2 responses from Mr Mike Norton (Individual)
1. Mr Mike Norton (Individual) : 11 Apr 2012 11:30:00
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
I believe SLDC have failed to deliver an effective and adequate consultation with the community resulting in real and meaningful dialogue. The consultaion has not been in accordance with the SCI and as such is unsound. Points raised by residents were noted but then largely ignored. This is evidenced by the approximate 400 responses to site R121M of which over 99% were against. SLDC have engendered opposition and resentment by riding rough shod over the wishes of the community which is totally unreasonable. There has been a vast amount of information, which has been difficult for many to access, and hard to wade through for those with the considerable amount of time needed, available and the computer knowledge and commitment to do so. Site specific searches have regularly failed making it difficult to access relevant information. This has not been consultation and has not been consistent with national policy on 'Localism'.
In order to be legally compliant I believe SLDC need to honestly listen to the community and accept the fact they need to adopt an alternative strategy rather than making minor changes to their current unsound strategy, in the misguided hope that this will be acceptable.
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.
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 strongly believe that SLDC’ s strategy is unsound for the following reasons:
1)They have not taken evidence into account that disagreed with their initial unsound strategy, and have failed to significantly alter their strategy to make it effective and deliverable. Examples of this include the Galpin report commissioned by Kendal Town Council and the report by Friends of the Lake District which were not accepted although both sound reports found site R121M to be totally unsuitable for development.
2)R121M was given the County Landscape designation in 1999 but this seems to have been ignored and the site put forward for convenience rather than based on evidence.
3)Where obstacles have been identified, an inadequate reference to 'mitigation' has been made, without any attempt to address the underlying issues. For this site the serious issues of access, flooding and great crested newts have all been treated as such. For the site to be considered, these issues should have been addressed by this stage. Not doing so makes the choice of site unviable and undeliverable.
4)The highways access to the site is clearly ill thought out and muddled. I personally asked Dan Hudson at a public meeting arranged locally about access and he told us that it would be on to Castle Green Lane. Now it seems the preferred option has changed to Oak Tree Road. Why and how this has changed is totally unclearand the community have not been informed of thsi change.
5)The considerable flooding issue with this site seems to have been ignored, but all other sites flowing into the Stock Beck Flood Alleviation system have been removed, presumably on flooding grounds. So why hasn't this site?
6)Great crested newts range over the whole area of the site and further afield. They are rightly protected and it is a serious omission not to have considered the possible alternative mitigation measures necessary. The cost and perceived success of such mitigation may well make the site unfeasible.
Although my comments so far relate to Site R121M, I believe there are serious issues with the whole Land Allocations Development Plan Document. The recent "Norfolk" judgement suggests that the SLDC process is equally unlawful. Whilst some changes have been made over the last 4 years they have been relatively minor and peripheral. The proposals in the approved documents which will now go before an Inspector are largely unchanged and can be demonstrated to have been founded on flawed original data. The presumptions made are questionable and based on out of date figures. For example how can SLDC not have taken the changes to the annual numbers of dwellings needed into consideration? This alone makes their strategy, based on such incorrect information, totally unjustified and illogical.
These are significant deficiencies which cannot be corrected by tinkering with the text. I believe the document is unsound and needs to be be withdrawn and fully re-appraised. Assessments of alternatives have not been thoroughly undertaken and have not been fully explained publicly. An alternative strategy is necessary to meet the changing needs of the community and it is essential that this is based on the recommendations of the people who live here and the Town Council. The alternative strategy must include essential infrastructure plans and all necessary mitigation measures to make it a deliverable and viable document.
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 Mike Norton (Individual) : 18 May 2012 15:27:00
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.
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
I believe SLDC have failed to deliver an effective and adequate consultation with the community resulting in real and meaningful dialogue. The consultaion has not been in accordance with the SCI and as such is unsound. Points raised by residents were noted but then largely ignored. This is evidenced by the approximate 400 responses to site R121M of which over 99% were against. SLDC have engendered opposition and resentment by riding rough shod over the wishes of the community which is totally unreasonable. There has been a vast amount of information, which has been difficult for many to access, and hard to wade through for those with the considerable amount of time needed, available and the computer knowledge and commitment to do so. Site specific searches have regularly failed making it difficult to access relevant information. This has not been consultation and has not been consistent with national policy on 'Localism'.
In order to be legally compliant I believe SLDC need to honestly listen to the community and accept the fact they need to adopt an alternative strategy rather than making minor changes to their current unsound strategy, in the misguided hope that this will be acceptable.
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
