Response from Robert Baxter (Individual)
1. Robert Baxter (Individual) : 15 Apr 2012 17:46:00
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 - 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 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)
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
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.
There are a number of areas where inclusion of R121M in the DPD is unsustainable.
Firstly, the site specific Flood Risk Assessment mentioned in the DPD needs to be done before any further consideration of this site proceeds. This site has serious and repeated flooding issues which are well-documented. There is grave sensitivity as R121M acts as a green 'sponge' to prevent rapid release of water into the Stock Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme (SB). There has been no assessment of the impact on the SB of further run-off from developed land. This is particularly remiss in terms of likely increased and severe rainfall due to climate change.
Here I must also refer to my letter to Dan Hudson of 20 February 2012 which gives further information of the flooding and water management issues relating to the defective culvert at Oak Tree Road (response by Dan Hudson on 24 February 2012 given SLDC reference DL/60.12.43). I have emailed copies of my letter of 20 February to SLDC asking that it be included in this my further response.
Furthermore this site has been included without reference to any wider hydrological, water management, drainage and flood alleviation for Kendal.
Development of R121M is unsustainable in terms of the affordable housing and local occupancy agendas of the Local Development Framework. The site has been reduced from a planned 147 houses to an estimated 60 houses. However the site has not been placed before planning committees to consider the configuration and breakdown of the proposed development into affordable and high-end housing. This site is likely to be used by the developer for only profitable high-end housing, despite Kendal being well-served for such housing. Instead development of R121M will destroy an outstanding landscape and risk flooding and pollution all for the sake of providing unwanted houses which are only likely to be bought either as second homes or by people from the south of England cashing in on higher property values there. It is therefore unsustainable and illogical. The need in Kendal is for affordable housing, yet the strategy to achieve this is flawed – giving developers remit to develop 'unaffordable' high-end housing in an unsustainable manner. SLDC's Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy Preferred Options Sustainability Objective EN2: was 'To preserve and enhance landscape quality and character' and states that 'significant development is proposed for Kendal, particularly around the edges where the town meets the wider countryside and thus, there is potential for harm to the quality and character of the landscape and it is certain that the landscape will be at least changed'. Building on R121M therefore constitutes unsustainable development.
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.
Inclusion of R121M is unsound in a number of areas, including:
Illogical and against precedent, given that R56 which will form part of the development for access purposes was rejected by a Planning Inspector on a previous proposal in 1997 and that R121M was deemed worthy of County Landscape designation in 1999. This should have been included in the 'robust and credible evidence base'.
The grave errors in the approach taken by SLDC also mean that the DPD is not deliverable in terms of R121M and is unsound in regard to community consultation and the localism agenda of the National Planning Policy Framework. SLDC has inferred it will disregard objections from residents affected by development and has also disregarded important information and previous research by other relevant local bodies, including recommendations against development on this site presented by Kendal Town Council and Friends of the Lake District. There has still been no detailed survey of this site in regard to flooding, environmental impact and transport access and the relevant planning official did not visit the site until July 2011.
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
