3 responses from Mr Ian Clinton (Individual)
1. Mr Ian Clinton (Individual) : 11 Apr 2012 15:12:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Endmoor sites
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.
Thank you for my copy of Lake District News Issue 19. I wish respond to the
current representation opportunity and convey my concerns about the
proposals to build 6,000 new properties within SLDC.
1. There is no evidence of private sector housing need both locally in Low
Park/Endmoor or the wider SLDC area indeed more and more
properties are now for sale with many on the market for two to three
years without a sale. It should be noted that this is despite the view of
local politicians that prices needed to drop by 20%. The recession has
ensured price decreases of 20-25% but the problem has got worse not
better.
2. There is no evidence that SLDC has addressed either economic needs
or public services. There is no evidence that the council have
considered both the need and funding for school places, hospital beds
and employment opportunities. Likewise the current economic situation
means that the public purse would not be able to provide in any case
for a likely population increase of 20-25,000 individuals.
3. Rural locations are more expensive than towns because of the impact
of expensive and limited transport and the cost of goods and services
including food and other essentials in small village shops with no
competition or economies of scale. This will lead to isolation and
therefore increase discrimination to those on low incomes.
4. I further have concerns that SLDC have failed to address or are
seeking to circumvent the proposed government planning rules that
will be published later this month. Key issues include:
a) greater protection for heritage sites and the environment
b) removing the need to identify 20% more housing land than actually
needed
c) the need to focus on a brown field first commitment
d) a requirement for councils to favour development in urban areas ahead
of rural ones
e) an 18-24 month period to prepare and consult, not six weeks
f) a need to balance equally social, environmental and economic
considerations.
Taken together I do not believe SLDC has given an appropriate level of
attention to social, environmental and economic matters and equally appears
to be seeking to circumvent government guidelines. I believe strongly that
there should be a considered pause with a full reappraisal that takes account
of the reality of the situation both in South Lakeland and nationally.
2. Mr Ian Clinton (Individual) : 11 Apr 2012 15:18:00
Paragraph No.
1.9
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)
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.
I further have concerns that SLDC have failed to address or are
seeking to circumvent the proposed government planning rules that
will be published later this month. Key issues include:
e) an 18-24 month period to prepare and consult, not six weeks
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 consistent with national policy.
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 further have concerns that SLDC have failed to address or are
seeking to circumvent the proposed government planning rules that
will be published later this month. Key issues include:
e) an 18-24 month period to prepare and consult, not six weeks
3. Mr Ian Clinton (Individual) : 11 Apr 2012 15:32:00
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
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.
Thank you for my copy of Lake District News Issue 19. I wish respond to the
current representation opportunity and convey my concerns about the
proposals to build 6,000 new properties within SLDC.
1. There is no evidence of private sector housing need both locally in Low
Park/Endmoor or the wider SLDC area indeed more and more
properties are now for sale with many on the market for two to three
years without a sale. It should be noted that this is despite the view of
local politicians that prices needed to drop by 20%. The recession has
ensured price decreases of 20-25% but the problem has got worse not
better.
2. There is no evidence that SLDC has addressed either economic needs
or public services. There is no evidence that the council have
considered both the need and funding for school places, hospital beds
and employment opportunities. Likewise the current economic situation
means that the public purse would not be able to provide in any case
for a likely population increase of 20-25,000 individuals.
3. Rural locations are more expensive than towns because of the impact
of expensive and limited transport and the cost of goods and services
including food and other essentials in small village shops with no
competition or economies of scale. This will lead to isolation and
therefore increase discrimination to those on low incomes.
4. I further have concerns that SLDC have failed to address or are
seeking to circumvent the proposed government planning rules that
will be published later this month. Key issues include:
a) greater protection for heritage sites and the environment
b) removing the need to identify 20% more housing land than actually
needed
c) the need to focus on a brown field first commitment
d) a requirement for councils to favour development in urban areas ahead
of rural ones
e) an 18-24 month period to prepare and consult, not six weeks
f) a need to balance equally social, environmental and economic
considerations.
Taken together I do not believe SLDC has given an appropriate level of
attention to social, environmental and economic matters and equally appears
to be seeking to circumvent government guidelines. I believe strongly that
there should be a considered pause with a full reappraisal that takes account
of the reality of the situation both in South Lakeland and nationally.
