Response from Ms Jo Willmott (Individual)
1. Ms Jo Willmott (Individual) : 18 Jul 2017 16:16:00
Please make your comments in the box below, making it clear which policy or document your response relates to.
1) Overall, I feel the document is written to almost exclusively interpret 'development' as housing. I feel therefore that more attention must/ought be given to ensure other types of development are given sufficient mention. I appreciate that there is mention... But generally reading through it does generally read as if the predominant assumption is development = housing. For instance... Page 47 (rural exception sites) is clearly orientated toward housing.... It pays insufficient attention to other types of development on greenfield sites.
2) Section 5.6 on renewable and low carbon energy (pages 70 & 71). I feel this whole area needs further work. There are a number of points: I feel that there ought be a definition of what is meant by the terms "renewable" and "low carbon". I feel the policy is insufficiently future-proofed (the policy presently relates to wind turbines, solar, hydro etc. but does not take into account new technologies (such as battery storage), and others technologies yet to become viable. On this basis there needs to be additional means by which planning applications can be judged as acceptable or unacceptable. The draft policy at present is too welcoming, and does not allow sufficient means of discernment. I don't know the total number of square miles that are under the planning control of SLDC (25 square miles... 30 square miles... 35 square miles?) what is evident is that with the enlarged National Parks, that the actual available space in South Lakeland for low carbon/renewable energy schemes is small. Without the ability to discern what might be 'good' low carbon/renewable, from 'bad' low carbon/renewable, then the potential is that the small space covered by SLDC might be inundated/overwhelmed with these types of development. There needs to be more discretionary terms. I would advocate the opinion of local people would be an important consideration (there is no mention of this presently). The current phraseology is too limited towards historical understanding of 'low carbon/renewable' and leaves the door too wide open for speculative applications that may have significant detrimental impact.
3) Where there is mention of views within the policy... There ought be specific reference to public views and wider views (such as bullet 2 on page 12: Policy DM2 - achieving high quality design). "Development proposals must respond appropriately to local context, landscape and built environment setting and impact on PUBLIC & WIDER views by:.."
Some specific feedback...
Page 12 - policy DM2 - achieving high quality design.
In bullet 1 I think you have a word missing.
It reads currently "Development proposals must respond appropriately to local and settlement character and reinforce and promote local distinctiveness by:"
I think it ought to read as follows:
"Development proposals must respond appropriately to local LANDSCAPE and settlement character and reinforce and promote local distinctiveness by:"
Pages 25 & 26 - there is no mention of the status of rights of way whilst development is taking place - is an important consideration.
Additionally,
Is there a meeting where the draft development management policies will be discussed, considered and approved? Is such a meeting open to members of the public? And can members of the public request to speak? In which case, I'd like to register to speak please.
Any questions on my feedback, please feel free to contact me.
Many thanks,
Regards,
Jo Willmott
