2 responses from Mr John Jackson, Persimmon Homes Lancashire
1. Mr John Jackson, Persimmon Homes Lancashire : 16 Apr 2012 11:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
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.
LA5.1 Stone Cross Mansion
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
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 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.
The allocation of the site at Stone Cross Mansion for housing is supported. However, Policy 5.1 should not restrict development of the site to enabling development only. Please note paragraph 140 of the NPPF.
The site should be considered as a housing allocation without exception securing the delivery of a scheme safeguarding the long term future of the Mansion and Lodge whilst also providing an appropriate level of new build housing for Ulverston during the plan period.
The site is in a sustainable location (sustainability plan sent with email separately to Development Plans), is sequentially well positioned in accordance with CS policy CS1.1 and would reuse an existing building and deliver a range of housing in accordance with CS policy CS1.2. Provided any new build respects and enhances the setting of the heritage assets and works within site constraints there should be no fetter to the total number of new build simply for reasons of "enabling development".
Paragraph 5.10 limits the unit numbers on the site to 50. What robust and credible evidence have the LPA used to support this?
It is proposed that Paragraph 5.10 be amended to uplift the total number of units to circa 80 which is based on a draft scheme by Charles Church (draft layout plan sent with email separately to Development Plans), already the subject of pre-application discussions, including the conversion of the Mansion into 22 apartments, the Lodge into 1 unit and the creation of 56 new build units (79 units total). The new build layout has been designed to minimise any impact on the setting of the heritage assets, taking advantage of the sites topography and existing trees to provide screening. It is proposed that this approach provides an appropriate and reasonable alternative to the development of the site, from that currently put forward by the LPA, in accordance with the NPPF and the Core Strategy.
It is suggested that Policy 5.1 be reworded as follows:
"New build housing development within the site will assist in supporting appropriate schemes for the conversion of the grade 2 listed Mansion and the reuse of the Lodge into dwellings to safeguard their long term future. Appropriate planning mechanisms will be used to ensure the timely completion of the works to these heritage assets within the development programme. Any new build must respect the heritage assets, be sited so as to ensure their settings are not adversely affected and also ensure important views to and from the heritage assets, both from within and from outside of the site, remain unharmed."
2.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
The site is in a sustainable location (sustainability plan sent with email separately to Development Plans), is sequentially well positioned in accordance with CS policy CS1.1 and would reuse an existing building and deliver a range of housing in accordance with CS policy CS1.2.
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
Should the above recommended changes not be accommodated and the LPA maintain their position that any scheme be "enabling development" only.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr John Jackson, Persimmon Homes Lancashire : 15 May 2012 12:26:00
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 - RN250 ULVERSTON STONE CROSS MANSION
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
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.
The allocation of the site at Stone Cross Mansion for housing is supported. However, Policy 5.1 should not restrict development of the site to enabling development only. Please note paragraph 140 of the NPPF.
The site should be considered as a housing allocation without exception securing the delivery of a scheme safeguarding the long term future of the Mansion and Lodge whilst also providing an appropriate level of new build housing for Ulverston during the plan period.
The site is in a sustainable location (sustainability plan sent with email separately to Development Plans), is sequentially well positioned in accordance with CS policy CS1.1 and would reuse an existing building and deliver a range of housing in accordance with CS policy CS1.2. Provided any new build respects and enhances the setting of the heritage assets and works within site constraints there should be no fetter to the total number of new build simply for reasons of "enabling development".
Paragraph 5.10 limits the unit numbers on the site to 50. What robust and credible evidence have the LPA used to support this?
It is proposed that Paragraph 5.10 be amended to uplift the total number of units to circa 80 which is based on a draft scheme by Charles Church (draft layout plan sent with email separately to Development Plans), already the subject of pre-application discussions, including the conversion of the Mansion into 22 apartments, the Lodge into 1 unit and the creation of 56 new build units (79 units total). The new build layout has been designed to minimise any impact on the setting of the heritage assets, taking advantage of the sites topography and existing trees to provide screening. It is proposed that this approach provides an appropriate and reasonable alternative to the development of the site, from that currently put forward by the LPA, in accordance with the NPPF and the Core Strategy.
It is suggested that Policy 5.1 be reworded as follows:
"New build housing development within the site will assist in supporting appropriate schemes for the conversion of the grade 2 listed Mansion and the reuse of the Lodge into dwellings to safeguard their long term future. Appropriate planning mechanisms will be used to ensure the timely completion of the works to these heritage assets within the development programme. Any new build must respect the heritage assets, be sited so as to ensure their settings are not adversely affected and also ensure important views to and from the heritage assets, both from within and from outside of the site, remain unharmed."
2.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
The site is in a sustainable location (sustainability plan sent with email separately to Development Plans), is sequentially well positioned in accordance with CS policy CS1.1 and would reuse an existing building and deliver a range of housing in accordance with CS policy CS1.
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
Should the above recommended changes not be accommodated and the LPA maintain their position that any scheme be "enabling development" only.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
