Response from Mr Tony Shelton (Individual)
1. Mr Tony Shelton (Individual) : 29 Jul 2011 16:51:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
grange over sands
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R383#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. There is already a proposal for the old lido, as part of the Berners Vision development. This has public support.
2. R383# would in theory prevent this scheme (or any other development proposal) from going ahead and reduce the chances of making good use of what is now a dangerous eyesore.
3. The aim of the new proposal is not spelled out but presumably it implies restoring the old lido, a scheme which was rejected many years ago and which is not realistic, even if it were desirable which it is not. Thus the site would be sterilised pending something which will not happen.
4. Why Sport England have submitted the proposal is puzzling - I would have thought that their experience with the ill-fated Berners pool, through which they lost £2m, would have made them rather more sensible.
5. The proposal has no place in the LDF.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I would prefer to know what the SLDC position is, why you are asking and why you think the public should have a view on this question.
In general though any organisation that thinks it can plan for more than 10 years ahead is kidding itself.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option clicked by accident - please regard both ticked!The format does not allow a don't know or 'both'.
Both approaches are relevant in appropriate circumstances. Again I would have thought this is up to the council to judge.
