3 responses from Mrs Dorothy Pass (Individual)
1. Mrs Dorothy Pass (Individual) : 9 Apr 2012 11:20:00
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?
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 document is unsound because the infrastructure issues have not been addressed. In fact it would be fair to say that they have been kicked into the long grass to be dealt with after the land has been sold with the result that as usual the residents will be left to live with the planning shortfalls.
Pennington Junior School is already fully subscribed so the children of existing Swarthmoor families will be disadvantaged and unable to attend their own local school because of the extra children resulting from this development, which will be almost adjacent to the school. Families who have lived in the village for generations will be forced to make unnecessary journeys to take their children to other schools. Sticking portacabins in the school playground is not a solution although I suspect it will figure highly in any plan, if indeed such a plan even exists.
Turning right at any junction with the A590 is avoided at all costs by people currently living to the east of the road. However, there are alternative routes available to these people to leave the village eliminating the need to make dangerous right turns. People living to the west of the A590, either at RN109M or indeed Kingsley Avenue, will have no option but to perform dangerous right turns when heading towards Barrow. It matters not where the access to RN109M is located, be it Cross a Moor lane or directly onto the A590 it will be almost impossible and most certainly dangerous at most times of day, to make a right turn towards Barrow.
There are no shops in Swarthmoor which means that residents have to travel by road to either Ulverston or Barrow to purchase anything. Surely reducing road journeys should be a key factor in any planning decision.
I am also extremely concerned that in the case of RN109M, the land owner seems to have held the council to ransom by making it clear that RN109M would not be available unless RN315# was added to it. In other words, the land owner appears to have played a major part in creating the development plan. This is not something that has happened in the past and it won’t happen under the new planning law. Land owners should not be allowed to dictate where development takes place. That is the role of local councils. I believe that this has also occurred in other areas currently under consideration by SLDC.
Finally, the real irony is that there are other more suitable sites available away from the A590, which were identified during the previous consultations and didn’t attract significant objections but were summarily dismissed because of the planner’s obsession with RN109M. This has been a seriously bad case of planners riding roughshod over local residents with the full support of the Lib Dem controlled SLDC.
These sites should be reconsidered.
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. Mrs Dorothy Pass (Individual) : 16 May 2012 09:58:00
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.
LA1.3 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.
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 document is unsound because the infrastructure issues have not been addressed. In fact it would be fair to say that they have been kicked into the long grass to be dealt with after the land has been sold with the result that as usual the residents will be left to live with the planning shortfalls.
Pennington Junior School is already fully subscribed so the children of existing Swarthmoor families will be disadvantaged and unable to attend their own local school because of the extra children resulting from this development, which will be almost adjacent to the school. Families who have lived in the village for generations will be forced to make unnecessary journeys to take their children to other schools. Sticking portacabins in the school playground is not a solution although I suspect it will figure highly in any plan, if indeed such a plan even exists.
Turning right at any junction with the A590 is avoided at all costs by people currently living to the east of the road. However, there are alternative routes available to these people to leave the village eliminating the need to make dangerous right turns. People living to the west of the A590, either at RN109M or indeed Kingsley Avenue, will have no option but to perform dangerous right turns when heading towards Barrow. It matters not where the access to RN109M is located, be it Cross a Moor lane or directly onto the A590 it will be almost impossible and most certainly dangerous at most times of day, to make a right turn towards Barrow.
There are no shops in Swarthmoor which means that residents have to travel by road to either Ulverston or Barrow to purchase anything. Surely reducing road journeys should be a key factor in any planning decision.
Finally, the real irony is that there are other more suitable sites available away from the A590, which were identified during the previous consultations and didn’t attract significant objections but were summarily dismissed because of the planner’s obsession with RN109M. This has been a seriously bad case of planners riding roughshod over local residents with the full support of the Lib Dem controlled SLDC.
These sites should be reconsidered.
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. Mrs Dorothy Pass (Individual) : 16 May 2012 10:00:00
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 - 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 am also extremely concerned that in the case of RN109M, the land owner seems to have held the council to ransom by making it clear that RN109M would not be available unless RN315# was added to it. In other words, the land owner appears to have played a major part in creating the development plan. This is not something that has happened in the past and it won’t happen under the new planning law. Land owners should not be allowed to dictate where development takes place. That is the role of local councils. I believe that this has also occurred in other areas currently under consideration by SLDC.
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
