7 responses from Mrs Gill Longfellow (Individual)
1. Mrs Gill Longfellow (Individual) : 15 Apr 2011 16:34:00
Which document do you wish to comment on?
Land Allocations Emerging Options Consultation Document *
Page
67
Policy (where applicable)
G1
Do you support, oppose or support in part this section of the document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
The wording of this policy will need to be amended once the final decisions are taken regarding which sites are to be allocated for development to delete the reference to “…and on allocations adjoining, “ as all new confirmed allocations are intended to be included within the revised development boundary.
2. Mrs Gill Longfellow (Individual) : 15 Apr 2011 16:59:00
Which document do you wish to comment on?
Land Allocations Emerging Options Consultation Document *
Page
70/71
Policy (where applicable)
G5
Do you support, oppose or support in part this section of the document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
Mixed Use Allocations policy
It is not clear what information relates to what site within the policy box.
Policy wording is at odds with the information contained in the Grange Fact File for Site MN25M. Policy states that 9.26ha will be used for housing, providing 120 houses in two phases, for example. Grange Fact File states that only half of the site will be developed (including employment). Policy should be amended to remove site MN25M.
However, if any part of this site is subsequently taken forward for development, it should be included as part of Policy G3 as a housing land allocation only, with development scheduled for Phase 3, only when other allocations within the town's development boundary have been developed and to meet an identified essential local need. Employment uses on Site MN25M should be deleted from the policy. The Development Plan document should set out clear guidance for developers for any part of Site MN25M rather than leave this to a Development Brief which does not have the same weight of the DPD.
3. Mrs Gill Longfellow (Individual) : 15 Apr 2011 17:00:00
Which document do you wish to comment on?
Land Allocations Emerging Options Consultation Document *
Page
71
Policy (where applicable)
G5
Do you support, oppose or support in part this section of the document
No view
Please explain your reasons
Green infrastructure.
You appear to have two policy numbers G5.
4. Mrs Gill Longfellow (Individual) : 15 Apr 2011 17:03:00
Which document do you wish to comment on?
Land Allocations Emerging Options Consultation Document *
Page
78
Policy (where applicable)
LSC-K7
Do you support, oppose or support in part this section of the document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
This policy uses the same wording as Policy G6 to identify a green gap between Kents Bank and Allithwaite. Should this policy be merged with Policy G6 to provide an overall policy for the Cartmel Peninsula? Whichever policy/ies are taken forward, it/they should include reference to a green gap to be identified to maintain the seperate identity of Kents Bank from Grange over Sands (see other comments).
5. Mrs Gill Longfellow (Individual) : 15 Apr 2011 17:06:00
Which document do you wish to comment on?
Land Allocations Emerging Options Consultation Document *
Page
72
Policy (where applicable)
G6
Do you support, oppose or support in part this section of the document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
The policy identifies a green gap between Allithwaite and Kents Bank which I support (see suggested amendments) but this policy should also include the identification of a green gap between Kents Bank and Grange over Sands (see other comments)
6. Mrs Gill Longfellow (Individual) : 15 Apr 2011 17:13:00
Which document do you wish to comment on?
Land Allocations Emerging Options Consultation Document *
Page
16
Paragraph no.
2.27/Table 2
Do you support, oppose or support in part this section of the document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
I question the need to find 3ha of employment land for Grange over Sands for the plan period and query what the take up of employment land has been in the town in previous years, monitored through the Annual Employment Land Availability statistics. There are also vacant premises available within Grange over Sands and the surrounding villages to meet some of these needs already. Land identified at Station Yard, Berners Close Car Park and Old Berners Pool (Sites EN34M, R381 and M378M) are more appropriate sites for employment land development to support rural employment development in the area, where employment uses can be better integrated with other business and commercial uses, with other suitable sites also identified in the surrounding villages.
7. Mrs Gill Longfellow (Individual) : 15 Apr 2011 17:21:00
Which document do you wish to comment on?
Settlement Factfile: Grange over Sands
Do you support, oppose or support in part this section of the document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
This comment should be read in the context of my other comments submitted in relation to development proposals for site MN25M. Fact File states capacity of Site MN25M to be developed at 40 dwellings per ha. Core Strategy policy CS6.6 sets out suitable densities and densities of higher than 30 units per ha are to be in town centres and locations with good public transport and lower densities where there are environmental constraints. The density of development proposed is over intensive for this site and would have a detrimental impact on the quality and character of the landscape and on the amenity of the area and neighbouring properties.
