2 responses from Mrs Frances Woolgrove (Individual)
1. Mrs Frances Woolgrove (Individual) : 9 May 2012 15:53:00
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 - RN169M+ RN299# KENDAL WEST OF HIGH SPARROWMIRE
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.
These proposals cannot be considered 'sound'. Of nearly 3000 responses to the ian
allocations document (DPD) consultation in the Kendal area, 98% opposed the sites
included in the document. The views of the local residents and the huge environment
impact appear to have been totally ignored. True sustainability, when considering an
application, gives equal weight to the interests of people, prosperity and places. In this
instance, this certainly does not appear to have been the case.
There are many issues of concern for Site RN169M and RN299l\which I have alread
expressed in writing on previous occasions. Amongst these concerns are the
environmental destruction such a development would cause and the concern that in the
future when the land is needed for food production, the land will no longer be available.
Once it is built on it is gone forever.
I've already mentioned the strong possibility of flooding, the lack of provision for mains
gas, sewage and possible subsequent pollution of the River Kent in a previous response
but nobody has allayed my fears about any of these.
I have also previously mentioned my concerns over the heavy increase in traffic flow,
both along Windermere Road as well as the Hallgarth estate. I feel the councillors are
completely ignoring public opinion in all these matters and see no evidence of them
talking to local community groups as they indicated they would.
I fully support the need for more housing but I have serious concerns that we don't use
up all of our green field sites for building. I strongly believe that we need to consider very
carefully the overall cost of exploiting our fragile landscape -especially with the current
global constraints regarding oil and food production and with our increased demands to
live more sustainably. Development of this and other green field sites would steal
valuable land away from food production for future generations. We must first make
creative use of brown field sites and unused housing stock to meet the housing need
before carving up our fragile landscape.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mrs Frances Woolgrove (Individual) : 9 May 2012 16:05:00
Paragraph No.
3.14
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.
These proposals cannot be considered 'sound'. Of nearly 3000 responses to the ian
allocations document (DPD) consultation in the Kendal area, 98% opposed the sites included in the document. The views of the local residents and the huge environment impact appear to have been totally ignored. True sustainability, when considering an
application, gives equal weight to the interests of people, prosperity and places. In this
instance, this certainly does not appear to have been the case.
There are many issues of concern for Site RN169M and RN299l\which I have alread
expressed in writing on previous occasions. Amongst these concerns are the
environmental destruction such a development would cause and the concern that in the
future when the land is needed for food production, the land will no longer be available.
Once it is built on it is gone forever.
I've already mentioned the strong possibility of flooding, the lack of provision for mains
gas, sewage and possible subsequent pollution of the River Kent in a previous response
but nobody has allayed my fears about any of these.
I have also previously mentioned my concerns over the heavy increase in traffic flow,
both along Windermere Road as well as the Hallgarth estate. I feel the councillors are
completely ignoring public opinion in all these matters and see no evidence of them
talking to local community groups as they indicated they would.
I fully support the need for more housing but I have serious concerns that we don't use
up all of our green field sites for building. I strongly believe that we need to consider very
carefully the overall cost of exploiting our fragile landscape -especially with the current
global constraints regarding oil and food production and with our increased demands to
live more sustainably. Development of this and other green field sites would steal
valuable land away from food production for future generations. We must first make
creative use of brown field sites and unused housing stock to meet the housing need
before carving up our fragile landscape.
