Response from Mr Paul Leech (Individual)
1. Mr Paul Leech (Individual) : 19 Apr 2012 11:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
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.
LA1.1 Development Boundaries- CARTMEL
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 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.
Delete the proposed extension of the village development boundary. If this is not done then the two sites at the southern end of Allithwaite Road should be excluded from the boundary.
The Parish Council (PC) along with the Planning Officer for SLDC have conducted public information sessions in the Village Hall showing options for development which have been put forward for public comment. Throughout that period the Village Development Boundary (VDB) has been shown in its original position as a broken black line (coloured red on the attached plan).
When SLDC published their Plan on 2 March 2012 for the present Final Consultation and Examination, we saw FOR THE FIRST TIME that the VDB had been massively extended to embrace the Headless Cross area of the village. Enquiries showed that the PC had proposed this in a letter dated 15 April 2011 (LE 1 072 in Council's evidence) to the Planning Officer. Apparently this was the PC's reaction to a petition signed by
nearly all the residents in Headless Cross who had heard that SLDC wanted to make it an independent hamlet, separated from Cartmel. It turned out that SLDC had never made any such proposals (see page 1 of Appendix 8). Despite this the PC had not withdrawn the DVB extension. We consider that the PC's proposal for the extension of the VDB was premature and excessive. Unfortunately the PC and the Planning Officer did not include this proposed boundary change on the maps for the subsequent public consultation sessions. In failing to publish that proposal they inadvertently denied the opportunity for the people of Cartmel to comment upon it at that formative stage. It may be that the advertisements issued by
the SLDC satisfy the legal requirements for public consultation but the man in the street is probably unaware that this change has been made. The objectors believe that there was no need for the extension of the VDB and that it should revert to its original position.
If the proposal to extend the VDB is not rejected then it is requested that the two sites RN148 and RN171 (blue on the attached plan) at the southern end of Allithwaite Road be excluded from the VDB. The PC wrote to the Planning Officer on 16 September 2011 objecting to these two housing proposals but they omitted to ask for the VDB to be amended to exclude both sites. Clearly the PC, having objected to the
development of the two sites, does not want to see them included within the VDB.
The PC has now repeated this objection and requested that the sites be excluded from the VDB. The objectors support this and point out that a similar amendment was made by the Planning Officer when the nearby site at Headless Close RN156 (yellow on attached plan) was withdrawn. The fundamental objection to RN 148 is that it is high above the level of Allithwaite Road and on the inside of a bend which would lead to increased traffic dangers and overbearing development. RN148 and RN171 are both arbitrary extensions of ribbon development into the open countryside in breach of the principles which planners and planning authorities normally strive to prevent.
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.
In order to be able to respond to points which the LPA may raise on the above issues.