2 responses from Mr & Mrs K & L Myers (Individual)
1. Mr & Mrs K & L Myers (Individual) : 25 Apr 2012 10:10:00
Paragraph No.
1.10
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.
SLOC are proceeding with this illogical proposal, rejecting credible evidence from the Town Council Report which is supported, unanimously, by Cumbria County Council Local area committee.
SLDC's official line is to disregard objections from residents affected by the proposed development -this is totally wrong as "evidence of participation of the local community", is a key requirement of soundness.
locally I understand there have been almost 400 people against and only 2 in favour of the development. Obviously, the land owner and the developer will be in favour, but neither live locally. Is it SLDC policy to value non locals at least 200 times more than locals? This does not conform to the latest Government proposals and is an unreasonable policy.
SLDC have failed to show that they have local support and that their proposal is based on facts.
It is basically an unjustified and unsound proposal.
2. Mr & Mrs K & L Myers (Individual) : 25 Apr 2012 10:17:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R121M-mod KENDAL EAST OF CASTLE GREEN 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.
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 are still very concerned about your proposal to develop R121M.
Drainage- there are already existing drainage issues through and around Oak Tree Road. We are not aware of any reports on the effects of this development on drainage. Has anyone from the council visited the site to see the volume of water
that cascades through the walls just above Oak Tree Road during very heavy rain? The water run-off from the field up to the railway has to go somewhere. Will this development have any effect on the railway embankment? The development
must have some effect on the Stockbeck Flood Alleviation Scheme. Why has every other proposed development which could affect the Stockbeck scheme been removed from consideration? Why not this one?To date none of these issues
have been addressed. These are serious omissions. This one issue could potentially show that the development is unviable.
Access-Two points of access are still proposed, one from Castle green Lane and one from Oak Tree road. To use Oak Tree Road would be a serious risk. It is a narrow road and to open it for through traffic would fundamentally change its use.
Your own 'Atkins' report supported this view and came to the conclusion that Oak Tree Road should not be used for access.
SLDC have failed to show that they have local support and that their proposal is based on facts.
It is basically an unjustified and unsound proposal.
