6 responses from Mr Neil Alldridge (Individual)
1. Mr Neil Alldridge (Individual) : 15 Apr 2012 21:16:00
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 Allithwaite 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 inclusion of field R339 in its entirety (part of field RN73 was included originally) was not included in the original consultation, and therefore was not up for objection at the earlier stages of this process. The above field (R339) was not shown as part of the consultation at any of the public meetings held in the village(RN73was objected too at all the consultations in the village by myself and others).Indeed the inclusion of R339 was only included in the final submission from Allithwaite Parish Council due to a pressure group seeking to divert inclusion of the fields they were objecting too(RN290 and others). It is against the soundness of the proposal to run a series of consultations, then to change the basis of these consultations at the last minute. Thus depriving the public of the full information available to decision makers and therefore skewing the process in favour of a desired outcome.It should be noted that several other areas were included for possible development in the original plans and that almost none of these actually made it to the final document, other sites being included instead with similar backgrounds to my objection.
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 Neil Alldridge (Individual) : 11 May 2012 16:01:00
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 - R339# ALLITHWAITE LAND SOUTH OF GREEN LANE
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 inclusion of field R339 in its entirety (part of field RN73 was included originally) was not included in the original consultation, and therefore was not up for objection at the earlier stages of this process. The above field (R339) was not shown as part of the consultation at any of the public meetings held in the village(RN73was objected too at all the consultations in the village by myself and others).Indeed the inclusion of R339 was only included in the final submission from Allithwaite Parish Council due to a pressure group seeking to divert inclusion of the fields they were objecting too(RN290 and others). It is against the soundness of the proposal to run a series of consultations, then to change the basis of these consultations at the last minute. Thus depriving the public of the full information available to decision makers and therefore skewing the process in favour of a desired outcome.It should be noted that several other areas were included for possible development in the original plans and that almost none of these actually made it to the final document, other sites being included instead with similar backgrounds to my objection.
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 Neil Alldridge (Individual) : 11 May 2012 16:05:00
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
Paragraph No.
1.9
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 inclusion of field R339 in its entirety (part of field RN73 was included originally) was not included in the original consultation, and therefore was not up for objection at the earlier stages of this process. The above field (R339) was not shown as part of the consultation at any of the public meetings held in the village(RN73was objected too at all the consultations in the village by myself and others).Indeed the inclusion of R339 was only included in the final submission from Allithwaite Parish Council due to a pressure group seeking to divert inclusion of the fields they were objecting too(RN290 and others). It is against the soundness of the proposal to run a series of consultations, then to change the basis of these consultations at the last minute. Thus depriving the public of the full information available to decision makers and therefore skewing the process in favour of a desired outcome.It should be noted that several other areas were included for possible development in the original plans and that almost none of these actually made it to the final document, other sites being included instead with similar backgrounds to my objection.
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
4. Mr Neil Alldridge (Individual) : 17 May 2012 11:15:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R339# ALLITHWAITE LAND SOUTH OF GREEN LANE
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
I have fought to keep this field green for over forty year and again I will try again to
keep this green field.
This field is the only green field here; over the past forty years the village has grown
too big to be a village. Templand Park, Greendales, High cliff drive, Mayshelles
orchard, uplands fellside, Jack hill, Hazledene, plus in fill. Farm buildings and shops
have been converted to dwellings and shops. In Allithithwaite we have one shop/post
office which services this area.
The proposed dwellings on filed number R319, between Green lane and boarbank
lane, would increase traffic and parking, which there are already problems with on
these 2 roads, the sewerage system is old and would be inadequate for another 22
dwellings.By building on this land would be taking away residents on Green lane
and Boarbank roads only green field.
We are asking that other land be considered on the right hand side of Holme lane
fields NO RN230 AND RN65, the reason we ask for this land to be considered is
there is better access for cars it would mean traffic would not be brought threw the
centre of the village passed the school reducing the risk of accidents.
My final point is the village has already expanded and is now bigger than a village
yet it has no business to offer employment to people from the village, so to increase
housing without the facilities such as jobs would be of no benefit to the village.
I do understand there is a shortage of housing within this area, and many others in
the country, but rather than just build housing for the sake of building I would ask that
they be built on suitable sites with the least impact on the present residents.
5. Mr Neil Alldridge (Individual) : 17 May 2012 11:17:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
Site omission - RN230
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
I have fought to keep this field green for over forty year and again I will try again to
keep this green field.
This field is the only green field here; over the past forty years the village has grown
too big to be a village. Templand Park, Greendales, High cliff drive, Mayshelles
orchard, uplands fellside, Jack hill, Hazledene, plus in fill. Farm buildings and shops
have been converted to dwellings and shops. In Allithithwaite we have one shop/post
office which services this area.
The proposed dwellings on filed number R319, between Green lane and boarbank
lane, would increase traffic and parking, which there are already problems with on
these 2 roads, the sewerage system is old and would be inadequate for another 22
dwellings.By building on this land would be taking away residents on Green lane
and Boarbank roads only green field.
We are asking that other land be considered on the right hand side of Holme lane
fields NO RN230 AND RN65, the reason we ask for this land to be considered is
there is better access for cars it would mean traffic would not be brought threw the
centre of the village passed the school reducing the risk of accidents.
My final point is the village has already expanded and is now bigger than a village
yet it has no business to offer employment to people from the village, so to increase
housing without the facilities such as jobs would be of no benefit to the village.
I do understand there is a shortage of housing within this area, and many others in
the country, but rather than just build housing for the sake of building I would ask that
they be built on suitable sites with the least impact on the present residents.
6. Mr Neil Alldridge (Individual) : 17 May 2012 11:18:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
Site omission - RN65
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
I have fought to keep this field green for over forty year and again I will try again to
keep this green field.
This field is the only green field here; over the past forty years the village has grown
too big to be a village. Templand Park, Greendales, High cliff drive, Mayshelles
orchard, uplands fellside, Jack hill, Hazledene, plus in fill. Farm buildings and shops
have been converted to dwellings and shops. In Allithithwaite we have one shop/post
office which services this area.
The proposed dwellings on filed number R319, between Green lane and boarbank
lane, would increase traffic and parking, which there are already problems with on
these 2 roads, the sewerage system is old and would be inadequate for another 22
dwellings.By building on this land would be taking away residents on Green lane
and Boarbank roads only green field.
We are asking that other land be considered on the right hand side of Holme lane
fields NO RN230 AND RN65, the reason we ask for this land to be considered is
there is better access for cars it would mean traffic would not be brought threw the
centre of the village passed the school reducing the risk of accidents.
My final point is the village has already expanded and is now bigger than a village
yet it has no business to offer employment to people from the village, so to increase
housing without the facilities such as jobs would be of no benefit to the village.
I do understand there is a shortage of housing within this area, and many others in
the country, but rather than just build housing for the sake of building I would ask that
they be built on suitable sites with the least impact on the present residents.
