3 responses from Mr Norman Winter, Burneside Tennis Club
1. Mr Norman Winter, Burneside Tennis Club : 19 Apr 2012 16:27:00
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 - M38M BURNESIDE LAND OPPOSITE HOLME HOUSES
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.
Either the detailed reassurances requested, or further consideration of alternatives, as detailed in the accompanying letter.
Accompanying letter dated 15 April 2012 as follows:
Dear Sirs
I write on behalf of Burneside Tennis Club as an interested and affected party [para
3.1 08] to the Land Development Framework proposal [March 20 12]. You invite
evidence for any objection on the grounds of legal compliance. We wish to express
reservation regarding the "test of soundness".
It is suggested that a replacement development on land south of the Burneside
Football Club [marked ON47# on map 09 Bumeside new.pdf] would meet the needs
of the club.
We welcome the Policy LA2.13 that implementation lie with Bumeside Parish
Council and local community/sports groups, with the potential involvement of the
cricket club and other sport and leisure organisations.
We have inspected the site and, in the absence of sufficient reassurances, believe that
any development there as currently proposed might fall short of "ensuring that
replacement facilities of equivalent or better standard are provided on an alternative
site in an appropriate location" (3.108]. Though the proposal as it stands at present
provides insufficient detail for a thorough appraisal, we observe in particular that:
• The tennis club might no longer be guaranteed to be close to a public highway,
and consequently visible as an accessible community sports and leisure
facility.
• It is not explicitly guaranteed that vehicle access and dedicated parking space
adjacent to a clubhouse and courts [which we currently enjoy] would be
provided.
• We understand that the football club already has inadequate parking and
changing facilities to meet demand. Adequate parking space would have to be
made for the needs of players and visitors to both football pitches as well as
for the tennis club.
• Local people tell us the land is subject to flooding, and it has a watercourse
running through it.
Our doubt relates to the soundness of the proposal [as required in para 1.20 referring
to para 3.18]. Unless we receive extra reassurances we contest the current proposal for
the siting of new facilities for the Tennis Club.
We believe the present proposal does not rest upon the required "robust and credible
evidence base" that it is "the most appropriate strategy when considered against the
reasonable alternatives". In consequence we must object that the conditions for
developing site M38M [para 3.106], the current site of the tennis club, have not as yet
been met.
We have no objection in principle to the development of site M38M, if a replacement
facility of equivalent or better standard to our existing facilities can be provided. What
we would accept would need to have what our present site already has:
• Sufficient closeness to a public highway to be visible as an accessible
community sports and leisure facility, and providing a degree of protection
and security against wanton damage.
• A guarantee that vehicle access and dedicated parking space adjacent to a
clubhouse and courts will be provided.
• Adequate drainage to guarantee protection from flooding.
• A guarantee that the facilities, as at present, would be rent-free.
Although it falls beyond the terms specified for responses in para 1.20, we believe
that a better alternative site for the tennis club may be found if the parish council and
local community sports groups [Policy LA2.13] can be convened to consider
possibilities in detail. We are actively investigating possible alternatives.
To sum up, we find ourselves unable at present to agree that the current proposals for
there-siting of Bumeside Tennis Club as expressed in this document are sound and
justified.
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
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr Norman Winter, Burneside Tennis Club : 19 Apr 2012 16:42:00
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.
3.108
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.
Either the detailed reassurances requested, or further consideration of alternatives, as detailed in the accompanying letter.
Accompanying letter dated 15 April 2012 as follows:
Dear Sirs
I write on behalf of Burneside Tennis Club as an interested and affected party [para
3.1 08] to the Land Development Framework proposal [March 20 12]. You invite
evidence for any objection on the grounds of legal compliance. We wish to express
reservation regarding the "test of soundness".
It is suggested that a replacement development on land south of the Burneside
Football Club [marked ON47# on map 09 Bumeside new.pdf] would meet the needs
of the club.
We welcome the Policy LA2.13 that implementation lie with Bumeside Parish
Council and local community/sports groups, with the potential involvement of the
cricket club and other sport and leisure organisations.
We have inspected the site and, in the absence of sufficient reassurances, believe that
any development there as currently proposed might fall short of "ensuring that
replacement facilities of equivalent or better standard are provided on an alternative
site in an appropriate location" (3.108]. Though the proposal as it stands at present
provides insufficient detail for a thorough appraisal, we observe in particular that:
• The tennis club might no longer be guaranteed to be close to a public highway,
and consequently visible as an accessible community sports and leisure
facility.
• It is not explicitly guaranteed that vehicle access and dedicated parking space
adjacent to a clubhouse and courts [which we currently enjoy] would be
provided.
• We understand that the football club already has inadequate parking and
changing facilities to meet demand. Adequate parking space would have to be
made for the needs of players and visitors to both football pitches as well as
for the tennis club.
• Local people tell us the land is subject to flooding, and it has a watercourse
running through it.
Our doubt relates to the soundness of the proposal [as required in para 1.20 referring
to para 3.18]. Unless we receive extra reassurances we contest the current proposal for
the siting of new facilities for the Tennis Club.
We believe the present proposal does not rest upon the required "robust and credible
evidence base" that it is "the most appropriate strategy when considered against the
reasonable alternatives". In consequence we must object that the conditions for
developing site M38M [para 3.106], the current site of the tennis club, have not as yet
been met.
We have no objection in principle to the development of site M38M, if a replacement
facility of equivalent or better standard to our existing facilities can be provided. What
we would accept would need to have what our present site already has:
• Sufficient closeness to a public highway to be visible as an accessible
community sports and leisure facility, and providing a degree of protection
and security against wanton damage.
• A guarantee that vehicle access and dedicated parking space adjacent to a
clubhouse and courts will be provided.
• Adequate drainage to guarantee protection from flooding.
• A guarantee that the facilities, as at present, would be rent-free.
Although it falls beyond the terms specified for responses in para 1.20, we believe
that a better alternative site for the tennis club may be found if the parish council and
local community sports groups [Policy LA2.13] can be convened to consider
possibilities in detail. We are actively investigating possible alternatives.
To sum up, we find ourselves unable at present to agree that the current proposals for
there-siting of Bumeside Tennis Club as expressed in this document are sound and
justified.
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
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mr Norman Winter, Burneside Tennis Club : 20 Apr 2012 11:15:00
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.
LA2.13 OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES, SOUTH OF BURNESIDE FOOTBALL CLUB, BURNESIDE
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.
Dear Sirs
I write on behalf of Burneside Tennis Club as an interested and affected party [para
3.1 08] to the Land Development Framework proposal [March 20 12]. You invite
evidence for any objection on the grounds of legal compliance. We wish to express
reservation regarding the "test of soundness".
It is suggested that a replacement development on land south of the Burneside
Football Club [marked ON47# on map 09 Bumeside new.pdf] would meet the needs
of the club.
We welcome the Policy LA2.13 that implementation lie with Bumeside Parish
Council and local community/sports groups, with the potential involvement of the
cricket club and other sport and leisure organisations.
We have inspected the site and, in the absence of sufficient reassurances, believe that
any development there as currently proposed might fall short of "ensuring that
replacement facilities of equivalent or better standard are provided on an alternative
site in an appropriate location" (3.108]. Though the proposal as it stands at present
provides insufficient detail for a thorough appraisal, we observe in particular that:
• The tennis club might no longer be guaranteed to be close to a public highway,
and consequently visible as an accessible community sports and leisure
facility.
• It is not explicitly guaranteed that vehicle access and dedicated parking space
adjacent to a clubhouse and courts [which we currently enjoy] would be
provided.
• We understand that the football club already has inadequate parking and
changing facilities to meet demand. Adequate parking space would have to be
made for the needs of players and visitors to both football pitches as well as
for the tennis club.
• Local people tell us the land is subject to flooding, and it has a watercourse
running through it.
Our doubt relates to the soundness of the proposal [as required in para 1.20 referring
to para 3.18]. Unless we receive extra reassurances we contest the current proposal for
the siting of new facilities for the Tennis Club.
We believe the present proposal does not rest upon the required "robust and credible
evidence base" that it is "the most appropriate strategy when considered against the
reasonable alternatives". In consequence we must object that the conditions for
developing site M38M [para 3.106], the current site of the tennis club, have not as yet
been met.
We have no objection in principle to the development of site M38M, if a replacement
facility of equivalent or better standard to our existing facilities can be provided. What
we would accept would need to have what our present site already has:
• Sufficient closeness to a public highway to be visible as an accessible
community sports and leisure facility, and providing a degree of protection
and security against wanton damage.
• A guarantee that vehicle access and dedicated parking space adjacent to a
clubhouse and courts will be provided.
• Adequate drainage to guarantee protection from flooding.
• A guarantee that the facilities, as at present, would be rent-free.
Although it falls beyond the terms specified for responses in para 1.20, we believe
that a better alternative site for the tennis club may be found if the parish council and
local community sports groups [Policy LA2.13] can be convened to consider
possibilities in detail. We are actively investigating possible alternatives.
To sum up, we find ourselves unable at present to agree that the current proposals for
there-siting of Bumeside Tennis Club as expressed in this document are sound and
justified.
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
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
