Response from Mr Stephen Pooley (Individual)
1. Mr Stephen Pooley (Individual) : 1 May 2012 12:10:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R103M-mod KENDAL STAINBANK GREEN
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.
I refer to my email of 11 February 2009 sent in the first stage of the consultation process.
Subsequently, and following that consultation, and no doubt after careful consideration and for sound planning reasons, the most southerly part of area R103 was removed from the plan in July 2011.
The next stage of the process was to give consideration to ‘alternative sites’.
Given that amended brief and the decision already taken I was surprised to see the reintroduction of that area in February 2012.
In view of this apparent about turn I took the matter up with my local councillor.
She informs me that the principal reasons for the previous removal of the area were that there is an existing policy to ensure that a green area or wedge remains between the Vicarage Park and Collinfield developments and there were also concerns about the visual impact of any development on such an elevated site.
She tells me that she has had a meeting with you and that you have assured her that both the policy and the concerns remain and, indeed, the reason for the reintroduction of this area is to ensure that they are adhered to by giving the local planning authority wider control over any development in that part of town. This will be achieved by a requirement that a detailed landscaping scheme will need to be submitted and approved before any development is given permission.
I am told that the Council’s considerations with such a scheme are:
• The emphasis of any development and site would face north with the main vehicular access being onto Brigsteer Road.
• There will only be a net developable area of 50% of the whole site with the remaining 50% comprised of landscaping and public open spaces etc.
• The land allocations document requires that the landscape framework be integrated with the Vicarage Road green wedge.
In practice this would mean that much of the western end of the site towards Collinfield would be retained as open space as there would be a need to ensure that the connection with the open countryside was retained.
I ask that the matters raised be given proper consideration. I have my doubts, procedurally, whether an area can be reintroduced once it has been considered and removed. However, if the intent is to ensure eventual compliance with the land allocations document and already stated policy, then for the land allocations DPD to be effective, justified and consistent with that policy, and therefore ‘sound’ it must be a requirement that submission of a detailed landscaping scheme must be made a pre requisite to any development proposals.
