2 responses from Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual)
1. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 23 Apr 2012 14:31:00
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.
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.
You state the DPD has been developed based on extensive feedback, but I have found very little support for the Development Plan, except for the applicants and yourselves. You may well have extensive feedback and had meetings and consultations, but what is the point when you just ignore the opinion of the masses, how can this be legal.
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
2. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 23 Apr 2012 14:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R690ulv, R691ULV, R126M, RN184, RN234# & part R242 ULVERSTON CROFTLANDS WEST - NOOK FARM
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.
RE: LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT
Thank you for giving the public the opportunity to voice their opinion and comment on the L.A.D. Plan, unfortunately I very much doubt that any public opinion will be taken into account, it certainly hasn’t up to now.
Projected mass development with no guarantee of additional employment will always be a dangerous combination but I am concerned about the mass development in all areas, but my immediate concern is Ulverston South.
Having read some but not all of your policies and documentation I cannot find much that you have actually adhered to.
Brownfield Sites:- ST3. Your earlier documentation states a target of 50% of new properties should be on Brownfield site, but that % has now been reduced, but Ulverstons LAD Plan is showing approximately 93% of new housing development on Greenfields sites, which is a long way off your target.
After Brownfields Sites your plan states ‘ensure agricultural lands of poorer quality is used for development in preference to the best and more versatile agricultural land’. But yet Ulverston south shows fields R156, R126, R242 and R690ULV included in the Development Plan which are of prime versatile agricultural land. You appear to have ignored your own policies and public opinion, by approving the plan, again in direct conflict with your own policies.
Sustainability:- ST2.6 ‘The structure plan provides a framework to ensure that any adverse impact of development is minimised and that development promotes sustainability’. By developing on Ulverston South which is prime versatile agricultural land you are denying our sustainability for the future. Greenfields are needed to ensure and sustain our future, development on prime agricultural land has to be in direct conflict with your policies.
Flooding:- ST3 reduce the risk of flooding within the development in the following priority.
a). Site with little or no flood risk,
b). Site with lower or medium flood risk, and only then
c). Site in area of high flood risk.
Again I find you have ignored your own policies in particular.
R156 (Part of R126m) - Flood Risk
Zone 2. See photograph showing severe flooding
R126 (Part of R126m) - No Flood Risk
See photograph showing severe flooding
R242 – No Flood Risk
See photograph showing severe flooding
R690 ULV – No Flood Risk
Severe flooding – No Photo
Three of these areas are not designated as any flood risk, but you can see from the photographs that you are allowing development on site in areas of high flood risk that yourselves don’t even know about.
