2 responses from Mrs Sharon Ritchie (Individual)
1. Mrs Sharon Ritchie (Individual) : 4 Apr 2012 15:26:00
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.
LA1.1 Development Boundaries- PENNY BRIDGE/GREENODD
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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
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
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
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.
The LDF document refers to the site as being an infill site which is inaccurate as ther is no existin 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 relating to existing services and facilities. There are mature trees boardering two sites shielding the Church and existing dwellings on R291 the beech trees to the south of the field represent a significant danger to any future development. The reference that the development would "safeguard the Crakeside Business Park and Works as local employment areas" is tenuous at best there is available housing in nereby Ulverston, Lowick, Bouth, Haverthwaite but to name a few.
The Parish Council Survey did not reveal a need for housing - in fact there are at least 9 for sale and 4 second homes/holiday lets.
In addition to the above devaluation of existing properties, threat to wildlife, loss of light serious risk of sewage and flooding problems, noise, pollution, no spaces at primary school, traffic, parking problems, total loss of views from the church over the village and beyond loss of peace to people visiting loved ones graves but too name a few.
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 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.
Buy the properties for sale and rent them out. Find suitable land for building not green agricultrual land.
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. Mrs Sharon Ritchie (Individual) : 11 May 2012 16:33:00
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?
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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
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
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy
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.
The LDF document refers to the site as being an infill site which is inaccurate as ther is no existin 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 relating to existing services and facilities. There are mature trees boardering two sites shielding the Church and existing dwellings on R291 the beech trees to the south of the field represent a significant danger to any future development. The reference that the development would "safeguard the Crakeside Business Park and Works as local employment areas" is tenuous at best there is available housing in nereby Ulverston, Lowick, Bouth, Haverthwaite but to name a few.
The Parish Council Survey did not reveal a need for housing - in fact there are at least 9 for sale and 4 second homes/holiday lets.
In addition to the above devaluation of existing properties, threat to wildlife, loss of light serious risk of sewage and flooding problems, noise, pollution, no spaces at primary school, traffic, parking problems, total loss of views from the church over the village and beyond loss of peace to people visiting loved ones graves but too name a few.
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 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.
Buy the properties for sale and rent them out. Find suitable land for building not green agricultrual land.
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
