Response from Mr John Seddon (Individual)
1. Mr John Seddon (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 20:32:00
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 - RN213-mod BRIGSTEER LAND OPPOSITE THE WHEATSHEAF
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.
SITE RN213, LAND OPPOSITE THE WHEATSHEAF IN BRIGSTEER SHOULD NOT BE ALLOCATED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
Paragraph 3.150 states that 'no development land allocations are proposed in small villages and hamlets and in the open countryside', which I agree with. But, an exceptional allocation is made at land opposite the Wheatsheaf in Brigsteer (RN213). The main reason given for the exception is 'the degree of community involvement and support for this proposal..' This is unsound because:
1. In March 2011 an opinion survey was carried out by local residents. Over half of Brigsteer residents responded, 78% being opposed to the proposed development of RN213. The Parish Meeting on 2nd March 2011, attended by SLDC representatives Alastair McNeill and Iain Withington, clearly concurred with this opinion. The results of this opinion survey were included in a formal consultation response.
2. Helsington Parish Council in their first consultation response gave only conditional support for development of RN213. Smaller scale alternatives would be preferred and in any case development of RN213 should not be before Phase 2.
3. Helsington Parish Council, in September 2011, considered their response to the consultation as to 'Whether sites for development should be allocated in small villages and hamlets' – it was unanimously resolved that the policies in the Core Strategy supported by Neighbourhood Plans would be a more appropriate way of identifying and meeting development needs in small villages and hamlets. This was their official response to SLDC.
4. At a Parish Meeting of the electors of the Parish of Helsington held on the 10th of April 2012, the Parish again confirmed their rejection of proposals to develop site RN213. The votes were:in support of the proposed development on site RN213 20 votes; opposed to the development of site RN213 31 votes; requesting the Parish Council to respond to South lakeland District Council 55 votes.
It is therefore not sound to assert that the development of site RN213 has sufficient community support to justify exceptional allocation. In fact at every opportunity the community has voted against the proposal.
Nor is the provision of affordable housing by means of small estate development the most appropriate strategy for a small village community. Alternatives such as self-build and 'home on the farm' are obviously reasonable alternatives which are better suited to both the needs and the expressed preferences of the community. Presumably this is why centrally allocated development sites have not been proposed by SLDC in the other small villages.
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.
It appears that, so far, the officials at SLDC have been negligent in not attaching due weight to the abundant evidence of community opposition to allocation of site RN213 as development land. This evidence has been provided provided to them in consultation responses and in meetings which they have attended. Therefore I have no confidence that SLDC will attach due weight to this submission and therefore I wish to take part in an oral examination.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
