4 responses from Mr David Boxford (Individual)
1. Mr David Boxford (Individual) : 17 Apr 2012 00:35:00
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?
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
(For the whole Document) Such changes as would have been requested had its preparation been in accordance with SCI, eg:
SCI 2.4 We will design consultation exercises ……. selecting methods, techniques …… which maximise the opportunity for all groups to take part .
The preference and pressure for online response surely dictates against an accessible means of response for all. And when attempted, it is not the easiest of exercises – I lost my first attempt because I failed to ‘save’ whilst attending to other matters. There were instructions later highlighted in red about something, but not for this vital item. The warning about inaction is only in the blurb at the start. Having to say whether we’ve read the guidance notes and then decide whether SLDC have been legal, before one’s even got to the reply bit is enough to put the ordinary person off!
On the website there appear to be 3 versions of the DPD to comment on, two with 175 pages and one with 176 – is someone suggesting we should use a dart to select which one!
Anyway, the fact that around 100 people have attended each of 2 community meetings on this, yet the number of comments to date on our village are under 20, points to people being deterred from taking part.
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.
LA1.3 - The number of dwellings proposed for M41M should be substantially reduced if, indeed any, are warranted.
It has been admitted that there is an ‘abrupt urban edge ‘ – 3.123, and that this should be done with ‘strong landscaping…’ with open space, trees, etc - - as LA2.14. There is insufficient space for 100 rural dwellings and necessary access roads suggested, let alone any green framework, public rights of way, etc. If Sycamore Close was unsatisfactory, this area should therefore have a maximum of say 20, to redeem the approach to Endmoor.
3.123 – not deliverable – many fewer dwellings, if any, should be permitted on this land if the abrupt urban northern end of the village is to be redeemed. It can only be acceptable as a green landscaped space, with public access, allotments etc (to satisfy Emerging Options page 53 – 3.83)
SLDC would have had a duty to protect the natural landscape when considering the plans for Sycamore Close, yet this urban development was permitted. They have advised in Emerging Options Factfind page 8 for Endmoor that ‘development of M41M would represent significant urban extension’, yet still it is being proposed!
We cannot therefore have confidence in SLDC that they will resist the Developer Pressure and be any more protective of our landscape than they were before. It seems that Endmoor has once again been allocated with more than our fair share of the district’s enforced ‘housing plan numbers’, presumably because we are thought of as a ‘soft touch’. In fairness rather, SLDC ought to be extra supportive of such neighbourhoods that are not so ‘protective’ as others and assist us with safeguarding our outstanding natural landscape – we look forward to working with them on the preparation of a ‘natural’ development brief for this area.
M41M and policy LA2.14 - The proposed development is not the most appropriate way of redeeming the abrupt urban edge presented by the recent development of Sycamore Close. It is vital that development, if any, in these fields is more rural in nature and designed to soften the northern end of the village. For that there must be a drastic reduction in dwelling numbers, great attention to design detail, landscaping, tree planting and tying in with the community needs of this end of the village with access to the School and other public spaces. Particularly the building frontage needs to be drawn drastically back from its current unacceptable proximity to the A65. It also seems absolutely vital to ensure that a public right of way/bridleway is provided in a northerly direction from the school/playing fields to join up with the existing right of way across the fields from Low Park and down to Gatebeck Road, which currently stops just at the northern edge of M41M. All these aspects are directed to be covered by a Development Brief before anything can be progressed, but proper consultation must be arranged with the community to ensure that it is a brief that we have sufficient opportunity to contribute to and that takes account of real community representations.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not 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 David Boxford (Individual) : 17 Apr 2012 00:40:00
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
Such changes as would have been requested had its preparation been in accordance with SCI, eg:
SCI 2.4 : "We will design consultation exercises ……. selecting methods, techniques …… which maximise the opportunity for all groups to take part."
The preference and pressure for online response surely dictates against an accessible means of response for all. And when attempted, it is not the easiest of exercises – I lost my first attempt because I failed to ‘save’ whilst attending to other matters. There were instructions later highlighted in red about something, but not for this vital item. The warning about inaction is only in the blurb at the start. Having to say whether we’ve read the guidance notes and then decide whether SLDC have been legal, before one’s even got to the reply bit is enough to put the ordinary person off!
On the website there appear to be 3 versions of the DPD to comment on, two with 175 pages and one with 176 – is someone suggesting we should use a dart to select which one!
Anyway, the fact that around 100 people have attended each of 2 community meetings on this, yet the number of comments to date on our village are under 20, points to people being deterred from taking part.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not 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 David Boxford (Individual) : 17 May 2012 09:56:00
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.
1.9
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
Such changes as would have been requested had its preparation been in accordance with SCI, eg:
SCI 2.4 : "We will design consultation exercises ……. selecting methods, techniques …… which maximise the opportunity for all groups to take part."
The preference and pressure for online response surely dictates against an accessible means of response for all. And when attempted, it is not the easiest of exercises – I lost my first attempt because I failed to ‘save’ whilst attending to other matters. There were instructions later highlighted in red about something, but not for this vital item. The warning about inaction is only in the blurb at the start. Having to say whether we’ve read the guidance notes and then decide whether SLDC have been legal, before one’s even got to the reply bit is enough to put the ordinary person off!
On the website there appear to be 3 versions of the DPD to comment on, two with 175 pages and one with 176 – is someone suggesting we should use a dart to select which one!
Anyway, the fact that around 100 people have attended each of 2 community meetings on this, yet the number of comments to date on our village are under 20, points to people being deterred from taking part.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not 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 David Boxford (Individual) : 17 May 2012 11:12:00
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.
LA2.14 Land North of Sycamore Drive, Endmoor
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
LA1.3 - The number of dwellings proposed for M41M should be substantially reduced if, indeed any, are warranted.
It has been admitted that there is an ‘abrupt urban edge ‘ – 3.123, and that this should be done with ‘strong landscaping…’ with open space, trees, etc - - as LA2.14. There is insufficient space for 100 rural dwellings and necessary access roads suggested, let alone any green framework, public rights of way, etc. If Sycamore Close was unsatisfactory, this area should therefore have a maximum of say 20, to redeem the approach to Endmoor.
3.123 – not deliverable – many fewer dwellings, if any, should be permitted on this land if the abrupt urban northern end of the village is to be redeemed. It can only be acceptable as a green landscaped space, with public access, allotments etc (to satisfy Emerging Options page 53 – 3.83)
SLDC would have had a duty to protect the natural landscape when considering the plans for Sycamore Close, yet this urban development was permitted. They have advised in Emerging Options Factfind page 8 for Endmoor that ‘development of M41M would represent significant urban extension’, yet still it is being proposed!
We cannot therefore have confidence in SLDC that they will resist the Developer Pressure and be any more protective of our landscape than they were before. It seems that Endmoor has once again been allocated with more than our fair share of the district’s enforced ‘housing plan numbers’, presumably because we are thought of as a ‘soft touch’. In fairness rather, SLDC ought to be extra supportive of such neighbourhoods that are not so ‘protective’ as others and assist us with safeguarding our outstanding natural landscape – we look forward to working with them on the preparation of a ‘natural’ development brief for this area.
M41M and policy LA2.14 - The proposed development is not the most appropriate way of redeeming the abrupt urban edge presented by the recent development of Sycamore Close. It is vital that development, if any, in these fields is more rural in nature and designed to soften the northern end of the village. For that there must be a drastic reduction in dwelling numbers, great attention to design detail, landscaping, tree planting and tying in with the community needs of this end of the village with access to the School and other public spaces. Particularly the building frontage needs to be drawn drastically back from its current unacceptable proximity to the A65. It also seems absolutely vital to ensure that a public right of way/bridleway is provided in a northerly direction from the school/playing fields to join up with the existing right of way across the fields from Low Park and down to Gatebeck Road, which currently stops just at the northern edge of M41M. All these aspects are directed to be covered by a Development Brief before anything can be progressed, but proper consultation must be arranged with the community to ensure that it is a brief that we have sufficient opportunity to contribute to and that takes account of real community representations.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not 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
