
On 17 February 2020, Mr. and Mrs. Illman submitted a proposal. They suggested a building plan of 4 affordable homes with one local needs home on land east of Beck stones and North of Thornthwaite, Keswick (‘‘The Keswick Reminder,’’ 2021). According to the plan, the homes consisted of four double-story buildings, and one bungalow within a paddock, all sharing a common parking area. The homes will enjoy the serene view and location on the feet of the historic hill.
Summary of Local People’s Thoughts
The affordable housing plan experienced massive rejections by local people in the proposed area. The local people had their reasons based on the valuable historical view of the national park, such as the lack of need for houses in such a lonely place with high natural vista value (Zhongming et al., 2020). Among other reasons for rejections was the insufficiency of the parking lounge, chances of flooding, and the likelihood of properties surrounding the area losing value (‘‘The Keswick Reminder,’’ 2021). There were 12 different objections to the idea submitted to the district planners following the proposals, with some opposing the plan and others siding with it.
Some of the submissions included reasons for implementing affordable housing in the selected location. Some submissions indicated that it was apparent affordable housing had been chosen, as the plans were more likely to gain a sympathetic ear from planning officers, being the current highest area of need. The overriding consideration of the local plan was to give greater weight to conserving and enhancing natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage. Any acceptance of the plans would mean that, as the planning authority, they have not fulfilled their duty (Mackinlay, 2022). Other claims raised to the authorities included the serene location of the site, the project’s influence on the neighbors of the homes, and the possible threat the development would impose on protected species and ecology. In addition, some claimed the matter of the appearance the proposed homes would portray (‘‘The Keswick Reminder,’’ 2020). Consequently, eight letters were submitted to the authorities to support the proposed plan.
One of the supporters said the plan would meet the drastically increasing need for affordable houses. A second supporter said that the local area would keep suffering, as there are no young generations in the villages. A third one said it was a massive surprise for the planning committee to object to the development plan, yet they were aware of the increasing need for affordable houses. Generally, the entire project faced various objections with significant issues rotating about the land’s serenity. Something that required maximal environmental conservation and the ever-rising need for affordable homes. The objections and support of the project by different parties lead to the authorization of a vague one. Every issue raised had some significant weight on the decision to be made.
The Extent to which the Development Accords the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework
Despite meeting a couple of criteria set by the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, the development missed some that the same development planning body had set. The first criterion involved regulating development plans to ensure such projects benefit the local area’s rural natural environment and landscape. These main aspects have played a considerable role in promoting tourism and the cultural preservation of history. The proposal submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Illman did not meet this criterion because rather than contributing positively to the area’s landscape, it tarnished the area’s serenity (Gkartzios et al., 2022). The affordable homes are located adjacent to a historical hill and a serene view of the National park. Therefore, the project would block the views tarnishing the area’s landscapes. As a result, the proposed plan is likely to affect tourism negatively, a central idea behind the planning of rural areas.
Furthermore, the project would interfere with the environment because it is located on an undeveloped piece of land. As a result, it will imply interfering with the natural environment to ensure human needs such as roads are available to the homes’ occupants. The second criterion regulates authorization of remote land encroachment on whether the project will enhance the availability of the various services and community facilities. Some of the projects that may meet the requirement include setting up local shops, meeting places, places of worship, and public houses (‘‘Lake District National Park,’’ 2022). The project proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Illman met this criterion as the plan involved the construction of four double-floored homes and one bungalow. As a result, the project will play a key role in addressing the housing problem, which is rampant in the current world. Providing affordable homes in rural areas will play a role in easing the population of people in urban areas.
The third criterion used to authorize rural projects is how the project promotes the development and diversification of the various land-based businesses and agriculture. The plan proposed by the Illman’s failed to meet the criteria as the plan had no direct contributions to either business of agriculture. The plan stipulated the living homes, and therefore, there is no diversification, which will be realized as the plan lacks any idea of how to exploit the area economically. The fourth criterion was set on the authorization of rural land utilization as the project’s role in the sustainability of the businesses that exist in the rural areas. The proposed plan, in this case, would meet this requirement, as their migration to the rural areas would imply buying various services and goods traded within the locality, thus positively influencing the business.
Assessment of the Issues Raised by the Proposal
Various issues arose following the proposed plan, where multiple parties had different views on the idea. Some of the problems were realistically leading to the decision to reject the plan rightfully, while others were unrealistic and should not even have contributed to the decision-making. The negative impact of lacking the young generation in rural areas was one of the critical issues raised by supporters of the plan stating it negatively affects various businesses and agricultural activities. As a result, it would contribute to the fading of the historical culture of the people. The idea has a sense in it and should have been more considered over most of the ideas that led to the plan’s rejection (Walker, 2020). Once a person is born in the town, raised, and aged in the town implies they will not have exposure to the culture, which eventually fades away.
Furthermore, destroying the view of the Hill and the National Park naturally was the other major issue that rose following the proposal. The idea was not as relevant on the grounds of the height of the hills and the park, and that which the homes would cover was insignificant. Still, the views were clear according to the various pictures submitted by the plan’s supporters to the authorities. Therefore, because the projected homes had insignificant impacts on the serenity of the area nor the views of the Hill and the park, the issue should not have played a role in rejecting the home’s construction. Another issue arose following the proposal regarding its role in decreasing the value of the properties that exist within the location (‘‘The Keswick Reminder,’’ 2022). The idea was significant to the proposal, bearing in mind the objective of making rural tourism better. The construction of the homes would cause the Hill to loosen its value. Initially, tourists would enjoy the serenity and loneliness of the hill, but once the homes are constructed, they will lose the loneliness and eventually discourage tourism.
The Specific Decision the Local Planning Authority Made
The local authority rejected the proposal bid majorly because it fails to enhance the natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage as the enjoyment of the various national park qualities (Walker, 2021). Lorayne Wall, the planning officer for the Lake District, explained the local planning authority’s decisions. He claimed that despite the houses being offered as self-built houses, they interfere with the statutory fulfillment of the purposes of the Hill and the National park in the conservation of natural beauty. On those grounds, the authority could not accept the proposal as it would compromise rural tourism development efforts.
Reflection on Whether I Agree with the Decision
I agree with the decision because the proposal would imply compromising the natural beauty of the rural area as the homes would have more negative effects than positive ones. According to the planning board, rural areas are supposed to preserve natural beauty to ensure the country’s continuity of the tourist industry. Due to the low populations in the rural areas, various rural recreational activities such as hiking and riding are made possible. As a result, due to the positive outcomes from the various tourist attractions, such as the serenity of the land, the natural appearance ought to be maintained fully for the continuity of the tourism industry. The tourism industry in the country is a major source of revenue for the governments and, therefore, promotes the country’s economic development.
Similarly, the maintenance of the features such as the Hill where the proposed plan is to be situated would ensure the history and the culture of the communities are carried on to the coming generations. Therefore, I concur that the proposed plan should not be implemented in the locality to preserve the land’s serenity. Based on the proposed plan, there were no significant benefits the project would add to the local community that would influence its development. The proposed plan will have no contributions in availing services or amenities even though it will slightly affect the businesses in the rural area. Therefore, considering the role the views of the National park and the Hill add to the value of the land, there was no reason for authorizing a project that would tamper with the natural beauty.