Response from Mrs Ann Fitch (Individual)
1. Mrs Ann Fitch (Individual) : 15 Apr 2012 17:47:00
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 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.
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.
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
