8 responses from Mr K A Lasbury (Individual)
1. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 5 Apr 2012 17:33:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
The recent "Norfolk" judgement suggests that the SLDC process is equally unlawful. Whilst some changes have been made over the last 4 years they have been relatively minor and peripheral. The proposals in the approved documents which will now go before an Inspector at an Inquiry are largely unchanged and can be demonstrated to have been founded on flawed original data . Assessments of alternatives have not been thoroughly undertaken and have not been fully explained publicly.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
There has been little evidence provided to justify the overall numbers of housing included within the Plan.
A major plank of the Council's policies has been the provision of affordable housing - it is not disputed that there is such a need. However the overall scale of housing proposed appears entirely predicated on the ability of the private sector to subsidise the provision of the number of affordable houses deemed to be required for the District. No apparent effort is demonstrated to provide affordable housing by other funding mechanisms. To do so would reduce the overall size of the housing proposal. Thus UNSOUND on grounds of proven need.
YDNP and LDNP take up a large proportion of SLDC area. SLDC housing (and industrial) numbers have been concentrated into the relatively small area outside the Park boundaries in part to accommodate needs that arise from within the Parks. Consequently an excessive concentration is proposed which will place excessive pressures on the infrastructure (transport, education, health etc) within those small areas.(I develop the infrastructure consequences in my representation about Kendal itself) The entire LDF proposal is UNSOUND on the grounds that many of the measures proposed to address impacts mentioned within the documents are aspirational with no clear timescale or commitment to deliver from the various parties .
The basic housing numbers proposed by SLDC have remained unchanged throughout the (excessively) prolonged LDF process and SLDC appear to have failed to take account of the fundamental policy change by LDNP within their LDF to permit 900 affodable houses to be built within the Park. SLDC proposed housing numbers should have been reduced proportionately. Thus UNSOUND.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
I will need to expand on some of my detailed representations about Kendal and site R170M specifically.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 5 Apr 2012 17:39:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.1 Development Boundaries- KENDAL
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
I have challenged the "soundness" of the overall housing numbers in my representation about the entire document. Those points apply equally to Kendal itself.
The proposals for Kendal are UNSOUND because they fail several of the effectiveness criteria within The Planning Inspectorate Soundness Guidance - there is no sound infrastructure delivery plan and there is not a clear commitment that those who would have to deliver eg Cumbria County Council, United Utilities, Electricity North West etc would/could do so within the timescale of the LDF. Whilst I largely concentrate on traffic issues it is appropriate to raise issues about capacity of the waste water treatment works, the sewerage system, electrical supply issues where the LDF documents do not contain any clear and firm commitment to accommodate the consequences of the deveopment proposed.
TRAFFIC. Cumbria County Council's (most recent) Kendal Traffic Study states that there is congestion now in Kendal. It concludes that there would be "significant increases in congestion as a result of the proposed levels of LDF development". The study tested various "schemes" and concluded that congestion can be mitigated to no worse than base scenario. That conclusion is based on at least 3 very questionable assumptions -
a 5% reduction in traffic from the sustainable travel programme - a figure with no substantiation; such a reduction has probably been achieved in other locations but there is no evidence it could be achieved in Kendal, and not with the programme outlined;
250 vehicles removed from peak hour flows by a Park and Ride site - there is no substantiation of this figure in the study and the County Council's Study report itself casts doubt on the ability to achieve that reduction; additionally there is no commitment to deliver the site itself nor any evidence on the practicalities and (capital and current) financial consequences of operating an effective P&R site.
More realistic (ie lower) figures for both of the above would produce an entirely different analysis with an inevitable deterioration in congestion as a result.
Three pieces of new highway infrastructure are included in the Study - two major new routes - the Northern and Southern Development Routes and a new road connection within the town centre. This is completely UNSOUND as none of these projects have any status with the highway authority; are in no programme; two of them (at least) have had none of the statutory environmental and economic assessments undertaken; none of them have been through any "public process" and thus have little, if any, chance of being delivered within the Plan timeframe.
An earlier, SLDC sponsored traffic study, hurriedly undertaken as part of the LDF process, introduced yet another major project - a Kendal Inner Relief Road. Again that had no status, no assessment, no detail etc.
It is clear that these large projects have only been included in the traffic studies as smoke screens attempting to convince the public and the Inspector that the excessive development proposals could be satisfactorily accommodated in Kendal. In this regard it seems almost unnecessary to repeat that this is UNSOUND.
A part of Kendal suffers from poor air quality and there is an Air Quality Management Area in the centre of town. The first SLDC plan failed to deliver any improvement and similar results are expected of the current document (recent improvements at some sites can probably be attributed to the current poor economic situation). Even if the traffic study conclusions are accepted the combined impact of all LDF development and the extensive infrastructure programme studied would leave the town "no worse than base scenario" - in other words air quality will not improve.
Again,all the above confirms the document is UNSOUND
The Community Infrastructure Levy is suggested as the answer to funding all the wider and community infrastructure needs. I understand that it will not be applied to the affordable housing element of any development and that individual developments may also apply to be exempted on viability grounds. Site specific infrastructure requirements will still have to be funded by the developer through Section 106 Agreements in addition to the Levy.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
Further discussion of the points outlined above is essential
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 5 Apr 2012 17:41:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R170M-mod KENDAL NORTH OF LAUREL GARDENS
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
I have questioned the scale of housing overall and the impact on Kendal itself in other representations, and they apply equally to this site.
The inclusion of this site in UNSOUND largely on traffic grounds which are outlined below.
In addition the unsuitability of the site is demonstrated by the flooding that occurs now in the north west corner and in the adjacent properties. The Fact File for this site acknowledges this flooding and states that it is being looked into. It does not indicate that a solution is available and will be delivered
The site is so distant from any facilities - doctors, schools, shops, employment sites within the town that it will inevitably generate high private vehicle usage regardless of any attempt to introduce "active travel plans"; and on that basis alone it totally fails any sustainability test.
TRAFFIC
ACCESS to the site
Cumbria County Council are quoted within the Fact File for this site "achieving adequate visibility will be problematic given alignment of road and limited frontage". Measurements on site confirm that safe access, compliant with appropriate standards, cannot be achieved here (as has been pointed out at every consultation stage - and ignored by SLDC). That point alone makes the inclusion of this site UNSOUND.
BURNESIDE ROAD
Development of this site (and those proposed in Burneside) would increase traffic flows on Burneside Road - a totally unacceptable and UNSOUND proposition taking into account this road's many substandard features with their potential safety consequences. These features include - several locations where forward visibility is very severely constrained (and could not reasonably be improved); a railway over bridge with narrow carriageway and footway (the footway is heavily used by pedsestrian school children) where the road width is effectively further reduced by unprotected and rough faced abutments; a very substandard access to an industrial estate (which again could not be reasonably improved); and extensive frontage development, some with no on site parking, others where vehicles have to reverse into or out of the site, often between the extensive on street parking. Additionally the road is used by large articulated HGVs accessing the paper mill in Burneside.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
I would need to expand on the access and other safety issues involved in the site.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
4. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 16 May 2012 15:21:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Kendal sites
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
I have challenged the "soundness" of the overall housing numbers in my representation about the entire document. Those points apply equally to Kendal itself.
The proposals for Kendal are UNSOUND because they fail several of the effectiveness criteria within The Planning Inspectorate Soundness Guidance - there is no sound infrastructure delivery plan and there is not a clear commitment that those who would have to deliver eg Cumbria County Council, United Utilities, Electricity North West etc would/could do so within the timescale of the LDF. Whilst I largely concentrate on traffic issues it is appropriate to raise issues about capacity of the waste water treatment works, the sewerage system, electrical supply issues where the LDF documents do not contain any clear and firm commitment to accommodate the consequences of the deveopment proposed.
TRAFFIC. Cumbria County Council's (most recent) Kendal Traffic Study states that there is congestion now in Kendal. It concludes that there would be "significant increases in congestion as a result of the proposed levels of LDF development". The study tested various "schemes" and concluded that congestion can be mitigated to no worse than base scenario. That conclusion is based on at least 3 very questionable assumptions -
a 5% reduction in traffic from the sustainable travel programme - a figure with no substantiation; such a reduction has probably been achieved in other locations but there is no evidence it could be achieved in Kendal, and not with the programme outlined;
250 vehicles removed from peak hour flows by a Park and Ride site - there is no substantiation of this figure in the study and the County Council's Study report itself casts doubt on the ability to achieve that reduction; additionally there is no commitment to deliver the site itself nor any evidence on the practicalities and (capital and current) financial consequences of operating an effective P&R site.
More realistic (ie lower) figures for both of the above would produce an entirely different analysis with an inevitable deterioration in congestion as a result.
Three pieces of new highway infrastructure are included in the Study - two major new routes - the Northern and Southern Development Routes and a new road connection within the town centre. This is completely UNSOUND as none of these projects have any status with the highway authority; are in no programme; two of them (at least) have had none of the statutory environmental and economic assessments undertaken; none of them have been through any "public process" and thus have little, if any, chance of being delivered within the Plan timeframe.
An earlier, SLDC sponsored traffic study, hurriedly undertaken as part of the LDF process, introduced yet another major project - a Kendal Inner Relief Road. Again that had no status, no assessment, no detail etc.
It is clear that these large projects have only been included in the traffic studies as smoke screens attempting to convince the public and the Inspector that the excessive development proposals could be satisfactorily accommodated in Kendal. In this regard it seems almost unnecessary to repeat that this is UNSOUND.
A part of Kendal suffers from poor air quality and there is an Air Quality Management Area in the centre of town. The first SLDC plan failed to deliver any improvement and similar results are expected of the current document (recent improvements at some sites can probably be attributed to the current poor economic situation). Even if the traffic study conclusions are accepted the combined impact of all LDF development and the extensive infrastructure programme studied would leave the town "no worse than base scenario" - in other words air quality will not improve.
Again,all the above confirms the document is UNSOUND
The Community Infrastructure Levy is suggested as the answer to funding all the wider and community infrastructure needs. I understand that it will not be applied to the affordable housing element of any development and that individual developments may also apply to be exempted on viability grounds. Site specific infrastructure requirements will still have to be funded by the developer through Section 106 Agreements in addition to the Levy.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
Further discussion of the points outlined above is essential
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
5. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 16 May 2012 15:29:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.4 - Kendal Sites
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
I have challenged the "soundness" of the overall housing numbers in my representation about the entire document. Those points apply equally to Kendal itself.
The proposals for Kendal are UNSOUND because they fail several of the effectiveness criteria within The Planning Inspectorate Soundness Guidance - there is no sound infrastructure delivery plan and there is not a clear commitment that those who would have to deliver eg Cumbria County Council, United Utilities, Electricity North West etc would/could do so within the timescale of the LDF. Whilst I largely concentrate on traffic issues it is appropriate to raise issues about capacity of the waste water treatment works, the sewerage system, electrical supply issues where the LDF documents do not contain any clear and firm commitment to accommodate the consequences of the deveopment proposed.
TRAFFIC. Cumbria County Council's (most recent) Kendal Traffic Study states that there is congestion now in Kendal. It concludes that there would be "significant increases in congestion as a result of the proposed levels of LDF development". The study tested various "schemes" and concluded that congestion can be mitigated to no worse than base scenario. That conclusion is based on at least 3 very questionable assumptions -
a 5% reduction in traffic from the sustainable travel programme - a figure with no substantiation; such a reduction has probably been achieved in other locations but there is no evidence it could be achieved in Kendal, and not with the programme outlined;
250 vehicles removed from peak hour flows by a Park and Ride site - there is no substantiation of this figure in the study and the County Council's Study report itself casts doubt on the ability to achieve that reduction; additionally there is no commitment to deliver the site itself nor any evidence on the practicalities and (capital and current) financial consequences of operating an effective P&R site.
More realistic (ie lower) figures for both of the above would produce an entirely different analysis with an inevitable deterioration in congestion as a result.
Three pieces of new highway infrastructure are included in the Study - two major new routes - the Northern and Southern Development Routes and a new road connection within the town centre. This is completely UNSOUND as none of these projects have any status with the highway authority; are in no programme; two of them (at least) have had none of the statutory environmental and economic assessments undertaken; none of them have been through any "public process" and thus have little, if any, chance of being delivered within the Plan timeframe.
An earlier, SLDC sponsored traffic study, hurriedly undertaken as part of the LDF process, introduced yet another major project - a Kendal Inner Relief Road. Again that had no status, no assessment, no detail etc.
It is clear that these large projects have only been included in the traffic studies as smoke screens attempting to convince the public and the Inspector that the excessive development proposals could be satisfactorily accommodated in Kendal. In this regard it seems almost unnecessary to repeat that this is UNSOUND.
A part of Kendal suffers from poor air quality and there is an Air Quality Management Area in the centre of town. The first SLDC plan failed to deliver any improvement and similar results are expected of the current document (recent improvements at some sites can probably be attributed to the current poor economic situation). Even if the traffic study conclusions are accepted the combined impact of all LDF development and the extensive infrastructure programme studied would leave the town "no worse than base scenario" - in other words air quality will not improve.
Again,all the above confirms the document is UNSOUND
The Community Infrastructure Levy is suggested as the answer to funding all the wider and community infrastructure needs. I understand that it will not be applied to the affordable housing element of any development and that individual developments may also apply to be exempted on viability grounds. Site specific infrastructure requirements will still have to be funded by the developer through Section 106 Agreements in addition to the Levy.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
Further discussion of the points outlined above is essential.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
6. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 16 May 2012 15:31:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.6 Strategic Employment Sites - E4M KENDAL LAND AT SCROGGS WOOD, MILNTHORPE ROAD
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
The respondent has subsequently clarified that no reference has been made in his response to employment sites, thus text has been withdrawn from this response.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
7. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 16 May 2012 15:32:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - M2M-mod KENDAL LAND EAST OF BURTON ROAD
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
The respondent has subsequently clarified that no reference has been made in his response to employment sites, thus text has been withdrawn from this response.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
8. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 16 May 2012 15:41:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Sites - All Kendal sites
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
The respondent has subsequently clarified that no reference has been made in his response to employment sites, thus text has been withdrawn from this response.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
