MORE HOUSES?     MORE BUSINESS?

The major elements of the Local Development Plan for Great Urswick, Little Urswick, Stainton with Adgarley and Bardsea have been rejected by Urswick Parish Council (UPC) as not meeting local needs and the development needs of the village communities.  There are three major elements of the proposals from SLDC which cover housing, green gaps and business.

The need for more “affordable” housing is not disputed by the Parish Council but the planned location, for the majority of the housing, is.  A recent independent survey of the need for “affordable” housing (for purchase or rent) in the locality (Parish) showed the need for some 5 properties in Great Urswick, 4 in Little Urswick, 5 in either, 1 in Stainton and none in Bardsea.  Urswick Parish Council supports the proposal that all these properties should only be for people who have a local connection or need to work in the villages and UPC agrees completely that their use as second homes must not be permitted and that “affordable” homes should never in the future be sold/sub-let at market rates.

UPC agrees that Great Urswick has the facilities and services which could sustain more housing than other local villages. The Parish Council did a study in 2007 and identified three possible areas in the Great Urswick and Little Urswick for housing but none of these have appeared in the Local Development Plan.  Currently the Local Development Plan has identified a parcel of land opposite the Church in Great Urswick but UPC has replied that the land to the north of Kirk Flatt is far preferable.  Other alternatives have also been given.  For the other villages UPC has firmly come down on the side of retaining a development boundary for each village.  The removal of boundaries could easily lead to incremental development into the countryside on any edge of a settlement.  There needs to be greater certainty for residents in terms of where future development may be possible.  Financing “affordable” housing is an issue, but before the proposed arrangements to balance the cost by also building more expensive houses are agreed with developers, UPC has suggested that all alternatives using Government funding are explored.

The second proposal from SLDC is to maintain a protected green space between Great Urswick and Little Urswick. The Parish Council would like to see this extended to include all of the land adjacent to the road between the two villages.  UPC has argued that the identity of the two villages needs to be kept separate and that Little Urswick should be considered a “rural village” and subject to the same policies as Stainton with Adgarley and Bardsea (and the other villages in Low Furness).  However, UPC supports the following aspects of SLDC’s preferred option: the conversion of buildings within a village or hamlet; or the conversion of other un-isolated rural buildings outside of a boundary, which form part of a group.

The third proposal is to provide facilities for business development.  SLDC has proposed that Great Urswick has the land to provide facilities for business development for either office or light industrial use. The Parish Council feels that this is inappropriate in Great Urswick and would be much better situated at the other proposed site, on the old railway yard in Lindal in Furness.  Increasing opportunities for any rural businesses (“Rural Diversification”) in the other villages will need careful control.  Some activities/businesses will not be suitable in rural settlements.

The Parish Council has returned its response to SLDC and will put any reply or further proposals as an agenda item at its meetings. The agenda is posted on the Council noticeboards and on this website.

Urswick Parish Council June 2008