3 responses from Mr Peter Watson (Individual)
1. Mr Peter Watson (Individual) : 24 Apr 2012 11:34:00
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)
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
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.
1.1 Whilst South Lakeland District Council ("SLDC") has carried out a Consultation
Process over the last 2 years, when endeavouring to respond to Parish Council/
Parishioners concerns, it recently significantly altered proposals on Land
Allocations which left insufficient time for further consultation on these changes,
e.g. nomination for employment purposes of land at Gatebeck (sites EN20 and
N 33#) that have fundamental drawbacks (see Section 3 below).
In this regard I consider that the consultation process is UNSOUND as not being in
accordance with SLDC's Statement of Community Involvement
1.2 The representation process adopted, involving complex tests of soundness, is part
of the national planning system, but it is not designed for general ease of use . It
was personally distressing to encounter older parishioners, wishing to submit
comments on late proposals affecting them, (see Section 4 below), admitting that it
was beyond them. In such cases a lack of response cannot be taken as a lack of
interest or concern.
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to respond to any questions from the inspector
2. Mr Peter Watson (Individual) : 24 Apr 2012 11:39:00
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.
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.
With reference to South Lakeland District Council's recent invitation I would like to submit
my Representation regarding the Land Allocations Development Plan Document dated
March2012.
You should be aware that I was approached, along with other parishioners, in December
2011 to assist Preston Richard Parish Council in the final stages of the consultation
process and culminating in the drafting, on its behalf, of its own representation. This draft
was approved at a special meeting of the Parish Council on April1 ih 2012.
In view of the above I can confirm that I totally support the Parish Council's
representation and wish to limit my own representation comments as a resident of this
parish which should be considered as complementary:
2. Housing Sites M41 M and R670
I have considerable concerns over the process. u~e,d.to determine the numbers of (0\
dwellings deemed appropriate to meet the f!Jtures rie.eds of the village, and of the @.J
appropriateness of the chosen sites. ยท
2.1 There is no empirical evidence to support a future increase in demand of 38% in
dwelling numbers within the village development boundary. In fact, contrary to
SLDC's Sustainability Analysis, there has been a decline over the last 10 years in
demand for social facilities such as doctors, and post offices, and a failure to find a
buyer for the village shop. I don't believe this is a temporary 'blip' which would be
rectified simply by building more houses. I submit, that in a village so close to good
social and retail facilities in Kendal, Milnthorpe and Kirkby Lonsdale, and in an age
when travel, particularly by public transport is becoming increasingly expensive,
housing demand (particularly of affordable type) will be greater closer to /or in
these settlements. It follows that any new housing development in the village
should be on a reduced scale and of a type that is "marketable."
2.2 SLDC's Sustainability Appraisal points to specific low scores on 'green issues' for
these development sites which are adjacent to very sensitive landscape and which
is inappropriate for a new, substantial built-environment, however landscaped. Such
an Appraisal Process is underminded unless as a result development is very
limited and handled with utmost care.
The DPD proposals are, in my opinion, not JUSTIFIED with robust evidence
4.1 Waste Water Treatment
One of the most concerning aspects of SLDC's Land Allocations Process has been a
complete lack of consultation on the proposed (by SLDC) water treatment works at Low
Park, and a disregard for its potential impact on landscape (Type 7b Drumlin field) and
highway/safety isses. Moreover, there is ambiguity and a lack of consistency in the
various positions taken by both SLDC and United Utilities PLC on status of studies
investigations in the DPD and the DPD Consultation Statement as well as in the United
Utilities PLC letter 29 February 2012. The DPD fails to provide parishioners with an
agreed position between SLDC and United Utilities PLC. This has resulted in
considerable worry and concern for many village residents, particularly those living on
Low Park who could, potentially, be adversely affected.
Without an agreed strategy on the critical path issue of waste water treatment further
development in End moor is not deliverable.
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
3. Mr Peter Watson (Individual) : 24 Apr 2012 11:44:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - EN20, EN33# ENDMOOR LAND NORTH OF GATEBECK LANE, GATEBECK
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.
3 Employment Sites EN 20 and EN 33#
3.1 The approach taken by SLDC over the nomination and notification of these sites at
Gatebeck for employment gives me considerable concern
3.1.1 The fundamental change from a mixed commercial/housing land allocation at
M41 (admittedly made in order to address parishioner concerns) to a large
B2/B8 use at Gatebeck was proposed by SLDC in a draft DPD issued in
January 2012 so public consultation on this issue was impossible.
3.1.2 It is difficult to understand why SLDC should offer this site when there are ;}_
(three) existing sites within% mile (Gatebeck Business Park, Gatebeck Industrial
Site and Summerlands) as well as a further site at Crooklands. Considerable
empty space continues to be available. The local supply of employment land is
dramatically increased by the doubling in size of the Mainline site some 41/2 km
away to 16ha.
3.1.3 The DPD earmarks this site close to Endmoor village which would result in a
disproportionate allocation of industrial/storage/distribution for Endmoor and
nearby Crooklands when compared to nearby larger villages.
Population Current ha Additional ha Total ha
Burneside 1500 9.28 1.2 10.48
Burton 1400 1.00 - 1.00
Endmoor/
Crooklands 1250 7.79 3.79 11.58
3.1.4 SLDC's decision to offer this site is extremely questionable in light of comments
made by HM Inspectorate on its total unsuitability for development as a
crematorium due to highway/safety and landscape considerations (see Preston
Richard Parish Council Representation)
I have to conclude that the proposal for Gatebeck site is not SOUND due to inadequate
consultation (Statement of Community Involvement) ; it is not based on robust and
credible evidence and is not consistent with national policy (Core Strategies CS8.2 and
CS10.2)
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
