2 responses from Mr and Mrs GJD Little (Individual)
1. Mr and Mrs GJD Little (Individual) : 17 May 2012 09:24:00
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 - R89 GRANGE-OVER-SANDS NORTH OF CARTER ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
NB: Acknowledgement that the DPD is legally compliant should not be taken to imply support for its contents.
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.
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.
Please find enclosed herewith a Publication Stage Representation Form, duly completed, with reference to the Berry Bank field site variously labelled MN15 R353 or, most recently R89, together with , for reference purposes, a copy of our comments, already received by you, following the Development Team's Open Day in Grange held on April 5th 2011.
It would appear that the above document is legally compliant; however it will be noted that we regard the DPD in its present form as 'unsound', as failing the test we have indicated in section 2.2 on page 4.
For details of objection and indications of how DPD should be amended, see attached sheets A1 & A2 [text detailed below]:
A1: Note: Having telephoned the 'help-line' number 0845 050 4434, we have been assured that the following comment need not be in capital letters, nor need it be restricted to 500 words.
It would seem that, and I quote, 'each comment will require a seperate form'; this being the case, though we consider it a wasteful and scarcely satisfactory procedure, it will be in the circumstances necessary to concentrate on one aspect to illustrate our belief that the DPD in its present form is 'unsound'.
Appendix8 Grange over Sands Emerging Options consultation Stage 1 (Final Version) relates to the area 'Grange South' and the site which is of concern to use, namely MN15, or R89, (Berry Bank field). In it, some twenty or more objections are raised by persons with properties adjoining this site, from the boundary of which one corner of our bungalow is less than five feet.
In a few instances, the council's reply is that the objection is "noted" (presumably meaning 'dismissed'). To one objection, the unbelievable response is that it is "unclear what is meant" by 'disruption due to the construction of dwellings' on the site - followed shortly afterwards by the admission that it would take approximately one year for every thirty houses and would involve "noise and vibration for adjoining properties". Our comment, however, concerns the fact that in more than half of the council's responses is the statement, which might be cynically regarded by some as a 'let-out clause', and I quote -
[A2] "Mitigation measures will be a requirement to offset any potential adverse impact". This statement, in these words in each case, is applied equally to questions as widely diverse as site access, drainage, biodiversity, increase in and disruption to local traffic, etc. No indication is given of what this "mitigation" will involve, who will decide on its definition in the circumstances, what it will cost , or sho precisely will be responsible for its execution, clearly suggesting that the council hasn't as yet made any decisions. The DPD as it stands is therefore clearly 'unsound'. Incidentally, the concluding summary of Appendix 8, as well as stating that site R89 Berry Bank's "hedgerows and trees should be retained" (there are no 'trees' on the site, they are all in the private properties around its perimeter), declares that "opportunities for mitigation and enhancement (another undefined term) should be taken", not "will be required"! For the SLDC Land Allocations DPD to be regarded as sound, the 'mitigating measures', wherever referred to, should be described in detail, rather than being included as a repeated and vaguely worded footnote; until this is done, whatever time it may take, the DPD will not fulfil the criterion of 'soundness'.
[Comments made following the Development Team's Open Day in Grange held on April 5th 2011]:
The Environment of Area MN15 R353 R89:
Access to the above area (by name Bery Bank), at present only by way
of a farm-gate, would, supposing it is proposed to erect numerous
dwellings on this site, be of necessity either from the length of
Allithwaite Road defined by the existing wall and hedge from the
telephone box at the top of the hill (See map: marked B) to the prominent
telegraph pole (marked P), and/or on the southern side from the junction
of Allithwaite Road with Carter Road as far as the 90-degree corner at
Carter Bam, where Kentsford Road leads down to Kents Bank railway
station. Evidently there would be no question of constructing two
entrances, one in the north boundary of the Area and one in the south
boundary having a direct and easy connexion with each other, as the
existence of such north-south route through the Area would encourage its
use as the kind of short-cut familiarly known as a 'rat run'.
To consider first the Allithwaite Road approach to the Area. Drivers
of vehicles climbing the short but steep and winding hill from the town
centre can only see the telephone box (B) at the last moment, and often
encounter cars emerging from the very narrow road on their right leading
to the Guides Lot rubbish disposal site. Having reached the summit of
the hill, it is quite usual, except on the rare occasions when a police
camera van is present, for motorists to exceed the speed limit, there being
no repeat traffic signals at this point to warn them that the 30 mph zone
continues for another 100 or so metres. This and the year-by-year increasing volume of traffic, makes an exit from Cardrona Court (CC), even when the speed limit is observed, not without risk, because of limited visibility.
As regards the southern boundary of the Area, this is at present
defmed by a length of stone wall, behind which the field slopes steeply
upward. Vehicles approaching the 90-degree corner where Carter Road
meets Kentsford Road, whether from the direction of Allithwaite Road or
from the Kents Bank station direction, have very restricted visibility, to
which any southern exit from Berry Bank would pose an additional
hazard. It is quite obvious therefore that any vehicle emerging from Area
MN15 R353 R89, whether from an exit in its northerly or south
boundary, could encounter considerable difficulties, such as even in the
present circumstances are already experienced by residents, particularly
those living along the Allithwaite Road.
Berry Bank (the Area designated MN15 R353 R89}:
To pass now to the subject of how the proposed building of houses on
Berry Bank would affect properties (like ours) directly bordering on the
field itself. My wife and I would not presume to suggest what opinions
other property-owners in this situation might have, but confine ourselves
to our own concerns and anxieties. The first of these is regarding the
question of land drainage. The surface of Berry Bank has at its northern
end a surface measurably higher than parts of our back garden. On
several occasions in the past year, the heavy cloudbursts which are now
becoming more common, even of short duration have produced the
phenomenon of a stream of fast-flowing if shallow water emanating from
the field near the comer of our bungalow (marked M on map), which is
literally only 2 metres from the field boundary, and running past the rear
wall of the bungalow to collect in a sizeable pool by the wooden fence
separating us from our neigbbour. We are in consequence extremely
concerned as to what effect the presence of 45 houses, all requiring
adequate drainage, and the process itself of erecting and servicing these
dwellings (which will certainly interfere with the natural drainage of the
field ), would have on our property. Next, and not entirely unconnected
with this, is our belief that there is insufficient space in Berry Bank field
for such a large number of houses. Surely- and at present no plans seem
to be available - they would have to be small and very close together to
allow for roadways, parking facilities, etc.; and, lest we should be
accused of snobbery, I refrain from adding, not in keeping with their
surroundings. Allowing an average of three occupants and one vehicle for each household, this would result in the appearance in a previously very quiet neighbourhood of perhaps some 150 persons and 50 vehicles.
When, at tbe meeting on April 5th, I ventured to enquire whether the resultant
loss of value {as attractive places for retirement) of local
properties, as well as the loss of privacy, and -in our particular instance the
total loss of our much-admired view across the Bay, would result
perhaps in an adjustment of rateable value. This was, I would not say
ridiculed, but instantly dismissed. Finally, there was at the meeting
reference to 'affordable housing'. Affordable by whom, exactly, in the
present financial situation and for the foreseeable future, with rising unemployment
and sluggishness of some banks as regards mortgages ?
Housing for local people was mentioned, but not where they would be
able to find sufficiently well-paid employment to afford it. What
restrictions would be put in place to ensure that nobody wonld be allowed
to buy more than one property, or buy simply to sub-let ?
Because of the apparent lack of answers to these questions, as well as our
considered opinion that the Area is unsuitable for development, for tbe
reasons we have outlined elsewhere, we oppose the suggestion that the
Area designated MN15 R353 R89, Beery Bank field, should be used.
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 and Mrs GJD Little (Individual) : 17 May 2012 10:06:00
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
Paragraph No.
1.9
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
NB: Acknowlegement that the DPD is legally compliant should not be taken to imply support for its contents.
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.
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.
Please find enclosed herewith a Publication Stage Representation Form, duly completed, with reference to the Berry Bank field site variously labelled MN15 R353 or, most recently R89, together with , for reference purposes, a copy of our comments, already received by you, following the Development Team's Open Day in Grange held on April 5th 2011.
It would appear that the above document is legally compliant; however it will be noted that we regard the DPD in its present form as 'unsound', as failing the test we have indicated in section 2.2 on page 4.
For details of objection and indications of how DPD should be amended, see attached sheets A1 & A2 [text detailed below]:
A1: Note: Having telephoned the 'help-line' number 0845 050 4434, we have been assured that the following comment need not be in capital letters, nor need it be restricted to 500 words.
It would seem that, and I quote, 'each comment will require a seperate form'; this being the case, though we consider it a wasteful and scarcely satisfactory procedure, it will be in the circumstances necessary to concentrate on one aspect to illustrate our belief that the DPD in its present form is 'unsound'.
Appendix8 Grange over Sands Emerging Options consultation Stage 1 (Final Version) relates to the area 'Grange South' and the site which is of concern to use, namely MN15, or R89, (Berry Bank field). In it, some twenty or more objections are raised by persons with properties adjoining this site, from the boundary of which one corner of our bungalow is less than five feet.
In a few instances, the council's reply is that the objection is "noted" (presumably meaning 'dismissed'). To one objection, the unbelievable response is that it is "unclear what is meant" by 'disruption due to the construction of dwellings' on the site - followed shortly afterwards by the admission that it would take approximately one year for every thirty houses and would involve "noise and vibration for adjoining properties". Our comment, however, concerns the fact that in more than half of the council's responses is the statement, which might be cynically regarded by some as a 'let-out clause', and I quote -
[A2] "Mitigation measures will be a requirement to offset any potential adverse impact". This statement, in these words in each case, is applied equally to questions as widely diverse as site access, drainage, biodiversity, increase in and disruption to local traffic, etc. No indication is given of what this "mitigation" will involve, who will decide on its definition in the circumstances, what it will cost , or sho precisely will be responsible for its execution, clearly suggesting that the council hasn't as yet made any decisions. The DPD as it stands is therefore clearly 'unsound'. Incidentally, the concluding summary of Appendix 8, as well as stating that site R89 Berry Bank's "hedgerows and trees should be retained" (there are no 'trees' on the site, they are all in the private properties around its perimeter), declares that "opportunities for mitigation and enhancement (another undefined term) should be taken", not "will be required"! For the SLDC Land Allocations DPD to be regarded as sound, the 'mitigating measures', wherever referred to, should be described in detail, rather than being included as a repeated and vaguely worded footnote; until this is done, whatever time it may take, the DPD will not fulfil the criterion of 'soundness'.
[Comments made following the Development Team's Open Day in Grange held on April 5th 2011]:
At the Open Day held by the Development Team at Grange over Sands
on April 5th 2011, the decided impression, not just of my wife and myself
but the audience in general, was that comments by those present
regarding potential housing sites would be of limited value. This was
first because such sites, and the number of dwellings to be erected on
each, had the appearance of having been already decided upon, secondly
because no detailed plans of the layout of the proposed dwellings on each
site seemed to be available for study, and thirdly because in the face of
substantial opposition by the audience, the team's only and oft-repeated
reply was that they had no choice in the matter, by virtue of being compelled by central government, despite what effect the erection of 500
houses might have upon the character of Grange as a tourist attraction
and/or a place to which people might quietly retire.
When, at tbe meeting on April 5th, I ventured to enquire whether the resultant
loss of value {as attractive places for retirement) of local
properties, as well as the loss of privacy, and -in our particular instance the
total loss of our much-admired view across the Bay, would result
perhaps in an adjustment of rateable value. This was, I would not say
ridiculed, but instantly dismissed. Finally, there was at the meeting
reference to 'affordable housing'. Affordable by whom, exactly, in the
present financial situation and for the foreseeable future, with rising unemployment
and sluggishness of some banks as regards mortgages ?
Housing for local people was mentioned, but not where they would be
able to find sufficiently well-paid employment to afford it. What
restrictions would be put in place to ensure that nobody wonld be allowed
to buy more than one property, or buy simply to sub-let ?
Because of the apparent lack of answers to these questions, as well as our
considered opinion that the Area is unsuitable for development, for tbe
reasons we have outlined elsewhere, we oppose the suggestion that the
Area designated MN15 R353 R89, Beery Bank field, should be used.
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
