7 responses from Mr Martin Kennedy (Individual)
1. Mr Martin Kennedy (Individual) : 17 Apr 2012 00:13:00
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.
0.5 Section 5
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.
Comments relate to the whole plan for Ulverston, but in particular the the large scale plans for additional housing at Croftlands Estate (ref 5.15 to 5.24)
It is difficult to understand any justification for the 1200 properties proposed in Ulverston. This would seem to be simply an aspiration on the Council's part rather than based on real needs. The number of additional properties is completely inconsistent with the proposed commercial/industrial development outlined in the plan and that which would be needed to provide jobs for this number of new residents.
There is a lot of vacant property in the town at present and efforts should be focussed on getting this back into use and concentrating any new build activity on brown-field sites. This should be more than adequate to meet the needs of Ulverston.
The proposed sites at Croftlands will extend Ulverston well into open countryside, towards the beauty spot of Birkrigg Common, destroying good quality agricultural land forever. This will also destroy the feel and attraction of the town to the tourists/visitors who are vital to the economy that SLDC says it wants to grow.
It seems that the Council is planning to allow a large amount of un-needed development, just so it can achieve the volumes of affordable housing that it wants to see. The liklihood is that to fill this total amount of property, there would need to be a migration from Barrow-in-Furness, a town which is in desparate need of re-development and where there are ample brownfield sites. Any large scale housing requirements for the Furness peninsular should be centred on Barrow and the SLDC plan should be co-ordinated with that for Barrow in this respect.
Aside from the lack of justification for the total amount of development, SLDC has also ignored the real practical issues raised by local residents.
- The concentration of new property on the proposed Croftlands sites will put a large volume of extra traffic on already busy roads running through the estate and adjoining roads to join the A590, both at Cross-a-Moor and the Quebec St junction (coast road), posing a massive safety risk
- A lot of the proposed development is on land proven to flood and even if this is alleviated by local engineering projects,it will push the wider drainage and sewerage systems over the edge
- Other infrastructure, schools etc are inadequate to support the extra development
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. Mr Martin Kennedy (Individual) : 15 May 2012 15:03:00
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?
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.
Comments relate to the whole plan for Ulverston, but in particular the the large scale plans for additional housing at Croftlands Estate (ref 5.15 to 5.24)
The proposed sites at Croftlands will extend Ulverston well into open countryside, towards the beauty spot of Birkrigg Common, destroying good quality agricultural land forever. This will also destroy the feel and attraction of the town to the tourists/visitors who are vital to the economy that SLDC says it wants to grow.
- The concentration of new property on the proposed Croftlands sites will put a large volume of extra traffic on already busy roads running through the estate and adjoining roads to join the A590, both at Cross-a-Moor and the Quebec St junction (coast road), posing a massive safety risk
- A lot of the proposed development is on land proven to flood and even if this is alleviated by local engineering projects,it will push the wider drainage and sewerage systems over the edge
- Other infrastructure, schools etc are inadequate to support the extra development
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. Mr Martin Kennedy (Individual) : 15 May 2012 15:05:00
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.
5.15
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.
Comments relate to the whole plan for Ulverston, but in particular the the large scale plans for additional housing at Croftlands Estate (ref 5.15 to 5.24)
The proposed sites at Croftlands will extend Ulverston well into open countryside, towards the beauty spot of Birkrigg Common, destroying good quality agricultural land forever. This will also destroy the feel and attraction of the town to the tourists/visitors who are vital to the economy that SLDC says it wants to grow.
- The concentration of new property on the proposed Croftlands sites will put a large volume of extra traffic on already busy roads running through the estate and adjoining roads to join the A590, both at Cross-a-Moor and the Quebec St junction (coast road), posing a massive safety risk
- A lot of the proposed development is on land proven to flood and even if this is alleviated by local engineering projects,it will push the wider drainage and sewerage systems over the edge
- Other infrastructure, schools etc are inadequate to support the extra development
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. Mr Martin Kennedy (Individual) : 15 May 2012 15:06:00
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 - R697 & part R242 ULVERSTON CROFTLANDS EAST
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.
Comments relate to the whole plan for Ulverston, but in particular the the large scale plans for additional housing at Croftlands Estate (ref 5.15 to 5.24)
The proposed sites at Croftlands will extend Ulverston well into open countryside, towards the beauty spot of Birkrigg Common, destroying good quality agricultural land forever. This will also destroy the feel and attraction of the town to the tourists/visitors who are vital to the economy that SLDC says it wants to grow.
- The concentration of new property on the proposed Croftlands sites will put a large volume of extra traffic on already busy roads running through the estate and adjoining roads to join the A590, both at Cross-a-Moor and the Quebec St junction (coast road), posing a massive safety risk
- A lot of the proposed development is on land proven to flood and even if this is alleviated by local engineering projects,it will push the wider drainage and sewerage systems over the edge
- Other infrastructure, schools etc are inadequate to support the extra development
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
5. Mr Martin Kennedy (Individual) : 15 May 2012 15:07:00
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 - R690ulv, R691ULV, R126M, RN184, RN234# & part R242 ULVERSTON CROFTLANDS WEST - NOOK FARM
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.
Comments relate to the whole plan for Ulverston, but in particular the the large scale plans for additional housing at Croftlands Estate (ref 5.15 to 5.24)
The proposed sites at Croftlands will extend Ulverston well into open countryside, towards the beauty spot of Birkrigg Common, destroying good quality agricultural land forever. This will also destroy the feel and attraction of the town to the tourists/visitors who are vital to the economy that SLDC says it wants to grow.
- The concentration of new property on the proposed Croftlands sites will put a large volume of extra traffic on already busy roads running through the estate and adjoining roads to join the A590, both at Cross-a-Moor and the Quebec St junction (coast road), posing a massive safety risk
- A lot of the proposed development is on land proven to flood and even if this is alleviated by local engineering projects,it will push the wider drainage and sewerage systems over the edge
- Other infrastructure, schools etc are inadequate to support the extra development
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
6. Mr Martin Kennedy (Individual) : 15 May 2012 15:08:00
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 - RN131M,RN141#, RN321# &RN284# Ulverston - Gascow Farm
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.
Comments relate to the whole plan for Ulverston, but in particular the the large scale plans for additional housing at Croftlands Estate (ref 5.15 to 5.24)
The proposed sites at Croftlands will extend Ulverston well into open countryside, towards the beauty spot of Birkrigg Common, destroying good quality agricultural land forever. This will also destroy the feel and attraction of the town to the tourists/visitors who are vital to the economy that SLDC says it wants to grow.
- The concentration of new property on the proposed Croftlands sites will put a large volume of extra traffic on already busy roads running through the estate and adjoining roads to join the A590, both at Cross-a-Moor and the Quebec St junction (coast road), posing a massive safety risk
- A lot of the proposed development is on land proven to flood and even if this is alleviated by local engineering projects,it will push the wider drainage and sewerage systems over the edge
- Other infrastructure, schools etc are inadequate to support the extra development
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
7. Mr Martin Kennedy (Individual) : 15 May 2012 15:10:00
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
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
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.
It is difficult to understand any justification for the 1200 properties proposed in Ulverston. This would seem to be simply an aspiration on the Council's part rather than based on real needs. The number of additional properties is completely inconsistent with the proposed commercial/industrial development outlined in the plan and that which would be needed to provide jobs for this number of new residents.
There is a lot of vacant property in the town at present and efforts should be focussed on getting this back into use and concentrating any new build activity on brown-field sites. This should be more than adequate to meet the needs of Ulverston.
It seems that the Council is planning to allow a large amount of un-needed development, just so it can achieve the volumes of affordable housing that it wants to see. The liklihood is that to fill this total amount of property, there would need to be a migration from Barrow-in-Furness, a town which is in desparate need of re-development and where there are ample brownfield sites. Any large scale housing requirements for the Furness peninsular should be centred on Barrow and the SLDC plan should be co-ordinated with that for Barrow in this respect.
Aside from the lack of justification for the total amount of development, SLDC has also ignored the real practical issues raised by local residents.
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
