4 responses from Mrs Jill Briggs (Individual)
1. Mrs Jill Briggs (Individual) : 20 Apr 2012 08:47:00
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
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN152 GREENODD LAND AT THE OLD VICARAGE
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.
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.
There is great doubt about the soundness of a proposal in the South Lakeland
Development Plan Document that does not accurately describe the site being
proposed.
This site is wrongly described in the Land Allocations Development Plan documents
as being an infill site behind the Vicarage at Oak Vale in Greenodd (5.65- page 135).
This site is in Penny Bridge. The dividing line between the villages is the stream that
runs at the side of the school. All local people know this. Also describing this
agricultural field as an infill site behind the Vicarage at Oak Vale is not an accurate
description. Oak Vale is a terrace of houses in Main St., Penny Bridge below the now closed Britannia Inn. The site RN1 :52 is not just behind the Vicarage; it is also behind the row of houses called Hill Garth and adjacent to the Penny Bridge to Arrad Foot road. It is also opposite the complex of recently built houses called Ellis Wood and crucially the field next to and below the parish church.
To choose a field merely because it rounds off the shape of the village on the map is
wrong and does not take into account local landscape contours. The church was built
on the top of the hill to create an impression. When it was built 200 plus years ago, it
was built outside the lines of the village, presumably on purpose and to make the
most of the views. In other words it was meant to be separate from the village so it
would stand out. To say in a supporting document under the heading coalescence "it
would result in the church becoming part of the community" shows a complete lack of
understanding about why our forefathers chose that place to build the church. If site
RN1 :52 is developed then the inspiring views towards Coniston from the church will
be lost and the views the village of Penny Bridge has of its church on the hill will be
lost amid the house roofs. The views from the church have a high amenity value with
sightlines across the estuary and up the Crake Valley to the Coniston Fells. There is
a need to protect landscape views of this quality. Once lost, it will be gone forever.
There is no examination of the landscape values of this site. This again is unsound.
I oppose the designation of plot RN1:52 in Egton with Newland parish for allocation
for development purposes. I live in Penny Bridge but out of sight and some 200 yards
from the proposed site. It will not affect me personally but I deplore South Lakeland
District Council's attitude in not talking to or listening to local people. I pointed out at the consultation's first stage that the site was wrongly described and no notice was taken of my comments.
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 Jill Briggs (Individual) : 10 May 2012 11:18:00
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.
5.62
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.
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 Development Plan Document - point, page 135 says Greenodd and Penny
Bridge, together with smaller settlements in the parish (Egton cum Newland) have a
population of around 900. There are a number of other villages and hamlets in the
parish such as Spark Bridge, Newland, Plumpton, Next Ness, Arrad Foot and
Scathwaite. My estimate of the population of Greenodd and Penny Bridge is jointly
around 500.
I oppose the designation of plot RN1:52 in Egton with Newland parish for allocation
for development purposes. I live in Penny Bridge but out of sight and some 200 yards
from the proposed site. It will not affect me personally but I deplore South Lakeland
District Council's attitude in not talking to or listening to local people. I pointed out at the consultation's first stage that the site was wrongly described and no notice was taken of my comments.
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
3. Mrs Jill Briggs (Individual) : 10 May 2012 11:27:00
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.
2.33
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.
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 Development Plan Document - point 2.33, page 27 under the heading
heading 'Development in small Villages and Hamlets' says that residential allocations
are not proposed in small villages and hamlets. Here development is primarily to
meet local needs and is likely to be predominantly on small sites. I would sugggest
that Greenoff and Penny Bridge are both small villages and therefore under the
Plan point 5.62 any development should be therefore to meet local need. The last
Parish Survey of 2008 did not show a need for further housing and the number of
houses for sale also reflects that. Penny Bridge (where the proposed site is) has at
present 98 properties. The proposed development site could the Plan says
accommodate around 22 dwellings. That would be a development of over 20%! The
Plan has not examined these figures at all. Again this emphasises the unsoundness
of the proposals as they have not been fully examined.
I oppose the designation of plot RN1:52 in Egton with Newland parish for allocation
for development purposes. I live in Penny Bridge but out of sight and some 200 yards
from the proposed site. It will not affect me personally but I deplore South Lakeland District Council's
attitude in not talking to or listening to local people. I pointed out at the consultation's first stage that the site was wrongly described and no notice was taken of my comments.
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
4. Mrs Jill Briggs (Individual) : 10 May 2012 11:29:00
Paragraph No.
1.10
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.
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.
I oppose the designation of plot RN1:52 in Egton with Newland parish for allocation
for development purposes. I live in Penny Bridge but out of sight and some 200 yards
from the proposed site. It will not affect me personally but I deplore South Lakeland District Council's attitude in not talking to or listening to local people. I pointed out at the consultation's first stage that the site was wrongly described and no notice was taken of my comments.
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
