Response from Mrs Maria Fabrizio (Individual)
1. Mrs Maria Fabrizio (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 17:49:00
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 - RN117M KENDAL WEST OF VALLEY DRIVE
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.
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
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.
The views of the residents on Valley Drive have not been taken into account during the consultation stages. Our responses to the original consultation on the SLDC web site display an incorrect number of responses received!
RN117M site has not be assessed correctly and there are far too many unknowns for this site to be put forward A full site survey should be have been undertaken and insufficient information has been noted in the emerging options consultation therefore the DPD is not passing the soundness test.
No adequate consideration for the brownfield sites which were originally proposed.
No infrastructure plans have been put in place to deal with the high level of development for such a small site. These include the poor restricted road access from Valley Drive via the cul-de-sacs. There is no transport plan in place.
Sewerage/Surface Water Issues. No information on future investment available.
Electricity North West. No information on future investment available.
Visual Amenity. Response within the emerging option document Appendix 8 (Final Version) state Noted
as a response for loss of open public space. The current properties situated to the EAST of this site and in very close proximity to the proposed development. This would have a serious impact from both a visual/privacy perspective on these properties which would have their living quarters and gardens overlooked by any proposed new development.
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.
My issues are with the following areas which have not been addressed
No transport delivery plan is in place. Access to this site would be unacceptable as it would have to enter via proposed cul-de-sacs off the main Valley Drive road. These access roads are not large enough to cope with the sheer level of traffic which would enter these small areas. Residents currently have problems trying to get out of these access roads due to the heavy traffic on this road! An accident waiting to happen.
Noise and pollution issues would also be a major factor.
No certainty over the future investment by United Utilities. In respect to the sewerage/flood issues which relate to the site.
No information available from Electricity North West with regards to the Pylons/Telegraph poles that are currently situated on this proposed site.
This site is not flat in nature as described in the emerging options fact file. It is steep and sloping and would be difficult to access as there is a public footpath which crosses the proposed site. There is also a bridleway which crosses though the middle of this site. The stone walls would have to be removed and the loss of recreational land which is used by many to enjoy in this built up area due to over development over the last two decades. The last piece of green space between the Castle and Oxenholme! The loss of visual amenity would be drastic to this area and would be seen from the castle and other places of interest. The properties to the EAST would be overlooked and their loss of visual impact/privacy would be a major factor.
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
Further clarification is required on the number of issues which are outstanding. There are too many areas within Appendix 8 Emerging options document which have not been addressed and have been passed off with a NOTED comment.
The DPD is not sound and should not be approved until a viable infrastructure plan is put in place.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
