2 responses from Ms Susan Dixon (Individual)
1. Ms Susan Dixon (Individual) : 23 Apr 2012 10:21:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R121M-mod KENDAL EAST OF CASTLE GREEN ROAD
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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
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 understand that at this stage you seek to determine whether the proposal to build
on Rl21 is legal and based on evidence that it is deliverable. Since I last wrote to you I
have discovered much more about the unsoundness of the proposal.
On many previous occasions planners have pronounced upon the aesthetic value
of this site, yet now all this history is being ignored.
There has been no consideration of the implications for access. Oak Tree Road is
far too narrow, and access from Castle Green Lane involves ruining a field which
planners have now agreed should not be built upon. Oak Tree A venue access is
impossible and Castle Green Lane access is an ill-conceived alternative.
Traffic and infrastructure issues which apply to all new developments are
especially critical for this site. They render development here even more illogical than
elsewhere in town.
At the bottom of my garden lives a population of Great Crested Newts. You will
be unable to build on R121 without spending a considerable extra sum on trying to
minimise damage to their habitat in R121, RN302 and R56.
Finally, the previously agreed Development Boundary excludes R121, so I
imagine the proposal is illegal as well.
This plan is thoroughly impractical
2. Ms Susan Dixon (Individual) : 23 Apr 2012 10:24:00
Paragraph No.
1.10
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.
The Town Council has invested much time and money into making
reccommendations. They did not favour developing this field for several good reasons
but SLDC has ignored their views. They did favour developing some other sites in
town.It is improper to disregard their carefully balanced view.
