Response from Mr Geoffrey James (Individual)
1. Mr Geoffrey James (Individual) : 25 Apr 2012 12:22:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.1 Development Boundaries- GREAT AND LITTLE URSWICK
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
Settlement development boundary change omission
Great Urswick settlement development boundary. SLDC ref. ON15
Policy LA1.1 - Development Boundaries - Great Urswick.
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.
You have already received several communications concerning the proposed development boundaries of the bordering land adjacent to Urswick Tarn ,Great Urswick .As you are aware the Tarn and its shore are the property of the Crown and are part of common land rights of the Parishioners .It has always been the nesting ground of swans , coots and other wildlife . Although several developments in the 1950-1960 's are present all of the recent proposals for building on land to the north tarn between Church view road and the tarn shore have been turned down and local opposition has been supported at appeal by the Secretary of State For the Environment.
It is clear from your proposed development boundaries that these previous actions have been ignored and you are including the above mentioned land within the development category of the proposed Framework thus ignoring the local issue of public amenity and the loss of visual access to Urswick Tarn by the Local Population.
The SLDC policy of not allowing new developments on the Tarn Shore was eroded by the granting of Planning Proposals for the Coot Development against total local opposition . This does not have to set a precedent for the decline of environmental standards and I would strongly advise that the boundaries be revised to exclude the existing tarn shore properties and bring the boundary perimeter to the road rather than the Tarn shore .Failure to do so will ultimately lead to great expense in that every new proposal will be met by strong local opposition.
