Response from Mr Peter Johnston (Individual)
1. Mr Peter Johnston (Individual) : 26 Apr 2012 10:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
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.
LA1.6 Strategic Employment Sites - E4M KENDAL LAND AT SCROGGS WOOD, MILNTHORPE ROAD
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.
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
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.
Fails to adequately consider the need for detailed investigation into the impact of noise and visual impairment on adjoining residential area (Bellingham Road) - inadequate baseline information, see text below:
The document makes reference to 'Landscaping and Buffering' but gives no details.
The document makes no reference (that I can find) to the likely effect of noise pollution or visual impact on local residents.
Print of area in winter (see attached photograph) clearly shows that Scroggs Wood itself is totally inadequate as a screen (visual) for 6 months of the year.
The statement in 3.34 - that Scroggs Wood screens the site is incorrect.
A visit to SLDC offices was NOT helpful - I was told that no detail regarding the type or distance of buffering / screening has yet to be drawn up. Therefore how can residents assess the plan - it is flawed in soundness - in that decisions are to be made without residents being satisfied regarding this element.
3.35 suggests that the main consideration is screening to the south & east edges but as before Scroggs Wood itself is inadequate.
To the best of my knowledge the document makes no reference to a study on noise pollution to the local residential area, and therefore fails to show any sustainability or soundness.
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.
Fails to explain 'other than reference to' sidnificant landscaping and robust buffering requirements - any details regarding the proposal (see text below and attached photograph).
The document makes reference to 'Landscaping and Buffering' but gives no details.
The document makes no reference (that I can find) to the likely effect of noise pollution or visual impact on local residents.
Print of area in winter (see attached photograph) clearly shows that Scroggs Wood itself is totally inadequate as a screen (visual) for 6 months of the year.
The statement in 3.34 - that Scroggs Wood screens the site is incorrect.
A visit to SLDC offices was NOT helpful - I was told that no detail regarding the type or distance of buffering / screening has yet to be drawn up. Therefore how can residents assess the plan - it is flawed in soundness - in that decisions are to be made without residents being satisfied regarding this element.
3.35 suggests that the main consideration is screening to the south & east edges but as before Scroggs Wood itself is inadequate.
To the best of my knowledge the document makes no reference to a study on noise pollution to the local residential area, and therefore fails to show any sustainability or soundness.
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