2 responses from Mrs Joan Jolly (Individual)
1. Mrs Joan Jolly (Individual) : 4 May 2012 15:24:00
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 - M41M ENDMOOR NORTH OF SYCAMORE DRIVE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
M41M:
The number & density of properties proposed in one field alone are 55 (30/ha), far too many. There should be plenty space; car parking; landscaping, etc. There are 34 homes in Sycamore Close on the same size of land & lessons should be learned re congestion & the mistakes made. Properties too close together; small gardens; parking facilities atrocious - no room for two cars, therefore cars are parking on the roadway, half on pavement & in some cases in front of other residents homes. Cars are needed to travel to work - very little work locally. Public transport facilities/ routes are very limited & nowhere near sufficient now! There would be far more traffic, it would be a lot busier & would make the word 'estate' more prevalent.
There are no amenities locally - no post office, Dr., dentist, etc. just one little shop & bakery.
Access would also be a big issue & particular care should be taken as to any risk to the drumlins. If some properties are going to be smaller & with no garages, parking would be a major problem.
The impact on the area would be less presentable from all aspects & it would lower the district's appeal to tourists.
We need open spaces between villages as against developing into urban sprawl.
There is difficulty selling property now! Who are going to want to move, especially where there are no facilities?
Lack of services in village do not match needs. Proper thought out planning is of major importance in such a development from a village aspect. The village will lose what attracted us here - its appeal. I would not be a village any more.
No development should be allowed to take place until an agreed infrastructure plan with united utilities, to cope with increase capacity of sewage, has taken place.
To retain the character of the village & maintain landscaping areas, the new property should be in comparison to the rest of the village with bungalows & single storey affordable homes which, from a recent housing needs survey, only ten of these are required.
R83: Allegedly, the DPD has left out original proposals on Birchfield & Birchfield scored better than other sites.
R670: Dovenest's proposed numbers have been reduced, when this site is well placed to retain a village appearance.
100 homes in total - this needs to be reduced; impact on greenfield land & aspects of landscape.
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. Mrs Joan Jolly (Individual) : 4 May 2012 15:25:00
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 - All Endmoor sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
M41M:
The number & density of properties proposed in one field alone are 55 (30/ha), far too many. There should be plenty space; car parking; landscaping, etc. There are 34 homes in Sycamore Close on the same size of land & lessons should be learned re congestion & the mistakes made. Properties too close together; small gardens; parking facilities atrocious - no room for two cars, therefore cars are parking on the roadway, half on pavement & in some cases in front of other residents homes. Cars are needed to travel to work - very little work locally. Public transport facilities/ routes are very limited & nowhere near sufficient now! There would be far more traffic, it would be a lot busier & would make the word 'estate' more prevalent.
There are no amenities locally - no post office, Dr., dentist, etc. just one little shop & bakery.
Access would also be a big issue & particular care should be taken as to any risk to the drumlins. If some properties are going to be smaller & with no garages, parking would be a major problem.
The impact on the area would be less presentable from all aspects & it would lower the district's appeal to tourists.
We need open spaces between villages as against developing into urban sprawl.
There is difficulty selling property now! Who are going to want to move, especially where there are no facilities?
Lack of services in village do not match needs. Proper thought out planning is of major importance in such a development from a village aspect. The village will lose what attracted us here - its appeal. I would not be a village any more.
No development should be allowed to take place until an agreed infrastructure plan with united utilities, to cope with increase capacity of sewage, has taken place.
To retain the character of the village & maintain landscaping areas, the new property should be in comparison to the rest of the village with bungalows & single storey affordable homes which, from a recent housing needs survey, only ten of these are required.
R83: Allegedly, the DPD has left out original proposals on Birchfield & Birchfield scored better than other sites.
R670: Dovenest's proposed numbers have been reduced, when this site is well placed to retain a village appearance.
100 homes in total - this needs to be reduced; impact on greenfield land & aspects of landscape.
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
