2 responses from Mr John Fitch (Individual)
1. Mr John Fitch (Individual) : 15 Apr 2012 17:39:00
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 - RN121M-mod LEVENS FORMER POULTRY SHEDS, BRIGSTEER ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Housing proposals in respect of RN121M-MOD should be removed for the following reasons:
1. SLDC proposals for housing on RN121M-MOD were not formally published until some four months after the end of the last public consultation period so we have been given no opportunity to comment on them.
2. There was no specific consultation with those who live to the north of the village by SLDC, the Parish Council or any of the individuals who proposed housing on the site either individually or through the Levens Residents Group’s survey. Surely, therefore, the SLDC proposals are flawed.
3. SLDC failed to make any contact with one of the landowners affected and he has indicated subsequently that his land is not available for sale under any circumstances. This reduces the size of the site by approximately one third and probably makes the development proposal un-deliverable.
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
No support given.
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.
Housing proposals in respect of RN121M-MOD should be removed for the following reasons:
1. Reasons 1-3 as stated in 1.3 above.
2. Extra traffic though the very restricted centre of the village - SLDC proposals for "mitigation measures" are not specific, meaningless and probably undeliverable from a development of this size.
3. Serious concerns about biodiversity on the site by Cumbria Wildlife Trust and the National Trust are largely dismissed by SLDC with proposals for "mitigation measures" which are not specific, meaningless and probably undeliverable from a development of this size. Difficult to see how legislation covering bats and great crested newts can be overcome.
4. Highway Authority concerns that “Access would not be suitable for residential use - issues with gradient and poor visibility" are simply dismissed by SLDC.
5. Concerns from individuals and the National Trust about adverse impact on the landscape are again covered by non-specific "mitigation measures" by SLDC.
6. The effect of the proposed extension of the National Park has not been considered.
7. Housing on this site was refused by SLDC in 1982 and the decision was upheld on appeal in 1983. Many of the points made in the Decision Letter dated 15 April 1983 are relevant today and the Inspector concluded that “any form of residential development on this site would be unduly prominent from the open valley floor to the west”.
8. It would increase the likelihood of future in-fill development to the south, removing green spaces and open views from the village (a reason why other sites in the village were rejected during the SLDC consultations).
9.The high density of development proposed would be totally out of keeping with the established adjacent development, including a large Victorian villa.
10.Residential development would be likely to include the introduction of street lighting which would ruin the night-time quality of the area and be seen clearly from the National Park (whether extended or not).
11.SLDC have been made aware of significant foul drainage problems in Levens. Any residential development of the site would be likely to add to this problem by increasing flow from the top end of the village.
12.Due to the difficulties involved, any development of this relatively small site (now reduced further in size) is extremely unlikely to be economic and hence the aspiration in the SLDC document is probably undeliverable.
2.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
No support given.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
1. To ensure that the Inspector is made aware of the full facts surrounding RN121M-MOD and the strength of feeling locally against the SLDC proposal for the site.
2. To ensure that there is an opportunity to cross-examine any SLDC Officers or Expert Witnesses on their evidence in respect of the site.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr John Fitch (Individual) : 16 May 2012 10:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
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 - RN121M-mod LEVENS FORMER POULTRY SHEDS, BRIGSTEER ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT
REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF SITE RN121M-MOD
13 April2012
1. I am writing to you on behalf of a number of residents who live to the north of the
main village development of Levens. Over eighty of us have signed the attached
petition in respect of our conviction that the inclusion of the proposed site for housing
RN121M-MOD in the Development Plan Documents represents both a noncompliance
with the legal and the soundness requirements of the 2004 Act. As a
Planning Inspector said previously, "the proposed scheme would form an isolated
pocket of development within attractive countryside outside the core of the village. " I
am aware that a number of us are also submitting personal representations. Section 2
of this letter is headed "LEGAL NON-COMPLIANCE" and section 3 is headed
"SOUNDNESS". We are a group of local residents, not planning experts, and it may
be that points made in one section would best be made in another. Similarly it may be
that points made in one section do in fact overlap and relate to both sections.
2. LEGAL NON-COMPLIANCE
2.1 It is made clear in your Statement of Community Involvement (2006) that you are
committed to certain principles (Paragraph 2.4). Specifically:
• an opportunity for early and on-going input, at stages where responses can make a
difference.
• selecting methods, techniques and venues which maximise the opportunity for all
groups to take part and respond- including 'hard-to-reach' groups.
• identifying and targeting communities and stakeholders with relevant interests,
while ensuring everyone has a chance to input.
2.2 The site has been through various incarnations during the consultation process. It was
originally known as RN121. In the consultation commencing in January 2011 it had
become RN121M and was proposed as an employment site. In the consultation
commencing in July 2011 it had transformed in to RN295# as a proposed housing site
which had apparently been put forward by respondents to the earlier consultation.
Now it has become RN121M-MOD with 23 dwellings proposed.
2.3 As made clear in the letter (Ref AMcN/60.12.43) dated 25 January 2012 from Mr
McNeill, of your office, to Mr Biddle of "The Crossings", the proposed change to
residential use was not formally made public until 11 January 2012, with the Land
Allocations Documents being approved for publication by the Council on 18 January
2012. Clearly therefore, the proposals for housing on RN121M-MOD did not become
the Planning Authority's published proposal until some four months after the end of
the last public consultation period and so we have been given no opportunity to
comment on your proposals for the site.
2.4 In addition, it is clear that you failed to make any contact with one of the landowners
affected by RN121M-MOD and he has indicated subsequently that his land is not
available for sale under any circumstances. This reduces the size of the site by
approximately one third (see Plan at Appendix 1) and so your proposal fails the
"delivery mechanisms" test under Section 27 of the Soundness Tool published by the
Planning Advisory Service.
2.5 A cursory look at a map of the village of Levens will clearly indicate why a
significant number of residents proposed housing on this site. Bluntly, it is simply the
furthest site away from the main village development and those of us close to the
proposed site could never win in the "numbers game". There was no specific
consultation with those of us who live to the north of the village by the Parish Council
or any of the individuals who proposed housing on the site either individually or
through the Levens Residents Group's survey. A copy of correspondence in this
respect between myself and the P'arish Council is at Appendix 2.
2.6 In paragraph 3.139 of the Land Allocations DPD, you refer to the former poultry
sheds in Brigsteer Road and state that "Key issues include the need for the removal of
all derelict buildings from the site (including those outside the site itself) the retention
of woodlands, investigation of potential contamination and a design/safety audit to
ensure that the site could be safely accessed. " Section 79 of the Building Act 1984
empowers a Local Authority to take certain actions to achieve the repair or demolition
of a building or structure if its condition is seriously detrimental to the amenities of
the neighbourhood. We consider that the issue of the derelict buildings would be best
addressed by the Local Authority exercising its powers under the 84 Act. It does seem
perverse to cite a reason for the proposed development as being local support, when
that support arises from the fact that the Local Authority has chosen not to exercise its
powers.
2.7 The Soundness Tool has as its first question "Has the consultation process allowed
for effective engagement of all interested parties?" The answer is no. It is our view
that these factors demonstrate a failure to comply with both the word and the
spirit of your Statement of Community Involvement.
[See also attached appendices]
Note: Response also supported by petition with 80 signatories.
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.
LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT
REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF SITE RN121M-MOD
13 April2012
1. I am writing to you on behalf of a number of residents who live to the north of the
main village development of Levens. Over eighty of us have signed the attached
petition in respect of our conviction that the inclusion of the proposed site for housing
RN121M-MOD in the Development Plan Documents represents both a noncompliance
with the legal and the soundness requirements of the 2004 Act. As a
Planning Inspector said previously, "the proposed scheme would form an isolated
pocket of development within attractive countryside outside the core of the village. " I
am aware that a number of us are also submitting personal representations. Section 2
of this letter is headed "LEGAL NON-COMPLIANCE" and section 3 is headed
"SOUNDNESS". We are a group of local residents, not planning experts, and it may
be that points made in one section would best be made in another. Similarly it may be
that points made in one section do in fact overlap and relate to both sections.
SOUNDNESS
3.1 The "Soundness" of the Land Allocations Development Plan Document in respect of
RN121M-MOD is also challenged by the points raised in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6 above
and there is little point in repeating them here. However, the following paragraphs
also challenge the soundness of your proposals for this site:
3.2 The top side of the steeply sloping site (approximately 1 in 5) is heavily wooded with
native ash, sycamore, beech and occasional birch and gean (also called wild cherry a
white-flowered rosaceous tree). Many are semi mature being above 18 metres in
height. In addition there are a number of Yews, some of which are at least 100 years
old proving that this woodland is of ancient origin. The lower (western) side of the
site is a woodland of Norway spruce and beech some 40 years old which was planted
as a screen to the sheds as a requirement of the Planning Authority. See Plan at
Appendix 1.
3.3 On 17 January 2012 Natural England made Orders which would vary the boundaries
of the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales National Parks. These Orders will take
effect if they are confrrmed by the Secretary of State for Enviromnent, Food and
Rural Affairs. If confirmed, the boundary of the Lake District National Park will be
moved to around 85 metres to the north of the site and around 155 metres to its west.
3.4 Within Appendix 8 to the Consultation Statement, concern is expressed about the
potential of extra traffic though the very restricted centre of the village. This is
"noted" by SLDC, who go on to say that "Mitigation measures will be a requirement
to offset any potential adverse impact. " While recognising that this is a "stock phrase"
used by Planning Authorities and the like, we would contend that it is simply a
surrogate for saying that they "have no answer to this point at the present time." We
consider that to proceed with a residential development proposal under such
circumstances is un-sound as it implies an unfounded supposition that an appropriate
answer will be found and that the proposed relatively small development could
support the cost of this. Further, we consider that Sections 26, 28 and 30 of the
Soundness Tool suggest that rather more than "mitigation measures" are required for
DPD proposals to be sound.
3.5 Appendix 8 also records serious concerns about biodiversity on the site by Cumbria
Wildlife Trust and the National Trust. Their concern extends to habitat within the site
for invertebrates, great crested newts and bats. The latter two are European Protected
Species which fall under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and are covered by
the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Regulation 41.
These concerns have been largely dismissed by SLDC with the offer of more
nebulous "Mitigation Measures" which we consider are unlikely to be deliverable,
particularly on such a small site.
3.6 Significant concerns are expressed about access by the Highways Authority (Cumbria
CC) in Appendix 9 to the Consultation Statement. Officer comments in November
2011 were: "Access would not be suitable for residential use - issues with gradient
and poor visibility. Design Safoty Audit would be required Possibly more suitable for
low intensity employment use subject to resolution of issues above. " This is again
recorded as "noted" by SLDC, who have subsequently proposed residential
development on the site.
3.7 Appendix 9 also records concerns of the National Trust and individuals over the effect
of the proposed development on landscape and on the local environment generally.
The National Trust considers that "the development could adversely impact upon the
settlement pattern and the village envelope" (the site is outside the recognised
boundary of the village and is, therefore, effectively in open countryside). They go on
to say that "due to the topography of the site and its prominence, the proposed
development would adversely impact upon the landscape character of this part of the
district". Also that "there is ecologically sensitive land close by at Lane End corner."
Again, we are offered non-specific "Mitigation Measures".
3.8 In 1983 the DoE and Department of Transport inspector, Mr R E Watson, was
appointed to determine against the decision of SLDC to refuse planning permission
for "residential development at Scarbrae Poultry Farm, Levens and the removal of a
condition limiting occupation of the dwelling known as Scarbrae". The appeal was by
Mr J Wilkinson (Application No 5/82/0833/0834). Although now approaching 30
years old, many of the points made in Mr Watson's Decision Letter dated 15 April
1983 are relevant today. He said that "the proposed scheme would form an isolated
pocket of development within attractive countryside outside the core of the village. "
He also took the view that "unless strict control is exercised over future development
there is a significant danger that the scenic quality of the area will be seriously
damaged" and he concluded that "any form of residential development on this site
would be unduly prominent from the open valley floor to the west. " He dismissed the
appeals.
3.9 We consider that other important concerns which mitigate against residential
development on this site include:
It would increase the likelihood of future in-fill development to the south,
removing green spaces and open views from the village (a reason why other
sites in the village were rejected during the SLDC consultations).
• The high density of development proposed would be totally out of keeping
with the established adjacent development, including a large Victorian villa.
• Residential development would be likely to include the introduction of street
lighting which would ruin the night-time quality of the area and be seen
clearly from the National Park (whether extended or not).
• SLDC have been made aware of significant foul drainage problems in Levens
(although United Utilities seem reluctant to formally acknowledge this). Any
residential development of the site would be likely to add to this problem by
increasing flow from the top end of the village.
• Due to the difficulties involved, any development of this relatively small site
(now reduced further in size) is extremely unlikely to be economic and hence
the aspiration in the SLDC document is probably undeliverable.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 We are convinced that your proposals in respect of RN121M-MOD are legally
flawed, unjustified, ineffective, undeliverable and therefore un-sound. We would wish
to make personal representations to the Inspector (when appointed) in these respects if
SLDC continue to promote the residential development of this site in their Land
Allocations Development Plan Document.
4.2 We would prefer to see the land in question remain in agricultural use. However, if
the Land Allocations Development Plan Document was amended to show the site as
designated for employment use as you originally proposed we would probably be
content, providing use was limited to Class B 1 and the screening of the site by
woodland was maintained.
[See also attached appendices]
Note: Response also supported by petition with 80 signatories.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
To ensure that the views of the northern end of the village of Levens are properly represented.
