2 responses from Mr David Lancaster (Individual)
1. Mr David Lancaster (Individual) : 9 May 2012 15:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN152 GREENODD LAND AT THE OLD VICARAGE
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.
Unsure! Again I ask, were the owners, as well as the Environmental Agency, consulted over water, drainage, sewage?
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.
A petition (signed by the majority) do not want this development for the reasons attached on separate sheet [see text below]. I also asked if the owners (church) were consulted over flooding (no response).
Text of letter:
I attended a local Parish Council meeting held in Greenodd Village Hall on Tuesday 6th March 2012, to express my concerns and my objections to the proposal to build 22 dwellings on the land mentioned above. I have also registered my concerns by telephone to the Diocese - the owners of the land. I am the present church warden, a post I have held for some 30 years.
I have a copy of Appendix 8 - Greenodd & Pennybridge Emerging Options Consultation Stage 1 (Final Version) and I recognise and support all the objections raised in that document to build on this land, north of our churchyard.
I enclose photographic evidence of a potential flood risk to this development, evidence which I raised over 20 years ago when the new vicarage was built behind the old vicarage, close to the field.
I would ask if South Lakeland District Council has engaged with the owners - "Re: Appendix 8 - The Council has fully engaged with the Environmental Agency and other relevant key professional bodies / persons."
From my photographs (Jan 1990 - see attached document) you will note the depth excavated to find a sound base (foundation) for the building of the new vicarage - measured some 3-4 metres. It flooded and was repeatedly pumped out and large drains installed.
I would further add, in my opinion to this development, an observation on "Landscape Impact". This is a sloping field draining natural springs and housing behind present dwellings including the new vicarage would overlook obtrusively and reduce natural light to existing homes. Furthermore, people have expressed a great desire to preserve the tranquility and the peace afforded by our local church and churchyard. Those who visit for church services, weddings, funerals, special events with the school children, or just to tend the graves of relatives can, at present, reflect on the beautiful countryside and the views afforded of the Coniston Mountain range and the lovely Crake Valley; an asset which would disappear in one instant.
On a personal note I add that I am oposed to building on producing agricultural land, whether it's for a crop of hay or for grazing farm animals - as at present. I firmly believe that with an ever increasing population, nationally and worldwide, that we are, in the future, going to need all the agricultural land and more. It would see, even in this rural county, that we are reducing land and the number of people working on the land - and jobs we certainly need.
I am not convinced that there is a need for so many new dwellings (is it 6000 by 2025?) - certainly 400 a year more recommended. I have counted 13 dwellings up for sale in our parish - prices ranging from £140,000 to £395,000 - most on offer since last year and no buyers. Our friends wished to move and haven't had a single visit in 6 months.
At present there are few holiday homes in Greenodd and Penny Bridge. This is not the case at Spark Bridge and further up the valley to Coniston. Our primary school is full and so is the new pre-school built on the same site. I am told this is not the case elsewhere. Surely this is an indicator that our community in its endeavours has, to a large extent "got things right" - realising and knowing what is important for our future here. Our people fought to keep our school and church viable, to retain our village post office, along with other shops and businesses and they support our thriving societies. At the meetings on this matter there has been a resounding "no" to this development with a petition signed by the majority. We are alos supportive of our representative on the SLDC and our Parish Council.
I appeal to you to reconsider and to reject building on this land; to concentrate your efforts where the need for building is greatest - and, where possible, using "infill" and former sites used for industry.
It was stated at the meeting on 06.03.12 that another site in our parish had been "turned down" because of access - mainly to the main Greenodd to Coniston road. Building another 22 dwellings, further up the hill from this site is surely going to increase the number of vehicles accessing the same road.
When I spoke at a previous parish council meeting on this matter I stated that on the south and south west sides of this proposed development there were a large number of mature trees - an avenue of tall beech and sycamore trees in the churchyard alongside this field, and a large number of oaks, chestnut, ash etc between the vicarage and the field. My concern was that the disturbance to the roots, if building took place, and the age of the trees, might threaten buildings constructed in the said field. In recent years two very large beech trees have fallen into the field. I also stated that a supply pipe to the church oil fired central heating boiler passes along the south side of this field to the oil tank - and that a "soak-away" from the church toiltet is in this vicinity.
- Loss of landscape and amenity
- Topography
- Impact of church, graveyard, etc and impact on funerals, weddings, grave visits
- Loss of agricultural land / greenfield site and potential impact on agricultural employment
- Known issues such as drainage / ground water / surface water in the field (photos attached)
- Concern over existinf sewage problems upstream of the new sewage treatment plant (which is not working properly at present because of these problems)
- There are presently at least thirteen properties in Greenodd and Penny Bridge either for sale, for let or empty, suggest lack of demand for additional residential housing
- The primary school is presently full / at capacity with little scope for expansion
- Major concerns over access / traffic both during construction and thereafter
- The likely devaluation of existing neighbouring properties, impact on light etc. for those properties and the fact that they will be overlooked by any development
- The LDF document refers to the site as being an "infill site" which is inaccurate as there is no existing development to the south of the field and it can easily be argued that development would not constitute "rounding off" and that it would not be "well located in relation to existing services and facilities"
- There are relatively few mature trees bordering two sides "shielding the church and existing dwelling on R291": in fact, the beech trees to the south of the field represent a significant danger to any future development (2 have already blown over into this field)
- The reference in the document that development would "safeguard the Crakeside Business Park and Crakeside Works as local imployment areas" is tenuous at best because of the close proximity of housing in nearby Ulverston, Lowick Parish and Backbarrow and Haverthwaite.
- More buildings for holiday homes? (4 already in Ellis Wood - last development) across the road
- church sewage 'soakaway' in this area. Also oil supply pipe.
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
2. Mr David Lancaster (Individual) : 9 May 2012 15:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN152 GREENODD LAND AT THE OLD VICARAGE
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.
removal of site
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 would ask if South Lakeland District Council has engaged with the owners - "Re: Appendix 8 - The Council has fully engaged with the Environmental Agency and other relevant key professional bodies / persons."
I am not convinced that there is a need for so many new dwellings (is it 6000 by 2025?) - certainly 400 a year more recommended. I have counted 13 dwellings up for sale in our parish - prices ranging from £140,000 to £395,000 - most on offer since last year and no buyers. Our friends wished to move and haven't had a single visit in 6 months.
At present there are few holiday homes in Greenodd and Penny Bridge. This is not the case at Spark Bridge and further up the valley to Coniston. Our primary school is full and so is the new pre-school built on the same site. I am told this is not the case elsewhere. Surely this is an indicator that our community in its endeavours has, to a large extent "got things right" - realising and knowing what is important for our future here. Our people fought to keep our school and church viable, to retain our village post office, along with other shops and businesses and they support our thriving societies. At the meetings on this matter there has been a resounding "no" to this development with a petition signed by the majority. We are also supportive of our representative on the SLDC and our Parish Council.
It was stated at the meeting on 06.03.12 that another site in our parish had been "turned down" because of access - mainly to the main Greenodd to Coniston road. Building another 22 dwellings, further up the hill from this site is surely going to increase the number of vehicles accessing the same road.
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
