2 responses from Mr and Ms Arthur and Jean Lambert (Individual)
1. Mr and Ms Arthur and Jean Lambert (Individual) : 23 Apr 2012 09:42:00
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.
It appears futile giving any comments regarding Land allocation development .
you and your team have not been interested in any comments that the general public Have had to say. Your only support appears to be from people wishing to sell there land.
2. Mr and Ms Arthur and Jean Lambert (Individual) : 23 Apr 2012 09:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R690ulv, R691ULV, R126M, RN184, RN234# & part R242 ULVERSTON CROFTLANDS WEST - NOOK FARM
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.
With no guarantee regarding the provision of new jobs in the area, how on earth will
new residents be able to afford these properties, cart before horse comes to mind.
Regarding new properties being built on brown field sites you appear to have ignored
your own targets and policies yet again. Didn't you state in your previous documents
that 50% of new properties would be on brownfield sites.
Now we have 93% of proposals on Greenfield sites, you also stated that
use of agricultural land should be of a poorer quality, yet most of south Ulverston
is prime farming land being lost to development?
Coronation Hall23rd March 2011 most of the people attending the meeting were
shocked at the ghotos displayed regarding flooding .
Countryfile 20 March 2011 Mr Richard Benyon MP Minister for the Natural Environment stated "it is clear government policy not to build on land that floods"
yet you appear to ignore this advice. R690 Rl56 and R242 have been under water for
many weeks in previous years. - Please find enclosed photo of your future Ulverston South.
