Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

0.0 Whole Document

No

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Not all Stake-Holders consulted properly re. RN121M-Mod, one of landowners is not a willing seller.

No

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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.

1. Issues of Justification & Robustness of Evidence base

1.1 The proposals are based on out-of-date and unreliable evidence in the following areas:

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is largely based on old studies, supplemented by the 2011 Housing Survey for which responses were received from approximately 9.5% of the households in South Lakeland (4,363 responses out of 45,792 occupied dwellings – both figures from SHMA Main Report, October 2011 page 5) . This is too small a sample to be representative of need and to form a reliable base for long-term housing policy. Some of the replies amount to little more than aspirations, e.g. those regarding intention to move.

Other parts of the SHMA are based on out-of-date statistics e.g. para 3.11 Migration Flow (ONS 2000-2010), Paras 4.86/4.89 Projected Numbers of Households (ONS 2006), and Paras 3.33/4 Travel to Work Trends (mainly 2001 Census).

1.2 The SHMA refers to the empty housing stock in South Lakeland but does not, in calculating housing requirement, make any adjustment for such stock. SHMA gives a figure of 1,024 empty homes, but that has been challenged by later estimates. An SLDC Councillor, at the 18th Jan. 2012 Council meeting, quoted 1,500, and a subsequent Conservative local election leaflet (for Brian Rendell – April 2012) asserts that the total is 2,039.

1.3 There is no clear evidence to show how those in need of affordable housing (either on the SLDC Housing List or from Housing Survey responses) would actually be able to afford to buy or rent the planned “affordable” homes. Recent slow take-up on some new developments suggests that they would not. No evidence has been put forward to demonstrate where increased levels of employment, with adequate wage/salary levels, might come from.

1.4 The reliability of the evidence base is diminished by an abrupt reversal of the geographical distribution of proposed development. The Emerging Options Consultation Edition document dated January 2011 (EO), contained an “Adjusted For Need” forecast (Table1, p11) in which the numbers for the “Kendal Rural” area were weighted upwards. This weighting is absent from the Mar. 2012 Land Allocation DPD (table in 1.2 p16) with the result that 350 houses (about a quarter of the allocation in EO) have been reallocated to the Furness area. but why is Levens quota of houses in effect unchanged (down by 1 from 74 to 73)?

1.5 The Core Strategy (adopted version, 20 Oct 2010 p3) states that “The 2006 Housing Needs Survey... concluded that the area needed 416 affordable new homes every year for the following five years.” However, there is no transparent process which connects this statement with the actual number of people on the Housing List, or the total target of 8800 houses (2003 to 2025) formed in response to the Regional Spatial Strategy and now carried forward as SLDC's own policy. The actuality is that provision of “affordables” is dependent on a single financial model, that of how many open-market houses developers can be allowed in order to subsidise some “affordables”. This results in an illogical policy of, “need one house, build three”. This is an unsustainable approach, the tail is wagging the dog.

1.6 Core Strategy section 2.1 (p14) describes sustainability as “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. I submit that irreversible development done in spite of great uncertainty is contrary to this definition and the proposals are therefore unsound and unsustainable.

2. Issues of Community Involvement

2.1 The documents upon which the Plan is based are so numerous and complex that the average householder does not have the time, experience or ability to make a reasoned judgement as to the soundness of the Plan. It is clearly impossible to complete the form unless you are very well informed and people are not going to have the time or the inclination to spend the sort of time necessary. This discriminates against a large proportion of the population.

All those without access to the Internet are at an even greater disadvantage in view of the difficulties in obtaining printed copies of the relevant documents.

The final consultation document, in form and wording, is too restrictive. This, the complexity of the issues, and the (originally imposed but now lifted) 500 word limit appear to be deliberate attempts to stifle objection.

2.2 It is made clear in the SLDC Statement of Community Involvement that SLDC is committed to certain principles (Paragraph 2.4), specifically, “an opportunity for early and on-going input, at stages where responses can make a difference”. It is less clear that any inputs differing from SLDC presumptions have been considered. From 2005 onwards SLDC actively encouraged Communities to produce a Parish /Village Plan in order to inform future planning, as well as to enhance & protect their environment.

In Dec 2008 Levens Village Plan was published, having consulted every adult in each household in the Parish (857), the Mother & Toddler Group, the Primary School, the 11-18’s and all businesses. The questionnaire return rate was a very high, 76%. (651 out of 857)

In 2008 a Rural Housing Needs Survey (RHNS) was also conducted in the Village, which identified a need for 12 affordable homes for young people in the next 5 years.

SLDC has had a copy of the Levens Village Plan since 2008 & indeed held it up as an excellent example of what a Village Plan should be. Why is it now ignored?

Similarly, SLDC has ignored the wishes of Levens parishioners expressed in responses to previous consultations. The Levens Residents Group surveyed the opinions of all parishioners for the Emerging Options and Alternative Sites consultations, and the views expressed by the vast majority of respondents (all households asked to give opinions, over 35% responded to each survey) were that development envisaged in the SLDC proposals is far too big for the village.

SLDC has allocated 73 houses (23 on site R121M-Mod & 50 on site R51M), whereas all Levens need is 11 Affordables (one of the 12 people identified in the 2008 Rural Housing Needs Survey is known to have obtained a house).

The Village Plan identified “small developments” for future planning. A small development is not a site for 50 houses (Site R51M) in a Parish of 525 dwellings.

If the SLDC policy, as expressed in the Land Allocations DPD, does not reflect local opinion or goes directly against it, and therefore does not reflect the Localism Act, this Policy is rendered unsound.

3. Issues of Sustainable Community Strategy

3.1 Infrastructure Position Statement section 4.68 (p19) states, “Any new housing developments, combined within an ageing population can be expected [to] heighten the requirement for the provision of additional services”. The Core Strategy shirks responsibility for the issue, merely referring to the requirement for “all new houses that are built are suitable, or easily adaptable, for occupation by the elderly and infirm (Lifetime Homes Standard or equivalent).” (CS 7.10 p78). The provision of more specialist accommodation is seen as the responsibility of the County Council Social Services dept. (CS 6.2 p79). SLDC recognises the presence, and future increase, of a large elderly population, but does not take a holistic approach to dealing with the problem. This conflicts with the vision put forward in CS 1.39 (p9) for “people of all ages”.

4. Issues of Sustainability as applied to Levens

4.1 Public Transport. The Village has one bus service (530), running between Kendal and Grange-Over-Sands at times that allow no possibility of its use for commuting to full-time employment.

The 555 bus services to Kendal & Lancaster do not enter the village and pedestrian access to them at the bus stops near Levens Bridge & the Heaves Hotel along the A6/A590/A591 is not safe owing to the need to walk along busy roads (e.g. Levens Lane, Dukes Hill and A6) where there are neither footpaths nor street lighting. They are also too far away for pedestrian access other than by fit & active people, thereby discriminating against the elderly and disabled.

There are no cycling routes from Levens to Key Local Centres that are safe (i.e. avoiding busy “A” roads) , practical and direct.

The conclusion from the above is that virtually all commuting to Key Local Centres by those in the planned houses would be by car. This cannot meet any reasonable definition of “sustainable”, including environmental friendliness and reduction of carbon footprint.

Roads within and leading to and from the village are generally narrow with single width “pinch points” and are therefore unsuitable for a greater density of traffic. I note that one of the main through-roads in the village (Church Rd.) has been reduced in width at one junction by up to 25% by the provision of a pavement leading nowhere (at Greengate Gardens).

The village has only a part-time Post Office (three afternoons per week).

There are no specific proposals to improve the above situation contained in the Infrastructure Position Statement.

A criteria of status as a Local Service Centre (LSC) is the presence of “ 'Good’ public transport links”, these being “accessibility by public transport to a GP, a hospital, a primary school, a secondary school, areas of employment and a major retail centre....within a 30-minute public transport journey of each destination type” (Core Strategy Section 2.13 p19). Such public transport is not available to Levens Residents and only the most cynical interpretation of the criterion would say it is.

4.2 Sustainability as an LSC. Levens is only differentiated from other villages that are not LSCs (e.g. Heversham) in that it has a shop. Heversham indeed has better public transport links. This seems an inadequate qualification for Levens to be assigned Local Service Centre status. LSCs are described as “like Key Service Centres but offer fewer services” (Core Strategy p2). Levens certainly offers fewer services than Kendal, Milnthorpe, Kirkby Lonsdale. Grange etc. but is not at all like any of them except that it contains houses.

The proposed development will merely add estates of houses to Levens. It is difficult to see how this contributes to the sustainable community vision described in Core Strategy section 1.39 (p9), “... to make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit”, and become one of the “inclusive, sustainable” communities with, “... a more balanced population, with an increase in the proportion of children and young people, and people of all ages playing a full role in community life”.

4.3 The Core Strategy (sec. 2.14 p19) contains a process for reviewing the hierarchical status of settlements, at 5 year intervals to reflect the gain or loss of qualifying criteria. However, this process will be ineffective in the case of loss of criteria, for the planning permissions for Levens will have been granted within the first 5 years.

5. Issues of Deliverability

5.1 Inadequate Infrastructure. There is no evidence that development will await infrastructure upgrade, and on the basis of past neglect I have no confidence that it will. Levens residents are fully aware of the inadequacy of utilities which have developed haphazardly over the years as the village has grown. On 29th Mar. 2012 the LRG chairman saw a major escape of raw sewage from the main sewer into the Levens Catchwater, repeating an incident on 24th Mar. 2011. His presence on both occasins was a coincidence & no guide to the total of such events.

In drainage as in transport there is no infrastructure plan to provide modern, reliable services. For example, it is well known that the capacity of the sewage system in Milnthorpe (which deals with Levens' sewage) is already overstretched & UU have stated that they have no budget to upgrade it and that “even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT” (SLDC Land Allocations, Position Statement published March 2012, section 4.23 (p11) & 4.36 (p13).

Another example is the outages suffered by the various separate electricity supplies. This argues that the system is over-stretched & the statement in the Position Statement that “If there are significant demand increases across a local distribution electricity network area then the local network distribution operator may seek reinforcements at an existing substation or a new grid supply point” (Position Statement 4.45 p14) does not encourage us to believe there will be an adequate supply to support the proposed development. This is either unsound or unsustainable or both. The Position Statement is in effect a wish list without proof that all partners are signed up for it and have plans which will deliver the infrastructure.

5.2 Unrealistic model. Overall forecasts of the need for new housing (open- market & affordable) do not appear to take into account the prevailing economic conditions in Britain (very low growth in the economy & generally stagnant personal incomes), yet the target dating back to 2008/9 of 8800 new houses between 2003 & 2025 remains unchanged. I do not believe that SLDC's area is immune from these conditions. SLDC provision of affordables is dependent on a financial model that requires a buoyant housing market, and it assumes that 'if you build it, they will come'. There is far too much uncertainty in this approach for it to be the exclusive basis of a sound policy.

5.3 SLDC seem to have recognised this and have used the word “ambition” regarding the figure of 400 houses per year in the Land Allocations DPD (LADPD p7). The word used in the Core Strategy document is “target” (CS p121). It would appear that SLDC is backtracking on Core Strategy, making the LA DPD unsound.

6. Issues of compatibility with National Policy

6.1 Localism. There is no doubt that the Land Allocations DPD reflects national policy, if that policy is the Regional Spatial Strategy, but, the RSS is no longer national policy, which is now contained in the Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework. The imposition of the DPD by SLDC flies in the face of the principle of localism i.e. that “Instead of local people being told what to do, the Government thinks that local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live” (Department for Communities and Local Government, A plain English guide to the Localism Act, November 2011 – p15).

The Land Allocations DPD is completely at variance with parishioners desire for “limited development” reflected in the Levens Village Plan (2008), and the 2011 SHMA report does not reveal the figures for housing need obtained from Levens respondents.

7, Issues of consideration of Reasonable Alternatives

7.1 The only evidence of the examination of reasonable alternatives is that of the merits of the various sites in the Levens Fact File. The potential of other large sites becoming available (e.g. the Brettargh Holt Convent due to be offered for sale in July 2012) and affecting decisions re. location of housing, is not recognised in the Land Allocations DPD.

7.2 No evidence is presented of alternative strategies re. financing social housing as a means of providing affordables, or of other models of geographical distribution across the SLDC district e.g. creation of a new settlement or settlements to relieve the pressure on existing villages so that development within them is restricted to satisfying local needs.

7.3 There is no evidence that SLDC has considered using any other powers which are available to them, such as those related to taking over empty properties to increase the housing stock under the provisions of Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 and those related to taking out an “Empty Dwelling Management Order” under the 2004 Housing Act.

8. Issues of specific sites

8.1Site RN121M-Mod. Since the Alternative Sites Consultation it has come to light that one of the 3 different landowners owning this site is unwilling to sell. This effectively reduces the developable site area by c30% (Levens Fact File, February 2012, p81) and the estimated housing yield accordingly. This and the difficult topography of the site would likely make development of it uneconomic and hence the allocation in the SLDC document is probably undeliverable and therefore unsound. LRG surveys revealed a widespread opinion that the site is an eyesore. The derelict buildings should be dealt with under the provisions of the Buildings Act 1984.

8.2 Site R51M. Development of this site will create a salient projecting eastwards into open country, opening the way for further developments in the fields to its south by partially surrounding site R105 thereby increasing the likelihood of future infill development.

The Levens Fact File (p79) cites “Great bio-diversity value at this site” which contains European protected species and “will need extensive mitigation”. This statement is a form of words that guarantees nothing other than pious hopes and is therefore unsustainable.

8.3 As far as the mitigation of the effect of future development on adjoining households is concerned, I am disappointed to hear that neither RN121M-Mod nor R51M would qualify for a Development Brief.

END

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I believe that there are fundamental flaws in the soundness of the plans and that these need to be addressed by the Inspector

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Levens sites

No

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Not all Stake-Holders consulted properly re. RN121M-Mod, one of landowners is not a willing seller.

No

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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.

2. Issues of Community Involvement

2.1 The documents upon which the Plan is based are so numerous and complex that the average householder does not have the time, experience or ability to make a reasoned judgement as to the soundness of the Plan. It is clearly impossible to complete the form unless you are very well informed and people are not going to have the time or the inclination to spend the sort of time necessary. This discriminates against a large proportion of the population.

All those without access to the Internet are at an even greater disadvantage in view of the difficulties in obtaining printed copies of the relevant documents.

The final consultation document, in form and wording, is too restrictive. This, the complexity of the issues, and the (originally imposed but now lifted) 500 word limit appear to be deliberate attempts to stifle objection.

2.2 It is made clear in the SLDC Statement of Community Involvement that SLDC is committed to certain principles (Paragraph 2.4), specifically, “an opportunity for early and on-going input, at stages where responses can make a difference”. It is less clear that any inputs differing from SLDC presumptions have been considered. From 2005 onwards SLDC actively encouraged Communities to produce a Parish /Village Plan in order to inform future planning, as well as to enhance & protect their environment.

In Dec 2008 Levens Village Plan was published, having consulted every adult in each household in the Parish (857), the Mother & Toddler Group, the Primary School, the 11-18’s and all businesses. The questionnaire return rate was a very high, 76%. (651 out of 857)

In 2008 a Rural Housing Needs Survey (RHNS) was also conducted in the Village, which identified a need for 12 affordable homes for young people in the next 5 years.

SLDC has had a copy of the Levens Village Plan since 2008 & indeed held it up as an excellent example of what a Village Plan should be. Why is it now ignored?

Similarly, SLDC has ignored the wishes of Levens parishioners expressed in responses to previous consultations. The Levens Residents Group surveyed the opinions of all parishioners for the Emerging Options and Alternative Sites consultations, and the views expressed by the vast majority of respondents (all households asked to give opinions, over 35% responded to each survey) were that development envisaged in the SLDC proposals is far too big for the village.

SLDC has allocated 73 houses (23 on site RN121M-Mod & 50 on site R51M), whereas all Levens need is 11 Affordables (one of the 12 people identified in the 2008 Rural Housing Needs Survey is known to have obtained a house).

The Village Plan identified “small developments” for future planning. A small development is not a site for 50 houses (Site R51M) in a Parish of 525 dwellings.

If the SLDC policy, as expressed in the Land Allocations DPD, does not reflect local opinion or goes directly against it, and therefore does not reflect the Localism Act, this Policy is rendered unsound.

3. Issues of Sustainable Community Strategy

3.1 Infrastructure Position Statement section 4.68 (p19) states, “Any new housing developments, combined within an ageing population can be expected [to] heighten the requirement for the provision of additional services”. The Core Strategy shirks responsibility for the issue, merely referring to the requirement for “all new houses that are built are suitable, or easily adaptable, for occupation by the elderly and infirm (Lifetime Homes Standard or equivalent).” (CS 7.10 p78). The provision of more specialist accommodation is seen as the responsibility of the County Council Social Services dept. (CS 6.2 p79). SLDC recognises the presence, and future increase, of a large elderly population, but does not take a holistic approach to dealing with the problem. This conflicts with the vision put forward in CS 1.39 (p9) for “people of all ages”.

4. Issues of Sustainability as applied to Levens

4.1 Public Transport. The Village has one bus service (530), running between Kendal and Grange-Over-Sands at times that allow no possibility of its use for commuting to full-time employment.

The 555 bus services to Kendal & Lancaster do not enter the village and pedestrian access to them at the bus stops near Levens Bridge & the Heaves Hotel along the A6/A590/A591 is not safe owing to the need to walk along busy roads (e.g. Levens Lane, Dukes Hill and A6) where there are neither footpaths nor street lighting. They are also too far away for pedestrian access other than by fit & active people, thereby discriminating against the elderly and disabled.

There are no cycling routes from Levens to Key Local Centres that are safe (i.e. avoiding busy “A” roads) , practical and direct.

The conclusion from the above is that virtually all commuting to Key Local Centres by those in the planned houses would be by car. This cannot meet any reasonable definition of “sustainable”, including environmental friendliness and reduction of carbon footprint.

Roads within and leading to and from the village are generally narrow with single width “pinch points” and are therefore unsuitable for a greater density of traffic. I note that one of the main through-roads in the village (Church Rd.) has been reduced in width at one junction by up to 25% by the provision of a pavement leading nowhere (at Greengate Gardens).

The village has only a part-time Post Office (three afternoons per week).

There are no specific proposals to improve the above situation contained in the Infrastructure Position Statement.

A criteria of status as a Local Service Centre (LSC) is the presence of “ 'Good’ public transport links”, these being “accessibility by public transport to a GP, a hospital, a primary school, a secondary school, areas of employment and a major retail centre....within a 30-minute public transport journey of each destination type” (Core Strategy Section 2.13 p19). Such public transport is not available to Levens Residents and only the most cynical interpretation of the criterion would say it is.

4.2 Sustainability as an LSC. Levens is only differentiated from other villages that are not LSCs (e.g. Heversham) in that it has a shop. Heversham indeed has better public transport links. This seems an inadequate qualification for Levens to be assigned Local Service Centre status. LSCs are described as “like Key Service Centres but offer fewer services” (Core Strategy p2). Levens certainly offers fewer services than Kendal, Milnthorpe, Kirkby Lonsdale. Grange etc. but is not at all like any of them except that it contains houses.

The proposed development will merely add estates of houses to Levens. It is difficult to see how this contributes to the sustainable community vision described in Core Strategy section 1.39 (p9), “... to make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit”, and become one of the “inclusive, sustainable” communities with, “... a more balanced population, with an increase in the proportion of children and young people, and people of all ages playing a full role in community life”.

4.3 The Core Strategy (sec. 2.14 p19) contains a process for reviewing the hierarchical status of settlements, at 5 year intervals to reflect the gain or loss of qualifying criteria. However, this process will be ineffective in the case of loss of criteria, for the planning permissions for Levens will have been granted within the first 5 years.

5. Issues of Deliverability

5.1 Inadequate Infrastructure. There is no evidence that development will await infrastructure upgrade, and on the basis of past neglect I have no confidence that it will. Levens residents are fully aware of the inadequacy of utilities which have developed haphazardly over the years as the village has grown. On 29th Mar. 2012 the LRG chairman saw a major escape of raw sewage from the main sewer into the Levens Catchwater, repeating an incident on 24th Mar. 2011. His presence on both occasins was a coincidence & no guide to the total of such events.

In drainage as in transport there is no infrastructure plan to provide modern, reliable services. For example, it is well known that the capacity of the sewage system in Milnthorpe (which deals with Levens' sewage) is already overstretched & UU have stated that they have no budget to upgrade it and that “even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT” (SLDC Land Allocations, Position Statement published March 2012, section 4.23 (p11) & 4.36 (p13).

Another example is the outages suffered by the various separate electricity supplies. This argues that the system is over-stretched & the statement in the Position Statement that “If there are significant demand increases across a local distribution electricity network area then the local network distribution operator may seek reinforcements at an existing substation or a new grid supply point” (Position Statement 4.45 p14) does not encourage us to believe there will be an adequate supply to support the proposed development. This is either unsound or unsustainable or both. The Position Statement is in effect a wish list without proof that all partners are signed up for it and have plans which will deliver the infrastructure.

5.2 Unrealistic model. Overall forecasts of the need for new housing (open- market & affordable) do not appear to take into account the prevailing economic conditions in Britain (very low growth in the economy & generally stagnant personal incomes), yet the target dating back to 2008/9 of 8800 new houses between 2003 & 2025 remains unchanged. I do not believe that SLDC's area is immune from these conditions. SLDC provision of affordables is dependent on a financial model that requires a buoyant housing market, and it assumes that 'if you build it, they will come'. There is far too much uncertainty in this approach for it to be the exclusive basis of a sound policy.

5.3 SLDC seem to have recognised this and have used the word “ambition” regarding the figure of 400 houses per year in the Land Allocations DPD (LADPD p7). The word used in the Core Strategy document is “target” (CS p121). It would appear that SLDC is backtracking on Core Strategy, making the LA DPD unsound.

6. Issues of compatibility with National Policy

6.1 Localism. There is no doubt that the Land Allocations DPD reflects national policy, if that policy is the Regional Spatial Strategy, but, the RSS is no longer national policy, which is now contained in the Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework. The imposition of the DPD by SLDC flies in the face of the principle of localism i.e. that “Instead of local people being told what to do, the Government thinks that local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live” (Department for Communities and Local Government, A plain English guide to the Localism Act, November 2011 – p15).

The Land Allocations DPD is completely at variance with parishioners desire for “limited development” reflected in the Levens Village Plan (2008), and the 2011 SHMA report does not reveal the figures for housing need obtained from Levens respondents.

7, Issues of consideration of Reasonable Alternatives

7.1 The only evidence of the examination of reasonable alternatives is that of the merits of the various sites in the Levens Fact File. The potential of other large sites becoming available (e.g. the Brettargh Holt Convent due to be offered for sale in July 2012) and affecting decisions re. location of housing, is not recognised in the Land Allocations DPD.

7.2 No evidence is presented of alternative strategies re. financing social housing as a means of providing affordables, or of other models of geographical distribution across the SLDC district e.g. creation of a new settlement or settlements to relieve the pressure on existing villages so that development within them is restricted to satisfying local needs.

7.3 There is no evidence that SLDC has considered using any other powers which are available to them, such as those related to taking over empty properties to increase the housing stock under the provisions of Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 and those related to taking out an “Empty Dwelling Management Order” under the 2004 Housing Act.

8. Issues of specific sites

8.1Site R121M-Mod. Since the Alternative Sites Consultation it has come to light that one of the 3 different landowners owning this site is unwilling to sell. This effectively reduces the developable site area by c30% (Levens Fact File, February 2012, p81) and the estimated housing yield accordingly. This and the difficult topography of the site would likely make development of it uneconomic and hence the allocation in the SLDC document is probably undeliverable and therefore unsound. LRG surveys revealed a widespread opinion that the site is an eyesore. The derelict buildings should be dealt with under the provisions of the Buildings Act 1984.

8.2 Site R51M. Development of this site will create a salient projecting eastwards into open country, opening the way for further developments in the fields to its south by partially surrounding site R105 thereby increasing the likelihood of future infill development.

The Levens Fact File (p79) cites “Great bio-diversity value at this site” which contains European protected species and “will need extensive mitigation”. This statement is a form of words that guarantees nothing other than pious hopes and is therefore unsustainable.

8.3 As far as the mitigation of the effect of future development on adjoining households is concerned, I am disappointed to hear that neither R121M-Mod nor R51M would qualify for a Development Brief.

END

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I believe that there are fundamental flaws in the soundness of the plans and that these need to be addressed by the Inspector

Please notify me