2 responses from Mr & Mrs John and Linda Nott (Individual)
1. Mr & Mrs John and Linda Nott (Individual) : 14 Apr 2012 14:25:00
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 - RN109M RN315# SWARTHMOOR OFF CROSS-a-MOOR
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.
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 believe the DPD is unsound because important infrastructure issues have not been properly addressed and the document should not be submitted for government approval until these issues are resolved.
My house is close to the Cross a Moor Lane / Main Road junction with the A590 and I know from first hand experience that negotiating this junction is notoriously difficult. The A590 has been identified as the busiest road in the county apart from the M6 and turning right out of Cross a Moor lane to head in the Barrow direction is all but impossible at most times throughout the day, as is turning right from Main Road to head towards Ulverston. The excessive number of houses resulting from this plan will exacerbate the difficulties to a point where our lives will be seriously affected. The plan should include the measures required to ensure that the increased traffic is manageable, but it doesn’t.
There are no spare places at Pennington Junior School which means that children of existing Swarthmoor families will be in competition with those from this development in a way that hasn’t previously been an issue. In any case there will be a need to transport younger children to other schools rather than have them walk to Pennington School. This is not sound planning and again should have been dealt with in the plan not left to a developer after consent has been given.
I am also greatly concerned that the land owner of RN109M has clearly influenced the decision to increase the area of land initially selected as an Emerging Option, by having RN315# incorporated into the plan. It is common knowledge that RN109M as it existed as an Emerging Option, was not considered to be economically attractive to the owner and he employed an agent (Story Homes) to present a case for increasing the size of the plot. This case has been accepted by the planners as an alternative to losing the plot and has resulted in a land owner and developer having been responsible for the creation of this part of the DPD. This cannot be appropriate and should be investigated as a matter of urgency.
I believe that there are other of instances of the original areas of land being increased in size and would expect these also to be brought to the attention of the government inspector. RN131M, in Ulverston South ward, is an example of Story Homes’ involvement.
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. Mr & Mrs John and Linda Nott (Individual) : 23 May 2012 17:10:00
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?
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.
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 am also greatly concerned that the land owner of RN109M has clearly influenced the decision to increase the area of land initially selected as an Emerging Option, by having RN315# incorporated into the plan. It is common knowledge that RN109M as it existed as an Emerging Option, was not considered to be economically attractive to the owner and he employed an agent (Story Homes) to present a case for increasing the size of the plot. This case has been accepted by the planners as an alternative to losing the plot and has resulted in a land owner and developer having been responsible for the creation of this part of the DPD. This cannot be appropriate and should be investigated as a matter of urgency.
I believe that there are other of instances of the original areas of land being increased in size and would expect these also to be brought to the attention of the government inspector. RN131M, in Ulverston South ward, is an example of Story Homes’ involvement.
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
