash in Southern Ireland, with truly disastrous consequences. So, the point is not frivolous. Actually I don't think that will happen because of the fundamental illogicality of the policy. The offer being made by the South Lakeland LDF is, hey man, you build three houses and we'll taken one of them. The likely result is that often owners of land will not develop it, until the offer is improved. Changes to national planning policy will make this offer seem increasingly unappealing. There is a much more positive attitude to open market housing being built. Given the choice which would you prefer, an open market house or one with a local 106 ? Presumably the former if you can afford it. That makes the 106 house harder to make money on. I know of cases in South Lakeland but not in the SLDC planning area where it has proved impossible to find anyone who would take on the 106 houses. That has stymied the open market houses as well. When I was a councillor I had a steady steam of residents who had problems arising from houses with 106 agreements on them. Such houses are in the generality easy to buy but difficult to sell. Serious point, if you are making that decision and have the choice go for the house without the 106 agreement even if it doesn't meet your needs as well as the 106 house. You can always sell an open market house and trade up when you can afford to do it. I have seen too many people stuck with a 106 house which they can't get rid of. A view From Cumbria
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree