Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

0.0 Whole Document

No

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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy

GREEN SPACES REPRESENTATIONS ON LAND ALLOCATIONS DPD

1 Introduction

The Green Spaces Committee is a coordinating body of residents’ campaign groups from across South Lakeland, united in our opposition to the District Council’s approach on land allocations.

The following groups support the general representations contained in this submission, without prejudice to the arguments contained in their individual submissions:

- Grange and District Action Group (GADAG)
- Kentrigg West Action Group (KWAG)
- Save Our Landscape East Kendal (SOLEK)
- South Milnthorpe Residents’ Group
- Triangle Opposition Group (TOG)
- Valley Drive Campaign Group (VDCG)
- West Kendal Action Group (WKAG)


The Green Spaces Committee considers that the flaws in the document, from both legal compliance and soundness perspectives, are so great that the DPD should be referred back to the Council for further consultation and negotiation with residents’ groups.

2 Lack of Legal Compliance

2.1 Alternatives to the Plan

In the light of the recent High Court ruling, referring back to the Greater Norwich Development Plan Partnership part of their plan for new homes on the grounds that alternatives had not been properly assessed, there must be similar concerns over the South Lakeland DPD.

From the ‘emerging options’ stage it was very clear that the Council would not entertain any other policy approach to the one they had decided to adopt, and that the vast majority of the sites identified at that stage would be confirmed irrespective of the outcome of consultations. All engagements with council officers and members throughout 2011 were presentation style meetings, where the council approach was justified and no attempt was made to seek accommodation with residents’ groups.

For example in the Kendal area, a viable, popular and well researched alternative set of proposals was submitted by Kendal Town Council in their document ‘Sustainable Development in Kendal’. These plans, based on the recommendations of the well respected Taylor Review (Chapter 2: Living, Working Market towns), were rejected out of hand by SLDC. The Council should instead have offered constructive discussions with the Town Council to examine whether elements of the alternative policy approach could be incorporated in the DPD.

Residents were invited to offer alternative sites to those in the ‘emerging options’ document and many did. Unfortunately SLDC seemed to treat these alternative site suggestions as an irritant to their plans which needed to be dismissed as quickly as decently possible. A rushed consultation on the alternative sites took place over the summer 2011, with little general publicity, and then an even more rushed decision making process led to virtually all these sites being rejected. However the settlement fact files make it clear that the further investigation into these sites was of a token nature. Residents’ groups who had made suggestions were not generally contacted or engaged in further discussion about the viability of their proposals. An example of the way SLDC approached alternative site suggestions is outlined in the separate TOG soundness submission.


We have a further concern that SLDC has only considered sites for inclusion in the DPD where owners and developers have proactively offered the land; this had has led to the current unsatisfactory position where most of the allocations are on prime greenfield sites. If SLDC had considered the BEST OPTIONS for South Lakeland there would be sites in the plan where negotiation or compulsory purchase is necessary.


2.2 Lack of Conformity with Statement of Community Involvement

South Lakeland District Council is in breach of its own Statement of Community Involvement on this issue and specifically the commitment to “ensure meaningful and continued involvement of local communities and stakeholders throughout the process” and being “open to opportunities for approaches involving ‘partnership’ or ‘empowerment’.

As described both above and below, SLDC has rejected virtually all attempts by organisations to seek compromises on their proposals. The Green Spaces Committee requested the SLDC Cabinet to enter meaningful discussions with us last autumn, this was rejected. We asked the same question at the Special Council Meeting in January 2012 and this was ignored. We were even denied the right to host an e-petition on the SLDC website calling for negotiations on the issue as the request was considered “inappropriate”. We have made clear on numerous occasions that we support the need for more affordable housing but would like the opportunity to discuss alternative ways of meeting that need. The council has not been prepared to listen, let alone discuss. This is not “continued involvement” nor “partnership” nor “empowerment, it is an arrogant refusal by SLDC to move away from the narrow policy path it set for itself.

2.3 Lack of Conformity with Core Strategy

Individual submissions by residents’ groups provide numerous examples of lack of conformity with the core strategy. We raise one further breach in respect of policy CS6.6:

“seeking to ensure that at least 28% of housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings” (brown field sites)

The DPD is completely silent on how this target can be achieved and we strongly suspect that this omission is intentional as the Council sees the vast majority of building taking place on green field sites, for the convenience of developers and landowners rather than ensuring that this key core strategy is met. The DPD should have provided an analysis for each main population area of the potential brown field sites available for housing development and the number of households likely to be built on such sites in the period up to 2025. The new National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the importance of ‘brown field first’ planning, an approach sadly ignored in the DPD.

5 Conclusion

As outlined in detail above the DPD lacks both legal compliance and soundness. It does not have a robust and credible evidence base and it cannot be delivered effectively as no Infrastructure Delivery Plan is in place.

In these circumstances the Green Spaces considers, ideally, that the document should be withdrawn pending further consultation and negotiation with residents groups. If the Council persists in submitting the document to the Government then we call on the Council to hold a local poll (as requested by our petition) before the Independent Evaluation takes place.

If the Council refuses to do any of this then we call on the Inspector to refer the DPD back to the Council.

No

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 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. In the Kendal area, for example, of nearly 3000 individual responses on the emerging options, around 98% were opposed to the specific proposals for their neighbourhoods. Many of the small number in favour can be identified as representing landowner or developer interests, but it was these responses that carried the day in confirming the vast majority of emerging options sites. Indeed in some cases last minute changes in allocations occurred before publication stage, either increasing the area for development or the number of houses, without any justification from the consultation responses. What we ask was the purpose of such a lengthy consultation with residents when their views were treated with so much contempt? Examples include:

- R143 added to R129M after the autumn consultation, so increasing potential housing by over 50%
- RN133M increased from 4.87 to 5.97 hectares following the consultation and the development brought forward from Phase 2 to Phase 1

In reaction to the huge public discontent about the way SLDC has abused the consultation system, the Green Spaces Committee has initiated a public petition calling for a local poll on the land allocations proposals. The full petition proposal is as follows:

“We, the undersigned, request South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) to hold a local poll on the land allocations development plan document (DPD) in advance of the Independent Evaluation by the Planning Inspector, with arguments both for and against being given equal publicity. This poll should ask the question: “Do you support the SLDC Land Allocations Document – YES or NO”. Such a poll will allow all residents the opportunity to express an opinion on whether the published DPD is the best way to meet affordable homes targets or whether an alternative strategy, which does not involve the widespread destruction of our green spaces, should be developed”.

The local poll is requested under the powers available to local authorities in Section 116 of the 2003 Local Government Act. The form of the question was approved by SLDC’s Monitoring Officer and an e-version of the petition is lodged on the joint Eden District Council/ SLDC petition platform. As at the time of the submission of these representations, approximately 3300 people had signed the petition, the numbers ensuring that SLDC will have to hold a special council debate on the proposal for a poll.

3.2 Site Histories

The Council chose, in the information given to the public about sites included at emerging options stage, not to cover in any way the history of previous public inquiries or past land designations on individual sites. This is a serious flaw as many residents will have moved into areas relatively recently, without knowledge of the planning history of sites close to their homes and they were therefore consulted on the basis of incomplete information.

Where possible, residents’ groups reminded the Council of site histories and asked the planners to elaborate on what circumstances had changed since the last significant planning event in order to justify inclusion in the DPD. Again such representations were treated with contempt, for example on the Oxenholme Triangle history of three previous public inquiries, the Council’s response was “noted, however changing circumstances need to be taken into account”. Other examples of site histories being ignored in the evidence base are:

- R170M (Middle Sparrowmire) designated Green Gap status upheld by the Inspector in the Local Plan 2006 (para 6.9 of that report)
- RN117M, two previous planning applications refused on grounds of loss of green space and access issues
- R121M: history of public inquiry and planning rejection in 1997 of R56 (part of R121M site) on landscape and other grounds. R121M deemed worthy of ‘County Landscape’ designation in 1999


4 Unsoundness (not effective or deliverable)

The DPD is clearly unsound as no infrastructure delivery plan is in place. The DPD is required to be deliverable, including “sound infrastructure planning and “delivery partners who are signed up to it”.

Contrary to promises of a delivery plan, all that has been provided is an infrastructure ‘position statement’ which is in effect no more than a scoping document outlining the infrastructure challenges. It is absolutely lamentable that given the length of process involved in preparing the DPD so little time and resources have been invested in infrastructure planning to meet the scale of development required. Unresolved issues include:

- No transport delivery plan beyond initial modelling results, which for Kendal show “the level of congestion resulting from the LDF development is not fully mitigated by any of the improvement schemes”
- No certainty over future investment by United Utilities on Water/Sewerage challenges
- No detailed analysis of the increased tidal and fluvial flood risk as a result of the full implementation of the DPD
- Cumbrian Surface Water Management Plan not yet in place
- No information even available from Electricity North West on whether network reinforcement/ a new primary sub-station will be necessary and whether funding will be available for this
- No assessment of the impact of the DPD developments on gas supply beyond 2015
- No agreement with Cumbria County Council on the likely increased need for household waste recycling (in fact these facilities are currently being cut back)
- No detailed planning with Cumbria County Council for increased school numbers to reflect the proposed scale of housing development, at a time when it is admitted that there already pressures on places in many areas
- No survey since 2009 on the likely impact of the DPD developments on primary health care facilities (some surgeries are already at capacity). No discussions with the PCT or other health bodies appear to have taken place
- No detailed analysis of the increased need for adult social care as a result of the anticipated population growth. The scoping document refers only to “Cumbria County Council is presently in the process of developing its District plan with regards to the delivery of social care”
- The current shortage of extra care housing will be exacerbated by the new housing developments but there appear to be no proposals to mitigate this

On almost every count delivery plans are absent or lacking. The scoping document states that it is “the first stage in identifying the needs and understanding the relative priorities to inform future work on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan”. No timetable for the completion of the Plan is identified. This dereliction of responsibility has major implications for local people as local developers and landowners won’t be waiting for the Delivery Plan before they put in their planning applications. Pre-application surveys have already been conducted on some of the contested sites. Once the DPD is adopted the council will not be able to delay determining planning applications and so development will proceed on a haphazard basis without an overall delivery plan in place.


5 Conclusion

As outlined in detail above the DPD lacks both legal compliance and soundness. It does not have a robust and credible evidence base and it cannot be delivered effectively as no Infrastructure Delivery Plan is in place.

In these circumstances the Green Spaces considers, ideally, that the document should be withdrawn pending further consultation and negotiation with residents groups. If the Council persists in submitting the document to the Government then we call on the Council to hold a local poll (as requested by our petition) before the Independent Evaluation takes place.

If the Council refuses to do any of this then we call on the Inspector to refer the DPD back to the Council.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

We are the only district wide coordinating body for all the residents'groups campaigning against the DPD.

Please notify me

1.9

No

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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy

[Note: The following groups support the general representations contained in this submission, without prejudice to the arguments contained in their individual submissions:

- Grange and District Action Group (GADAG)
- Kentrigg West Action Group (KWAG)
- Save Our Landscape East Kendal (SOLEK)
- South Milnthorpe Residents’ Group
- Triangle Opposition Group (TOG)
- Valley Drive Campaign Group (VDCG)
- West Kendal Action Group (WKAG)]

From the ‘emerging options’ stage it was very clear that the Council would not entertain any other policy approach to the one they had decided to adopt, and that the vast majority of the sites identified at that stage would be confirmed irrespective of the outcome of consultations. All engagements with council officers and members throughout 2011 were presentation style meetings, where the council approach was justified and no attempt was made to seek accommodation with residents’ groups.

For example in the Kendal area, a viable, popular and well researched alternative set of proposals was submitted by Kendal Town Council in their document ‘Sustainable Development in Kendal’. These plans, based on the recommendations of the well respected Taylor Review (Chapter 2: Living, Working Market towns), were rejected out of hand by SLDC. The Council should instead have offered constructive discussions with the Town Council to examine whether elements of the alternative policy approach could be incorporated in the DPD.

Residents were invited to offer alternative sites to those in the ‘emerging options’ document and many did. Unfortunately SLDC seemed to treat these alternative site suggestions as an irritant to their plans which needed to be dismissed as quickly as decently possible. A rushed consultation on the alternative sites took place over the summer 2011, with little general publicity, and then an even more rushed decision making process led to virtually all these sites being rejected. However the settlement fact files make it clear that the further investigation into these sites was of a token nature. Residents’ groups who had made suggestions were not generally contacted or engaged in further discussion about the viability of their proposals. An example of the way SLDC approached alternative site suggestions is outlined in the separate TOG soundness submission.

2.2 Lack of Conformity with Statement of Community Involvement

South Lakeland District Council is in breach of its own Statement of Community Involvement on this issue and specifically the commitment to “ensure meaningful and continued involvement of local communities and stakeholders throughout the process” and being “open to opportunities for approaches involving ‘partnership’ or ‘empowerment’.

As described both above and below, SLDC has rejected virtually all attempts by organisations to seek compromises on their proposals. The Green Spaces Committee requested the SLDC Cabinet to enter meaningful discussions with us last autumn, this was rejected. We asked the same question at the Special Council Meeting in January 2012 and this was ignored. We were even denied the right to host an e-petition on the SLDC website calling for negotiations on the issue as the request was considered “inappropriate”. We have made clear on numerous occasions that we support the need for more affordable housing but would like the opportunity to discuss alternative ways of meeting that need. The council has not been prepared to listen, let alone discuss. This is not “continued involvement” nor “partnership” nor “empowerment, it is an arrogant refusal by SLDC to move away from the narrow policy path it set for itself.

3 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. In the Kendal area, for example, of nearly 3000 individual responses on the emerging options, around 98% were opposed to the specific proposals for their neighbourhoods. Many of the small number in favour can be identified as representing landowner or developer interests, but it was these responses that carried the day in confirming the vast majority of emerging options sites. Indeed in some cases last minute changes in allocations occurred before publication stage, either increasing the area for development or the number of houses, without any justification from the consultation responses. What we ask was the purpose of such a lengthy consultation with residents when their views were treated with so much contempt? Examples include:

R143 added to R129M after the autumn consultation, so increasing potential housing by over 50%
RN133M increased from 4.87 to 5.97 hectares following the consultation and the development brought forward from Phase 2 to Phase 1

In reaction to the huge public discontent about the way SLDC has abused the consultation system, the Green Spaces Committee has initiated a public petition calling for a local poll on the land allocations proposals. The full petition proposal is as follows:

“We, the undersigned, request South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) to hold a local poll on the land allocations development plan document (DPD) in advance of the Independent Evaluation by the Planning Inspector, with arguments both for and against being given equal publicity. This poll should ask the question: “Do you support the SLDC Land Allocations Document – YES or NO”. Such a poll will allow all residents the opportunity to express an opinion on whether the published DPD is the best way to meet affordable homes targets or whether an alternative strategy, which does not involve the widespread destruction of our green spaces, should be developed”.

The local poll is requested under the powers available to local authorities in Section 116 of the 2003 Local Government Act. The form of the question was approved by SLDC’s Monitoring Officer and an e-version of the petition is lodged on the joint Eden District Council/ SLDC petition platform. As at the time of the submission of these representations, approximately 3300 people had signed the petition, the numbers ensuring that SLDC will have to hold a special council debate on the proposal for a poll.

No

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.

From the ‘emerging options’ stage it was very clear that the Council would not entertain any other policy approach to the one they had decided to adopt, and that the vast majority of the sites identified at that stage would be confirmed irrespective of the outcome of consultations. All engagements with council officers and members throughout 2011 were presentation style meetings, where the council approach was justified and no attempt was made to seek accommodation with residents’ groups.

For example in the Kendal area, a viable, popular and well researched alternative set of proposals was submitted by Kendal Town Council in their document ‘Sustainable Development in Kendal’. These plans, based on the recommendations of the well respected Taylor Review (Chapter 2: Living, Working Market towns), were rejected out of hand by SLDC. The Council should instead have offered constructive discussions with the Town Council to examine whether elements of the alternative policy approach could be incorporated in the DPD.

Residents were invited to offer alternative sites to those in the ‘emerging options’ document and many did. Unfortunately SLDC seemed to treat these alternative site suggestions as an irritant to their plans which needed to be dismissed as quickly as decently possible. A rushed consultation on the alternative sites took place over the summer 2011, with little general publicity, and then an even more rushed decision making process led to virtually all these sites being rejected. However the settlement fact files make it clear that the further investigation into these sites was of a token nature. Residents’ groups who had made suggestions were not generally contacted or engaged in further discussion about the viability of their proposals. An example of the way SLDC approached alternative site suggestions is outlined in the separate TOG soundness submission.

2.2 Lack of Conformity with Statement of Community Involvement

South Lakeland District Council is in breach of its own Statement of Community Involvement on this issue and specifically the commitment to “ensure meaningful and continued involvement of local communities and stakeholders throughout the process” and being “open to opportunities for approaches involving ‘partnership’ or ‘empowerment’.

As described both above and below, SLDC has rejected virtually all attempts by organisations to seek compromises on their proposals. The Green Spaces Committee requested the SLDC Cabinet to enter meaningful discussions with us last autumn, this was rejected. We asked the same question at the Special Council Meeting in January 2012 and this was ignored. We were even denied the right to host an e-petition on the SLDC website calling for negotiations on the issue as the request was considered “inappropriate”. We have made clear on numerous occasions that we support the need for more affordable housing but would like the opportunity to discuss alternative ways of meeting that need. The council has not been prepared to listen, let alone discuss. This is not “continued involvement” nor “partnership” nor “empowerment, it is an arrogant refusal by SLDC to move away from the narrow policy path it set for itself.

3 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. In the Kendal area, for example, of nearly 3000 individual responses on the emerging options, around 98% were opposed to the specific proposals for their neighbourhoods. Many of the small number in favour can be identified as representing landowner or developer interests, but it was these responses that carried the day in confirming the vast majority of emerging options sites. Indeed in some cases last minute changes in allocations occurred before publication stage, either increasing the area for development or the number of houses, without any justification from the consultation responses. What we ask was the purpose of such a lengthy consultation with residents when their views were treated with so much contempt? Examples include:

- R143 added to R129M after the autumn consultation, so increasing potential housing by over 50%
- RN133M increased from 4.87 to 5.97 hectares following the consultation and the development brought forward from Phase 2 to Phase 1

In reaction to the huge public discontent about the way SLDC has abused the consultation system, the Green Spaces Committee has initiated a public petition calling for a local poll on the land allocations proposals. The full petition proposal is as follows:

“We, the undersigned, request South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) to hold a local poll on the land allocations development plan document (DPD) in advance of the Independent Evaluation by the Planning Inspector, with arguments both for and against being given equal publicity. This poll should ask the question: “Do you support the SLDC Land Allocations Document – YES or NO”. Such a poll will allow all residents the opportunity to express an opinion on whether the published DPD is the best way to meet affordable homes targets or whether an alternative strategy, which does not involve the widespread destruction of our green spaces, should be developed”.

The local poll is requested under the powers available to local authorities in Section 116 of the 2003 Local Government Act. The form of the question was approved by SLDC’s Monitoring Officer and an e-version of the petition is lodged on the joint Eden District Council/ SLDC petition platform. As at the time of the submission of these representations, approximately 3300 people had signed the petition, the numbers ensuring that SLDC will have to hold a special council debate on the proposal for a poll.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

see other response

1.10

No

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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy

[Note: The following groups support the general representations contained in this submission, without prejudice to the arguments contained in their individual submissions:

- Grange and District Action Group (GADAG)
- Kentrigg West Action Group (KWAG)
- Save Our Landscape East Kendal (SOLEK)
- South Milnthorpe Residents’ Group
- Triangle Opposition Group (TOG)
- Valley Drive Campaign Group (VDCG)
- West Kendal Action Group (WKAG)]


Residents were invited to offer alternative sites to those in the ‘emerging options’ document and many did. Unfortunately SLDC seemed to treat these alternative site suggestions as an irritant to their plans which needed to be dismissed as quickly as decently possible. A rushed consultation on the alternative sites took place over the summer 2011, with little general publicity, and then an even more rushed decision making process led to virtually all these sites being rejected. However the settlement fact files make it clear that the further investigation into these sites was of a token nature. Residents’ groups who had made suggestions were not generally contacted or engaged in further discussion about the viability of their proposals. An example of the way SLDC approached alternative site suggestions is outlined in the separate TOG soundness submission.

2.2 Lack of Conformity with Statement of Community Involvement

South Lakeland District Council is in breach of its own Statement of Community Involvement on this issue and specifically the commitment to “ensure meaningful and continued involvement of local communities and stakeholders throughout the process” and being “open to opportunities for approaches involving ‘partnership’ or ‘empowerment’.

As described both above and below, SLDC has rejected virtually all attempts by organisations to seek compromises on their proposals. The Green Spaces Committee requested the SLDC Cabinet to enter meaningful discussions with us last autumn, this was rejected. We asked the same question at the Special Council Meeting in January 2012 and this was ignored. We were even denied the right to host an e-petition on the SLDC website calling for negotiations on the issue as the request was considered “inappropriate”. We have made clear on numerous occasions that we support the need for more affordable housing but would like the opportunity to discuss alternative ways of meeting that need. The council has not been prepared to listen, let alone discuss. This is not “continued involvement” nor “partnership” nor “empowerment, it is an arrogant refusal by SLDC to move away from the narrow policy path it set for itself.

3 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. In the Kendal area, for example, of nearly 3000 individual responses on the emerging options, around 98% were opposed to the specific proposals for their neighbourhoods. Many of the small number in favour can be identified as representing landowner or developer interests, but it was these responses that carried the day in confirming the vast majority of emerging options sites. Indeed in some cases last minute changes in allocations occurred before publication stage, either increasing the area for development or the number of houses, without any justification from the consultation responses. What we ask was the purpose of such a lengthy consultation with residents when their views were treated with so much contempt? Examples include:

- R143 added to R129M after the autumn consultation, so increasing potential housing by over 50%
- RN133M increased from 4.87 to 5.97 hectares following the consultation and the development brought forward from Phase 2 to Phase 1

In reaction to the huge public discontent about the way SLDC has abused the consultation system, the Green Spaces Committee has initiated a public petition calling for a local poll on the land allocations proposals. The full petition proposal is as follows:

“We, the undersigned, request South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) to hold a local poll on the land allocations development plan document (DPD) in advance of the Independent Evaluation by the Planning Inspector, with arguments both for and against being given equal publicity. This poll should ask the question: “Do you support the SLDC Land Allocations Document – YES or NO”. Such a poll will allow all residents the opportunity to express an opinion on whether the published DPD is the best way to meet affordable homes targets or whether an alternative strategy, which does not involve the widespread destruction of our green spaces, should be developed”.

The local poll is requested under the powers available to local authorities in Section 116 of the 2003 Local Government Act. The form of the question was approved by SLDC’s Monitoring Officer and an e-version of the petition is lodged on the joint Eden District Council/ SLDC petition platform. As at the time of the submission of these representations, approximately 3300 people had signed the petition, the numbers ensuring that SLDC will have to hold a special council debate on the proposal for a poll.

No

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.

Residents were invited to offer alternative sites to those in the ‘emerging options’ document and many did. Unfortunately SLDC seemed to treat these alternative site suggestions as an irritant to their plans which needed to be dismissed as quickly as decently possible. A rushed consultation on the alternative sites took place over the summer 2011, with little general publicity, and then an even more rushed decision making process led to virtually all these sites being rejected. However the settlement fact files make it clear that the further investigation into these sites was of a token nature. Residents’ groups who had made suggestions were not generally contacted or engaged in further discussion about the viability of their proposals. An example of the way SLDC approached alternative site suggestions is outlined in the separate TOG soundness submission.

2.2 Lack of Conformity with Statement of Community Involvement

South Lakeland District Council is in breach of its own Statement of Community Involvement on this issue and specifically the commitment to “ensure meaningful and continued involvement of local communities and stakeholders throughout the process” and being “open to opportunities for approaches involving ‘partnership’ or ‘empowerment’.

As described both above and below, SLDC has rejected virtually all attempts by organisations to seek compromises on their proposals. The Green Spaces Committee requested the SLDC Cabinet to enter meaningful discussions with us last autumn, this was rejected. We asked the same question at the Special Council Meeting in January 2012 and this was ignored. We were even denied the right to host an e-petition on the SLDC website calling for negotiations on the issue as the request was considered “inappropriate”. We have made clear on numerous occasions that we support the need for more affordable housing but would like the opportunity to discuss alternative ways of meeting that need. The council has not been prepared to listen, let alone discuss. This is not “continued involvement” nor “partnership” nor “empowerment, it is an arrogant refusal by SLDC to move away from the narrow policy path it set for itself.

3 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. In the Kendal area, for example, of nearly 3000 individual responses on the emerging options, around 98% were opposed to the specific proposals for their neighbourhoods. Many of the small number in favour can be identified as representing landowner or developer interests, but it was these responses that carried the day in confirming the vast majority of emerging options sites. Indeed in some cases last minute changes in allocations occurred before publication stage, either increasing the area for development or the number of houses, without any justification from the consultation responses. What we ask was the purpose of such a lengthy consultation with residents when their views were treated with so much contempt? Examples include:

- R143 added to R129M after the autumn consultation, so increasing potential housing by over 50%
- RN133M increased from 4.87 to 5.97 hectares following the consultation and the development brought forward from Phase 2 to Phase 1

In reaction to the huge public discontent about the way SLDC has abused the consultation system, the Green Spaces Committee has initiated a public petition calling for a local poll on the land allocations proposals. The full petition proposal is as follows:

“We, the undersigned, request South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) to hold a local poll on the land allocations development plan document (DPD) in advance of the Independent Evaluation by the Planning Inspector, with arguments both for and against being given equal publicity. This poll should ask the question: “Do you support the SLDC Land Allocations Document – YES or NO”. Such a poll will allow all residents the opportunity to express an opinion on whether the published DPD is the best way to meet affordable homes targets or whether an alternative strategy, which does not involve the widespread destruction of our green spaces, should be developed”.

The local poll is requested under the powers available to local authorities in Section 116 of the 2003 Local Government Act. The form of the question was approved by SLDC’s Monitoring Officer and an e-version of the petition is lodged on the joint Eden District Council/ SLDC petition platform. As at the time of the submission of these representations, approximately 3300 people had signed the petition, the numbers ensuring that SLDC will have to hold a special council debate on the proposal for a poll.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

See earlier response