Response from Mrs Catherine Saunders (Individual)
1. Mrs Catherine Saunders (Individual) : 5 Apr 2012 23:17:00
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 - R689 ULVM ULVERSTON NORTH URSWICK ROAD
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
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.
I believe that R689ULVM North Urswick Road should be removed from the planning map because of the following reasons:
A. Swarthmoor Hall Farm (organic) currently uses this land, and because of it's situation between Ulverston and Swarthmoor, with houses surrounding it, there is limited land available for grazing and winter feed production.To build on this land would affect and threaten the viability of the farmer's herd, through a shortfall of suitable organic grazing pasture and his and his employees livlihoods would be threatened.
Your sustainability document says:
5.1 "support diversification of the agricultural and wider community"
4.12 "need to facilitate continued diversification of farm enterprises on an apropriate scale"
4.1 "prevent loss of existing jobs"
2.37 "existing employment sites to be safeguarded"
2.23 "other demands on the site...and the implications of development for the existing and future use of neighbouring sites", must be taken into consideration.
7.26 "diversify and strengthen local economy" also, "enabling existing businesses to expand into new premises" Instead you will be removing land from this existing business.
As Swarthmoor Hall Farm is diversifying and is now producing it's own cheese, suplies local ice cream producers as well as milk supplied locally throughout Cumbria to as far as Penrith and down the west coast, including more local milk rounds, also local shops and supermarkets, I believe you have not met your own requirements set out in the sustainability document as described above, as developing on site R689ULVM would take away this productive farm land from the present tenant and destroy the business that they have spent 30 years building up.
B. R689ULVM belongs to the Quakers and has close proximity to the historical site of Swarthmoor Hall, original home of the Quaker Movement. It is also part of the Cistercean Way. To build on this land would encroach on the outlook of the hall, compromising the ethos of this religious site.
Your sustainability document says:
5.1 the site must,"protect historic environment from harmful change"
5.6 "Preserving and enhancing Ulverston's built heritage including....Swarthmoor Hall"
C. R689ULVM is currently a green gap between Ulverston and Swarthmoor. If this land is built on there is also a high chance of the remainder of land alongside Urswick road being developed on in a ribbon fashion, as Hall Field and Quaker Fold estates have already been built in this way.
5.1 green gaps..."must ensure they are kept distinct...maintain their individual character"
D. The sewage / drains on Urswick Road are already overloaded, having to be pumped out regularly (more that once a week) by a tanker.
2.9 states that "the capacity of existing services to accommodate development, the site needs the "infrastructure" to cope with incresed houses, i.e increased drain and sewerage capacity.
2.23 "Community infrastructure... impact on local highways, water, sewerage".
E. The increased amount of traffic that would arise from such a development would be intolerable, as volumes and speeds of traffic on Urswick Road are already excessive, due to it being a route from the Croftlands estate, via Main Street, Swarthmoor to ajoin the A590 at Cross-a-Moor through to Barrow. In addition to the housing development proposed on Urswick Road there are another 1000 plus houses proposed South of the current Croftlands Estate, stretching from Priory Road, to Urswick Road. If all these planned houses are built, it is possible that an extra 2000 plus cars could be using the current roads through Croftlands Estate, and joining the A590 at Cross a Moor, also a further 200 houses are planned to be built the other side of Swarthmoor, again ajoining the A590 at Cross a Moor. This surely is not going to be safe, quiet, nor the air clean.
2.23 "Community infrastructure...impact on local highways, water, sewerage"
2.26 Highway capacity of A590 and roads through Croftlands Estate especially..."cumulative impact of sites"
4.18 "reduce need to travel"
Is this plan justified?
1.24 states, "In South Lakeland's case, the Strategic Housing Market Assesment suggests that the amount of housing development proposed in the Core Stategy is necessary to address the Districts housing needs. This must be weighed against clear environmental constraints and the need to support urban regeneration in neighbouring communities"
5.1 "In 2025 Ulverston will have... including helping to meet the housing needs of employees in the regeneration priority area of Barrow." If this is so, why is SLDC going to build houses on green fields in Ulverston and other villages, when Barrow would like some of SLDC's housing numbers and have a good number of brownfied sites that would be suitable.
4.18 "reduce the need to travel"
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
I do not support SLDC's Land Allocations 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.
I believe that the housing numbers for Ulverston are too high, and believe that brownfield sites should be looked at first. R689ULVM should be removed from your plan, to safeguard the livlihoods of the tennant farmers and their employees.
2.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
Ido not support SLDC's Land allocations DPD in it's current form.
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.
I don't feel that the public's opinion has been taken into consideration in the previous consultations, and the actual effects on the ground have been disregarded as trivial.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
