Response from Mr James Simm (Individual)
1. Mr James Simm (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 22:27:00
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 - R76M BURTON-in-KENDAL EAST OF HUTTON CLOSE
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?
Yes
2.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
I refer to the recent filing by Peter Smith ( PS ) filed on behalf of Burton Parish Council and comment as follows:
1) PS tries to infer that some other commercial system ( other than demand led ) should have been considered which would allow affordable housing - in an effort to reduce the total number of houses to be built in Burton. The commercial reality is that developers need to sell property at commercial rates in order to subsidize the affordable housing. No developer will purchase a site to make a loss. PS objects - but does not offer a serious alternative and then inconsistently suggests that a demand led development is acceptable for site MN26 - but not the other sites.
2) Part of the remit of SLDC is to not only identify sites which might be suitable for housing - but also those sites which are genuinely likley to be developed. In the case of R76M the site is ready and able to be developed without delay - thus providing the required affordable housing sooner rather than later. It is not clear that the other sites identified in Burton- in-Kendal are actually available for development.
3) PS says there is a great deal of opposition to R76M - but a glance at the correspondence from previous SLDC public consultations reveal little objection to the site and so his comments are not supported by the evidence. The site is an infill and rounding off of the village boundaries and its visual impact substantially shielded by the properties already approved by SLDC on the lower slopes of the site.
4) PS also mentioned that Burton would be short of facilities to cope with the demand of extra housing but was only able to mention the GP situation in support. Clearly if the there is a greater demand the doctors would either increase their surgery hours or establish a surgery. The same applies to the bus and other services. It is well arguable that a greater number of people in the village may well sustain more services commercially - not less. SLDC cannot in their planning rely upon subsidies from the state to fund non commercial services or housing - including compulsory purchase of land - as has been suggested elsewhere - SLDC are not developers and have to rely upon the private sector to fulfill their housing needs.
5) With respect to cars - the detailed planning process will ensure sufficient car parking space for any new dwellings and so the village will not be 'swamped'.
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
