4 responses from Mrs Margaret Teasdale (Individual)
1. Mrs Margaret Teasdale (Individual) : 7 Apr 2012 12:10:00
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
Policy/Site No.
LA1.1 Development Boundaries- SWARTHMOOR.
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
There is no evidence that the views of residents have been properly taken into account. Too much attention has been paid to the requests of the land owners and developer.
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
I don't support this DPD as it has already been overtaken by recent changes to planning laws.
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.
Firstly, in the appraisal of responses Catherine Whittaker is shown as supporting RN109M when she clearly indicated “oppose” on the response form.
There were 100 responses to the initial consultation of which only 2 were supporting any development. Of those showing support, one is by the farmer owning the land and the other is by a developer (Story Homes) acting on behalf of the landowners.
The remaining 98 responses, including those by Pennington Parish Council and a local councillor, are all opposing any development, with the exception of that by Bernie Young, who offers “partial support”. Ms Young is a member of the landowner’s family.
In other words, there is absolutely no impartial support for this proposal from any residents of the village. 97% of the responses were firmly against this development, 2% were in favour and 1% in partial support.
Secondly, assessing the result of the further consultation is practically impossible because it contains submissions that have nothing to do with Swarthmoor and shouldn’t be included.
In my view the whole consultation process has been aimed at legitimising the council’s approach and there is no evidence that any of our concerns have been properly addressed.
There are too many examples of particular concerns being dismissed as “noted or taken into account”, without any explanation of the reason for dismissal.
There is no evidence offered to support the number of properties being proposed other than to identify the need for affordable homes. In order to achieve this aim the developer will be allowed to build 3 times as many houses as are needed as compensation for building 35% affordable. This is a crazy way to meet the needs of those needing affordable homes. Also, as this is prime agricultural land, with magnificent views over the surrounding countryside, any houses thereon will attract a premium in value, to the extent that they will not be affordable into the future. If there is a need for affordable homes, they should be built in areas where they will retain affordable status.
There is clear evidence that some of the affordable homes provided as part of the extension to the Trinkeld Park estate, have been massively extended to the point where they will not be affordable when next sold,
I am concerned that the SLDC planner, with responsibility for the Swarthmoor proposals, also has responsibility for the provision of affordable homes in the district. There seems to be a conflict of interest here which must inevitably favour development even though it is clearly against the wishes of local people.
The government is telling us that where possible, development should be on brown field sites and that the wishes of local residents should be taken into account. SLDC has failed miserably on both counts and I believe that the whole process should be abandoned and future development should be under the new planning laws.
Should this development take place then it is inevitable that it will trigger a demand for a bypass of Swarthmoor by the A590, on the grounds that the village will be split by the increasingly busy trunk road. This was the main argument used by the villagers of High and Low Newton in their successful campaign to have their bypass constructed.
This is simply a crude attempt by local politicians to circumvent the recently introduced changes to the planning system and it’s interesting that all Lib Dem councillors voted for and all Conservative councillors voted against.
Politics is being used to the disadvantage of residents and SLDC should be ashamed.
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 Margaret Teasdale (Individual) : 16 May 2012 09:44:00
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?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
There is no evidence that the views of residents have been properly taken into account. Too much attention has been paid to the requests of the land owners and developer.
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
I don't support this DPD as it has already been overtaken by recent changes to planning laws.
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.
There is no evidence offered to support the number of properties being proposed other than to identify the need for affordable homes. In order to achieve this aim the developer will be allowed to build 3 times as many houses as are needed as compensation for building 35% affordable. This is a crazy way to meet the needs of those needing affordable homes. Also, as this is prime agricultural land, with magnificent views over the surrounding countryside, any houses thereon will attract a premium in value, to the extent that they will not be affordable into the future. If there is a need for affordable homes, they should be built in areas where they will retain affordable status.
There is clear evidence that some of the affordable homes provided as part of the extension to the Trinkeld Park estate, have been massively extended to the point where they will not be affordable when next sold,
I am concerned that the SLDC planner, with responsibility for the Swarthmoor proposals, also has responsibility for the provision of affordable homes in the district. There seems to be a conflict of interest here which must inevitably favour development even though it is clearly against the wishes of local people.
The government is telling us that where possible, development should be on brown field sites and that the wishes of local residents should be taken into account. SLDC has failed miserably on both counts and I believe that the whole process should be abandoned and future development should be under the new planning laws.
Should this development take place then it is inevitable that it will trigger a demand for a bypass of Swarthmoor by the A590, on the grounds that the village will be split by the increasingly busy trunk road. This was the main argument used by the villagers of High and Low Newton in their successful campaign to have their bypass constructed.
This is simply a crude attempt by local politicians to circumvent the recently introduced changes to the planning system and it’s interesting that all Lib Dem councillors voted for and all Conservative councillors voted against.
Politics is being used to the disadvantage of residents and SLDC should be ashamed.
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
3. Mrs Margaret Teasdale (Individual) : 16 May 2012 09:47:00
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.
1.10
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
There is no evidence that the views of residents have been properly taken into account. Too much attention has been paid to the requests of the land owners and developer.
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
I don't support this DPD as it has already been overtaken by recent changes to planning laws.
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.
Firstly, in the appraisal of responses Catherine Whittaker is shown as supporting RN109M when she clearly indicated “oppose” on the response form.
There were 100 responses to the initial consultation of which only 2 were supporting any development. Of those showing support, one is by the farmer owning the land and the other is by a developer (Story Homes) acting on behalf of the landowners.
The remaining 98 responses, including those by Pennington Parish Council and a local councillor, are all opposing any development, with the exception of that by Bernie Young, who offers “partial support”. Ms Young is a member of the landowner’s family.
In other words, there is absolutely no impartial support for this proposal from any residents of the village. 97% of the responses were firmly against this development, 2% were in favour and 1% in partial support.
Secondly, assessing the result of the further consultation is practically impossible because it contains submissions that have nothing to do with Swarthmoor and shouldn’t be included.
In my view the whole consultation process has been aimed at legitimising the council’s approach and there is no evidence that any of our concerns have been properly addressed.
There are too many examples of particular concerns being dismissed as “noted or taken into account”, without any explanation of the reason for dismissal.
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
4. Mrs Margaret Teasdale (Individual) : 16 May 2012 09:50:00
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?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
There is no evidence that the views of residents have been properly taken into account. Too much attention has been paid to the requests of the land owners and developer
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
I don't support this DPD as it has already been overtaken by recent changes to planning laws.
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 consistent with national policy.
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.
There is no evidence offered to support the number of properties being proposed other than to identify the need for affordable homes. In order to achieve this aim the developer will be allowed to build 3 times as many houses as are needed as compensation for building 35% affordable. This is a crazy way to meet the needs of those needing affordable homes. Also, as this is prime agricultural land, with magnificent views over the surrounding countryside, any houses thereon will attract a premium in value, to the extent that they will not be affordable into the future. If there is a need for affordable homes, they should be built in areas where they will retain affordable status.
There is clear evidence that some of the affordable homes provided as part of the extension to the Trinkeld Park estate, have been massively extended to the point where they will not be affordable when next sold,
I am concerned that the SLDC planner, with responsibility for the Swarthmoor proposals, also has responsibility for the provision of affordable homes in the district. There seems to be a conflict of interest here which must inevitably favour development even though it is clearly against the wishes of local people.
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
