3 responses from Mrs Fiona Hanlon (Individual)
1. Mrs Fiona Hanlon (Individual) : 14 Apr 2012 13:05:00
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.
LA2.3 Land East of Castle Green 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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
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
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.
1. The process of Community Involvement is flawed. The significant number of sound and evidence based objections to development on this particular site R121M including the significant evidence based objections of Kendal Town Council, Friends of The Earth, Solek, CPRE, local site knowledge and findings of previous planning inspectors and reports have been disregarded. This is not legally compliant.
2.SLDC have NOT carried out evidence based studies, measurements or technical surveys to support their allocation yet they ignore those that have already been carried out by experts. Only representations selected by SLDC will be placed before the inspector - they can choose again to omit any or all of the evidence based objections. This is flawed and therefore makes the decision process unsound and not legally compliant.
2. The Core Strategy, which was adopted in October 2010, states that sites are excluded from allocation if their development would be a clear breach of its policies, or would harm a protected site or species. R121M is such a site. Developing this site would be a breach of the Core Strategy and is therefore unsound and not legally compliant.
3. This site has been hitherto protected because of its unique rural landscape which gives Kendal its character. Development legally is supposed to take account of locally distinctive natural or built features, visual intrusion or impact, scale in relation to the landscape and features, the character of the built environment, public access and community value of the landscape, historic patterns and attributes, biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats, and openness, remoteness and tranquillity. This site has rightly been protected until now because all of the above apply to R121M. In the recent Kendal Town Council evidence based report this particular site came out as the least appropriate to develop because of its high sensitivity with regard to all of the above and the significant harm that would be caused to the landscape setting of Kendal with insufficient benefit to the housing need the development is supposed to address. The allocation of this site would conflict with the provisions of the Core Strategy, and is therefore not legally compliant.
4. R121M contains one of only two breeding and habitation sites in the area for Great Crested Newts which are protected by the UK. An access road through this territory to housing is proposterous and will significantly damage the colony which needs 500m emergence zone. The study completed by Netwok rail commented on the quality of this particular colony which also contains significant numbers of palmate newts along with a thriving Great Crested Newt population. The area of Newt habitation and emergence zone has been misrepresented on the maps presented by SLDC and they have failed to complete accurate surveys of the colony prior to submitting the site in order to mislead the inspector. The core strategy states that building on sites that are considered to have geological and biodiversity value, will not be permitted unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of natural habitats. This is a clear breach of the Core Strategy. Development here is not legally compliant.
5. Building here will also fall foul of the Town and County Planning regulations. Flooding and drainage issues on this site and the surrounding roads and dwellings are well documented. The flooding in this area has increased to such an extent in recent years that the wetlands misrepresented by SLDC in R121M and the surrounding previously proposed sites have extended enough to supoort new iris and marsh and newt habitation. Any building on this land along with any proposal to solve the flooding problem, especially construction of a road and associated drainage will destroy the flora fauna and wildlife which thrives in this flooded land. Solving flooding issues would breach the core strategy relating to the wetland habitat. This pays no regard to the national policy and core strategy and is therefore not legally compliant.
6. I would also argue that the key stages have not been followed if the inspector is only shown submissions selected by SLDC. This is akin to the defence relying on the prosecution to state their case. The inspector and his team should have access to ALL SUBMISSIONS and OBJECTIONS so that they are fully informed. By SLDC selecting the material to be put before the inspector I submit that the process is flawed and therefore unsound and not legally compliant.
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.
The significant number of sound and evidence based objections to development on this particular site R121M including the significant evidence based objections of Kendal Town Council, Friends of The Earth, Solek, CPRE, local site knowledge and findings of previous planning inspectors and reports have been disregarded. SLDC have NOT carried out evidence based studies, measurements or technical surveys to support their allocation yet they ignore those that have already been carried out by experts. The site will involve difficulties with addressing landscape protection, biodiversity, flooding and access making the cost prohibitive. None of the costs involved have been investigated by SLDC before proposing this site.The amount of proposed housing has been reduced because SLDC is beginning to accept there are significant issues but SLDC should accept that ANY building and access to that building on this particular site will not meet the demands of the core strategy or affordable housing and will irretrievably destroy hitherto protected landscape and biodiversity.
I would also argue that the key stages have not been followed if the inspector is only shown submissions selected by SLDC. This is akin to the defence relying on the prosecution to state their case. I propose that to improve this process the inspector and his team should have access to ALL SUBMISSIONS and OBJECTIONS so that they are fully informed. By SLDC selecting the material to be put before the inspector I submit that the process is flawed and therefore unsound and not legally compliant.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I 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.
Local groups I hope will be represented but it is important, if SLDC is to fulfil their obligation of true public consultation, that the inspector hears objections and submissions directly in person from local individuals/residents with sound objections. The process will not be seen to be fair or just if SLDC are not publicly opposed before the inspector by local individuals, with valid evidence based objections, who will have to watch and live with the resulting desecration of protected sites.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mrs Fiona Hanlon (Individual) : 18 May 2012 14:39:00
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.
1.9
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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
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
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.
1. The process of Community Involvement is flawed. The significant number of sound and evidence based objections to development on this particular site R121M including the significant evidence based objections of Kendal Town Council, Friends of The Earth, Solek, CPRE, local site knowledge and findings of previous planning inspectors and reports have been disregarded. This is not legally compliant.
2.SLDC have NOT carried out evidence based studies, measurements or technical surveys to support their allocation yet they ignore those that have already been carried out by experts. Only representations selected by SLDC will be placed before the inspector - they can choose again to omit any or all of the evidence based objections. This is flawed and therefore makes the decision process unsound and not legally compliant.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I 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.
Local groups I hope will be represented but it is important, if SLDC is to fulfil their obligation of true public consultation, that the inspector hears objections and submissions directly in person from local individuals/residents with sound objections. The process will not be seen to be fair or just if SLDC are not publicly opposed before the inspector by local individuals, with valid evidence based objections, who will have to watch and live with the resulting desecration of protected sites.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mrs Fiona Hanlon (Individual) : 18 May 2012 14:42:00
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 - R121M-mod KENDAL EAST OF CASTLE GREEN 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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
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
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.
2. The Core Strategy, which was adopted in October 2010, states that sites are excluded from allocation if their development would be a clear breach of its policies, or would harm a protected site or species. R121M is such a site. Developing this site would be a breach of the Core Strategy and is therefore unsound and not legally compliant.
3. This site has been hitherto protected because of its unique rural landscape which gives Kendal its character. Development legally is supposed to take account of locally distinctive natural or built features, visual intrusion or impact, scale in relation to the landscape and features, the character of the built environment, public access and community value of the landscape, historic patterns and attributes, biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats, and openness, remoteness and tranquillity. This site has rightly been protected until now because all of the above apply to R121M. In the recent Kendal Town Council evidence based report this particular site came out as the least appropriate to develop because of its high sensitivity with regard to all of the above and the significant harm that would be caused to the landscape setting of Kendal with insufficient benefit to the housing need the development is supposed to address. The allocation of this site would conflict with the provisions of the Core Strategy, and is therefore not legally compliant.
4. R121M contains one of only two breeding and habitation sites in the area for Great Crested Newts which are protected by the UK. An access road through this territory to housing is proposterous and will significantly damage the colony which needs 500m emergence zone. The study completed by Netwok rail commented on the quality of this particular colony which also contains significant numbers of palmate newts along with a thriving Great Crested Newt population. The area of Newt habitation and emergence zone has been misrepresented on the maps presented by SLDC and they have failed to complete accurate surveys of the colony prior to submitting the site in order to mislead the inspector. The core strategy states that building on sites that are considered to have geological and biodiversity value, will not be permitted unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site and the wider network of natural habitats. This is a clear breach of the Core Strategy. Development here is not legally compliant.
5. Building here will also fall foul of the Town and County Planning regulations. Flooding and drainage issues on this site and the surrounding roads and dwellings are well documented. The flooding in this area has increased to such an extent in recent years that the wetlands misrepresented by SLDC in R121M and the surrounding previously proposed sites have extended enough to supoort new iris and marsh and newt habitation. Any building on this land along with any proposal to solve the flooding problem, especially construction of a road and associated drainage will destroy the flora fauna and wildlife which thrives in this flooded land. Solving flooding issues would breach the core strategy relating to the wetland habitat. This pays no regard to the national policy and core strategy and is therefore not legally compliant.
6. I would also argue that the key stages have not been followed if the inspector is only shown submissions selected by SLDC. This is akin to the defence relying on the prosecution to state their case. The inspector and his team should have access to ALL SUBMISSIONS and OBJECTIONS so that they are fully informed. By SLDC selecting the material to be put before the inspector I submit that the process is flawed and therefore unsound and not legally compliant.
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.
The significant number of sound and evidence based objections to development on this particular site R121M including the significant evidence based objections of Kendal Town Council, Friends of The Earth, Solek, CPRE, local site knowledge and findings of previous planning inspectors and reports have been disregarded. SLDC have NOT carried out evidence based studies, measurements or technical surveys to support their allocation yet they ignore those that have already been carried out by experts. The site will involve difficulties with addressing landscape protection, biodiversity, flooding and access making the cost prohibitive. None of the costs involved have been investigated by SLDC before proposing this site.The amount of proposed housing has been reduced because SLDC is beginning to accept there are significant issues but SLDC should accept that ANY building and access to that building on this particular site will not meet the demands of the core strategy or affordable housing and will irretrievably destroy hitherto protected landscape and biodiversity.
I would also argue that the key stages have not been followed if the inspector is only shown submissions selected by SLDC. This is akin to the defence relying on the prosecution to state their case. I propose that to improve this process the inspector and his team should have access to ALL SUBMISSIONS and OBJECTIONS so that they are fully informed. By SLDC selecting the material to be put before the inspector I submit that the process is flawed and therefore unsound and not legally compliant.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I 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.
Local groups I hope will be represented but it is important, if SLDC is to fulfil their obligation of true public consultation, that the inspector hears objections and submissions directly in person from local individuals/residents with sound objections. The process will not be seen to be fair or just if SLDC are not publicly opposed before the inspector by local individuals, with valid evidence based objections, who will have to watch and live with the resulting desecration of protected sites.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
