4 responses from Mrs Lorraine Thompson, Cross-a-Moor & Swarthmoor Community
1. Mrs Lorraine Thompson, Cross-a-Moor & Swarthmoor Community : 16 Apr 2012 21:32:00
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?
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.
The list of options above does not refer to 'soundness' or 'effectiveness', hence my ticking the sustainability appraisal box. It is a little unrealistic to ask non legal members of the public to comment on the legal status of a document. It is my opinion that the Land Allocations Document (PDP) does not demonstrate a true reflection of the concerns raised by members of the comnmunity.
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.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
The vast majority of concerns raised by the residents of Cross a Moor and Swarthmoor have not been reflected in the SLDC Land Allocations DPD.
Responses collated from the residents indicate the following concerns -
• Increase in the volume of traffic using the local lanes to access the A590 – an already very busy main road which has been identified as the second busiest road in Cumbria after the M6. There is significant concern about access to the Kingsley Road area, an area which already has a volume of traffic. There is also concern about the length of time it already takes to access the A590 from the side roads and lanes in the area. Further traffic is inevitable from any new build sites and will further impact on the length of time taken to access the A590, and will significantly increase the risk of accidents in the area.
• Impact on the local environment, including an increased pressure on the utilities of the area. The sewerage systems in the local area are already under pressure, with the sewerage point on Urswick Road requiring clearing twice each week to prevent spillage. The water pressure at Cross-a-Moor is very low, further new build may further impact on this.
• Local geography – the proposed sites are situated on known mine shafts, and a seam of sand which has affected house building in the past and has caused subsidence of some properties.
• An increase in the demand for places at the local school, which is already oversubscribed, with little capacity to increase the size of the school further. School places would be allocated in the next nearest school – i.e. Ulverston or Dalton, which would place more cars on the road at peak times, and add further hazards to those children and parents who walk to school using Pennington Lane and Rufus Lane.
• Demand for the local housing – there is a need for affordable housing in the local area, but the main area of concern was the definition of ‘affordable’ and ‘local’. The proposed sites offer prime views on prime building plots. Any builder applying for planning permission on such land would wish to take advantage of such a beautiful location, which would surely be reflected in the type of houses built, and the costs of those houses. It was also pointed out that there are many properties for sale in local estate agents, so is there really a demand for so much housing in the local area?
• The local jobs market is not as buoyant as we would like. There were concerns around the fact that houses are being built before jobs are being created. The community present felt the priorities should be the other way around. ****Since this concern was raised there has been the announcement of further developments at GlaxoSmithKline which is extremely positive news. However, a level headed approach to the demand for further housing needs to be taken. Many employees could potentially be those previously employed at GSK. This brilliant news should not be used as hinge for building on greenfield sites.
• The land allocated is prime agricultural land which is utilised as land for stock and silage/hay production. The land is currently housing sheep and lambs qand is not redundant land.
In addition to the concerns raised, we also have the recnt news of the impending closure of Chetwynde School which will result in a need for securing school places for potentially 276 children at primary and secondary level. Many parents will be looking to Pennington school and UVHS for school places - both of which are either close to being, or are already, over subscribed.
In the Ulverston area as a whole Department for Education figures for the 2011 school intake states that - Croftlands school has a published admission number (PAN) of 180 with 147 on roll, Pennington school has a PAN of 203 with 200 on roll, Sir John Barrow school has a PAN of 300 with 302 on roll, St Mary's school has a PAN of 105 with 119 on roll and Ulverston CofE school has a PAN of 84 with 88 on roll. These are all primary schools in the Ulverston area, including Swarthmoor and Cross a Moor and does not include in-year moves which will have resulted in further increases in numbers on roll. Before allocation such vast areas of land for new build sites SLDC may benefit from looking at systemic change within education to ensure there are enough school places to meet demand - and these figures do not include the potential need for places as a result of the closure of Chetwynde School.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mrs Lorraine Thompson, Cross-a-Moor & Swarthmoor Community : 15 May 2012 14:40:00
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?
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.
The list of options above does not refer to 'soundness' or 'effectiveness', hence my ticking the sustainability appraisal box. It is a little unrealistic to ask non legal members of the public to comment on the legal status of a document. It is my opinion that the Land Allocations Document (PDP) does not demonstrate a true reflection of the concerns raised by members of the comnmunity.
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.
The vast majority of concerns raised by the residents of Cross a Moor and Swarthmoor have not been reflected in the SLDC Land Allocations DPD.
Responses collated from the residents indicate the following concerns -
• Increase in the volume of traffic using the local lanes to access the A590 – an already very busy main road which has been identified as the second busiest road in Cumbria after the M6. There is significant concern about access to the Kingsley Road area, an area which already has a volume of traffic. There is also concern about the length of time it already takes to access the A590 from the side roads and lanes in the area. Further traffic is inevitable from any new build sites and will further impact on the length of time taken to access the A590, and will significantly increase the risk of accidents in the area.
• Impact on the local environment, including an increased pressure on the utilities of the area. The sewerage systems in the local area are already under pressure, with the sewerage point on Urswick Road requiring clearing twice each week to prevent spillage. The water pressure at Cross-a-Moor is very low, further new build may further impact on this.
• Local geography – the proposed sites are situated on known mine shafts, and a seam of sand which has affected house building in the past and has caused subsidence of some properties.
• An increase in the demand for places at the local school, which is already oversubscribed, with little capacity to increase the size of the school further. School places would be allocated in the next nearest school – i.e. Ulverston or Dalton, which would place more cars on the road at peak times, and add further hazards to those children and parents who walk to school using Pennington Lane and Rufus Lane.
• Demand for the local housing – there is a need for affordable housing in the local area, but the main area of concern was the definition of ‘affordable’ and ‘local’. The proposed sites offer prime views on prime building plots. Any builder applying for planning permission on such land would wish to take advantage of such a beautiful location, which would surely be reflected in the type of houses built, and the costs of those houses. It was also pointed out that there are many properties for sale in local estate agents, so is there really a demand for so much housing in the local area?
• The local jobs market is not as buoyant as we would like. There were concerns around the fact that houses are being built before jobs are being created. The community present felt the priorities should be the other way around. ****Since this concern was raised there has been the announcement of further developments at GlaxoSmithKline which is extremely positive news. However, a level headed approach to the demand for further housing needs to be taken. Many employees could potentially be those previously employed at GSK. This brilliant news should not be used as hinge for building on greenfield sites.
• The land allocated is prime agricultural land which is utilised as land for stock and silage/hay production. The land is currently housing sheep and lambs qand is not redundant land.
In addition to the concerns raised, we also have the recnt news of the impending closure of Chetwynde School which will result in a need for securing school places for potentially 276 children at primary and secondary level. Many parents will be looking to Pennington school and UVHS for school places - both of which are either close to being, or are already, over subscribed.
In the Ulverston area as a whole Department for Education figures for the 2011 school intake states that - Croftlands school has a published admission number (PAN) of 180 with 147 on roll, Pennington school has a PAN of 203 with 200 on roll, Sir John Barrow school has a PAN of 300 with 302 on roll, St Mary's school has a PAN of 105 with 119 on roll and Ulverston CofE school has a PAN of 84 with 88 on roll. These are all primary schools in the Ulverston area, including Swarthmoor and Cross a Moor and does not include in-year moves which will have resulted in further increases in numbers on roll. Before allocation such vast areas of land for new build sites SLDC may benefit from looking at systemic change within education to ensure there are enough school places to meet demand - and these figures do not include the potential need for places as a result of the closure of Chetwynde School.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I 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 Lorraine Thompson, Cross-a-Moor & Swarthmoor Community : 15 May 2012 14:42:00
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.
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.
The list of options above does not refer to 'soundness' or 'effectiveness', hence my ticking the sustainability appraisal box. It is a little unrealistic to ask non legal members of the public to comment on the legal status of a document. It is my opinion that the Land Allocations Document (PDP) does not demonstrate a true reflection of the concerns raised by members of the comnmunity.
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.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
The vast majority of concerns raised by the residents of Cross a Moor and Swarthmoor have not been reflected in the SLDC Land Allocations DPD.
Responses collated from the residents indicate the following concerns -
• Increase in the volume of traffic using the local lanes to access the A590 – an already very busy main road which has been identified as the second busiest road in Cumbria after the M6. There is significant concern about access to the Kingsley Road area, an area which already has a volume of traffic. There is also concern about the length of time it already takes to access the A590 from the side roads and lanes in the area. Further traffic is inevitable from any new build sites and will further impact on the length of time taken to access the A590, and will significantly increase the risk of accidents in the area.
• Impact on the local environment, including an increased pressure on the utilities of the area. The sewerage systems in the local area are already under pressure, with the sewerage point on Urswick Road requiring clearing twice each week to prevent spillage. The water pressure at Cross-a-Moor is very low, further new build may further impact on this.
• Local geography – the proposed sites are situated on known mine shafts, and a seam of sand which has affected house building in the past and has caused subsidence of some properties.
• An increase in the demand for places at the local school, which is already oversubscribed, with little capacity to increase the size of the school further. School places would be allocated in the next nearest school – i.e. Ulverston or Dalton, which would place more cars on the road at peak times, and add further hazards to those children and parents who walk to school using Pennington Lane and Rufus Lane.
• Demand for the local housing – there is a need for affordable housing in the local area, but the main area of concern was the definition of ‘affordable’ and ‘local’. The proposed sites offer prime views on prime building plots. Any builder applying for planning permission on such land would wish to take advantage of such a beautiful location, which would surely be reflected in the type of houses built, and the costs of those houses. It was also pointed out that there are many properties for sale in local estate agents, so is there really a demand for so much housing in the local area?
• The local jobs market is not as buoyant as we would like. There were concerns around the fact that houses are being built before jobs are being created. The community present felt the priorities should be the other way around. ****Since this concern was raised there has been the announcement of further developments at GlaxoSmithKline which is extremely positive news. However, a level headed approach to the demand for further housing needs to be taken. Many employees could potentially be those previously employed at GSK. This brilliant news should not be used as hinge for building on greenfield sites.
• The land allocated is prime agricultural land which is utilised as land for stock and silage/hay production. The land is currently housing sheep and lambs qand is not redundant land.
In addition to the concerns raised, we also have the recnt news of the impending closure of Chetwynde School which will result in a need for securing school places for potentially 276 children at primary and secondary level. Many parents will be looking to Pennington school and UVHS for school places - both of which are either close to being, or are already, over subscribed.
In the Ulverston area as a whole Department for Education figures for the 2011 school intake states that - Croftlands school has a published admission number (PAN) of 180 with 147 on roll, Pennington school has a PAN of 203 with 200 on roll, Sir John Barrow school has a PAN of 300 with 302 on roll, St Mary's school has a PAN of 105 with 119 on roll and Ulverston CofE school has a PAN of 84 with 88 on roll. These are all primary schools in the Ulverston area, including Swarthmoor and Cross a Moor and does not include in-year moves which will have resulted in further increases in numbers on roll. Before allocation such vast areas of land for new build sites SLDC may benefit from looking at systemic change within education to ensure there are enough school places to meet demand - and these figures do not include the potential need for places as a result of the closure of Chetwynde School.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
4. Mrs Lorraine Thompson, Cross-a-Moor & Swarthmoor Community : 15 May 2012 14:44:00
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 Ulverston 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.
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.
The list of options above does not refer to 'soundness' or 'effectiveness', hence my ticking the sustainability appraisal box. It is a little unrealistic to ask non legal members of the public to comment on the legal status of a document. It is my opinion that the Land Allocations Document (PDP) does not demonstrate a true reflection of the concerns raised by members of the comnmunity.
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.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
The vast majority of concerns raised by the residents of Cross a Moor and Swarthmoor have not been reflected in the SLDC Land Allocations DPD.
Responses collated from the residents indicate the following concerns -
• Increase in the volume of traffic using the local lanes to access the A590 – an already very busy main road which has been identified as the second busiest road in Cumbria after the M6. There is significant concern about access to the Kingsley Road area, an area which already has a volume of traffic. There is also concern about the length of time it already takes to access the A590 from the side roads and lanes in the area. Further traffic is inevitable from any new build sites and will further impact on the length of time taken to access the A590, and will significantly increase the risk of accidents in the area.
• Impact on the local environment, including an increased pressure on the utilities of the area. The sewerage systems in the local area are already under pressure, with the sewerage point on Urswick Road requiring clearing twice each week to prevent spillage. The water pressure at Cross-a-Moor is very low, further new build may further impact on this.
• Local geography – the proposed sites are situated on known mine shafts, and a seam of sand which has affected house building in the past and has caused subsidence of some properties.
• An increase in the demand for places at the local school, which is already oversubscribed, with little capacity to increase the size of the school further. School places would be allocated in the next nearest school – i.e. Ulverston or Dalton, which would place more cars on the road at peak times, and add further hazards to those children and parents who walk to school using Pennington Lane and Rufus Lane.
• Demand for the local housing – there is a need for affordable housing in the local area, but the main area of concern was the definition of ‘affordable’ and ‘local’. The proposed sites offer prime views on prime building plots. Any builder applying for planning permission on such land would wish to take advantage of such a beautiful location, which would surely be reflected in the type of houses built, and the costs of those houses. It was also pointed out that there are many properties for sale in local estate agents, so is there really a demand for so much housing in the local area?
• The local jobs market is not as buoyant as we would like. There were concerns around the fact that houses are being built before jobs are being created. The community present felt the priorities should be the other way around. ****Since this concern was raised there has been the announcement of further developments at GlaxoSmithKline which is extremely positive news. However, a level headed approach to the demand for further housing needs to be taken. Many employees could potentially be those previously employed at GSK. This brilliant news should not be used as hinge for building on greenfield sites.
• The land allocated is prime agricultural land which is utilised as land for stock and silage/hay production. The land is currently housing sheep and lambs qand is not redundant land.
In addition to the concerns raised, we also have the recnt news of the impending closure of Chetwynde School which will result in a need for securing school places for potentially 276 children at primary and secondary level. Many parents will be looking to Pennington school and UVHS for school places - both of which are either close to being, or are already, over subscribed.
In the Ulverston area as a whole Department for Education figures for the 2011 school intake states that - Croftlands school has a published admission number (PAN) of 180 with 147 on roll, Pennington school has a PAN of 203 with 200 on roll, Sir John Barrow school has a PAN of 300 with 302 on roll, St Mary's school has a PAN of 105 with 119 on roll and Ulverston CofE school has a PAN of 84 with 88 on roll. These are all primary schools in the Ulverston area, including Swarthmoor and Cross a Moor and does not include in-year moves which will have resulted in further increases in numbers on roll. Before allocation such vast areas of land for new build sites SLDC may benefit from looking at systemic change within education to ensure there are enough school places to meet demand - and these figures do not include the potential need for places as a result of the closure of Chetwynde School.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
