3 responses from Mr and Mrs GH and S Wright (Individual)
1. Mr and Mrs GH and S Wright (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 17:05:00
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 - All Arnside sites
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)
The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
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.
Comply with current National Policy
Take due regard of local opinion.
The original Document.
“South Lakeland District Council is consulting widely from 21 January to 15 April 2011 on its suggestions, and seeking community views” was the opening sentence of the first document for consultation.
That document was prepared in the knowledge of the activities of an SLDC commissioned task force “Affordable Housing Task and Finish group” chaired by Cllr Sheila Eccles. Their recommendations omit any reference of statuary duty with respect to Open Spaces. Those recommendations were accepted by Cabinet meeting 13 April 2011. Apparently this gave developers carte blanche to override all other considerations. Mr Peter Thompson and other officers failed or were not allowed to recognise their own full responsibilities to preserve the environment and single mindedly pursued the presumed Affordable Housing need above all else in the preparation of the document.
The most recent edition dated 12th March 2012 continues to flout Government policy which has been clarified by Mr Pickles himself. Brown field sites are to take preference over Greenfield Sites and Open Spaces.
Consultation.
There was sparse evidence of the wide consultation. Documents may have been available in the library for those who use libraries but there was no leaflet distribution similar to that which SLDC chooses to use for other public awareness. Now consider reading such a document in a public library. The appendix for Arnside was 66 pages long so takes say one hour: the library is only open 15 hours each week.
Inevitably the consultation will have been skewed towards those with internet access at home with time to study the documents in detail.
Collation of responses.
We have evidence of lapses in any quality management systems SLDC may have in that documents for the personal attention of Mr D Hudson gained electronic read receipts without appearing in published records or receiving due response.
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
We have no support for the way this entire consultation has been conducted.
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.
The evidence presented is neither comprehensive nor factually accurate.
A comprehensive and detailed environmental study is of paramount importance and needs to be carried out.
We fully support the SPECIFIC CONCERNS AND OBJECTIONS OF ARNSIDE PARISH PLAN TRUST (APPT) AND ARNSIDE PARISH COUNCIL (APC) REGARDING SLDC’s CURRENT LAND ALLOCATIONS. As presented by Mr C. Bisco 14/4/2012 and add the following.
There may be various hypothetical means of assessing housing needs in an AONB. Reality has shown that the needs are and can continue to be adequately met from existing stock.
The demography is such that there are many large houses occupied by those who could be better accommodated on the ground floor converted to a flat customised to their specific need. This would also generate income for them from the upper floor flats or accommodation for family carers. After ultimate demise the converted dwelling could provide housing stock to satisfy the policy of retaining people in their own homes and a lift up the housing ladder for those who had cared for their senior relatives.
Hypothetical assessment of employment is again pie in the sky. In reality there is no local source of employment demanding labour now or in the foreseeable future unless SLDC intend to ruin the natural beauty which currently provides the key local labour market.
Hence any imposed housing development will inevitably increase the local carbon footprint which is contrary to government policy.
We fully support the submission presented by Dr D Mervin on 13/4/2012 which succinctly represents the views of the 547 signatories to the petitions who were concerned about open space development and R81 is arguably one of if not the important open vista to the Knott.
The fact files in the original submission contained statements to the effect of requiring further and more accurate detail. Yet those in the latest version have not provided that information. A full detailed environmental study is a serious omission needing rectification.
The land is recognised as limestone grassland which by definition is naturally draining yet insufficient notice has been taken of the photographic evidence provided and the ongoing incomplete measures taken, to confirm the site still floods at both ends. The estimate of 1% coverage is far too low. Any inevitable change to the surface by housing development will exacerbate the local problem and may transfer it else where.
Site access is not settled although reference is made to a Cumbria County Council Highways Document EM454. The detail must include traffic calming measure with the link from Redhills Road to Lawrence Drive not a through road except for emergency vehicles. Claims that there is no public access to the site are false because there is a public footpath running through it.
2.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
We did not support SLDC in 1.4 nor do we here.
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
To satisfy myself that all the documentation has been put before the inspector in a manner he understands.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr and Mrs GH and S Wright (Individual) : 8 May 2012 12:57:00
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 - R81 ARNSIDE REDHILLS 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.
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.
We fully support the submission presented by Dr D Mervin on 13/4/2012 which succinctly represents the views of the 547 signatories to the petitions who were concerned about open space development and R81 is arguably one of if not the important open vista to the Knott.
The fact files in the original submission contained statements to the effect of requiring further and more accurate detail. Yet those in the latest version have not provided that information. A full detailed environmental study is a serious omission needing rectification.
The land is recognised as limestone grassland which by definition is naturally draining yet insufficient notice has been taken of the photographic evidence provided and the ongoing incomplete measures taken, to confirm the site still floods at both ends. The estimate of 1% coverage is far too low. Any inevitable change to the surface by housing development will exacerbate the local problem and may transfer it else where.
Site access is not settled although reference is made to a Cumbria County Council Highways Document EM454. The detail must include traffic calming measure with the link from Redhills Road to Lawrence Drive not a through road except for emergency vehicles. Claims that there is no public access to the site are false because there is a public footpath running through it.
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
To satisfy myself that all the documentation has been put before the inspector in a manner he understands.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mr and Mrs GH and S Wright (Individual) : 8 May 2012 13:03:00
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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
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.
Consultation.
There was sparse evidence of the wide consultation. Documents may have been available in the library for those who use libraries but there was no leaflet distribution similar to that which SLDC chooses to use for other public awareness. Now consider reading such a document in a public library. The appendix for Arnside was 66 pages long so takes say one hour: the library is only open 15 hours each week.
Inevitably the consultation will have been skewed towards those with internet access at home with time to study the documents in detail.
Collation of responses.
We have evidence of lapses in any quality management systems SLDC may have in that documents for the personal attention of Mr D Hudson gained electronic read receipts without appearing in published records or receiving due response.
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
To satisfy myself that all the documentation has been put before the inspector in a manner he understands.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me