3 responses from Mr John Ogden (Individual)
1. Mr John Ogden (Individual) : 8 Apr 2012 19:27:00
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.
LA2.3 Land East of Castle Green Road
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
SLDC expects residents to either spend up to 3 hours downloading documents or spend hours in the library trying to decipher the legal jargon of their documents. Large numbers of people are therefore excluded from expressing their support or rejection of the plans. Consultation meetings were presentational and responses to questions were evasive or not answered. Input from residents directly affected are not taken into account which is undemocratic. All Kendal residents are affected when development is large scale. 400 people objected to R121M and R56 and 2 supported it!
The planner responsible for this site did not visit until July 2011 and that was at the invitation of the residents.
Latest national government guidelines for development discourage the use of green spaces and require input of local residents.
SLDC have ignored the rejection of an appeal to develop R56 in 1997.
SLDC's own Local Plan 2006 stated development of higher hillsides would be unduly prominent.
R121 was deemed worthy of County Landscape designation in 1999.
R121 was judged negatively for development by SLDC themselves in original site notes.
SLDC did not accept the Town Council submisson on the Taylor review of 2011.
SLDC did not accept a report from Friends of the Lake District as part of their evidence base. This report stated that development of R121M would be in conflict with RSS Policy EM1, Saved Structure Plan Policy E37, Core Strategy Policy 8.2 and PPS7.
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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
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.
SLDC in its own statements - 3.20 and 3.21 acknowledges that the site has "an existing and complex flood issue" which would have to be mitigated but do not say how. We are concerned that Stock Beck Flood Alleviation scheme would be relied upon but this is also untested. They also acknowledge a transport assessment would be required. Nobody had measured the width of Oak Tree Road (the preferred access route) beforehand.They also state development must provide for "safeguarding significant tree groups, stone walls, and hedgerows". SLDC also states that "Castle Green Road and Castle Green Lane" are "areas of biodiversity importance". To develop an estate of housing with these constraints will require considerable expense to evaluate and "mitigate" and this has not yet been done. Then the work to be done would be expensive thus only making it viable for developers to build "expensive" houses to recoup their outlay. Even if "affordable" housing were to be built the hillside location with its views would attract a premium on later sales of properties.
SLDC has not provided information on how the increased pressure on Kendal's infrastructure would be dealt with, eg traffic, air quality, sewerage, hospitals, surgeries etc.
We accept that "affordable" housing is needed but this oft repeated phrase has not been satisfactorily defined. Wages are low in this area and in the continuing poor economic climate there is no reason to believe that Kendal will be able to attract large employers paying much over minimum wage. Also there continue to be large numbers of vacant or unsold properties in the area.
In accordance with national government planning guidelines all development of greenfield sites should be removed from the DPD.
SLDC should now reconsider the alternative strategy for Kendal as put forward by Kendal Town Council.
SLDC should define what "affordable" housing is, review the actual numbers of people requiring this and how it should be funded.
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 John Ogden (Individual) : 18 May 2012 11:30:00
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 - R121M-mod KENDAL EAST OF CASTLE GREEN ROAD
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
SLDC expects residents to either spend up to 3 hours downloading documents or spend hours in the library trying to decipher the legal jargon of their documents. Large numbers of people are therefore excluded from expressing their support or rejection of the plans. Consultation meetings were presentational and responses to questions were evasive or not answered. Input from residents directly affected are not taken into account which is undemocratic. All Kendal residents are affected when development is large scale. 400 people objected to R121M and R56 and 2 supported it!
The planner responsible for this site did not visit until July 2011 and that was at the invitation of the residents.
Latest national government guidelines for development discourage the use of green spaces and require input of local residents.
SLDC have ignored the rejection of an appeal to develop R56 in 1997.
SLDC's own Local Plan 2006 stated development of higher hillsides would be unduly prominent.
R121 was deemed worthy of County Landscape designation in 1999.
R121 was judged negatively for development by SLDC themselves in original site notes.
SLDC did not accept the Town Council submisson on the Taylor review of 2011.
SLDC did not accept a report from Friends of the Lake District as part of their evidence base. This report stated that development of R121M would be in conflict with RSS Policy EM1, Saved Structure Plan Policy E37, Core Strategy Policy 8.2 and PPS7.
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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
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.
SLDC in its own statements - 3.20 and 3.21 acknowledges that the site has "an existing and complex flood issue" which would have to be mitigated but do not say how. We are concerned that Stock Beck Flood Alleviation scheme would be relied upon but this is also untested. They also acknowledge a transport assessment would be required. Nobody had measured the width of Oak Tree Road (the preferred access route) beforehand.They also state development must provide for "safeguarding significant tree groups, stone walls, and hedgerows". SLDC also states that "Castle Green Road and Castle Green Lane" are "areas of biodiversity importance". To develop an estate of housing with these constraints will require considerable expense to evaluate and "mitigate" and this has not yet been done. Then the work to be done would be expensive thus only making it viable for developers to build "expensive" houses to recoup their outlay. Even if "affordable" housing were to be built the hillside location with its views would attract a premium on later sales of properties.
SLDC has not provided information on how the increased pressure on Kendal's infrastructure would be dealt with, eg traffic, air quality, sewerage, hospitals, surgeries etc.
We accept that "affordable" housing is needed but this oft repeated phrase has not been satisfactorily defined. Wages are low in this area and in the continuing poor economic climate there is no reason to believe that Kendal will be able to attract large employers paying much over minimum wage. Also there continue to be large numbers of vacant or unsold properties in the area.
In accordance with national government planning guidelines all development of greenfield sites should be removed from the DPD.
SLDC should now reconsider the alternative strategy for Kendal as put forward by Kendal Town Council.
SLDC should define what "affordable" housing is, review the actual numbers of people requiring this and how it should be funded.
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 John Ogden (Individual) : 18 May 2012 11:33:00
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
Paragraph No.
1.9
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
SLDC expects residents to either spend up to 3 hours downloading documents or spend hours in the library trying to decipher the legal jargon of their documents. Large numbers of people are therefore excluded from expressing their support or rejection of the plans. Consultation meetings were presentational and responses to questions were evasive or not answered. Input from residents directly affected are not taken into account which is undemocratic. All Kendal residents are affected when development is large scale. 400 people objected to R121M and R56 and 2 supported it!
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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
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