3 responses from Mr Peter Sudworth (Individual)
1. Mr Peter Sudworth (Individual) : 19 Apr 2012 12:13:00
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 - R675M-mod HOLME WEST OF BURTON ROAD
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.
The choices made inthe plan are not backed up by the facts. The facts are that there is not sufficient infrastructure in Holme to support a further 132 houses. No account has been taken, or mention made, of the access to the development on site R675M-mod. The need for a further 132 properties has not been proven; there are many properties for sale in the area, and many have been on the market for a considerable time.
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. Mr Peter Sudworth (Individual) : 24 Apr 2012 14:40:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Holme sites
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.
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
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.
We write to make representations regarding the LDF in relation to Holme Village. We are
totally opposed to the proposed plan and certainly do not consider it to be "sound". We
would comment in particular on the following issues:
1. Has the plan been the subject of a sustainability appraisal?
If the procedure has been followed, then has sufficient consideration been given to the current infrastructure of Holme, and how will it cope with a further 132 properties? The following points appear to be relevant:
There are no medical or health care facilities in Holme
There are no A TM facilities.
There is just one small shop.
Sewerage provision is only just coping with the current population.
Drainage capacity is overburdened. (NB the proposed site R675M-mod is bisected by
a stream).
In addition, there are already problems with traffic congestion in the village centre; there is
limited parking; there are weight restrictions on bridges; in parts of the village there are no
footpaths. What impact will the proposed development have on children returning from
school, older people, horse riders and cyclists? A further 132 houses must result, as a
minimum, in a further 132 vehicles in the village.
Apart from the above, there is also the question (in the case of R675M-mod) of site access-
via Canal Close with a restricted view from both left and right?
2. Is the plan justified?
Whilst affordable houses are needed, there seems to be no "robust and credible evidence
base" available to suggest that a further 89 houses at full market price are required. (This is
assuming that of the 132 houses proposed for the village, approximately 43 will be
affordable). In fact there are at present a large number of houses for sale in the village, some of which are arguably "affordable", but are just not selling. Might a "reasonable alternative" not be to build affordable houses on brown field sites where the cost of land might conceivably be considerably less.
3. Mr Peter Sudworth (Individual) : 24 Apr 2012 14:43:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R675M-mod HOLME WEST OF BURTON ROAD
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.
In addition, there are already problems with traffic congestion in the village centre; there is
limited parking; there are weight restrictions on bridges; in parts of the village there are no
footpaths. What impact will the proposed development have on children returning from
school, older people, horse riders and cyclists? A further 132 houses must result, as a
minimum, in a further 132 vehicles in the village.
Apart from the above, there is also the question (in the case of R675M-mod) of site access-
via Canal Close with a restricted view from both left and right?
