3 responses from Mr and Mrs J Day (Individual)
1. Mr and Mrs J Day (Individual) : 26 Apr 2012 14:09:00
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 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 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.
I wish to submit that the above plan does not satisfy the Test of Legal
Compliance on the grounds that
1. The involvement of the community has not been taken into account
because the views of Kendal town Council have
not been taken on board or been given due consideration and an
appropriate response and explanation for such given.
2. The recommendations made do not comply with the Town and country
Planning Regulations in respect of road width,number of emergency
vehicle access points etc in respect of Rl21M .Furthermore,the
planners had not carried out any site visits to this site until well
after it was included in the document.
3. Regard to national policy in respect of flood prevention etc has been
disregarded as the views of the Environment agency have not been
fully sought with regard to flooding into the Stock Beck scheme in
Kendal and the capacity of the relief reservoir in respect of development
at Rl21M
In general it is my opinion the majority of the proposals have been
made to fit a predetermined model and that the views expressed by the
vast
majority have not been taken into consideration. The hefty tome that
contains this strategy is almost beyond comprehension and my view is that
the elected
representatives who voted on it (only two thirds) probably understand
it as little as I did.I have therefore consented to specialist
representative speaking on my behalf at the hearing
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 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.
I wish to submit that the above plan does not satisfy the Test of Legal
Compliance on the grounds that
1. The involvement of the community has not been taken into account
because the views of Kendal town Council have
not been taken on board or been given due consideration and an
appropriate response and explanation for such given.
2. The recommendations made do not comply with the Town and country
Planning Regulations in respect of road width, number of emergency
vehicle access points etc in respect of Rl21M .Furthermore, the
planners had not carried out any site visits to this site until well
after it was included in the document.
3. Regard to national policy in respect of flood prevention etc has been
disregarded as the views of the Environment agency have not been
fully sought with regard to flooding into the Stock Beck scheme in
Kendal and the capacity of the relief reservoir in respect of development
at Rl21M
In general it is my opinion the majority of the proposals have been
made to fit a predetermined model and that the views expressed by the
vast majority have not been taken into consideration. The hefty tome that
contains this strategy is almost beyond comprehension and my view is that
the elected representatives who voted on it (only two thirds) probably understand
it as little as I did. I have therefore consented to specialist
representative speaking on my behalf at the hearing
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
2. Mr and Mrs J Day (Individual) : 26 Apr 2012 14:11:00
Paragraph No.
1.10
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 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.
I wish to submit that the above plan does not satisfy the Test of Legal
Compliance on the grounds that
1. The involvement of the community has not been taken into account
because the views of Kendal town Council have
not been taken on board or been given due consideration and an
appropriate response and explanation for such given.
2. The recommendations made do not comply with the Town and country
Planning Regulations in respect of road width, number of emergency
vehicle access points etc in respect of Rl21M .Furthermore, the
planners had not carried out any site visits to this site until well
after it was included in the document.
3. Regard to national policy in respect of flood prevention etc has been
disregarded as the views of the Environment agency have not been
fully sought with regard to flooding into the Stock Beck scheme in
Kendal and the capacity of the relief reservoir in respect of development
at Rl21M
In general it is my opinion the majority of the proposals have been
made to fit a predetermined model and that the views expressed by the
vast majority have not been taken into consideration. The hefty tome that
contains this strategy is almost beyond comprehension and my view is that
the elected representatives who voted on it (only two thirds) probably understand
it as little as I did. I have therefore consented to specialist
representative speaking on my behalf at the hearing
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 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.
I wish to submit that the above plan does not satisfy the Test of Legal
Compliance on the grounds that
1. The involvement of the community has not been taken into account
because the views of Kendal town Council have
not been taken on board or been given due consideration and an
appropriate response and explanation for such given.
2. The recommendations made do not comply with the Town and country
Planning Regulations in respect of road width, number of emergency
vehicle access points etc in respect of Rl21M .Furthermore, the
planners had not carried out any site visits to this site until well
after it was included in the document.
3. Regard to national policy in respect of flood prevention etc has been
disregarded as the views of the Environment agency have not been
fully sought with regard to flooding into the Stock Beck scheme in
Kendal and the capacity of the relief reservoir in respect of development
at Rl21M
In general it is my opinion the majority of the proposals have been
made to fit a predetermined model and that the views expressed by the
vast majority have not been taken into consideration. The hefty tome that
contains this strategy is almost beyond comprehension and my view is that
the elected representatives who voted on it (only two thirds) probably understand
it as little as I did. I have therefore consented to specialist
representative speaking on my behalf at the hearing
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. Mr and Mrs J Day (Individual) : 26 Apr 2012 14:14:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R121M-mod KENDAL EAST OF CASTLE GREEN ROAD
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 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.
I wish to submit that the above plan does not satisfy the Test of Legal
Compliance on the grounds that
1. The involvement of the community has not been taken into account
because the views of Kendal town Council have
not been taken on board or been given due consideration and an
appropriate response and explanation for such given.
2. The recommendations made do not comply with the Town and country
Planning Regulations in respect of road width, number of emergency
vehicle access points etc in respect of Rl21M .Furthermore, the
planners had not carried out any site visits to this site until well
after it was included in the document.
3. Regard to national policy in respect of flood prevention etc has been
disregarded as the views of the Environment agency have not been
fully sought with regard to flooding into the Stock Beck scheme in
Kendal and the capacity of the relief reservoir in respect of development
at Rl21M
In general it is my opinion the majority of the proposals have been
made to fit a predetermined model and that the views expressed by the
vast majority have not been taken into consideration. The hefty tome that
contains this strategy is almost beyond comprehension and my view is that
the elected representatives who voted on it (only two thirds) probably understand
it as little as I did. I have therefore consented to specialist
representative speaking on my behalf at the hearing
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 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.
I wish to submit that the above plan does not satisfy the Test of Legal
Compliance on the grounds that
1. The involvement of the community has not been taken into account
because the views of Kendal town Council have
not been taken on board or been given due consideration and an
appropriate response and explanation for such given.
2. The recommendations made do not comply with the Town and country
Planning Regulations in respect of road width, number of emergency
vehicle access points etc in respect of Rl21M .Furthermore, the
planners had not carried out any site visits to this site until well
after it was included in the document.
3. Regard to national policy in respect of flood prevention etc has been
disregarded as the views of the Environment agency have not been
fully sought with regard to flooding into the Stock Beck scheme in
Kendal and the capacity of the relief reservoir in respect of development
at Rl21M
In general it is my opinion the majority of the proposals have been
made to fit a predetermined model and that the views expressed by the
vast majority have not been taken into consideration. The hefty tome that
contains this strategy is almost beyond comprehension and my view is that
the elected representatives who voted on it (only two thirds) probably understand
it as little as I did. I have therefore consented to specialist
representative speaking on my behalf at the hearing
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
