Response from Mr and Mrs John Whitehead (Individual)
1. Mr and Mrs John Whitehead (Individual) : 10 May 2012 12:39:00
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.3 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 response to the Publication Stage - having
read the guidance notes.
We do not consider the document to be sustainable for the following
reasons:-
1 The Council have persisted in demanding 8800 houses plus
industrial/commercial development land between 2003 and
2025 without producing sound evidence of the need for this
scale of development for public review.
2 The Council says that 3080 'affordable' houses are needed out
of the above total without, again, producing evidence of need.
3 An SLDC Councillor for our area said that the Council accepted
that no developer would build more than 35% of a given
development as 'affordable'. It is notable therefore that 35% of
8800 just happens to be 3080. On what grounds does the
Council justify the building of 5720 house at open market prices
in order to achieve 3080 'affordable' houses? Where is the
proof of the demand for 5720 open market houses?
4 The Council has actively encouraged people to live in S Lakes
and work in Barrow-in-Furness, Carlisle, Preston, Blackburn
and Skipton. This is sure against all national policy and is not
green or sustainable.
5 The 8800 houses, the Planning Department agreed, suggests
about 35,000 more people in addition to the existing population
in South Lakes of about 165,000. Where are the thousands of
jobs, the hospitals, roads, schools, social facilities, etc to
support this increase?
6. The roads available are already overstretched, often with no
pavements. To superimpose 35,000 more people and their cars
on the infrasture is not sustainable- we already have 2 of the
most dangerous roads in the UK. inS Lakes ie A65 and A590.
To add more traffic to these roads is not sound.
7. One of the SLDC definitions of 'sustainability' is that new
residents can travel to work by public transport in 30-minutes.
This would not seem likely.
8. The Council has not specified brownfield land. Green fields are
more important than ever for FARMING as the ever growing
population needs more food. Sources overseas may not be
sustained in future.
9. In view of the economic climate likely for the next 10 years the
scale of development is much less likely to be justified and
many thought it was unjustified back in 2008.
10. The SLDC 'Consultation' has been a very expensive drawn out
process which has shown the Council to have not changed its
plans in any significant way.
The policy documents are in our view unsustainable.