5 responses from Mrs L.C. Sinfield (Individual)
1. Mrs L.C. Sinfield (Individual) : 9 May 2012 16:26:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Endmoor sites
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.
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.
We are being asked to comment on the 'soundness' of the Land Allocations i.e. that ', the document is justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Unfortunately
we are not familiar with planning procedures so we are writing this as concerned
residents of 36 years and as residents who feels there are not enough answers to the
questions. We apologise in advance for the words exceeding 500!
Question 4: The present water treatment plant of the area is at capacity. There
have been indications that the treatment plant at Low Park would be enlarged
and all sewage from the new development plus from Crooklands would be
piped there. Is it sound to re-route uphill to Low Park? Would it not be a
better option to re-route to the land earmarked for Commercial buildings at
Gatebeck. At least it would be downhill and not need pumping stations. The
proposed extension at Low Park would have a greater impact on the
surrounding area. It would be visible because of its size. At Gate beck it
would be hidden and not overlooked by houses. I imagine the cost of rerouting
to Low Park would be prohibitive due to the distance. Would you be
digging up even more of the drumlins? Have you consulted with the
landowner of the Low Park treatment works? His house overlooks the site so I
can just image his reaction to an extension of the small existing works.
Question 6: It was noted in the Westmorland Gazette that our MP Mr Tim
Farron has said that there are 1000 homes in South Lakeland that are empty.
Why build 125 new homes in Endmoor when there are 1000 already available
in the area? Is it just to fill a quota? The latest edition of the Property
magazine boasts over 2500 houses for sale in the area. Is there a need for
more housing?
Finally can I just conclude by saying that Endmoor is a Village. Increasing the
boundary will make it somewhere between a town and a village. It will lose its
character. Large but having no facilities other than 1 Spar shop, 1 Bakery and 1
Working Mens Club. The Post Office is a limited outreach service at the Village
Hall. Milnthorpe, just a few miles away, for example has shops, banks, a library,
doctors, Post Office, a chemist and within the foreseeable future 2 supermarkets. By
the time SLDC has finished with Endmoor it will be nearly as big as Milnthorpe but
without the facilities. It will be a giant housing estate with a potential youth problem
as there will be nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do. 'Sound'- Do you
think so?
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
2. Mrs L.C. Sinfield (Individual) : 9 May 2012 16:28:00
Policy/Site No.
LA2.14 Land North of Sycamore Drive, Endmoor
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.
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.
Question 1: Policy LA2: 14 Land north of sycamore Drive, Endmoor. This is
a Greenfield site, an area of natural beauty as it has Ice Age drumlins along
this stretch. Why has planning been approved for housing when it was denied
for the County Showfield? Why is the SLDC now in effect reversing its
decision on the value of the landscape. The core strategy states it is your
policy "to Protect the network of green infrastructure and important
environmental characteristics". Surely digging up the drumlins is contrary to
this? It is felt this is not sound especially when reading the clause "The
protection, and where appropriate, enhancement of flora, fauna and geological
features". Geographical features being the main focus here. Once a green site
is gone, it is gone for good. You can't recreate drumlins (except by another
ice age). Is the landscape not worth preserving for future generations?
The new estate would also have to provide off road parking for at least 100
cars (though the norm these days is for 2 cars per family). Will there be
enough room? I refer to the CS 10.2 Transport impact of new development
guidelines which states that "The proposal incorporates parking standards that
are in accordance with any adopted and emerging sub-regional and/or local
policy guidance". Also "The proposal is capable of being served by safe
access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character
of the locality." Would the access to the A65 and off road parking comply? Is
it sound?
This new area would also have to be blend with the existing village. There are
a lot of nice detached properties in the village - how will the new estate blend
as I understand 35% of the housing is to be restricted to affordable housing
and 55% of this to be social rented as explained in the Core strategy.
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
3. Mrs L.C. Sinfield (Individual) : 9 May 2012 16:31:00
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 - M41M ENDMOOR NORTH OF SYCAMORE DRIVE
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.
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.
Question 1: Policy LA2: 14 Land north of sycamore Drive, Endmoor. This is
a Greenfield site, an area of natural beauty as it has Ice Age drumlins along
this stretch. Why has planning been approved for housing when it was denied
for the County Showfield? Why is the SLDC now in effect reversing its
decision on the value of the landscape. The core strategy states it is your
policy "to Protect the network of green infrastructure and important
environmental characteristics". Surely digging up the drumlins is contrary to
this? It is felt this is not sound especially when reading the clause "The
protection, and where appropriate, enhancement of flora, fauna and geological
features". Geographical features being the main focus here. Once a green site
is gone, it is gone for good. You can't recreate drumlins (except by another
ice age). Is the landscape not worth preserving for future generations?
• Question 2 : We understand that the proposed density of development is
around 30 houses per hectare (M41M/R670). The village was originally
consulted on around 64 houses for this site but the present indication now
shows up to 100 houses. The goal posts have been changed but residents were
not consulted. Is this lawful within the core strategy? The density is 'unsound'
as it is believed to be more than the guidelines and greater than the original
Sycamore development (which is very crowded and has parking problems).
The visual impact of this housing estate from the A65 would be immense as is
the amount of new traffic onto the A65 from the newly created entrance. The
villagers have not been privy to the composition of housing either. To build
1 00 homes for social housing, affordable homes and then integrate them with
similar houses in the area - plus provide green spaces - in such a small area
does not seem feasible without blocks of Flats. Flats in a village??? Will a set
of plans be made public so that we are able to comment - and have our
comments listened to? Will gardens be small thus creating a privacy problem?
Will roadways be kept clear for emergency vehicular access? This is a
problem already in parts of the village.
The new estate would also have to provide off road parking for at least 100
cars (though the norm these days is for 2 cars per family). Will there be
enough room? I refer to the CS 10.2 Transport impact of new development
guidelines which states that "The proposal incorporates parking standards that
are in accordance with any adopted and emerging sub-regional and/or local
policy guidance". Also "The proposal is capable of being served by safe
access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character
of the locality." Would the access to the A65 and off road parking comply? Is
it sound?
This new area would also have to be blend with the existing village. There are
a lot of nice detached properties in the village - how will the new estate blend
as I understand 35% of the housing is to be restricted to affordable housing
and 55% of this to be social rented as explained in the Core strategy.
• Question 3: Has any thought be given to the natural watershed of the land.
When the original Sycamore estate was developed it caused drainage problems
on the village Playing field as the natural watershed was re-routed. There is a
big difference between these 34 houses and the 100 envisaged. Has any
thought been given to how to alleviate any drainage problems which may
occur to existing properties and the school?
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
4. Mrs L.C. Sinfield (Individual) : 9 May 2012 16:35:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R670-mod ENDMOOR SOUTH OF BOWLING GREEN
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.
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.
Question 2 : We understand that the proposed density of development is
around 30 houses per hectare (M41M/R670). The village was originally
consulted on around 64 houses for this site but the present indication now
shows up to 100 houses. The goal posts have been changed but residents were
not consulted. Is this lawful within the core strategy? The density is 'unsound'
as it is believed to be more than the guidelines and greater than the original
Sycamore development (which is very crowded and has parking problems).
The visual impact of this housing estate from the A65 would be immense as is
the amount of new traffic onto the A65 from the newly created entrance. The
villagers have not been privy to the composition of housing either. To build
1 00 homes for social housing, affordable homes and then integrate them with
similar houses in the area - plus provide green spaces - in such a small area
does not seem feasible without blocks of Flats. Flats in a village??? Will a set
of plans be made public so that we are able to comment - and have our
comments listened to? Will gardens be small thus creating a privacy problem?
Will roadways be kept clear for emergency vehicular access? This is a
problem already in parts of the village.
Question 5: My comment on the 25 new houses to the rear of the Bowling
Club is to question the access. The site access would possibly be onto the
single track road which leads to Kaker Mill. It is narrow and has blind comers
so is already a dangerous lane. Would it be safe to have an access from the
new estate onto a problematic road? The Bowling Club has no designated
parking so everyone parks on the road sides which will just add to ·the
conjestion. The water treatment works which is on the other side ofthe road is
said to be at capacity so again that could cause problems. If it was decided to also re-route that to Low Park, that existing site would have to be even bigger
and more of a blot on the landscape than ever.
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
5. Mrs L.C. Sinfield (Individual) : 9 May 2012 16:38:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - EN20, EN33# ENDMOOR LAND NORTH OF GATEBECK LANE, GATEBECK
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.
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.
Question 4: The present water treatment plant of the area is at capacity. There
have been indications that the treatment plant at Low Park would be enlarged
and all sewage from the new development plus from Crooklands would be
piped there. Is it sound to re-route uphill to Low Park? Would it not be a
better option to re-route to the land earmarked for Commercial buildings at
Gatebeck. At least it would be downhill and not need pumping stations. The
proposed extension at Low Park would have a greater impact on the
surrounding area. It would be visible because of its size. At Gate beck it
would be hidden and not overlooked by houses. I imagine the cost of rerouting
to Low Park would be prohibitive due to the distance. Would you be
digging up even more of the drumlins? Have you consulted with the
landowner of the Low Park treatment works? His house overlooks the site so I
can just image his reaction to an extension of the small existing works.
Question 5: The creation of any industrial estate at Gate beck could imply that
work will be available to the new inhabitants of the enlarged Endmoor. Whilst
there is no objection to any additional employment prospects, has any indepth
thought been given to the actual siting of any new industrial estate. For
example there is capacity within the Crooklands area to increase warehousing
and light industry. There is a new industrial area being constructed at Moss
End. Both these existing sites have excellent access, both to the M6
motorway, the Yorkshire Dales and all routes east and west plus of course
Kendal. The one proposed at Gate beck would have disastrous access. It
would be serviced down a narrow country lane. The residents of Low Park
already have problems when coming out of Low Park Lane onto Gatebeck
Lane. You have to be nearly in the middle of the road before you can see what
is coming from your left. Gatebeck lane is also narrow especially at the
junction with the A65. Would SLDC widen the lane so that it could take 2
lorries abreast with a bit to spare for pedestrians. This lane is as present used
by lorries from the Quarry, the present industrial site at Gate beck, L& W
Wilson Haulage Contractors, visitors to the various caravan parks, local
residents as well as horses and dog walkers. A new Industrial park would add
even more perils to this road. The traffic problem was raised when a
Crematorium project was proposed for this site. That project was denied
plarming permission. It should also be noted that there are buildings available
to Rent on both the Gatebeck and Summerlands Industrial sites. Question?
Do we need another?
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
