2 responses from Miss Cathryn Hayhurst (Individual)
1. Miss Cathryn Hayhurst (Individual) : 8 Apr 2012 15:15:00
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
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.
Overall my objection is the use of a green agricultural field site when not all brown field sites have been considered.
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 blockages and localised flooding. 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.
Paragraph 5.66 of DPD falsely suggests that building on RN152 will 'safeguard the Crakeside Business Park and Crakeside Works as local employment areas'. With the population of c12,000 in Ulverston 3 miles away there are adequate transport links for employees to live in Ulverston.
There is no 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.
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 walking route. 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.
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. Excavation works in RN152 would have great potential to damage the root systems, causing their demise or making them unsafe.
Access and parking within the village is poor, frequently with both sides of the roads filled with parked cars, such that a large vehicle such as a fire engine could not get through. Development of 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 at the village school has exceeded its 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.
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. Miss Cathryn Hayhurst (Individual) : 15 May 2012 15:34:00
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
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.
Overall my objection is the use of a green agricultural field site when not all brown field sites have been considered.
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 blockages and localised flooding. 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.
Paragraph 5.66 of DPD falsely suggests that building on RN152 will 'safeguard the Crakeside Business Park and Crakeside Works as local employment areas'. With the population of c12,000 in Ulverston 3 miles away there are adequate transport links for employees to live in Ulverston.
There is no 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.
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 walking route. 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.
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. Excavation works in RN152 would have great potential to damage the root systems, causing their demise or making them unsafe.
Access and parking within the village is poor, frequently with both sides of the roads filled with parked cars, such that a large vehicle such as a fire engine could not get through. Development of 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 at the village school has exceeded its 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.
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
