Response from Mr Andrew Kendall (Individual)
1. Mr Andrew Kendall (Individual) : 9 Apr 2012 11:41:00
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 - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
R30, land near Wartbarrow Lane/Fellside in Allithwaite. Was part of R343m when considered, document "Allithwaite Final Stage 1"
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.
This site was discounted at stage one of the consultation process for reasons documented in your on-line consultation appendices, some of which I would disagree with but respect your research and findings (I work in the water industry locally so know the sewer issue could be easily solved for example, so therefore don't find this a sound reason for discounting)
Looking at the most recent map on your web site field R30 is now within the development boundary (R343 is not) so can it be asked that this site is considered singularly? This field is without doubt infill in the village, and is certainly more infill than some of the land suggested now as to be allocated, RN 224 for example. Access for a smaller development through Fellside would be better too.
Can I finally add I find it very strange that R30 is within your development boundary yet not included in the proposal - this is the main point I wish to be reconsidered.
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
Unsure what this will actually involved but more than willing to speak to the Inspector if needed regarding my point.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me