5 responses from Mr Allan Teasdale (Individual)
1. Mr Allan Teasdale (Individual) : 10 Apr 2012 17:37:00
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 Swarthmoor sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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I believe that RN109M should be withdrawn from the plan because due consideration has not been given to the effect of this development on the already overloaded and difficult access to the A590 from the west. Also, no consideration has been given to the effect on “local village children” of the demand for extra places at Pennington Junior School, which is already full to capacity. It seems likely that these children will have to find alternative school places which will involve unnecessary travelling, whereas at present most of them walk to school.
The western boundary to RN109M was set by the SLDC planners as being suitable for the accommodation of the number of houses deemed to be required. I was told by the planner responsible for the Swarthmoor proposal that consideration had been given to setting this boundary as a straight line between the Memorial Hall and Rufus Lane but that because this would have encompassed more land than was needed, it was rejected before the Emerging Options were selected.
The land owner in question had offered all of his land between Pennington Lane and the A590 and it was common knowledge that he wasn’t inclined to accept this proposal (RN109M).This is not speculation; the land owner told me personally at the first drop-in session at Ulverston Coronation Hall that there would be no development of RN109M as identified.
At a late stage of the Initial Consultation, a developer (Story Homes) submitted a report, on behalf of the land owners, in which an additional piece of land (RN315#) was identified that would accommodate substantially more housing than proposed by SLDC. The addition of this land effectively moved the boundary of RN109M to the position previously rejected by the planners.
This proposal was viewed with derision by local residents who had already expressed vigorous objections to any development to the west of the A590 and was dismissed as an attempt by the land owner to create an economically viable option for the disposal of his land.
It came as a great surprise to find that in the final plan, RN315# had been added to RN109M and that the western boundary had been moved exactly to the position initially rejected by the planners. This means the land owner now had a viable proposition and the land would be made available.
There can be little doubt that the land owner made it clear to the council that unless RN109M was significantly increased in size, by relocating the western boundary, the land would not be made available for development. The planner involved, having focussed, to the point of obsession, almost entirely on this particular plot, simply acceded to the land owner’s demands rather than risk losing the entire plot, completely ignoring the overwhelming expressions of concern of local residents.
In view of the extremely high proportion of objections to RN109M, expressed through the previous consultations, it beggars belief that the planners completely ignored the views of the residents who will have to live with the consequences, to ensure that this land, in whatever form, became available.
Other areas of land were identified by residents that wouldn’t involve spreading the village across the A590 and which are already owned by a local builder but for whatever reason and without any real explanation, these have been rejected by SLDC. These areas will no doubt be pursued by the owner under the new planning laws, regardless of the DPD but in the meantime there is a need to establish exactly why the planner decided not to pursue these other options; in particular RN105#, RN106.# and RN328#.
I believe that the planner’s decision to change his carefully considered plan to accommodate the wishes of the owner of RN109M, should be subjected to very careful scrutiny to ensure that the required standard of probity has been observed and that the owner did not receive preferential treatment to the detriment of residents.
It’s worthy of note that there were eight submissions by Storey Homes to the Initial Consultation, ranging throughout the district, and as a consequence areas of land identified as Emerging Options, were significantly increased in size. Whether or not a developer should be able to influence the council’s decisions to this extent is a matter for the inspector to consider.
Finally, what becomes clear when reviewing this issue throughout the SLDC area, is that the basis of the DPD is the availability of land rather than its suitability for development, or indeed whether such development is even justified
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 Allan Teasdale (Individual) : 11 Apr 2012 11:47:00
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.
LA1.1 Development Boundaries
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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 believe that the DPD is unsound because of my concern that a developer may have had an undue influence in the preparation of the Plan, to the benefit of land owners and detriment of residents.
Eight reports were submitted as responses to the Initial Consultation by Story Homes of Carlisle, the result of which is that some sites identified as Emerging Options have been significantly increased in size in accordance with the reports.
The sites subjected to reports by Story Homes are:-
Levens R682LVM
Cartmel R112
Kendal R107M, R150M
Kendal R103M, M39
Kendal R97M
Kendal M41M
Ulverston RN131M
Swarthmoor RN109M
In the case of the last two the sites, they were definitely increased in size as a result of the Story Homes submissions.
I believe that an independent investigation should be carried out to establish the extent of the influence Story Homes has had on the DPD, before it is submitted to the government for approval. It would be foolish to proceed until this matter is resolved.
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 Allan Teasdale (Individual) : 15 May 2012 15:37:00
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 - RN109M RN315# SWARTHMOOR OFF CROSS-a-MOOR
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
(Extracted from Rep 1) believe that RN109M should be withdrawn from the plan because due consideration has not been given to the effect of this development on the already overloaded and difficult access to the A590 from the west. Also, no consideration has been given to the effect on “local village children” of the demand for extra places at Pennington Junior School, which is already full to capacity. It seems likely that these children will have to find alternative school places which will involve unnecessary travelling, whereas at present most of them walk to school.
The western boundary to RN109M was set by the SLDC planners as being suitable for the accommodation of the number of houses deemed to be required. I was told by the planner responsible for the Swarthmoor proposal that consideration had been given to setting this boundary as a straight line between the Memorial Hall and Rufus Lane but that because this would have encompassed more land than was needed, it was rejected before the Emerging Options were selected.
The land owner in question had offered all of his land between Pennington Lane and the A590 and it was common knowledge that he wasn’t inclined to accept this proposal (RN109M).This is not speculation; the land owner told me personally at the first drop-in session at Ulverston Coronation Hall that there would be no development of RN109M as identified.
At a late stage of the Initial Consultation, a developer (Story Homes) submitted a report, on behalf of the land owners, in which an additional piece of land (RN315#) was identified that would accommodate substantially more housing than proposed by SLDC. The addition of this land effectively moved the boundary of RN109M to the position previously rejected by the planners.
This proposal was viewed with derision by local residents who had already expressed vigorous objections to any development to the west of the A590 and was dismissed as an attempt by the land owner to create an economically viable option for the disposal of his land.
It came as a great surprise to find that in the final plan, RN315# had been added to RN109M and that the western boundary had been moved exactly to the position initially rejected by the planners. This means the land owner now had a viable proposition and the land would be made available.
There can be little doubt that the land owner made it clear to the council that unless RN109M was significantly increased in size, by relocating the western boundary, the land would not be made available for development. The planner involved, having focussed, to the point of obsession, almost entirely on this particular plot, simply acceded to the land owner’s demands rather than risk losing the entire plot, completely ignoring the overwhelming expressions of concern of local residents.
In view of the extremely high proportion of objections to RN109M, expressed through the previous consultations, it beggars belief that the planners completely ignored the views of the residents who will have to live with the consequences, to ensure that this land, in whatever form, became available.
Other areas of land were identified by residents that wouldn’t involve spreading the village across the A590 and which are already owned by a local builder but for whatever reason and without any real explanation, these have been rejected by SLDC. These areas will no doubt be pursued by the owner under the new planning laws, regardless of the DPD but in the meantime there is a need to establish exactly why the planner decided not to pursue these other options; in particular RN105#, RN106.# and RN328#.
I believe that the planner’s decision to change his carefully considered plan to accommodate the wishes of the owner of RN109M, should be subjected to very careful scrutiny to ensure that the required standard of probity has been observed and that the owner did not receive preferential treatment to the detriment of residents.
It’s worthy of note that there were eight submissions by Storey Homes to the Initial Consultation, ranging throughout the district, and as a consequence areas of land identified as Emerging Options, were significantly increased in size. Whether or not a developer should be able to influence the council’s decisions to this extent is a matter for the inspector to consider.
Finally, what becomes clear when reviewing this issue throughout the SLDC area, is that the basis of the DPD is the availability of land rather than its suitability for development, or indeed whether such development is even justified
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 Allan Teasdale (Individual) : 15 May 2012 15:40:00
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.
1.10
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
There can be little doubt that the land owner made it clear to the council that unless RN109M was significantly increased in size, by relocating the western boundary, the land would not be made available for development. The planner involved, having focussed, to the point of obsession, almost entirely on this particular plot, simply acceded to the land owner’s demands rather than risk losing the entire plot, completely ignoring the overwhelming expressions of concern of local residents.
In view of the extremely high proportion of objections to RN109M, expressed through the previous consultations, it beggars belief that the planners completely ignored the views of the residents who will have to live with the consequences, to ensure that this land, in whatever form, became available.
Other areas of land were identified by residents that wouldn’t involve spreading the village across the A590 and which are already owned by a local builder but for whatever reason and without any real explanation, these have been rejected by SLDC. These areas will no doubt be pursued by the owner under the new planning laws, regardless of the DPD but in the meantime there is a need to establish exactly why the planner decided not to pursue these other options; in particular RN105#, RN106.# and RN328#.
I believe that the planner’s decision to change his carefully considered plan to accommodate the wishes of the owner of RN109M, should be subjected to very careful scrutiny to ensure that the required standard of probity has been observed and that the owner did not receive preferential treatment to the detriment of residents.
It’s worthy of note that there were eight submissions by Storey Homes to the Initial Consultation, ranging throughout the district, and as a consequence areas of land identified as Emerging Options, were significantly increased in size. Whether or not a developer should be able to influence the council’s decisions to this extent is a matter for the inspector to consider.
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
5. Mr Allan Teasdale (Individual) : 18 May 2012 16:06:00
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.
1.10
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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 believe that the DPD is unsound because of my concern that a developer may have had an undue influence in the preparation of the Plan, to the benefit of land owners and detriment of residents.
Eight reports were submitted as responses to the Initial Consultation by Story Homes of Carlisle, the result of which is that some sites identified as Emerging Options have been significantly increased in size in accordance with the reports.
The sites subjected to reports by Story Homes are:-
Levens R682LVM
Cartmel R112
Kendal R107M, R150M
Kendal R103M, M39
Kendal R97M
Kendal M41M
Ulverston RN131M
Swarthmoor RN109M
In the case of the last two the sites, they were definitely increased in size as a result of the Story Homes submissions.
I believe that an independent investigation should be carried out to establish the extent of the influence Story Homes has had on the DPD, before it is submitted to the government for approval. It would be foolish to proceed until this matter is resolved.
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
