Response from Mr Michael Hughes (Individual)
1. Mr Michael Hughes (Individual) : 11 May 2012 16:00:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN57M MILNTHORPE ADJ. TO ST ANTHONY'S CLOSE
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)
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 consider the DPD should be scrapped. The community involvement has been a farce. Any representations made to our representatives or Planning Department have been ignored. The forms of involvement so complicated, the average member of the public cannot understand. I have been told that my original objection letter was not acceptable at the time I thought I should submit it. A petition from almost 100% of people affected was returned because it didn't have their printed names on. I therefore submit it again as reasons why St Anthony's Close land should not be included in this DPD.
When the DPD was considered by SLDC voting appeared to take place along party lines and not what the public had asked as reported on their feelings to Council Members
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.
The land R93 & R79 & M6 should be removed from the DPD because access to extremerly difficult if not impossible without causing road dangers, structure of road problems, parking problems. Destruction of views - the filling in of the area between Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite (see letter of objection - text provided below):
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Allocation of Land Development Plan Document
Areas of Land R93, R79, and M6
It has recently come to the notice of the occupiers of all houses on the St. Anthony's
Hill area that three plots of land viz fields R93, R79, and M6 which were not shown
on the Roadshow of Spring 2008, have been added to the Development Plan
Document as possible areas for housing development.
I wish to object to those particular proposals as they are totally unsuitable for
development of any kind for numerous reasons which I give below.
I understand that it is anticipated that in July a formal consultation document will be
published alongside consultation of the next stage of the core strategy.
If these two strategies are published together it will be difficult for the public to
differentiate between them.
The Core Strategy Preferred Option document states that there should be open gaps
which will comprise open areas around, between parts of settlements which maintain
the distinction between countryside and built up areas presenting the merging of
adjacent places (page 14). It envisages green gaps between Milnthorpe and
Ackenthwaite. The inclusion of land R93, R79 goes against this advice.
In addition they protrude into agricultural land and do nothing to retain a regular
boundary around Milnthorpe. The plan also states that development to the North of
Milnthorpe should be limited because of the views of St. Anthony' Tower.
There are no obvious existing approaches to the land and in particular if it envisaged
to use St. Anthony's Hill this will present an extremely dangerous road situation for
the following reasons.
1) The access from the A6 trunk road is already difficult due to continuous heavy
speeding traffic and the considerable limited vision line to drivers getting out of
St. Anthony's Hill.
2) St Anthony's Hill is a very steep hill being approximately 1 in 6 and 1 in 4
gradients.
3) It was not constructed as a through road and is already showing signs of
movement and wear.
4) It is not wide enough to accommodate lorries and large vans passing and
manoeuvring.
5) On entering St. Anthony's Hill from the A6 there is an immediate incline of
1 in 6 for twenty yards then a left hand bend of 90 degrees which is blind. In a
further 100 yards of 1 in 6 is a blind right hand bend on an incline of 1 in 4, this
is already hazardous. In a further 30 yards of a 1 in 6 gradiant is yet another
left hand 90 degrees bend with the additional hazard of an entrance to garages
for 1 to 5 St. Anthony's Close, with lines of view blocked by the garages.
6) The parking area at the head of S. Anthony's Close will be lost adding to an
existing parking problem in the Close.
7) Parking already causes considerable difficulties for any large lorries/vans/
emergency vehicles, an example of which is that the Refuse Lorries consistently
cannot turn, reverse etc. without going onto the pavements.
It is further considered that the views and the surrounding countryside from the end of
St. Anthony's Close is an important visual amenity.
I would also call for the Development Plan Team to consult the Highways Authority,
the Police, The Fire Authority's and Bay National Health Authority on the danger
and access availability for their vehicles and suitability of the existing road structure.
The only other existing access to this land is via Haverflats Lane which not only
dimishes down to one car width but leads traffic to and from Milnthorpe village
centre adding more congestion. This lane is just as hazardous as was highlighted by
past controversy concerning bus access to Dallam School and their eventual rerouting
to another access.
As stated initially I object to these areas of land being included in any development
plans now or in the future.
