5 responses from Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West)
1. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 14 Apr 2012 09:51:00
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.
LA1.1 Development Boundaries- ULVERSTON
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 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.
(1) Site M11M-mod is shown in the DPD as a proposed Business Park. I would like to object that this site has been taken into Ulverston Development Boundary. The status of the site at present is that it is outside the Development Boundary and in the important GREEN GAP between Ulverston and Swarthmoor. The Government has stated it does not want to see development on Green Gaps. Any development on this site would put huge pressure on the access and egress of the very busy and dangerous A590
(2)R689ULVM is shown in the DPD as a proposed Housing Site. I object as this site is also at present outside the Development Boundary for Ulverston and sits in the very important GREEN GAP between Ulverston and Swarthmoor. The site is in a very prominent position being near to the historic Swarthmoor Hall and the Cistercian Way footpath and once developed would set a president for development along Urswick Road.
(3) I would also like to object to any further development in the village of Swarthmoor - Sites 315#. RN109M and R684SWM. Over the past few year Swarthmoor has increased in size by aboout a third, and because Swarthmoor has no facilities to sustain village life (the post office and shops have gone - all that is left is a pub and that is struggling)it is adding to the huge pressure on facilities in Ulverston and this is not sustainable.
(4) I also agree with the statement from Ulverston Town Council who question the need for 6000 new homes shown in the plan. I do hope the Inspector will take time to visit sites in the DPD.
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
2. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 24 May 2012 12:58:00
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.
LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - M11M - Mod ULVERSTON LAND AT LIGHTBURN ROAD
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 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.
(1) Site M11M-mod is shown in the DPD as a proposed Business Park. I would like to object that this site has been taken into Ulverston Development Boundary. The status of the site at present is that it is outside the Development Boundary and in the important GREEN GAP between Ulverston and Swarthmoor. The Government has stated it does not want to see development on Green Gaps. Any development on this site would put huge pressure on the access and egress of the very busy and dangerous A590
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. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 24 May 2012 13:00:00
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 - R689 ULVM ULVERSTON NORTH URSWICK ROAD
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 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.
(2)R689ULVM is shown in the DPD as a proposed Housing Site. I object as this site is also at present outside the Development Boundary for Ulverston and sits in the very important GREEN GAP between Ulverston and Swarthmoor. The site is in a very prominent position being near to the historic Swarthmoor Hall and the Cistercian Way footpath and once developed would set a president for development along Urswick Road.
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
4. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 24 May 2012 13:04:00
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 Swarthmoor 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 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.
(3) I would also like to object to any further development in the village of Swarthmoor - Sites 315#. RN109M and R684SWM. Over the past few year Swarthmoor has increased in size by aboout a third, and because Swarthmoor has no facilities to sustain village life (the post office and shops have gone - all that is left is a pub and that is struggling)it is adding to the huge pressure on facilities in Ulverston and this is not sustainable.
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
5. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 24 May 2012 13:08:00
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.
0.0 Whole Document
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 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.
(4) I also agree with the statement from Ulverston Town Council who question the need for 6000 new homes shown in the plan. I do hope the Inspector will take time to visit sites in the DPD.
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
