2 responses from Mr George W Chatham (Individual)
1. Mr George W Chatham (Individual) : 20 Apr 2012 08:55:00
Paragraph No.
1.10
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
this is in response to yours DH/60.12.43 dated 29 Feb 2012. Cannot but be impressed by the imense effort put into the administration of this scheme to implement governmental (!) plans to enhance housing and local employment BUT I guess the aim has gone astray in that you seem to have followed the usual thrust in asking the punters their views and then totally ignoring same. Can you really admit to green field sites being not commercially more acceptable simply because the owners thereof are more than willing to offer them, in some cases gratis, so that they can be developed over locally recognised brownfield sites? This is verging on the dictatorial in fact Joe Stalin would be impressed!
2. Mr George W Chatham (Individual) : 20 Apr 2012 09:32:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Arnside sites
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
this is in response to yours DH/60.12.43 dated 29 Feb 2012. Cannot but be impressed by the imense effort put into the administration of this scheme to implement governmental (!) plans to enhance housing and local employment BUT I guess the aim has gone astray in that you seem to have followed the usual thrust in asking the punters their views and then totally ignoring same. Can you really admit to green field sites being not commercially more acceptable simply because the owners thereof are more than willing to offer them, in some cases gratis, so that they can be developed over locally recognised brownfield sites? This is verging on the dictatorial in fact Joe Stalin would be impressed!
