Response from Mr Alan Sutcliffe (Individual)
1. Mr Alan Sutcliffe (Individual) : 16 May 2012 12:23:00
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.
LA1.10 Existing Green Infrastructure - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
Site omission - M4M
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.
Field M4M:
This field is open, of attractive appearance and of landscape quality (ref 2.63). To make it 'sound' according to DPD policy, it should be given AS status because:
1. It has similar qualities to the adjacent protected land AS85. As such it would form part of a larger area recognised for its amenity value by walkers and cyclists using the canal and Natland Mill Beck Lane and by members of the local community.
2. In 2006 it was regarded as an I.O.S and, as an AS, its value and quality as an open space (ref 2.64) would be enhanced.
3. It is land locked and
4. There is no public access
