Lancaster City Council
Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
Final | 31 October 2016
This report takes into account the particular
instructions and requirements of our client.
It is not intended for and should not be relied
upon by any third party and no responsibility
is undertaken to any third party.
Job number 250383-00
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
6th Floor 3 Piccadilly Place
Manchester M1 3BN
United Kingdom
www.arup.com
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Contents Page
1 Introduction 1
2 Arup Sample Parcel Assessment 2
2.1 Summary of Findings 2
3 Review of LCC Assessments 5
3.1 Boundary Definition 6
3.2 Interpretation of the Five Green Belt Purposes 6
4 Conclusions and Recommendations 11
Appendices
Appendix A
Arup Sample Parcel Assessment Proformas
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 1
1 Introduction
Arup was commissioned by Lancaster City Council (LCC) to undertake an
independent review of their draft Green Belt Review. Stage 1 of this commission was
completed in July 2016 and involved an independent review of LCC’s draft
methodology with recommendations provided as to how the methodology should be
taken forward based on Arup’s existing experience of undertaking Green Belt
Reviews and knowledge of current policy, best practice and case law. A separate
report sets out the recommendations from Stage 1.
This report represents Stage 2 of the commission which involves a sample assessment
of 20 Green Belt parcels. These parcels have already been assessed by LCC. Arup has
independently assessed these 20 parcels against LCC’s finalised methodology and the
outcomes of the assessment are set out in Section 2 below. Following on from this,
Section 3 compares the outcome of the Arup assessment with LCC’s assessment of
the parcels to ensure robustness and consistent application of the methodology. In
assessing the parcels and undertaking the comparison, Arup has reviewed the
boundary definition of the parcels, the assessment against the five purposes of Green
Belt and the overall assessment of the parcels. A site visit of the sample parcels was
undertaken by Arup in September 2016.
The 20 parcels were identified by LCC due to them being either related to potential
sites or being contentious locations. The parcels were in a variety of locations
representing a cross section of the authority.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 2
2 Arup Sample Parcel Assessment
Applying LCC’s finalised methodology Arup has undertaken a site visit and
assessed the 20 Green Belt parcels. For the purposes of the assessment, the LCC
methodology has been extracted into a proforma and the completed proformas for
the 20 parcels are provided at Appendix A. This proforma approach has been used
in the interests of providing a clear thought process and justification for the
assessment which directly relates back to the LCC methodology. Arup do not
suggest that LCC should adopt this proforma format in their assessment and Arup
considers the LCC assessments to be formatted and set out in a clear and
comprehensible manner. The parcel reference and parcel title within the
proformas remain as per LCC’s assessment.
2.1 Summary of Findings
The table below provides a summary of the assessment findings and the
proceeding section reviews the LCC assessment against the Arup findings
providing more detailed comments and recommendations.
Parcel
Ref
Parcel Title Arup Overall
Assessment of
Parcel
Arup Comments
1 BLS48 Land to the Rear of
Church Brow,
Bolton-le-Sands
Weak
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose 1
2 CARN21 Land to the Rear of
Crag Bank
Crescent, West
Carnforth
Strong
contribution Review eastern and western
boundaries
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
3 CARN26 Land to the South
of Lundsfield
Quarry, South
Carnforth
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Some differences in professional
judgement
See recommendations on purpose 2
4 CARN27 Land Surrounding
the Communication
Masts, South
Carnforth
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose 2
5 CARN28 Land to the North
of Thwaite Gate
Farm, South
Carnforth
Strong
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose 2
6 CARN29 Land to the West of
Back Lane, South
Carnforth
Strong
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 3
7 CARN30 Land to the Rear of
Windermere Road,
South Carnforth
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
8 HALT01 Land at
Shefferlands Lane,
Halton
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Some differences in professional
judgement
See recommendations on purpose 2
9 HALT07 Land at
Haverbreaks Farm,
Halton
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose 1
and 2
10 LAN04 Land to the North
of Whernside Road,
Skerton, Lancaster
Weak
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
11 LAN06 Land to the North
of Shakespeare
Road, North
Lancaster
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Some differences in professional
judgement
See recommendations on purpose
1, 2 and 4
12 LAN11 Land at Geiranger,
off the A6, North
Lancaster
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose
1, 2, 3 and 4
Purpose 4 assessment missing
13 LAN13 Land to the East of
Lancaster Road
(A6), North
Lancaster
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose
1, 2, 3 and 4
14 LAN17 Land to the West of
Green Lane,
Lancaster
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose
1, 2 and 3
15 LAN19 Land to the East of
Green Lane,
Lancaster
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Some differences in professional
judgement in relation to purpose 4
See recommendations on purpose 2
and 3
16 MORE04 Land at the VVV
Gymnasium,
Morecambe
Weak
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose 1
and 3
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 4
17 MORE13 Land to the East of
Russell Drive,
Torrisholme,
Morecambe
Weak
contribution Logical boundaries used
Some differences in professional
judgement
See recommendations on purpose 1
18 SWH23 Land to the South
of Ashworth Drive,
Bolton-le-Sands
Weak
contribution Logical boundaries used
Some differences in professional
judgement
See recommendations on purpose 1
19 SWH24 Land to the South
of Greenwood
Drive, Bolton-le-
Sands
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose 1
20 SWH25 Land to the North
of Manor Lane,
Slyne-with-Hest
Moderate
contribution Logical boundaries used
Broadly similar assessment
outcomes
See recommendations on purpose 1
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 5
3 Review of LCC Assessments
Following on from the Arup assessment of the sample parcels, this section sets out
a comparison of the Arup assessment findings against the LCC assessments. The
LCC assessments of the sample parcels are reviewed in terms of the application of
the methodology relating to boundary definition, the interpretation of the five
Green Belt purposes, and the overall assessment of the parcels.
The following table provides a comparison of the overall assessment for each of
the 20 parcels as per the findings of the Arup assessment and the LCC assessment.
Parcel
Ref
Arup Overall
Assessment
LCC Overall
Assessment
Comment
1 BLS48 Weak contribution Weak contribution Same
2 CARN21 Strong contribution Strong contribution Same
3 CARN26 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
4 CARN27 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
5 CARN28 Strong contribution Strong contribution Same
6 CARN29 Strong contribution Strong contribution Same
7 CARN30 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
8 HALT01 Moderate contribution Strong contribution Different
9 HALT07 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
10 LAN04 Weak contribution Weak contribution Same
11 LAN06 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
12 LAN11 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
13 LAN13 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
14 LAN17 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
15 LAN19 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
116 MORE04 Weak contribution Weak contribution Same
17 MORE13 Weak contribution Moderate contribution Different
18 SWH23 Weak contribution Moderate contribution Different
19 SWH24 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
20 SWH25 Moderate contribution Moderate contribution Same
The table demonstrates that the overall outcomes of the assessments are broadly
aligned highlighting a generally consistent application of the methodology. Only
three of the parcels were assessed as having a different overall contribution
(HALT01, MORE13, SWH23).
It is acknowledged that there will be instances where the level of contribution is
borderline and the contribution applied falls to professional judgement thus
differences between the assessment outcomes are to be expected. In this regard it
is important that clear justifications are provided to enable the reader to
understand why the level of contribution has been applied. The proformas at
Appendix A and in particular the three parcels above do raise some differences
relating to the application of the methodology and these are set out in turn below.
It is noted that within their methodology LCC use the terms ‘general parcels’ and
‘strategic parcels’. Regular Green Belt parcels are termed ‘general parcels’ whilst
wider areas of the Green Belt are termed ‘strategic parcels’. Arup considers this
differentiation to be a logical approach and note that whilst the sample parcel
assessment has only considered ‘general parcels’ and not the wider ‘strategic
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 6
parcels’, all of the following recommendations apply equally to both sets out
parcels.
3.1 Boundary Definition
Section 6 of the LCC methodology classifies boundaries as ‘strong’, ‘moderate’,
and ‘weak’. The Arup proformas at Appendix A consider the boundaries which
have been used to define the parcels. Arup note that for a number of parcels
‘weak’ boundaries have been used in order to enable definition of smaller parcels
from larger tracts of countryside. In most cases these represent logical boundaries.
In the case of parcel CARN21, the western boundary does not appear to follow
any physical features on the ground. It is also noted that the eastern boundary of
the parcel which represents the inner Green Belt boundary with the settlement
does not follow any physical features. Arup recommends that these boundaries are
checked or an explanation is provided setting out the justification for using this
boundary. Arup acknowledges that once the GIS mapping of the parcels becomes
available, this will assist in clarifying certain boundaries.
3.2 Interpretation of the Five Green Belt Purposes
Arup notes that LCC have considered all five purposes of the Green Belt and the
assessment and interpretation of these purposes broadly aligns with national
policy and guidance. On the whole, the LCC assessments demonstrate a robust
and consistent application of the methodology. As a general comment Arup notes
that some assessments are more detailed than others and in a few instances it
would be useful for LCC to include additional details to support the justification
of the assessment for that purpose.
3.2.1 Purpose 1
The LCC assessment of purpose 1 was consistent with the methodology for most
of the sample parcels however a few comments and recommendations relating to
terminology are set out below.
Large built up areas
Paragraph 7.12 of the LCC methodology states that “…purpose 1 will focus on
land which is adjacent to, or in close proximity of, the large built up areas of
Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth.”
As a result of this, Arup has assessed purpose 1 as ‘no contribution’ for parcels
BLS48, MORE04, SWH23, SWH24, and SWH25 given that these parcels adjoin
Bolton-le-Sands or Slyne-with-Hest. The LCC assessment appears to have
assessed all settlements as large built up areas. Arup recommends that LCC
review the purpose 1 assessment of the parcels around Bolton-le-Sands and Slyne-
with-Hest in order to appropriately reflect the methodology. Furthermore, Arup
recommends that LCC consider what ‘in close proximity’ refers to and make a
uniform judgement on those parcels which are deemed to be ‘in close proximity’
to the large built up areas. The Arup assessment has deemed LAN11, LAN13,
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 7
LAN17, HALT07 to be ‘in close proximity’ to Lancaster given that they do not
directly adjoin it but are relatively well related to it. Similarly, CARN27,
CARN28 and CARN29 have been deemed to be ‘in close proximity’ to Carnforth
given their close relationship to it.
In the case of SWH23, this different assessment of purpose 1 in the Arup
assessment means that the result in the overall assessment is ‘weak contribution’.
In the other sample parcels around Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands, despite
this difference in the assessment of purpose 1 the overall assessments have not
changed.
Rounding off the settlement
Arup recommends that the assessment of the application of the third row of Table
4 which states ‘Opportunities for rounding off of settlements’ is reviewed in the
assessment of parcels LAN06, LAN11, LAN13, LAN17, LAN19, CARN29 and
CARN30. The assessment of purpose 1 for parcel LAN11 states: “There are
significant opportunities for rounding off making use of the new link road to
create more definable robust boundaries.” The other parcels stated above also
include similar statements. Arup do not regard this as representing the opportunity
to “round off” the settlement according to the definition of ‘round-off’ as applied
in the Cheshire East Green Belt Assessment Update 2015 where this was defined
as “…where the existing settlement is an irregular shape, will the parcel fill in a
gap and/or complete the shape?” Arup recommends that the application of this
criteria is reviewed. In particular, the statements included in LAN06, 11, 13, 17
and 19 relate to the identification of future stronger Green Belt boundaries which
could be part of the consideration of boundary features under purpose 3 if LCC
wished to include this within the methodology criteria.
In the assessment of MORE13, the difference between the Arup and the LCC
overall assessment is due to the assessment of purpose 1 which Arup has assessed
as weak. This is due to the development of the parcel being considered to round
off the settlement. Arup would consider this to be an example of ‘rounding off the
settlement’.
3.2.2 Purpose 2
The LCC assessment of purpose 2 was consistent with the methodology for most
of the sample parcels however a few comments and recommendations relating to
interpretation are set out below.
Arup recommends that all parcels referenced ‘HALT’ are reviewed in relation to
purpose 2. Parcels HALT01 and HALT07 refer to the merging of Halton and
Lancaster. The original purpose of the North Lancashire Green Belt relates to
preventing the area between Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth, including the
settlements of Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands from merging together. No
reference is made to Halton and therefore it is not deemed to be relevant in the
assessment of purpose 2. The LCC methodology for purpose 2 does not define
Halton as a ‘neighbouring town’.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 8
Arup recommends that further consideration is given to the assessment of purpose
2 and those parcels which form a ‘less-essential’ gap between neighbouring
towns. For example, the LCC assessment of LAN06, LAN11, LAN13, LAN17
and LAN19 states that these parcels make no contribution to preventing towns
from merging. Arup assessed these parcels as making a weak contribution to
purpose 2 given that they form a ‘less-essential’ gap between Lancaster and
Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel would slightly reduce the gap
between the towns however would not result in them merging. This acknowledges
that whilst the parcel represents a small proportion of this wider gap between
Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest, it does still form part of this gap and development
of the parcel would slightly reduce this gap. A similar approach has been taken in
the Arup assessment of CARN26, CARN27 and CARN28 whereby the gap
between Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands is already narrower in other places
however these parcel arguably still form part of the gap between these towns.
3.2.3 Purpose 3
The LCC assessment of purpose 3 was consistent with the methodology for most
of the sample parcels.
Arup notes that a number of LCC’s assessments of the sample parcels do not
consistently refer to boundary features which represents part of the ‘Issues for
Consideration’ for purpose 3, as set out in Table 8 of the methodology. For
example LAN11, LAN13, LAN17, LAN19, MORE04, HALT07, CARN27, and
CARN28 do not make reference to parcel boundaries and their vulnerability to or
role in preventing encroachment. Arup recommends that a description of the
parcels boundaries is included in the assessment of this purpose.
3.2.4 Purpose 4
The LCC assessment of purpose 4 was consistent with the methodology for most
of the sample parcels.
Arup recommends that LCC review the assessment of purpose 4 in relation to
those parcels which are directly adjacent to Lancaster which has been defined as a
historic town. Table 11 of the methodology which sets out the assessment criteria
for purpose 4 states: “Weak Contribution: The parcel is directly adjacent to (or
within the setting of) the historic town of Lancaster but does not play a role in
preserving the setting of the key historical assets in the town.” The sample parcel
LAN06 is directly adjacent to Lancaster however key historical assets cannot be
seen from this parcel. Arup has therefore assessed it as ‘weak contribution’. The
LCC assessment states that this parcel makes no contribution. If LCC only intend
for those parcels which include views of key historical assets to be assessed as
making a contribution for purpose 4, then the methodology should be revised to
reflect this.
Arup notes that the purpose 4 assessments are missing for LAN11-13 in the LCC
General Parcel Assessment document.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 9
3.2.5 Purpose 5
In relation to purpose 5, LCC provided an initial draft of the assessment for this
purpose given that the final figures for unconstrained previously developed land
were not available. For completeness, Arup has reviewed this initial draft.
Following LCC having finalised the figures on unconstrained previously
developed land, Arup has applied a desktop exercise in assessing this purpose.
The following table sets out the level of contribution to be applied to each
settlement:
Settlement Unconstrained
previously
developed land
(ha)1
Settlement
Area (ha)
Brownfield
urban potential
(%)
Level of
contribution
according to
thresholds
Bolton-le-
Sands
0ha 117ha 0% No contribution
Carnforth 17.02ha 378ha 4.5% Moderate
contribution
Lancaster 36.26ha 1330ha 2.73% Moderate
contribution
Morecambe 3.9ha 867ha 0.45% Weak Contribution
Slyne-with-
Hest
0ha 90ha 0% No contribution
This is broadly consistent with LCC’s estimated figures for purpose 5 however
Carnforth has been assessed as ‘moderate’ rather than ‘weak’.
3.2.6 Overall Assessment
Arup recommends that further explanation is added to those parcels where
professional judgement has been applied as set out in paragraph 8.3 and 8.4 of the
methodology. For example HALT01 is assessed as strong overall due to purpose 3
being assessed as strong, however there is no explanation as to the reason why the
judgement has been taken to assess the parcel as strong overall, linking back to
the overall aim and purpose of the Green Belt set out in paragraph 79 of the
NPPF. Notwithstanding the difference in judgement in the Arup assessment of
HALT01 and the recommendations set out above, as an example Arup would
advise that the overall assessment column within the LCC table could include the
following (Arup addition shown in bold):
“The parcel is free from development and used for agricultural purposes, which is
consistent with the GB. The parcel is adjacent to the Link Road but its impacts are
mitigated by local topography. The parcel has some role in maintaining a distinct
gap between Halton and Lancaster, however the value of that gap is weakened by
the presence of Halton Training Camp. The parcel does not have a strong
relationship with the settlement area due to the proximity of the M6. In line with
the methodology, professional judgement has therefore been applied to evaluate
the overall contribution. The parcel has been judged to make a strong overall
1 This includes all deliverable brownfield site including sites with planning permission. It does not
include completed sites or sites which are under construction. The figures have been taken from
LCC’s SHLAA 2015.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 10
contribution as it has strong and permanent boundaries and is considered to be
open with the M6 separating it from the settlement, therefore the parcel has a
strong role in preventing encroachment into the open countryside. The parcel
therefore makes a strong contribution to fulfilling the fundamental aim of the
Green Belt under paragraph 79 of the NPPF in protecting the openness of the
Green Belt. .”
This clear justification of why professional judgement has been taken to assess the
parcel as ‘strong contribution’ overall directly links back to the NPPF and
provides clarity for the Examination process ensuring a reasoned judgement has
been taken.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING
FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page 11
4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Arup’s assessment of the sample parcels demonstrates that LCC have generally
applied the methodology in a consistent manner. Whilst some differences in the
assessment are evident and are as a result of different professional judgement,
there are some instances of incorrect application of the methodology.
To summarise, in terms of boundary definition Arup agrees that LCC have used
logical boundaries in most instances. In the assessment of the parcels against the
five purposes of Green Belt, LCC have on the whole undertaken a consistent
assessment of the parcels against the methodology. Arup has identified the
following recommendations which apply equally to the strategic parcels and the
general parcels:
Boundary definition: Check boundaries which do not appear to follow any
physical features on the ground or provide an explanation justifying the
use of this boundary;
Purpose 1: Ensure that purpose 1 is assessed only in relation to the defined
‘large built-up areas’;
Purpose 1: Ensure the correct interpretation of ‘rounding off’ has been
applied;
Purpose 2: Ensure that purpose 2 is assessed only in relation to the defined
‘neighbouring towns’;
Purpose 3: Ensure that parcel boundaries are described to ascertain
vulnerability to encroachment;
Purpose 4: Ensure that parcels which are directly adjacent to the historic
town of Lancaster are given adequate recognition for their contribution to
this purpose in line with the methodology;
Purpose 5: Update assessments following availability of figures on
unconstrained previously developed land;
Overall Assessment: Provide further justification for those parcels where
professional judgement has been applied to come to the overall
assessment.
Appendix A
Arup Sample Parcel Assessment
Proformas
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A1
A1 Arup Sample Parcel Assessment Proformas
BLS48
CARN21
CARN26
CARN27
CARN28
CARN29
CARN30
HALT01
HALT07
LAN04
LAN06
LAN11
LAN13
LAN17
LAN19
MORE04
MORE13
SWH23
SWH24
SWH25
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A2
PARCEL REF: BLS48
Parcel Title: Land to the Rear of Church Brow
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Rear gardens of residential properties – this is a weak boundary
E: Rear gardens of residential properties and field boundary with tree lining – this is a partly weak and partly moderate boundary S: Field boundary with tree lining – this is a moderate boundary
W: Rear gardens of residential properties – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
No contribution: The parcel does not adjoin the large built up areas
of Lancaster, Morecambe or Carnforth and therefore does not have a
role in checking unrestricted sprawl from the large built up area.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
No contribution: The parcel does not play a role in preventing towns
from merging.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A3
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Weak contribution: The parcel has predominantly weak boundaries
which are vulnerable to future encroachment. The northern, western and part of the eastern boundary consists of the rear gardens of
residential properties which represent weak boundaries. Part of the
eastern boundary consists of a field boundary with tree lining which is a moderate boundary. The southern boundary consists of a field
boundary with tree lining which is a moderate boundary. The
existing land use consists of open countryside in agricultural use. The parcel is strongly related to the settlement adjoining it along three
sides and being enclosed by it. The parcel has a limited relationship
with the countryside. The topography of the parcel is fairly flat with
some slight undulations. Due to vegetation along field boundaries
some open views are hindered.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Bolton-le-Sands which is not
defined as a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
No contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Bolton-le-Sands. Bolton-
le-Sands has 0% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes no contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Weak contribution: The parcel makes no contribution to four purposes and a weak contribution to one. The parcel has been judged to make a weak contribution overall. The parcel makes a weak contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as the parcel has predominantly weak boundaries which are vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel is strongly related to the settlement and has a limited
relationship with the countryside. The parcel does not contribute to checking unrestricted sprawl, preventing towns from merging, preserving the setting of historic towns or assisting in urban regeneration.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A4
PARCEL REF: CARN21
Parcel Title: Land to the Rear of Crag Bank Crescent
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Railway line – this is a strong boundary
E: This does not appear to follow any physical feature – this is a weak boundary S: Wooded area and field boundaries – this is a partly moderate and partly weak boundary
W: This does not appear to follow any physical feature – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Strong contribution: The parcel contains no development and forms
part of a wider tract of countryside to the south. The parcel adjoins the built up area along the eastern boundary however it does not
directly adjoin any development. It does not provide the opportunity
to round off the settlement. The parcel is not located on a road corridor and does not have a role in preventing ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Strong contribution: The parcel forms an essential gap between Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands whereby development of the parcel
would significantly reduce the gap between the towns resulting in the
perceived merging of the towns and the near actual merging of the towns.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A5
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Weak contribution: The parcel has predominantly weak boundaries
which are vulnerable to future encroachment. In particular, the eastern and western boundaries do not appear to follow any physical
features on the ground and are weak boundaries. The northern
boundary consists of the railway line which is a strong boundary, and the southern boundary is formed by a wooded area and field
boundaries which are partly moderate and partly weak. The existing
land use consists of open countryside in agricultural use. The parcel adjoins the settlement along one boundary. The topography of the
parcel is undulating and it slopes downwards towards the railway
line. There is vegetation lining the boundaries of the parcel thus there
are no views outside of the parcel however there are open views
across it.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Carnforth which is not defined as
a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Carnforth. Carnforth
has 4.5% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Strong contribution: The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to one, a weak contribution to one, and no contribution to one. The parcel has been judged to make a strong contribution overall. The parcel makes a strong contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl due to it adjoining the built up area and forming part of a wider tract of countryside. The parcel makes a strong contribution
to purpose 2 given that it forms an essential gap between Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands. The parcel makes a weak contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given that it has predominantly weak
boundaries which are vulnerable to future encroachment and there are no views beyond the parcel. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration and makes no contribution to preserving the setting and character of historic towns.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A6
PARCEL REF: CARN26
Parcel Title: Land to the South of Lundsfield Quarry
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Partly tree line however the eastern section is not marked by any physical boundary – this is a weak boundary
E: Unmade track – this is a moderate boundary S: Unmade track – this is a moderate boundary
W: Lancaster Canal – this is a strong boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains no development and
forms part of an extensive tract of countryside to the south. The parcel adjoins the built up area along the northern boundary and a
small part of the eastern and western boundaries however it does not
directly adjoin any development as it is adjacent to the former quarry. Development of the northern part of the parcel could be seen as
rounding off the settlement. The parcel is not located on a road
corridor and does not have a role in preventing ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms part of the land gap between Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands however the gap is already narrower
in other places and therefore development of the parcel would not
result in the merging of towns.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A7
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has mixed boundaries some of
which will not be able to prevent encroachment. The northern boundary is partly formed by trees however the eastern part is not
marked by any physical features and therefore it is a weak boundary.
The eastern and southern boundaries are formed by unmade tracks which represent moderate boundaries. The western boundary is
formed by the Lancaster Canal which is a strong boundary. The
existing land use consists of open countryside in agricultural use. The parcel adjoins the settlement along one boundary and a small part of
two other boundaries. The topography of the parcel is undulating
how there are fairly open views.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Carnforth which is not defined as
a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Carnforth. Carnforth
has 4.5% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes, a weak contribution to one purpose and no contribution to one purpose. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it forms part of an extensive tract of countryside and adjoins the built up area. Development of the northern
part of the parcel could be seen as rounding off the settlement. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing the merging of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands given that the gap between the towns is already
narrower in other places. The parcel has boundaries of mixed strength and makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting of historic towns. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A8
PARCEL REF: CARN27
Parcel Title: Land surrounding the communications masts
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Unmade track – this is a moderate boundary
E: Unmade track – this is a moderate boundary S: Field boundary marked by intermittent tree lining – this is a weak boundary
W: Field boundary marked by intermittent tree lining – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains masts and telecommunications equipment which represent urbanising
influences however it forms part of an extensive tract of countryside. The parcel is in close proximity to the built up area but does not
directly adjoin it. The parcel is not surrounded by any development
and there are no opportunities for rounding off the settlement. The parcel is not located on a road corridor and does not have a role in
preventing ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms part of the land gap between
Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands however the gap is already narrower in other places and therefore development of the parcel would not
result in the merging of towns.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A9
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has moderate-weak boundaries
which will not be able to prevent encroachment. The northern and eastern boundaries are formed by an unmade track which represents a
moderate boundary. The southern and western boundaries are formed
by field boundaries with intermittent tree lining which represents a weak boundary. The existing land use consists of open countryside
with wooded areas however there are masts and telecommunications
equipment within the parcel. The parcel is completely detached from the settlement and has a strong relationship with the countryside. The
topography of the parcel slopes steeply upwards from the western
boundary. The topography of the parcel and the wooded areas impact
upon the openness of the parcel.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Carnforth which is not defined as
a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to Carnforth.
Carnforth has 4.5% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes, a weak contribution to one, and no contribution to one. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it is in close proximity to the built up area but does not directly adjoin it. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing the
merging of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands given that the gap between the towns is already narrower in other places. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given
that its boundaries are moderate-weak and will not be able to prevent encroachment however the parcel has a strong relationship with the countryside. The parcel makes no contribution to preserving the setting of historic towns. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A10
PARCEL REF: CARN28
Parcel Title: Land North of Thwaite Gate Farm
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Field boundary marked by intermittent tree lining – this is a weak boundary
E: Unmade track – this is a moderate boundary S: Unmade track – this is a moderate boundary
W: Unmade track – this is a moderate boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Strong contribution: The parcel contains no development and forms part of an extensive tract of countryside. The parcel is in close
proximity to the built up area but does not directly adjoin it. The
parcel is not surrounded by any development and there are no opportunities for rounding off the settlement. The parcel is not
located on a road corridor and does not have a role in preventing
ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms part of the land gap between
Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands however the gap is already narrower in other places and therefore development of the parcel would not
result in the merging of towns.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A11
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Strong contribution: The parcel has predominantly moderate
boundaries which may be vulnerable to future encroachment. The eastern, southern and western boundaries are formed by an unmade
track which represents a moderate boundary. The northern boundary
consists of a field boundary marked by intermittent tree lining which is a weak boundary. The existing land use consists of open
countryside in agricultural use. The parcel is completely detached
from the settlement and has a strong relationship with the countryside. The parcel has open views.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Carnforth which is not defined as
a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to Carnforth.
Carnforth has 4.5% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Strong contribution: The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to one, a weak contribution to one, and no contribution to one. The parcel has been judged to make a strong contribution overall. The parcel make a strong contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it forms part of an extensive tract of countryside and contains no development. The parcel makes a strong
contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as whilst the parcel has predominantly moderate boundaries the parcel has a strong relationship with the countryside and there are open views. The
parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing the merging of Carnforth and Bolton-le-Sands given that the gap is already narrower in other places. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. It does not contribute to preserving the setting and character of historic towns.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A12
PARCEL REF: CARN29
Parcel Title: Land to the West of Back Lane
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Field boundaries – this is a weak boundary
E: Back Lane – this is a strong boundary S: Unmade track with hedge lining – this is a moderate boundary
W: Unmade track – this is a moderate boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Strong contribution: The parcel contains no development and forms part of an extensive tract of countryside. The parcel is in close
proximity to the built up area but does not directly adjoin it. The
parcel is not surrounded by any development and there are no opportunities for rounding off the settlement. The parcel is located on
a road corridor but does not have a role in preventing ribbon
development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
No contribution: The parcel does not play a role in preventing towns
from merging.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A13
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Strong contribution: The parcel has mixed boundaries some of which
may be vulnerable to future encroachment. The northern boundary is formed by field boundaries which represents a weak boundary. The
eastern boundary is formed by Back Lane which is a strong
boundary. The southern and western boundaries are formed by an unmade track with hedge lining which represents a moderate
boundary. The existing land use consists of open countryside in
agricultural use. The parcel is completely detached from the settlement and has a strong relationship with the countryside. The
topography of the parcel is undulating however it is fairly flat and
there are open views across it and beyond.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Carnforth which is not defined as
a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to Carnforth.
Carnforth has 4.5% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Strong contribution: The parcel makes a strong contribution to two purposes, a moderate contribution to one, and no contribution to two. The parcel has been judged to make a strong contribution overall. The parcel make a strong contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it forms part of an extensive tract of countryside and contains no development. The parcel makes a strong contribution to safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment as whilst the parcel has boundaries of mixed strength the parcel has a strong relationship with the countryside and there are open views across and beyond it. The parcel does not
contribute to preventing towns from merging or in preserving the setting and character of historic towns. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A14
PARCEL REF: CARN30
Parcel Title: Land to the Rear of Windermere Road
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Rear gardens of residential properties on Windermere Road – this is a weak boundary
E: Field boundary – this is a weak boundary S: Field boundary – this is a weak boundary
W: Unmade track – this is a moderate boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains no development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside to the south. The parcel
adjoins the built up area along the northern boundary which consists
of residential development which has an urbanising influence. There are no opportunities for rounding off the settlement. The parcel is not
located on a road corridor and does not have a role in preventing
ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
No contribution: The parcel does not play a role in preventing towns
from merging.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A15
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has predominantly weak
boundaries which may be vulnerable to future encroachment. The northern boundary consists of the rear gardens of residential
properties on Windermere Road which represents a weak boundary.
The eastern and southern boundaries are formed by field boundaries which represent weak boundaries. The western boundary consists of
an unmade track which is a moderate boundary. The existing land
use consists of open countryside in agricultural use. The parcel adjoins the settlement along one boundary and is fairly well related
to the countryside. The topography of the parcel slopes steeply
upwards away from the settlement thus there are no open views from
north to south. This impacts upon the openness of the parcel.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Carnforth which is not defined as
a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Carnforth. Carnforth
has 4.5% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes and no contribution to two purposes. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it contains no development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside however it adjoins the built up area along the northern boundary and the
residential development has an urbanising influence. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given that it has predominantly weak boundaries however it is fairly
well related to the countryside. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel does not contribute to preventing towns from merging or in preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A16
PARCEL REF: HALT01
Parcel Title: Land at Shefferlands Lane
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Link road – this is a strong boundary
E: Link road – this is a strong boundary S: Halton Road– this is a strong boundary
W: field boundary lined by intermittent low hedgerow – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains no development and is not part of a wider tract of countryside given that the northern
boundary of the link road separates it from the wider countryside.
The parcel is in close proximity to the large built up area of Lancaster however it is not surrounded by any development. The
parcel does not provide the opportunity for rounding off the
settlement. The parcel is located on a road corridor but it does not have a role in preventing ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less-essential gap between
Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel would slightly reduce the gap between the towns however would not
result in them merging. The link round to the north of the parcel
provides a strong boundary which maintains the presence of the gap.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A17
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has predominantly strong
boundaries which will contain development and prevent encroachment. The link road to the north and east forms a strong
boundary, Halton Road to the south forms a strong boundary, and the
field boundary to the west represents a weak boundary given it has intermittent low hedgerow. The existing land use consists of open
countryside in agricultural use. The parcel adjoins the settlement to
the south whilst the link road severs the parcel from the wider countryside despite being set down at a lower level. The topography
of the parcel is undulating with the southern boundary at a lower
level impacting views across the parcel. This topography impacts
upon the openness of the parcel in places.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to the historic town
of Lancaster but is not directly adjacent to it and it does not play a
role in preserving the setting of the key historical assets given that these cannot be seen from the parcel.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Lancaster. Lancaster
has 2.73% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes, a weak contribution to one and no contribution to one. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it is in close proximity to the large built up area however it is not surrounded by any development. The parcel makes a moderate
contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as it has predominantly strong boundaries which will prevent encroachment however the parcels relationship with the wider countryside is severed due
to the link road. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel would slightly reduce the gap between the towns however would not result in them merging. The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting
and character of historic towns.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A18
PARCEL REF: HALT07
Parcel Title: Land at Haverbreaks Farm
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Foundry Lane – this is a strong boundary
E: M6 – this is a strong boundary S: Link road – this is a strong boundary
W: field boundary – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains limited development
consisting of a few residential properties (Shefferland cottages), Haverbreaks Farm, and Pye-Nanny Hall, but it forms part of a wider
tract of countryside. The parcel is in close proximity to the large built
up area of Lancaster and is not surrounded by any development. The parcel does not provide the opportunity for rounding off the
settlement. The parcel is located on a road corridor but it does not
have a role in preventing ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel
would slightly reduce the gap between the towns however would not
result in them merging. Furthermore the parcel is not directly aligned with the built up area of Lancaster.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A19
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has predominantly strong
boundaries which will contain development and prevent encroachment. Foundry Lane to the north forms a strong boundary,
the M6 to the east represents a strong boundary, the link road to the
south forms a strong boundary, and the field boundary to the east represents a weak boundary. The existing land use consists
predominantly of open countryside in agricultural use however there
are a few residential properties (Shefferland cottages), Haverbreaks Farm, and Pye-Nanny Hall. The parcel is well related to the wider
countryside to the north and west. The topography of the parcel is
undulating rising slightly in the north thus there are fairly open views
from the north towards Lancaster. The topography impacts upon the
openness of the parcel in places.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to the
historic town of Lancaster and it does play a role in preserving the
setting of the key historical assets given that the Ashton Memorial and Lancaster Castle are both visible from the north of the parcel.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to Lancaster.
Lancaster has 2.73% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to four purposes and a weak contribution to one purpose. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl as the parcel contains limited development but it forms part of a wider tract of countryside and is not surrounded by any development. The parcel makes a
moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given that it has predominantly strong boundaries which will prevent encroachment and it is predominantly open countryside although there is
some limited residential development within the parcel. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preserving the setting and special character of the historic town of Lancaster given that the Ashton Memorial and the Lancaster Castle are both visible from the north of the parcel. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging
given that it forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A20
PARCEL REF: LAN04
Parcel Title: Land to the North of Whernside Road
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Field boundaries with hedge lining and partly wooded area – this is a moderate-weak boundary
E: Rear gardens of residential properties – this is a weak boundary S: Field boundaries with some tree lining – this is a weak boundary
W: Embankment of trees – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Weak contribution: The parcel contains no development however it is not part of a wider tract of countryside given that it is enclosed
contained by the large built-up area along three boundaries. The
parcel is surrounded by development on multiple sides. It provides the opportunity to round off the settlement pattern. The parcel
adjoins residential development along the eastern and southern
boundaries with the western boundary adjoining sports pitches. The parcel does not have a role in preventing ribbon development as it is
not on a road corridor.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
No contribution: The parcel does not have a role in preventing towns
from merging.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A21
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Weak contribution: The parcel has weak boundaries which will not
assist in containing development or preventing encroachment. The boundary to the north consists of field boundaries with hedge lining
and partly wooded area which is a moderate-weak boundary. To the
east, the boundary is formed by rear gardens of residential properties which is a weak boundary. To the south it consists of field
boundaries with some tree lining which is a weak boundary. To the
west it consists of an embankment of trees which is a weak boundary. The parcel consists of open countryside and has a strong
relationship with the settlement area. Due to the topography of the
parcel which slopes upwards in the middle, there are no open views
across it thus impacting upon openness.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
Weak contribution: The parcel is directly adjacent to the historic
town of Lancaster. The Ashton Memorial can be clearly seen from
certain points within the parcel albeit the topography of the parcel and surrounding residential developments impacts views.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Lancaster. Lancaster
has 2.73% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Weak contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to one purpose, a weak contribution to three and no contribution to one. The parcel has been judged to make a weak contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel makes a weak contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it is enclosed by the large built up area and provides the opportunity
to round off the settlement pattern. The parcel makes a weak contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given that it has weak boundaries which will not assist in preventing encroachment and
also due to the parcel having a close relationship with the settlement area. Furthermore it has no open views. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preserving the setting and special character of the historic town of Lancaster as it is directly adjacent to Lancaster and the Ashton Memorial can be clearly seen from certain points within the parcel albeit this is limited by the topography of the parcel and surrounding residential
development. The parcel makes no contribution to preventing towns from merging.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A22
PARCEL REF: LAN06
Parcel Title: Land to the North of Shakespeare Road, North Lancaster
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Link road – this is a strong boundary
E: Lancaster Canal – this is a strong boundary S: Hammerton Hall Road – this is a strong boundary
W: Barley Cop Lane and part of the railway line – this is a strong boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains no development however it is not part of a wider tract of countryside given that the northern
boundary of the link road provides a strong boundary which
separates the parcel. The parcel adjoins development along its southern boundary with the large built up area. It does not provide
any opportunities for rounding off the settlement pattern. The parcel
is located on a road corridor but does not have a role in preventing ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less-essential gap between
Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel would slightly reduce the gap between the towns however would not
result in them merging. The link round to the north of the parcel
provides a strong boundary which maintains the presence of the gap.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A23
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has strong boundaries on all sides
which will contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term. The northern boundary consists of the link road which is a
strong boundary. The Lancaster Canal to the east, Hammerton Hall
Road to the south, and Barley Cop Lane and part of the railway line to the west all form strong boundaries. The existing land uses
consists of open countryside. The link road severs the parcel from the
wider countryside and given the raised level of the road and the topography of the parcel, there are no open views out into the
countryside which impacts upon openness.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
Weak contribution: The parcel is directly adjacent to the historic
town of Lancaster but does not play a role in preserving the setting of
the key historical assets given that these cannot be seen from the parcel.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Lancaster. Lancaster
has 2.73% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes and a weak contribution to two purposes. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it adjoins the large built up area and contains no development although is not part of a wider tract of countryside due to separation from the link road.
The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as although it has strong boundaries on all sides which will contain development and prevent encroachment, there are no
open views beyond the parcel due to the raised level of the link road and the topography of the parcel. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel would slightly reduce the gap between the towns
however would not result in them merging. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preserving the setting and special character of the historic town of Lancaster given that it is directly adjacent to it however there are
no views of key historical assets.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A24
PARCEL REF: LAN11
Parcel Title: Land at Gerianger
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Link road – this is a strong boundary
E: A6 (Slyne Road) – this is a strong boundary S: solid tree line marking the boundary of the Beaumont College site – this is a moderate boundary
W: field boundary with low hedge – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains limited development
consisting of a few residential properties and Beaumont Gate Farm.
The parcel does adjoin development in the Green Belt consisting of Beaumont College to the south and it therefore mitigates against the
urbanising influences of sprawl from the south. It is not part of a
wider tract of countryside given that the northern boundary of the link road separates it from the wider countryside. The parcel is in
close proximity to the large built up area of Lancaster but does not
adjoin it therefore it does not provide the opportunity for rounding
off the settlement. The parcel is located on Slyne Road (A6) and has
a role preventing ribbon development on this side of the road corridor.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel
would slightly reduce the gap between the towns however would not
result in them merging. The link round to the north of the parcel provides a strong boundary which maintains the presence of the gap.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A25
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has some strong boundaries and
some weaker boundaries which may not be able to prevent encroachment in the long term. The link road to the north is a strong
boundary, the A6 (Slyne Road) to the east forms a strong boundary,
the solid tree line marking the boundary of the Beaumont College site represents a moderate boundary, and the field boundary with low
hedge along the west represents a weak boundary. The existing land
use is predominantly open countryside in agricultural use. The parcel contains limited development consisting of a few residential
properties and Beaumont Gate Farm. The parcel is completely
detached from the settlement. The link road severs the parcel from
the wider countryside. The topography of the parcel is undulating
sloping gently upwards away from Slyne Road. There are open views
across the parcel.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to the historic town
of Lancaster but is not directly adjacent to it and it does not play a
role in preserving the setting of the key historical assets given that these cannot be seen from the parcel.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to Lancaster.
Lancaster has 2.73% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes, a weak contribution to one, and no contribution to one. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given it is in close proximity to the large built up area however does not adjoin it although it is adjacent to development within the Green Belt and
mitigates against the urbanising influence of this. It also has a role in preventing ribbon development along Slyne Road. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
given that it has some strong boundaries and some weaker boundaries which may not be able to prevent encroachment in the long term. The parcel is detached from the settlement although the link road severs it from the wider countryside. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it forms a less-essential gap
between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest. The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting and special character of the historic town of Lancaster given that it is not directly adjacent to it.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A26
PARCEL REF: LAN13
Parcel Title: Land to the East of Lancaster Road (A6)
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Link road – this is a strong boundary
E: Howgill Brook and field boundaries – this is a weak boundary as the Brook is not fully accompanied by other physical features S: Field boundary some of which is hedge lined – this is a weak boundary
W: A6 (Slyne Road) – this is a strong boundary field boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains no development and is
not surrounded by any development. It is not part of a wider tract of countryside given that the northern boundary of the link road
separates it from the wider countryside. The parcel is in close
proximity to the large built up area of Lancaster but does not adjoin it therefore it does not provide the opportunity for rounding off the
settlement. The parcel is located on a road corridor but there is no
ribbon development along this side of the road corridor.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel
would slightly reduce the gap between the towns however would not
result in them merging. The link round to the north of the parcel provides a strong boundary which maintains the presence of the gap.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A27
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has some strong boundaries and
some weak boundaries which may not be able to prevent encroachment in the long term. The link road to the north and the A6
(Slyne Road) to the west forms strong boundaries. To the east, the
field boundary and Howgill Brook represents a weak boundary as it is not fully accompanied by other physical features. To the south the
field boundary with some hedge lining represents a weak boundary.
The existing land use consists of open countryside in agricultural use. The parcel is completely detached from the settlement. The link road
severs the parcel from the wider countryside. The topography of the
parcel is raised and undulating with the land sloping steeply upwards
from the western boundary therefore limiting views from the south to
the north and from the west to the east across the parcel. This
topography impacts upon the openness of the parcel in places.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to the historic town
of Lancaster but is not directly adjacent to and it does not play a role
in preserving the setting of the key historical assets given that these cannot be seen from the parcel.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to Lancaster.
Lancaster has 2.73% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to three purposes, a weak contribution to one purpose and no contribution to one purpose. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it contains no development and is not surrounded by any development however the link road separates it from
the wider countryside. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside form encroachment given that it has some strong boundaries and some weak boundaries which may not be able to
prevent encroachment in the long term and the topography of the parcel impacts upon the openness in places. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest. The parcel does not contribute to preserving the setting and special character of the
historic town of Lancaster given that it is not directly adjacent to it.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A28
PARCEL REF: LAN17
Parcel Title: Land west of Green Lane
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Link road – this is a strong boundary
E: Green Lane (this is a single lane unmade track) – this is a moderate boundary S: field boundary with hedgerow – this is a moderate boundary
W: Howgill Brook and field boundary – this is a weak boundary as the Brook is not accompanied by other physical features
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains no development and is
not surrounded by any development. It is not part of a wider tract of countryside given that the northern boundary of the link road
separates it from the wider countryside. The parcel is in close
proximity to the large built up area of Lancaster but does not adjoin it therefore it does not provide the opportunity for rounding off the
settlement. The parcel is located on a road corridor but there is no
ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel
would slightly reduce the gap between the towns however would not
result in them merging. The link round to the north of the parcel provides a strong boundary which maintains the presence of the gap.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A29
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has mixed boundaries, some of
which may not be strong enough to prevent encroachment in the long term. The link road to the north forms a strong boundary, whilst the
eastern boundary of Green Lane which is a single lane unmade track
forms a moderate boundary. The southern boundary which is a field boundary lined by hedgerow is a moderate boundary. The western
boundary of the Howgill Brook and a field boundary is a weak
boundary as the Brook is not accompanied by other physical features. The existing land use consists of open countryside in agricultural use.
The parcel is completely detached from the settlement. The link road
severs the parcel from the wider countryside. The topography of the
parcel is undulating. The parcel slopes upwards away from Lancaster
therefore there are open views from the north and east of the parcel
down to the south and towards Lancaster. However the northern boundary of the link road dips down at a lower level. This
topography impacts upon the openness of the parcel in places.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to the
historic town of Lancaster and plays a moderate role in preserving
the setting of the key historical assets given that both the Ashton Memorial and Lancaster Castle can be clearly seen from the northern
section of the parcel along the eastern boundary of Green Lane. Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is in close proximity to Lancaster.
Lancaster has 2.73% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to four purposes, and a weak contribution to one purpose. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it contains no development and is not surrounded by any development however the link road separates it from the wider countryside. The parcel makes
a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given that it has boundaries of mixed strength some of which may not be strong enough to prevent encroachment in the long term.
Furthermore the parcel has open views from the north and the east of the parcel down to the south and towards Lancaster however the topography of the parcel impacts upon the openness in places. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preserving the setting and special character of the historic town of Lancaster given that the Ashton Memorial and
the Lancaster Castle can be clearly seen from the northern section of the parcel. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and
Slyne-with-Hest.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A30
PARCEL REF: LAN19
Parcel Title: Land North of Halton Road Bridge
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Part of field boundary and part of link road – the field boundary is a weak boundary and the link road is a strong boundary
E: Kellet Lane – this is a strong boundary S: Halton Road and the Lancaster Canal – this is a strong boundary
W: Green Lane (this is an unmade single lane track) – this is a moderate boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Moderate contribution: The parcel contains no development and is
not part of a wider tract of countryside given that the northern boundary of the link road separates it from the wider countryside.
The parcel adjoins the large built up area of Lancaster and is
surrounded by development along this southern boundary. The parcel does not provide the opportunity for rounding off the settlement. The
parcel is located on a road corridor but it does not have a role in
preventing ribbon development along this side of Halton Road.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less-essential gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel
would slightly reduce the gap between the towns however would not
result in them merging. The link round to the north of the parcel provides a strong boundary which maintains the presence of the gap.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A31
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has mixed boundaries, some of
which may not be strong enough to prevent encroachment in the long term. Part of the link road to the north forms a strong boundary
although the remaining northern boundary formed by a field
boundary is a weak boundary. The eastern and southern boundaries of Kellet Lane and Halton Road and the Lancaster Canal forms
strong boundaries. Green Lane to the west which consists of an
unmade single lane track forms a moderate boundary. The existing land use consists of open countryside in agricultural use. The parcel
adjoins the settlement along the southern boundary whilst the link
road severs the parcel from the wider countryside. The topography of
the parcel is undulating. The parcel slopes upwards away from
Lancaster therefore there are open views from the north and east of
the parcel down to the south and towards Lancaster. This topography impacts upon the openness of the parcel in places, particularly the
southern boundary.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is adjacent to the historic town of
Lancaster and plays a moderate role in preserving the setting of the
key historical assets given that both the Ashton Memorial and Lancaster Castle can be clearly seen from Kellet Lane.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Moderate contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Lancaster. Lancaster
has 2.73% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a moderate contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to four purposes, and a weak contribution to one purpose. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it contains no development and adjoins the large built up area along the southern boundary however the link road separates it from the wider
countryside. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given that it has boundaries of mixed strength some of which may not be strong enough to prevent
encroachment in the long term. Furthermore the parcel has open views from the north and the east of the parcel down to the south and towards Lancaster however the topography of the parcel impacts upon the openness in places. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preserving the setting and special character of the historic town of
Lancaster given that the Ashton Memorial and the Lancaster Castle can be clearly seen from Kellet Lane. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it forms a less-essential
gap between Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A32
PARCEL REF: MORE04
Parcel Description: Land at VVV Gymnasium
Parcel Boundaries:
N: coastal line – this is a strong boundary
E: railway line – this is a strong boundary S: Marine Drive (A5105) – this is a strong boundary
W: coastal line – this is a strong boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
No contribution: The parcel does not adjoin the large built up areas
of Lancaster, Morecambe or Carnforth and therefore does not have a role in checking unrestricted sprawl from the large built up area.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less essential gap between Morecambe and Slyne-with-Hest whereby development of the parcel
would reduce the gap between the towns but would not result in the
merging of these towns. Furthermore the parcel is already considerably developed and Marine Drive (A5105) forms a strong
boundary which maintains some separation. Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A33
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Weak contribution: The parcel is well contained by strong
boundaries on all sides which could contain development within it and prevent encroachment. The northern and western boundary
consists of the coast, the eastern boundary consists of the railway
line, and the southern boundary consists of Marine Drive (A5105). Due to its coastal location and the railway line and Marine Drive, the
parcel is severed from both the settlement and the countryside. The
parcel has significant levels of development with the existing land uses consisting of a gymnasium, associated car parking and access
road, and a row of residential properties. The parcel is flat and there
are significant levels of vegetation along the southern boundary. Due
to this and the level of built form, the parcel has a limited degree of
openness.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Slyne-with-Hest which is not
defined as a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
No contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Slyne-with-Hest. Slyne-
with-Hest has 0% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes no contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Weak contribution: The parcel makes a weak contribution to two purposes and no contribution to three purposes. The parcel has been judged to make a weak contribution overall. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging as it forms a less essential gap between Morecambe and Slyne-with-Hest. The parcel makes a weak contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as
although it has strong boundaries which could prevent encroachment, it is severed from both the settlement and the countryside and has significant levels of development consisting of a gymnasium, associated car
parking and access road, and a row of residential properties which limits the openness of the parcel. The parcel is not adjacent to or in close proximity to any of the large built up areas and therefore makes no contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl. The parcel makes no contribution to assisting in urban regeneration or in preserving the setting or special character of historic towns.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A34
PARCEL REF: MORE13
Parcel Description: Land to the east of Russell Drive
Parcel Boundaries:
N: field boundary – this is a weak boundary
E: field boundary – this is a weak boundary S: Link Road - this is a strong boundary
W: rear gardens of residential properties along Russell Drive – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
Weak contribution: The parcel contains no development and forms part of a wider tract of countryside. The parcel adjoins the built up
area along its western boundary which consists of the rear gardens of
residential properties. If the adjoining parcels to the south were developed, development of the parcel would provide the opportunity
to round off the settlement pattern. The parcel is located on a road
corridor but does not have a role in preventing ribbon development.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Weak contribution: Whilst the parcel is located within the land gap
between Morecambe/Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest, the gap is already narrower in other locations and therefore development of the
parcel would not result in a reduction of the gap or in the towns
merging. The parcel also forms part of the gap between Lancaster and Morecambe however these towns have already merged. Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A35
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has predominantly weak
boundaries which may be vulnerable to future encroachment. The southern boundary is strong consisting of the link road however the
northern and eastern boundaries consist of field boundaries and are
weak. The western boundary consists of the rear gardens of residential properties along Russell Drive which is a weak boundary.
The existing land use consists of open countryside and the parcel has
a strong relationship to the wider countryside to the north and east. The topography of the parcel is undulating however there are fairly
open views from the western boundary across the parcel.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Morecambe which is not defined
as a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
Weak contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Morecambe.
Morecambe has 0.45% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes a weak contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Weak contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to one purpose, a weak contribution to three purposes and no contribution to one purpose. The parcel has been judged to make a weak contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that it has a strong relationship with the wider countryside and there are fairly open views across the parcel although the parcel
has predominantly weak boundaries which may be vulnerable to future encroachment. The parcel makes a weak contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl given that if the adjoining parcels to the south were
developed, development of the parcel would provide the opportunity to round off the settlement pattern. The parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it is located within the land gap between Morecambe/Lancaster and Slyne-with-Hest although the gap is already narrower in other locations. The parcel makes a weak contribution to assisting in urban regeneration. The parcel makes no
contribution to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A36
PARCEL REF: SWH23
Parcel Title: Land South of Ashworth Drive
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Rear gardens of residential properties – this is a weak boundary
E: Rear gardens of residential properties – this is a weak boundary S: field boundary marked by solid hedgerow – this is a moderate boundary
W: Rear gardens of residential properties – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
No contribution: The parcel does not adjoin the large built up areas
of Lancaster, Morecambe or Carnforth and therefore does not have a
role in checking unrestricted sprawl from the large built up area.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Moderate contribution: The parcel forms an essential gap between
Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands however these towns have already merged. Development of the parcel would therefore result in
the further merging of these towns.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A37
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Weak contribution: The parcel has predominantly weak boundaries
which may be vulnerable to future encroachment. The northern, eastern and western boundaries consist of the rear gardens of
residential properties which are weak boundaries. The southern
boundary is formed from a field boundary marked by solid hedgerow which is a moderate boundary. The existing land use consists of open
countryside in agricultural use. The parcel has a strong relationship
with the settlement and is enclosed by it on three sides. The topography of the parcel slopes steeply upwards from the settlement
rising to a hill in the middle. There are no views across the parcel
from the settlement. The topography therefore impacts upon the
openness of the parcel.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Slyne-with-Hest which is not
defined as a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
No contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Slyne-with-Hest. Slyne-
with-Hest has 0% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes no contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Weak contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to one purpose, a weak contribution to two purposes and no contribution to two purposes. The parcel has been judged to make a weak contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it forms an essential gap between Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands however these towns have already merged.
Development of the parcel would therefore result in the further merging of these towns. The parcel makes a weak contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given that it has predominantly weak
boundaries which may be vulnerable to future encroachment and has a strong relationship with the settlement as it is enclosed by it on three sides. The parcel is not adjacent to or in close proximity to any of the large built up areas and therefore makes no contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl. The parcel makes no contribution to assisting in urban regeneration or in preserving the setting and special character of historic
towns.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A38
PARCEL REF: SWH24
Parcel Title: Land South of Greenwood Drive
Parcel Boundaries:
N: Rear gardens of residential properties and limits of retail site (Stewart Longton Caravans and Motorhomes) – this is a weak boundary
E: Slyne Road – this is a strong boundary S: field boundary marked by solid hedgerow – this is a moderate boundary
W: field boundary – this is a weak boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
No contribution: The parcel does not adjoin the large built up areas
of Lancaster, Morecambe or Carnforth and therefore does not have a
role in checking unrestricted sprawl from the large built up area.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Moderate contribution: The parcel forms an essential gap between Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands however these towns have
already merged. Development of the parcel would therefore result in
the further merging of these towns.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the
presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A39
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has mixed boundaries some of
which may be vulnerable to future encroachment. The northern boundary consists of the rear gardens of residential development and
the limit of a motor home retailer, this represents a weak boundary.
The eastern boundary is Slyne Road which is a strong boundary. The southern field boundary is accompanied by solid hedgerow and is
therefore a moderate boundary however the western boundary
consists of a field boundary which is weak. The existing land use consists of open countryside in agricultural use. The parcel is well
related to the settlement adjoining it on two sides. The topography of
the parcel is undulating sloping upwards from the west however it is
fairly flat on the eastern side with open views towards the middle of
the parcel and from north to south.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Slyne-with-Hest which is not
defined as a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
No contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Slyne-with-Hest. Slyne-
with-Hest has 0% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes no contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to two purposes and no contribution to three purposes. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it forms an essential gap between Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands however these towns have already merged. Development of the parcel would
therefore result in the further merging of these towns. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given that it has boundaries of mixed strength some of which may
be vulnerable to future encroachment although the existing land use consists of open countryside in agriculture use. The parcel is not adjacent to or in close proximity to any of the large built up areas and therefore makes no contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl. The parcel makes no contribution to assisting in urban regeneration or in preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A40
PARCEL REF: SWH25
Parcel Title: Land North of Manor Lane
Parcel Boundaries:
N: field boundary marked by solid hedgerow – this is a moderate boundary
E: Slyne Road – this is a strong boundary S: Rear gardens of residential properties and Manor Lane – this is a partly strong and partly weak boundary
W: solid tree embankment – this is a moderate boundary
PURPOSE 1
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Ribbon Development Does the parcel play a role in preventing ribbon development?
Has the parcel already been compromised by ribbon development?
No contribution: The parcel does not adjoin the large built up areas of Lancaster, Morecambe or Carnforth and therefore does not have a
role in checking unrestricted sprawl from the large built up area.
Level of Existing Sprawl
within the Parcel Is the parcel free from development?
Does the parcel have a sense of sprawl from urbanising features?
Does this land form an extensive tract of land?
Opportunities for
Rounding Off of
Settlements
How many sides is the parcel surrounded by development?
Do opportunities exist to form a more sustainable pattern of development?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 2
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Location of the Parcel Does the parcel form an essential, largely essential or less essential gap between named settlements?
What is the current width of the gap between settlements?
What would the gap between settlements be should this parcel be removed from the Green Belt?
Would the removal of the gap result in the merging of two distinctly separate settlement areas?
Moderate contribution: The parcel forms an essential gap between
Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands however these towns have already merged. Development of the parcel would therefore result in
the further merging of these towns.
Boundary Features Do natural features or infrastructure provide a strong physical barrier or boundary which maintains the presence of the gap between settlements?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
Lancaster City Council Lancaster Green Belt Review
Part 2: Sample Checking
| Final | 31 October 2016
\\NWMNTAPVS02\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\250000\250383-00\0 ARUP\0-06 PLANNING\0-06-08 REPORTS\PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING\LANCS GBR PART 2 SAMPLE CHECKING FINAL 31 10 16.DOCX
Page A41
PURPOSE 3
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Boundary Features Does the parcel forms part of the existing Green Belt boundary, if so what does the boundary feature consist
of?
What do the other boundaries consist of?
Are there strong and robust boundaries to contain development and prevent encroachment in the long term?
Moderate contribution: The parcel has mixed boundaries some of
which may be vulnerable to future encroachment. The northern boundary consists of a field boundary marked by solid hedgerow
which is a moderate boundary. The eastern boundary is a strong
boundary formed by Slyne Road. The southern boundary consists of the rear gardens of residential properties and Manor Lane which is
partly strong and partly weak. The western boundary consists of a
solid tree embankment which is a moderate boundary. The existing land use consists of open countryside in agricultural use. The parcel
is well related to the settlement adjoining it along one side, part of
which is enclosed by it. The topography of the parcel is undulating
sloping steeply upwards from the west towards the middle and rising
up from the east. There are no views from the western boundary
across the parcel however there are open views from the south east towards the residential properties further north.
Existing Urbanising
Features (Openness) What are the existing land uses in the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
What is the proximity and relationship to the settlement area?
What is parcels relationship to the countryside?
Existing Land Use of the
Parcel What is the land use within the parcel?
Does the parcel serve a beneficial use of the Green Belt which should be safeguarded?
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 4
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Proximity to Historic
Town and Role in
Preserving Character and
Setting
Is the nearest settlement to the parcel defined as a historic town?
What role does the Green Belt play in preserving the setting and special character of the historic town?
No contribution: The parcel adjoins Slyne-with-Hest which is not
defined as a historic town.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
PURPOSE 5
Issues for Consideration Criteria
Urban Regeneration
Potential Does the parcel have a relationship with an urban area?
What potential does that urban area have for regeneration of brownfield sites (Capacity)?
No contribution: The parcel is adjacent to Slyne-with-Hest. Slyne-
with-Hest has 0% brownfield urban potential and the parcel therefore makes no contribution to this purpose.
Overall Assessment What is the overall assessment of the parcel in relation to this purpose?
OVERALL CONTRIBUTION
Moderate contribution: The parcel makes a moderate contribution to two purposes and no contribution to three purposes. The parcel has been judged to make a moderate contribution overall. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to preventing towns from merging given that it forms an essential gap between Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands however these towns have already merged. Development of the parcel would
therefore result in the further merging of these towns. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given that it has boundaries of mixed strength some of which may
be vulnerable to future encroachment although the existing land use consists of open countryside in agriculture use. The parcel is not adjacent to or in close proximity to any of the large built up areas and therefore makes no contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl. The parcel makes no contribution to assisting in urban regeneration or in preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.
Top Related