2 responses from Mrs Marie Nugent (Individual)
1. Mrs Marie Nugent (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 13:47:00
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
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
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.
SLDC has ignored the wishes of Levens parishioners expressed in previous consultaions. The Levens Residents Group surveyed the opinions of all parishioners and the views expressed by the vast majority of respondents were that the development envisaged in the SLDC's proposals is far too big for the village. SLDC have allocated 73 houses for the village whereas all Levens needs is 11 afforable homes as identified in the 2008 Rural Housing Needs Survey. The Levens Village Plan identified small developments for future planning. Developments of potentially 50 and 23 house per site does not reflect local opinion. It goes against it and therefore does not reflect the Localism Act. It therefore is not sound.
Alteratives: (i)Consideration also needs to be given to the the possibility of further sites becoming available during the first 5 years. For example the Salesian Convent site at Brettargh Holt which will be offered for sale in July 2012. (ii) There is no evidence that SLDC has considered using any other powers such as those relating to taking over empty properties to increase the housing stock.
Public transport to and from Levens Village is very poor and all commuting to Key Local Centres by those living in the new dwellings would be by car. This cannot meet any definition of environmental friendliness.
There is no clear evidence that to show that those in need of affordable housing would be able to afford to buy or rent the planned "affordable" housing. Slow take up on recent developments would suggest not.
Last but not least condideration needs to be given to the Levens Fact File which cites European protected species at site R51M.
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
2. Mrs Marie Nugent (Individual) : 8 May 2012 16:58:00
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 - All Levens sites
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.
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.
SLDC has ignored the wishes of Levens parishioners expressed in previous consultaions. The Levens Residents Group surveyed the opinions of all parishioners and the views expressed by the vast majority of respondents were that the development envisaged in the SLDC's proposals is far too big for the village. SLDC have allocated 73 houses for the village whereas all Levens needs is 11 afforable homes as identified in the 2008 Rural Housing Needs Survey. The Levens Village Plan identified small developments for future planning. Developments of potentially 50 and 23 house per site does not reflect local opinion. It goes against it and therefore does not reflect the Localism Act. It therefore is not sound.
Alteratives: (i)Consideration also needs to be given to the the possibility of further sites becoming available during the first 5 years. For example the Salesian Convent site at Brettargh Holt which will be offered for sale in July 2012. (ii) There is no evidence that SLDC has considered using any other powers such as those relating to taking over empty properties to increase the housing stock.
Public transport to and from Levens Village is very poor and all commuting to Key Local Centres by those living in the new dwellings would be by car. This cannot meet any definition of environmental friendliness.
There is no clear evidence that to show that those in need of affordable housing would be able to afford to buy or rent the planned "affordable" housing. Slow take up on recent developments would suggest not.
Last but not least condideration needs to be given to the Levens Fact File which cites European protected species at site R51M.
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
