3 responses from Mr and Mrs Philip and Sylvia Buckley (Individual)
1. Mr and Mrs Philip and Sylvia Buckley (Individual) : 20 Apr 2012 10:36:00
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.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - EN20, EN33# ENDMOOR LAND NORTH OF GATEBECK LANE, GATEBECK
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.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
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.
2.3 The proposed commercial site at Gatebeck Lane
I consider the proposal to be unsound for the following reasons:
1. Increase in the level of heavy traffic
(i) Gatebeck Lane already has buses ,heavy lorries( from the local quarry and Wilsons),caravans, Commercial traffic from the existing Gatebeck development and domestic traffic from Low Park estate etc. See CS7.4 which states:
Favourable consideration will be given to suitable employment-related development in rural
areas where the proposal is of a scale in keeping with its surroundings. Bullet points include:
• Does not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic.
• Does not detract from the amenity of residential areas
(ii) As there are no footpaths in most of Gatebeck Lane and no leeway to add them in some
areas, pedestrians would be put at further risk. There have already been several accidents,
some fatal, in this lane and at the dangerous junction with the A65 road. See CS9.1 which
states:
The core strategy seeks to improve the health and well being of all residents through:
• Delivering improvements to foot and cycle paths to support active lifestyles.
I already walk or jog down this lane at my peril and there are many more elderly residents
who have to use this route whilst negotiating often speeding traffic. See SS10.2 regarding
safe access on foot etc. and addressing the needs of all including those with a disability.
(iii) Our cottage wall forms part of the boundary of Gatebeck Lane at the busy junction with
the A65. The existing traffic from Wilsons and the quarry does not always adhere to the
voluntary one way system, often coming dangerously close to this wall. We also believe that
these heavy vehicles are having a major impact on the road surface and the underlying
drainage system. The lane is constantly undergoing road repairs and we have been suffering flooding in part of our building for approximately 4 years. The Environmental Health Agency Contact No: 0845 0504434-Daniel Russell and the Highways Dept-0845 6096609 Ref No: 468948- Steve Gibson have been involved with this problem to no avail. More heavy vehicles would exacerbate the problem. See CS1.1 Point 1. Relating to addressing flood risk and CS8.8 which states:
All new development will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it would not have
a significant impact on the capacity of an area to store flood water.
The level of the water table in this area is already significantly affecting our property as
mentioned earlier.
2. Empty commercial units in the area.
(i) There are many existing commercial units in the area lying empty which could be
utilised ie. at Summerlands, Crooklands etc. See CS1.1 Point 8 which states:
Development should accord with the following sequential approach- first using existing
buildings. Third- the development of other land where this is well located in relation to
other services.
(ii) The new auction site near to the M6 junction 36 would surely accommodate further
development and be an excellent location for commercial units. This site is
convenient for the motorway, A65 and the By-pass; (all major roads, not small
country lanes).
3. Potential damage to Natural Habitats.
(i) Cumbria is the last stronghold in the world for white clawed crayfish. I
believe these crayfish inhabit Peasey Beck. Could the commercial development, so
near to their environment have an adverse effect on their delicate existence.
Contact-The Initiative Co-ordinator, Bekka Corrie Close at 01539 816311 or
www.scrt.co.uk/cfinns.
See CS8.4 regarding Biodiversity which states:
Proposals should particularly seek to contribute towards the UK priority habitats and species in South Lakeland.
Taking all these points into consideration and the comments I have already made I would
like to make a further suggestion. Could the proposed commercial site not be used for the
development of the waste recycling site which it is rumoured is to be sited at Low Park.
If the site at Low Park is considerably expanded to incorporate the new housing
developments it would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the beautiful
drumlin landscape .
See CS8.2 Regarding the Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement
Character.
If sited at Gatebeck Lane:
(i) It would be easier to landscape
(ii) There would be less heavy traffic accessing the site via Gate beck lane.
(ii) Three pumps would not have to be involved in pumping the sewage uphill from the
proposed housing developments.
Surely a more sound and easier sustainable proposal for the Gate beck lane site.
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 Philip and Sylvia Buckley (Individual) : 20 Apr 2012 10:53:00
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.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
ES7 & M7
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.
2. Empty commercial units in the area.
(i) There are many existing commercial units in the area lying empty which could be
utilised ie. at Summerlands, Crooklands etc. See CS1.1 Point 8 which states:
Development should accord with the following sequential approach- first using existing
buildings. Third- the development of other land where this is well located in relation to
other services.
(ii) The new auction site near to the M6 junction 36 would surely accommodate further
development and be an excellent location for commercial units. This site is
convenient for the motorway, A65 and the By-pass; (all major roads, not small
country lanes).
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
3. Mr and Mrs Philip and Sylvia Buckley (Individual) : 20 Apr 2012 10:58:00
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 Endmoor 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.
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.
4. Housing Development and Village Boundary
1. The DPP would be more compliant and sound if the density and number of houses
in the proposed developments were reduced to comply with the sustainable
Development principles. See CS1.1 points 2 & 3
2. The proposed 30% increase in the village development boundary should also be
reduced.
As above; See CS1.1 points 2 & 3 which refer to the protection of the countryside for
its intrinsic beauty etc. and the need to take account of the landscape in an area which
has a role as part of the gateway to the lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks.
3. How would the infrastructure of a small village cope if the population was on a par with
half to two thirds of that of Milnthorpe.
Is Endmoor being asked to take more than its fair share?
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
