2 responses from Ian Sager (Individual)
1. Ian Sager (Individual) : 11 Apr 2012 12:15:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R129M KENDAL SOUTH OF UNDERBARROW ROAD
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.
i object specifically to RM129M + RM143 and to the plans in general- they are totally unnecessary.
"These proposals formed the basis of one of SLDC's most extensive ever consultation exercises between January and April of this year. Further consultation was undertaken between July and September on alternative sites and a number of other issues. Responses have been processed and analysed. In response
to concerns raised through consultation"
I wish that was true -like every other consultation that's been held in recent time I am sure you will just make the same decisions that you set out to make in the first place.
there is lots of empty properties in Kendal and lots of brown field sites that you do nothing about. Why not use them instead ofthe monstrous plans to concrete over SLDC so a few rich business men can make a lot of money?
There is lots of properties for sale in Kendal some of which have been for sale for over 4 years so why the continual misinformation about shortage of housing? Why not stop second home owners being allowed to buy up properties in the area and use them part time or as holiday homes?
This is all about you enabling your partners in business to make lots of money- try dealing with existing brownfield sites of which there is many, instead of just destroying Kendal and no doubt other beautiful areas in SLDC.
In my opinion the proposed change to the planning laws and things like this plan are a disgrace.
This whole process is rotten; last year, according to a letter published in the Westmorland Gazette, I am led to believe that Kendal Town Council attempted to try to move the boundary of the National Park to the bypass just so they could get away with building on even more precious green land up to the bypass.
to show what a nonsense the local housing agenda is- we had a church converted near us- it originally had a section 106 condition on the planning permission but this was taken out at a later stage -the conversion was carried out and what was a beautiful building has now been ruined- it is now an eyesorewe have 4 flats- one occupied, two rarely used holiday homes and one that's been left as total eyesore with a window broken and unoccupied for 4 or 5 years despite it being brought to the council's attention many years ago and the council allegedly having someone dealing with empty properties full time and the
council making such a big thing about its efforts on this issue.
2. Ian Sager (Individual) : 11 Apr 2012 13:03:00
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.
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.
i object specifically to RM129M + RM143 and to the plans in general- they are totally unnecessary.
"These proposals formed the basis of one of SLDC's most extensive ever consultation exercises between January and April of this year. Further consultation was undertaken between July and September on alternative sites and a number of other issues. Responses have been processed and analysed. In response
to concerns raised through consultation"
I wish that was true -like every other consultation that's been held in recent time I am sure you will just make the same decisions that you set out to make in the first place.
there is lots of empty properties in Kendal and lots of brown field sites that you do nothing about. Why not use them instead ofthe monstrous plans to concrete over SLDC so a few rich business men can make a lot of money?
There is lots of properties for sale in Kendal some of which have been for sale for over 4 years so why the continual misinformation about shortage of housing? Why not stop second home owners being allowed to buy up properties in the area and use them part time or as holiday homes?
This is all about you enabling your partners in business to make lots of money- try dealing with existing brownfield sites of which there is many, instead of just destroying Kendal and no doubt other beautiful areas in SLDC.
In my opinion the proposed change to the planning laws and things like this plan are a disgrace.
This whole process is rotten; last year, according to a letter published in the Westmorland Gazette, I am led to believe that Kendal Town Council attempted to try to move the boundary of the National Park to the bypass just so they could get away with building on even more precious green land up to the bypass.
to show what a nonsense the local housing agenda is- we had a church converted near us- it originally had a section 106 condition on the planning permission but this was taken out at a later stage -the conversion was carried out and what was a beautiful building has now been ruined- it is now an eyesore. we have 4 flats- one occupied, two rarely used holiday homes and one that's been left as total eyesore with a window broken and unoccupied for 4 or 5 years despite it being brought to the council's attention many years ago and the council allegedly having someone dealing with empty properties full time and the
council making such a big thing about its efforts on this issue.