7 responses from Mr Glenn Smithers (Individual)
1. Mr Glenn Smithers (Individual) : 14 Apr 2012 16:17:00
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- ENDMOOR
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
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 am objecting to the Soundness of the DPD submitted by the SLDC, based on the following:
1. The proposed development M41M will have a substantial impact on the look and feel of the village. Endmoor is a small community between the larger towns of Kendal and Milnthorpe. Green fields, drumlins and stone walls separate the village to the smaller communities of Low Park and Summerlands.
The proposed development site will be built on the green fields and drumlins. This landscape has previously been identified as an Area of Great Landscape Value and a Landscape of County Importance which is supported by previous Inspectors reports
• County Showfield – Ref 5/89/4103
• Crematorium – T/APP/M0933/A/99/1017017/P2
• Sillfield Wind Turbines – Ref SL/2008/0900
There are several caravan sites in the area (opposite Crooklands, opposite Sycamore Close and the M41M proposed site, several sites adjacent to Peasy Beck etc). The reason these sites are situated in the village is that tourists appreciate and are delighted by the beautiful landscape and scenery.
It would be devastating to not only lose the green fields, but also the resulting loss of trade to the local pubs and shops, caravan sites (static and touring) and B&Bs/hotels.
To make the DPD sound, I believe the proposed development should be reconsidered with a much smaller number of houses.
If such a development should be built, it would be better placed at the R670 (Dove Nest) site or R83 (Birchfield) site. Alternatively, consider brownfield sites in the area. This is because any such development would be hidden from the main thoroughfare, the A65, and would not detract from those landscape and drumlins. The village would still have the same footprint and have the same feeling of community that the villagers are so proud of.
The DPD has left out SLDC's original proposal for 18 dwellings on R83 Birchfield, even though the site scored better in the Sustainability Appraisal report in the Endmoor Fact File than those sites retained.
The R83 site, which is in an existing residential area, is within the existing village development boundary and if developed could include open space and/or play area for public access by the village.
Equally R670 Dovenest site has been reduced from 54 houses to 25 when the site is well placed to accommodate all 54 dwellings and is in keeping with the development of the village hidden from the rest of the village and main road.
To avoid destroying the local landscape by expanding the village development boundary on valuable green fields, the proposed employment sites EN20 and EN33 which we were not consulted on, would be better used for domestic dwellings. The site is well hidden from the main road and the rest of the village and has the capacity to absorb new dwellings within the topology of the landscape.
If M41M must be developed to the detriment of the local and wider landscape, it should not be developed with more than 30 single storey dwellings carefully landscaped within the natural contours of the field. Any such development must provide landscaping and open space between Sycamore Close on the southern boundary and include allotments. Endmoor has been requesting allotments for several years without success and so this would be a great opportunity to provide them to local residents and blend in any new dwellings.
Any developments will need to be blended very carefully to avoid any appearance of urban sprawl and to minimise the future risk of joining up with Low Park and Summerlands.
To support the needs of the ever increasing ageing population of the village and to retain the character of the village with a less devastating impact on the landscape, new dwellings should be limited to bungalows and single storey affordable homes.
The number of affordable homes should be limited to no more than 10 as this is all that are required as established in a recent housing needs survey and the village does not have the necessary services to sustain the proposed scale of development
The proposed development would shatter the local landscape, jeopardize jobs in the local tourism industry and destroy the reason so many people have chosen to live in, and visit the area.
2. The villagers were not consulted on the increased number of houses on M41M from 68 to 100.
To make the DPD sound, the development plans should be resubmitted showing reasons why there is a need for 68 houses, let alone 100.
3. No development should be allowed to proceed until such time that there is an agreed
Infrastructure Plan with United Utilities to manage the increased capacity of sewerage
4. No asdditional employment sites should be developed in the village until there is a strong business case and they can be sited with safe access to the A65.
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
2. Mr Glenn Smithers (Individual) : 17 May 2012 09:05:00
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 - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
R83
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
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.
If such a development should be built, it would be better placed at the R670 (Dove Nest) site or R83 (Birchfield) site.The DPD has left out SLDC's original proposal for 18 dwellings on R83 Birchfield, even though the site scored better in the Sustainability Appraisal report in the Endmoor Fact File than those sites retained.
The R83 site, which is in an existing residential area, is within the existing village development boundary and if developed could include open space and/or play area for public access by the village.
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
3. Mr Glenn Smithers (Individual) : 17 May 2012 09:07:00
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 Allocations - EN20, EN33# ENDMOOR LAND NORTH OF GATEBECK LANE, GATEBECK
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
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.
To avoid destroying the local landscape by expanding the village development boundary on valuable green fields, the proposed employment sites EN20 and EN33 which we were not consulted on, would be better used for domestic dwellings. The site is well hidden from the main road and the rest of the village and has the capacity to absorb new dwellings within the topology of the landscape.
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
4. Mr Glenn Smithers (Individual) : 17 May 2012 09:10:00
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 - M41M ENDMOOR NORTH OF SYCAMORE DRIVE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
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 am objecting to the Soundness of the DPD submitted by the SLDC, based on the following:
1. The proposed development M41M will have a substantial impact on the look and feel of the village. Endmoor is a small community between the larger towns of Kendal and Milnthorpe. Green fields, drumlins and stone walls separate the village to the smaller communities of Low Park and Summerlands.
The proposed development site will be built on the green fields and drumlins. This landscape has previously been identified as an Area of Great Landscape Value and a Landscape of County Importance which is supported by previous Inspectors reports
• County Showfield – Ref 5/89/4103
• Crematorium – T/APP/M0933/A/99/1017017/P2
• Sillfield Wind Turbines – Ref SL/2008/0900
There are several caravan sites in the area (opposite Crooklands, opposite Sycamore Close and the M41M proposed site, several sites adjacent to Peasy Beck etc). The reason these sites are situated in the village is that tourists appreciate and are delighted by the beautiful landscape and scenery.
It would be devastating to not only lose the green fields, but also the resulting loss of trade to the local pubs and shops, caravan sites (static and touring) and B&Bs/hotels.
To make the DPD sound, I believe the proposed development should be reconsidered with a much smaller number of houses.
If M41M must be developed to the detriment of the local and wider landscape, it should not be developed with more than 30 single storey dwellings carefully landscaped within the natural contours of the field. Any such development must provide landscaping and open space between Sycamore Close on the southern boundary and include allotments. Endmoor has been requesting allotments for several years without success and so this would be a great opportunity to provide them to local residents and blend in any new dwellings.
Any developments will need to be blended very carefully to avoid any appearance of urban sprawl and to minimise the future risk of joining up with Low Park and Summerlands.
To support the needs of the ever increasing ageing population of the village and to retain the character of the village with a less devastating impact on the landscape, new dwellings should be limited to bungalows and single storey affordable homes.
The number of affordable homes should be limited to no more than 10 as this is all that are required as established in a recent housing needs survey and the village does not have the necessary services to sustain the proposed scale of development
The proposed development would shatter the local landscape, jeopardize jobs in the local tourism industry and destroy the reason so many people have chosen to live in, and visit the area.
2. The villagers were not consulted on the increased number of houses on M41M from 68 to 100.
To make the DPD sound, the development plans should be resubmitted showing reasons why there is a need for 68 houses, let alone 100.
3. No development should be allowed to proceed until such time that there is an agreed
Infrastructure Plan with United Utilities to manage the increased capacity of sewerage
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
5. Mr Glenn Smithers (Individual) : 17 May 2012 09:12:00
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 - R670-mod ENDMOOR SOUTH OF BOWLING GREEN
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
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.
If such a development should be built, it would be better placed at the R670 (Dove Nest) site or R83 (Birchfield) site. Alternatively, consider brownfield sites in the area. This is because any such development would be hidden from the main thoroughfare, the A65, and would not detract from those landscape and drumlins. The village would still have the same footprint and have the same feeling of community that the villagers are so proud of.
Equally R670 Dovenest site has been reduced from 54 houses to 25 when the site is well placed to accommodate all 54 dwellings and is in keeping with the development of the village hidden from the rest of the village and main road.
4. No additional employment sites should be developed in the village until there is a strong business case and they can be sited with safe access to the A65.
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
6. Mr Glenn Smithers (Individual) : 17 May 2012 09:26:00
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 Endmoor sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
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.
If such a development should be built, it would be better placed at the R670 (Dove Nest) site or R83 (Birchfield) site. Alternatively, consider brownfield sites in the area. This is because any such development would be hidden from the main thoroughfare, the A65, and would not detract from those landscape and drumlins. The village would still have the same footprint and have the same feeling of community that the villagers are so proud of.
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 Glenn Smithers (Individual) : 17 May 2012 09:32:00
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.
LA1.10 Existing Green Infrastructure
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
AS122
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
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.
If such a development should be built, it would be better placed at the R670 (Dove Nest) site or R83 (Birchfield) site. The DPD has left out SLDC's original proposal for 18 dwellings on R83 Birchfield, even though the site scored better in the Sustainability Appraisal report in the Endmoor Fact File than those sites retained.
The R83 site, which is in an existing residential area, is within the existing village development boundary and if developed could include open space and/or play area for public access by the village.
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
