Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

0.0 Whole Document

Yes

No

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.

It is my opinion that the SLDC Land Allocations Development Plan Document as approved at the meeting of the Full Council on 18'" January 2012 is fundamentally unsound, because it is not justified and not effective (as defined in the form). I have set out my reasons below.
It is also my opinion that the decision to put forward the 'Land East of Castle Green Road' (R121M, R56 and part of R141) as being suitable for housing is unsound because the decision is not justified. (also see Representation 2)

1. Why is the DPD as a whole fundamentally unsound?

a. The consultation process consisted of a number of discrete stages, with each involving a request for consultation from interested parties. Many people devoted a lot of time, effort and research to prepare their submissions but, as each stage of the process concluded and a new stage began, SLDC announced that information submitted in respect of previous stages would not be automatically carried into the next stage. This approach did not embrace the true spirit of consultation and could be interpreted as a rather cynical means of encouraging a diminution of responses as the stages proceeded.

b. SLDC appear to have allocated their own arbitrary weightings to the individual results of public consultation. More than one SLDC councillor has said (and this can be verified from a study of the discussion on the Westmorland Gazette website relating to the DPD) that the views of people who are local to proposed development sites can be ignored on the basis that those individuals are inevitably biased against development and are solely protecting their personal interests. This approach undermines the entire consultation process. People are invariably going to feel strongest about those sites which are in their neighbourhoods and those people will be the best informed to comment upon the pros and cons of each site. It is a highly undemocratic state of affairs if officers and councillors can abuse the consultation process by filtering out those comments which do not support their proposals. To make matters even worse, the submissions from potential developers, in whose interests it is for as much land as possible to be zoned for residential development, appear to have been taken fully into account. Given that at least one councillor has made the point about ignoring the views of local residents in public without there being any form of comment or rebuke from SLDC as a whole, then surely this on its own is sufficient to conclude that the DPD is unsound.

c. Based upon my experience in respect of site R121M, it would appear that the DPD as a whole has not been founded on a robust and credible evidence base. The SLDC has undertaken a wide-ranging exercise which, if implemented, will transform the face of Kendal without apparently having carried out sufficiently rigorous research to ensure that their proposals were appropriate and credible. I can say with firsthand experience that the first time one of the planning officers set foot on fields that the SLDC had already proposed could accommodate 145 houses was when the consultation process was almost complete. Those of us local residents who had requested that he visit the site and accompanied him on his tour were dismayed to hear him express concerns at the steepness and poor drainage of the site and the fact that it would be visible from large areas of the outskirts of Kendal. This suggests that the initial process was based around a desk top exercise which was largely determined at the outset and which has not been adjusted in the light of detailed information as the consultation process proceeded. This is hardly the basis for a robust and credible plan.

d. The world has moved on since SLDC decided that thousands of new houses were required in South Lakeland. We are in the middle of a global recession which shows no sign of abating. The effects are being felt in South Lakeland and what may have been a suitable target for new houses at the start of the process is now a grotesque and pointless overstatement. The proposals are no longer realistic and sustainable and are no longer justified.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R121M-mod KENDAL EAST OF CASTLE GREEN ROAD

Yes

No

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. Why is the decision to recommend the land East of Castle Green Road (R121M) unsound?

a. I believe very strongly that this particular decision is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and that the proposals are not deliverable. Some 400 submissions have been made regarding the reasons why the site is completely unsuitable for development. The reasons include:
i. this site was recently deemed worthy of 'county landscape' status;
ii. it is a steep site which is visible from many parts of town and the surrounding valley;
iii. it floods regularly and severely;
iv. the fields act as an essential 'sponge' to slow down the movement of water towards the houses below
v. it drains into the Stock Beck flood relief scheme, which is already overloaded; and.
vi. the site is a home for many forms of wildlife including protected great crested newts.

The reasons why this site is inappropriate are numerous and compelling and have been made at each stage of the consultation process. There are no apparent reasons why this site is suitable for development, either in absolute terms or when compared to various other sites in the town which do not have the same long lists of negative features. These factors were alluded to in the SLDC's evidence base, together with the views of utility providers and other SLDC departments, which shared the view that it would be inappropriate to develop this site. It defies logic why SLDC has continued to include this site in the face of such compelling reasons to the contrary from a range of parties.

b. It is a requirement of a sound DPD that it embraces sound infrastructure delivery
planning. The SLDC's Fact File for site R121M at an earlier stage in the consultation
process about suggested site allocations included a statement from the National
Grid that the site 'is unfeasible' and a further statement that major infrastructure/service development would be needed to the gas network. Why is it not the case that the National Grid's statement is enough to rule this out as a suitable site, or is it to be developed with none of the houses having electricity? I believe that the DPD fails the soundness test on this point because it does not demonstrate sound infrastructure delivery planning.

c. The R121M Fact File referred to in b. above painted an exclusively negative assessment of the suitability of this site for development from all parties, but the SLDC planners' written conclusion at the bottom of the R121M Fact File was that 'In view of the above it is suggested the site be considered as an emerging site option for housing development'. As I said in my representation to the SLDC on 27th January 2011, this is a perverse comment because there is nothing in 'the above' which suggests anything of the sort! Rl21M should have been discounted as a potential site at that stage in the process, and it is unsound that it remains as a recommended site.

d. The DPD includes a section headed 'Policy LA2.3 Land East of Castle Green Road'
which sets out various actions which would need to take place prior to development. These include:
i. Mitigation measures to address potential impact on the great crested newts which inhabit the site;
ii. A flood risk assessment to assess and determine flood constraints and opportunities; and
iii. A transport assessment.

I fully agree that all of these are required. You could also add assessments from the electricity and gas companies, given their views expressed earlier in the process. However, common sense surely says that these are required before SLDC can make a meaningful decision about whether R121M is a potentially suitable development site, not once that decision has already been taken. The SLDC glibly says that 'attenuation measures' will be needed to address any problem which the consultation process has highlighted, but there should be a point in respect of a specific site or sites when there are so many factors which would require attenuation that serious consideration has to be given to the viability of that site. I believe that we should have reached that stage in respect of site R121M before the
proposals were finalised.

e. Whilst I believe that R121M is wholly unsuitable as a site for housing development for a number of reasons, I can see no justification for other potentially more suitable sites having been discarded during the consultation process whilst Rl21M has been retained. This appears to indicate either a lack of a proper process to benchmark and prioritise potential sites or an agenda that R121M was going to be included in the final proposals come what may. Neither explanation is acceptable and is another reason why the DPD is unsound.
Thank you for having given me an opportunity to make my views known. I hope that
common sense will prevail eventually.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Please notify me