2 responses from Mr Andrew Hodgson (Individual)
1. Mr Andrew Hodgson (Individual) : 13 Mar 2012 20:53:00
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 - RN109M RN315# SWARTHMOOR OFF CROSS-a-MOOR
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?
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 proposal to build more housing anywhere in Ulverston is not understood or justified by local people. Where is the demand for housing coming from? I have been searching Internet websites for jobs regularly for the past 10 years as Ulverston has been badly hit by downsizing at local companies. There are hardly any jobs available in the Ulverston or Barrow area - as of 13 March the Evening Mail website has 5 jobs in Ulverston (3 of which are repeated – they are the same role advertised three times), Barrow has 3 jobs, whilst Kendal has 22 jobs and Lancaster has 45 jobs advertised. On the jobs in Cumbria website there are 23 jobs advertised in Ulverston (more than 12 are actually at hotels outside Ulverston and 2 in Barrow, whilst there are 76 jobs advertised in Kendal). This means if the proposals for the current amount of housing in Ulverston goes ahead, there will be even more people commuting on the notoriously dangerous A590. Statistics compiled by Cumbria Constabulary have revealed that 30 people have been killed on the A590 between the end of 2000 and the end of 2010. I understand the Highways Agency are currently working on proposals to improve this road. However, I am sure the plans do not include an increase associated with extra vehicles which will result from all the extra housing. Any road death is too many for loved ones left behind and this kind of death toll means safety improvements are clearly needed on the A590. Anyone doing a traffic assessment needs to fully monitor the road at Cross-o-Moor, Swarthmoor at all times of the day during the week (with traffic at peak times from 7.00-9.00 am, 2.30 pm- 3.30 pm and 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm and not just when the traffic appears to be less busy ). Only two weeks ago, there was an accident at Cross-o-Moor involving a motorcyclist and a car, this junction cannot cope with traffic to the existing estate/local villages, never mind 160 houses on yet another estate. There are high traffic safety risks taken by individuals to get onto and leave the A590 at Cross-o-Moor and there is often a build up of traffic in both directions – this area cannot stand any further traffic. Therefore on the above grounds, this development is not sound. There must be better areas to support the council’s ambitions for additional housing.
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 Andrew Hodgson (Individual) : 15 May 2012 13:34:00
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 - All Ulverston sites
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?
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 proposal to build more housing anywhere in Ulverston is not understood or justified by local people. Where is the demand for housing coming from? I have been searching Internet websites for jobs regularly for the past 10 years as Ulverston has been badly hit by downsizing at local companies. There are hardly any jobs available in the Ulverston or Barrow area - as of 13 March the Evening Mail website has 5 jobs in Ulverston (3 of which are repeated – they are the same role advertised three times), Barrow has 3 jobs, whilst Kendal has 22 jobs and Lancaster has 45 jobs advertised. On the jobs in Cumbria website there are 23 jobs advertised in Ulverston (more than 12 are actually at hotels outside Ulverston and 2 in Barrow, whilst there are 76 jobs advertised in Kendal). This means if the proposals for the current amount of housing in Ulverston goes ahead, there will be even more people commuting on the notoriously dangerous A590. Statistics compiled by Cumbria Constabulary have revealed that 30 people have been killed on the A590 between the end of 2000 and the end of 2010. I understand the Highways Agency are currently working on proposals to improve this road. However, I am sure the plans do not include an increase associated with extra vehicles which will result from all the extra housing. Any road death is too many for loved ones left behind and this kind of death toll means safety improvements are clearly needed on the A590. Anyone doing a traffic assessment needs to fully monitor the road at Cross-o-Moor, Swarthmoor at all times of the day during the week (with traffic at peak times from 7.00-9.00 am, 2.30 pm- 3.30 pm and 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm and not just when the traffic appears to be less busy ). Only two weeks ago, there was an accident at Cross-o-Moor involving a motorcyclist and a car, this junction cannot cope with traffic to the existing estate/local villages, never mind 160 houses on yet another estate. There are high traffic safety risks taken by individuals to get onto and leave the A590 at Cross-o-Moor and there is often a build up of traffic in both directions – this area cannot stand any further traffic. Therefore on the above grounds, this development is not sound. There must be better areas to support the council’s ambitions for additional housing.
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
