3 responses from Mr Quentin Elliott (Individual)
1. Mr Quentin Elliott (Individual) : 4 Apr 2012 16:26:00
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 - RN152 GREENODD LAND AT THE OLD VICARAGE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
I do not feel myself qualified to determine the legality of the DPD.
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.
I am not sure that the writer of the DPD is even sure which plot RN152 is. The DPD describes it as Oak Vale and the drop down list above describes it as Old Vicarage, both of which are incorrect.
Paragraph 5.65 of DPD wrongly describes RN152 as an 'infill site'. There is no housing outside of this site, only the churchyard.
Paragraph 5.65 of DPD wrongly describes RN152 as 'well located in relation to existing services'. The existing wastewater services are of inadequate capacity, which results in regular blockages and localised flooding of raw sewerage, particularly around Roughlea LA12 7RQ. Also about 1/3rd of the plot is below the level of the highway sewer. The new waste water treatment plant cannot handle the volume after heavy rainfall and would see increased flow if the soakaway effect of RN152 was lost.
Paragraph 5.65 of DPD falsely states that 'mature trees border two sides shielding ... existing dwellings on R291'. The trees end adjacent to the first of the three properties on R291, meaning the development on the hill above them will have a severe impact. The new vicarage is already a gloomy house, without further light deprivation and the Old Stables upper windows will lie below ground level of even the lowest property on RN152. The privacy of householders along High Garth will also be greatly affected. When the Old Vicarage and the Old Stables on R291 were purchased from the Diocese, restrictive covenants were imposed upon the new owners by the Diocese solicitors. These covered not doing anything that would devalue the new vicarage or causing noise that affects the vicarage occupants or services within the church and grounds. How can these conditions be met by a development of 22 houses on RN152.
Paragraph 5.66 of DPD falsely suggests that building on RN152 will 'safeguard the Crakeside Business Park and Crakeside Works as local employment areas'. If businesses on these sites are viable, then they will not fail through lack of housing in Greenodd/Penny Bridge when the 12000 population of Ulverston is only 3 miles away.
I do not believe that there is a need for additional housing in Greenodd/Penny Bridge. There are currently about 13 houses for sale, several empty and others to let, covering all price ranges. A housing survey carried out by the Parish Council only 4 years ago did not identify a need for further homes and gave consideration to the need for affordable homes. The village has already undergone significant expansion in recent years with the building of small housing estates at Ellis Wood and opposite the Ship Inn in Greenodd.
Building in RN152 would cause the loss of the lovely view from the Churchyard across the Crake valley and north to the Coniston hills. The views and the peace and quiet of the Churchyard makes it a special place, not just for Church related activities but also a popular through walking route for the villagers. As such, I believe that RN152 is an asset of community value as described in the Localism Act 2011 and I will encourage the Parish Council to have it listed.
Other factors make RN152 unsuitable as a building plot :
RN152 itself has a soft area at the highest point where underground water comes to the surface. After heavy rainfall water collects at the lowest part of the plot NE corner). With the loss of soakaway, caused by all the resultant hard paved areas of a new development, the potential for flooding of the R291 houses will be significant. Indeed, when the new vicarage was built in this area in 1990, the foundations had to be taken down about 3 metres to reach hard ground.
The Church has a soakaway toilet that drains into RN152. This would require alteration.
Since the houses at Ellis Wood were built (across the road from RN152) there has been continual road subsidence, thought to be caused by underground aquifers. This would require fault investigation and correction before any further building work could proceed.
Building on this farmland would contribute to potential loss of local employment. The land has been tenant farmed by the same family for about 80 years. The farm is not large, reducing the acreage further could make it unviable.
The Churchyard has a magnificent avenue of mature Beech trees that run alongside the southern boundary of RN152. It would be unsafe to build under these large trees as the prevailing wind direction means a fall would land in RN152. There are further random mature trees along this boundary. Excavation works in RN152 would have great potential to damage the root systems, causing their premature demise or making them unsafe. To avoid the graves within the churchyard and the roots of the Beech avenue, the church heating oil supply runs underground through RN152. This would not be easy to relocate.
Access and parking within the village is poor, frequently with both sides of the roads nose to tail with parked cars, such that a large vehicle such as a fire engine could not get through. Development of 22 houses on RN152 would significantly increase this vehicle load on the village. The road adjacent to RN152 is also used for parking for church services. On occasions such as weddings and funerals with a large congregation there would be severe problems.
The number of pupils on roll at the village school has exceeded its nominal capacity for about the last 10 years. There is not a need to build additional housing to provide support against falling pupil numbers, as is the case in some other villages e.g. Coniston.
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 Quentin Elliott (Individual) : 11 May 2012 16:50:00
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.
5.65
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
I do not feel myself qualified to determine the legality of the DPD.
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.
I am not sure that the writer of the DPD is even sure which plot RN152 is. The DPD describes it as Oak Vale and the drop down list above describes it as Old Vicarage, both of which are incorrect.
Paragraph 5.65 of DPD wrongly describes RN152 as an 'infill site'. There is no housing outside of this site, only the churchyard.
Paragraph 5.65 of DPD wrongly describes RN152 as 'well located in relation to existing services'. The existing wastewater services are of inadequate capacity, which results in regular blockages and localised flooding of raw sewerage, particularly around Roughlea LA12 7RQ. Also about 1/3rd of the plot is below the level of the highway sewer. The new waste water treatment plant cannot handle the volume after heavy rainfall and would see increased flow if the soakaway effect of RN152 was lost.
Paragraph 5.65 of DPD falsely states that 'mature trees border two sides shielding ... existing dwellings on R291'. The trees end adjacent to the first of the three properties on R291, meaning the development on the hill above them will have a severe impact. The new vicarage is already a gloomy house, without further light deprivation and the Old Stables upper windows will lie below ground level of even the lowest property on RN152. The privacy of householders along High Garth will also be greatly affected. When the Old Vicarage and the Old Stables on R291 were purchased from the Diocese, restrictive covenants were imposed upon the new owners by the Diocese solicitors. These covered not doing anything that would devalue the new vicarage or causing noise that affects the vicarage occupants or services within the church and grounds. How can these conditions be met by a development of 22 houses on RN152.
Paragraph 5.66 of DPD falsely suggests that building on RN152 will 'safeguard the Crakeside Business Park and Crakeside Works as local employment areas'. If businesses on these sites are viable, then they will not fail through lack of housing in Greenodd/Penny Bridge when the 12000 population of Ulverston is only 3 miles away.
I do not believe that there is a need for additional housing in Greenodd/Penny Bridge. There are currently about 13 houses for sale, several empty and others to let, covering all price ranges. A housing survey carried out by the Parish Council only 4 years ago did not identify a need for further homes and gave consideration to the need for affordable homes. The village has already undergone significant expansion in recent years with the building of small housing estates at Ellis Wood and opposite the Ship Inn in Greenodd.
Building in RN152 would cause the loss of the lovely view from the Churchyard across the Crake valley and north to the Coniston hills. The views and the peace and quiet of the Churchyard makes it a special place, not just for Church related activities but also a popular through walking route for the villagers. As such, I believe that RN152 is an asset of community value as described in the Localism Act 2011 and I will encourage the Parish Council to have it listed.
Other factors make RN152 unsuitable as a building plot :
RN152 itself has a soft area at the highest point where underground water comes to the surface. After heavy rainfall water collects at the lowest part of the plot NE corner). With the loss of soakaway, caused by all the resultant hard paved areas of a new development, the potential for flooding of the R291 houses will be significant. Indeed, when the new vicarage was built in this area in 1990, the foundations had to be taken down about 3 metres to reach hard ground.
The Church has a soakaway toilet that drains into RN152. This would require alteration.
Since the houses at Ellis Wood were built (across the road from RN152) there has been continual road subsidence, thought to be caused by underground aquifers. This would require fault investigation and correction before any further building work could proceed.
Building on this farmland would contribute to potential loss of local employment. The land has been tenant farmed by the same family for about 80 years. The farm is not large, reducing the acreage further could make it unviable.
The Churchyard has a magnificent avenue of mature Beech trees that run alongside the southern boundary of RN152. It would be unsafe to build under these large trees as the prevailing wind direction means a fall would land in RN152. There are further random mature trees along this boundary. Excavation works in RN152 would have great potential to damage the root systems, causing their premature demise or making them unsafe. To avoid the graves within the churchyard and the roots of the Beech avenue, the church heating oil supply runs underground through RN152. This would not be easy to relocate.
Access and parking within the village is poor, frequently with both sides of the roads nose to tail with parked cars, such that a large vehicle such as a fire engine could not get through. Development of 22 houses on RN152 would significantly increase this vehicle load on the village. The road adjacent to RN152 is also used for parking for church services. On occasions such as weddings and funerals with a large congregation there would be severe problems.
The number of pupils on roll at the village school has exceeded its nominal capacity for about the last 10 years. There is not a need to build additional housing to provide support against falling pupil numbers, as is the case in some other villages e.g. Coniston.
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 Quentin Elliott (Individual) : 11 May 2012 16:52:00
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.
5.66
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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 DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
I do not feel myself qualified to determine the legality of the DPD.
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.
I am not sure that the writer of the DPD is even sure which plot RN152 is. The DPD describes it as Oak Vale and the drop down list above describes it as Old Vicarage, both of which are incorrect.
Paragraph 5.65 of DPD wrongly describes RN152 as an 'infill site'. There is no housing outside of this site, only the churchyard.
Paragraph 5.65 of DPD wrongly describes RN152 as 'well located in relation to existing services'. The existing wastewater services are of inadequate capacity, which results in regular blockages and localised flooding of raw sewerage, particularly around Roughlea LA12 7RQ. Also about 1/3rd of the plot is below the level of the highway sewer. The new waste water treatment plant cannot handle the volume after heavy rainfall and would see increased flow if the soakaway effect of RN152 was lost.
Paragraph 5.65 of DPD falsely states that 'mature trees border two sides shielding ... existing dwellings on R291'. The trees end adjacent to the first of the three properties on R291, meaning the development on the hill above them will have a severe impact. The new vicarage is already a gloomy house, without further light deprivation and the Old Stables upper windows will lie below ground level of even the lowest property on RN152. The privacy of householders along High Garth will also be greatly affected. When the Old Vicarage and the Old Stables on R291 were purchased from the Diocese, restrictive covenants were imposed upon the new owners by the Diocese solicitors. These covered not doing anything that would devalue the new vicarage or causing noise that affects the vicarage occupants or services within the church and grounds. How can these conditions be met by a development of 22 houses on RN152.
Paragraph 5.66 of DPD falsely suggests that building on RN152 will 'safeguard the Crakeside Business Park and Crakeside Works as local employment areas'. If businesses on these sites are viable, then they will not fail through lack of housing in Greenodd/Penny Bridge when the 12000 population of Ulverston is only 3 miles away.
I do not believe that there is a need for additional housing in Greenodd/Penny Bridge. There are currently about 13 houses for sale, several empty and others to let, covering all price ranges. A housing survey carried out by the Parish Council only 4 years ago did not identify a need for further homes and gave consideration to the need for affordable homes. The village has already undergone significant expansion in recent years with the building of small housing estates at Ellis Wood and opposite the Ship Inn in Greenodd.
Building in RN152 would cause the loss of the lovely view from the Churchyard across the Crake valley and north to the Coniston hills. The views and the peace and quiet of the Churchyard makes it a special place, not just for Church related activities but also a popular through walking route for the villagers. As such, I believe that RN152 is an asset of community value as described in the Localism Act 2011 and I will encourage the Parish Council to have it listed.
Other factors make RN152 unsuitable as a building plot :
RN152 itself has a soft area at the highest point where underground water comes to the surface. After heavy rainfall water collects at the lowest part of the plot NE corner). With the loss of soakaway, caused by all the resultant hard paved areas of a new development, the potential for flooding of the R291 houses will be significant. Indeed, when the new vicarage was built in this area in 1990, the foundations had to be taken down about 3 metres to reach hard ground.
The Church has a soakaway toilet that drains into RN152. This would require alteration.
Since the houses at Ellis Wood were built (across the road from RN152) there has been continual road subsidence, thought to be caused by underground aquifers. This would require fault investigation and correction before any further building work could proceed.
Building on this farmland would contribute to potential loss of local employment. The land has been tenant farmed by the same family for about 80 years. The farm is not large, reducing the acreage further could make it unviable.
The Churchyard has a magnificent avenue of mature Beech trees that run alongside the southern boundary of RN152. It would be unsafe to build under these large trees as the prevailing wind direction means a fall would land in RN152. There are further random mature trees along this boundary. Excavation works in RN152 would have great potential to damage the root systems, causing their premature demise or making them unsafe. To avoid the graves within the churchyard and the roots of the Beech avenue, the church heating oil supply runs underground through RN152. This would not be easy to relocate.
Access and parking within the village is poor, frequently with both sides of the roads nose to tail with parked cars, such that a large vehicle such as a fire engine could not get through. Development of 22 houses on RN152 would significantly increase this vehicle load on the village. The road adjacent to RN152 is also used for parking for church services. On occasions such as weddings and funerals with a large congregation there would be severe problems.
The number of pupils on roll at the village school has exceeded its nominal capacity for about the last 10 years. There is not a need to build additional housing to provide support against falling pupil numbers, as is the case in some other villages e.g. Coniston.
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
