Response from Mr & Mrs James and Dorothy Young (Individual)
1. Mr & Mrs James and Dorothy Young (Individual) : 24 Apr 2012 14:53:00
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
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.
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.
We wish to make the following representation to the Government Inspector ofthe above
document.
In our opinion, this document is unsound for the following reasons:
1. South Lakeland District Council has not clearly identified and justified the need for in
excess of 6,000 new dwellings in the district. There is no demand on the "open market"
for this number of houses. Locally, several homes have been for sale for over two years
and there are over 2,000 empty homes throughout the district. It would appear,
therefore, that this policy is undeliverable.
2. Infrastructure. In this rural area there is not the infrastructure to support an increase
in population of say 20.000+; e.g. highways, drainage, electrical supply, water,
broadband, education, health services, public transport etc. In the present economic
climate, it is unlikely that there will be funds to increase these facilities.
3. Sustainability. Where is the local employment to sustain this increase in population?
Thousands of jobs would have to be created, unless the occupants of the proposed new
houses are expected to travel long distances to work outside the area. This, in itself, is
an unsustainable proposal, bearing in mind, one of your definitions of sustainability is
"able to travel to work within 30 minutes using public transport " Recent cuts in local
bus services make this even more difficult to achieve.
At the beginning of this whole exercise in 2008, we wrote objecting to this scale of
development in South Lakes. Over the past four years nothing has persuaded us to
change our opinion, and in fact, we feel the economic situation has declined making these plans even more undeliverable
