4 responses from Mr Norman Green (Individual)
1. Mr Norman Green (Individual) : 17 Apr 2012 15:58:00
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 - All Grange-over-Sands sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
I have insufficient knowledge of how the whole process has been conducted to challenge its legality so have clicked 'yes' for that reason. I appreciate that others with a greater involvement do not accept its legality.
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.
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.
As far as Grange is considered, start again? That may sound sarcastic but I have spent some time today reading your documents on Grange and then looking at the proposed sites. The description of what you want for this town do not seem to tally with the planned building.
I found the submission at no. 268 on this response site and the leaflet by The Grange and District Action Group both accurately challenged your approach strongly.
My own observations are as follows:
1. The Grange Town Mayor has more than once raised the issue of the physical layout of the town in relation to further development. i.e. the main road in and out is narrow, with many bends and in parts steep. There is already a high level of car ownership in this town. The issue of hundreds of extra houses generating not only more cars but more delivery traffic has not been properly addressed in the document. The roads are already congested and parking restricted. There seems little scope for road improvements given the town layout.
2. Kents Bank. This has a very distinctive peaceful semi-rural quality. At a presentation in Grange's Victoria Hall some time ago an S.L.D.C. representative referred to a mix of housing and industrial units in the Greaves Wood area. When he showed me the map he could not be specific about what industry he meant. Your document talks of 'employment opportunities'. If what you propose involves industrial units in or near Kents Bank it would be totally out of place here. Using words such as '...there will be a need for great sensitivity in locating here...' just sidesteps the issue.
3. Again, fine words about 'preserving green gaps' are contradicted by the actual plans to locate buildings so as to narrow existing settlements to within a couple of hundred metres of each other. Anyone who has spent any time in Kents Bank with its narrow quiet residential roads next to the bay could not seriously think that this environment is suitable for nearby industry or large amounts of extra housing. There are places such as the existing set of industrial units outside Lindale where industry and housing work well near (but not too near) to each other. The layout of Kents Bank does not make it one of them.
4. It has already been pointed out that there are many unsold houses in Grange, many at the lower price end. We all know that we need more housing in appropriate places. Appropriate being the operative word. This is not a case of nimbyism. It should also not be a case of the Council fulfilling pre-determined quotas, building in inappropriate places whatever the transport and environmental cost and just hoping for the best.
Finally, in the light of extensive growth, how exactly will ongoing infrastructure, environment and quality-of-life issues be reviewed and addressed? I don't see any convincing plans in your documents. Will a gradual degrading of these things be accepted as a price that has to be paid for development?
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 Norman Green (Individual) : 11 May 2012 15:49:00
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.
LA3.1 Mixed Use Allocation at Berners Pool, Grange-over-Sands
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
I have insufficient knowledge of how the whole process has been conducted to challenge its legality so have clicked 'yes' for that reason. I appreciate that others with a greater involvement do not accept its legality.
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.
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.
As far as Grange is considered, start again? That may sound sarcastic but I have spent some time today reading your documents on Grange and then looking at the proposed sites. The description of what you want for this town do not seem to tally with the planned building.
I found the submission at no. 268 on this response site and the leaflet by The Grange and District Action Group both accurately challenged your approach strongly.
My own observations are as follows:
1. The Grange Town Mayor has more than once raised the issue of the physical layout of the town in relation to further development. i.e. the main road in and out is narrow, with many bends and in parts steep. There is already a high level of car ownership in this town. The issue of hundreds of extra houses generating not only more cars but more delivery traffic has not been properly addressed in the document. The roads are already congested and parking restricted. There seems little scope for road improvements given the town layout.
2. Kents Bank. This has a very distinctive peaceful semi-rural quality. At a presentation in Grange's Victoria Hall some time ago an S.L.D.C. representative referred to a mix of housing and industrial units in the Greaves Wood area. When he showed me the map he could not be specific about what industry he meant. Your document talks of 'employment opportunities'. If what you propose involves industrial units in or near Kents Bank it would be totally out of place here. Using words such as '...there will be a need for great sensitivity in locating here...' just sidesteps the issue.
3. Again, fine words about 'preserving green gaps' are contradicted by the actual plans to locate buildings so as to narrow existing settlements to within a couple of hundred metres of each other. Anyone who has spent any time in Kents Bank with its narrow quiet residential roads next to the bay could not seriously think that this environment is suitable for nearby industry or large amounts of extra housing. There are places such as the existing set of industrial units outside Lindale where industry and housing work well near (but not too near) to each other. The layout of Kents Bank does not make it one of them.
4. It has already been pointed out that there are many unsold houses in Grange, many at the lower price end. We all know that we need more housing in appropriate places. Appropriate being the operative word. This is not a case of nimbyism. It should also not be a case of the Council fulfilling pre-determined quotas, building in inappropriate places whatever the transport and environmental cost and just hoping for the best.
Finally, in the light of extensive growth, how exactly will ongoing infrastructure, environment and quality-of-life issues be reviewed and addressed? I don't see any convincing plans in your documents. Will a gradual degrading of these things be accepted as a price that has to be paid for development?
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 Norman Green (Individual) : 11 May 2012 15:51:00
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.
LA3.2 Mixed Use Allocation at Land South of Allithwaite Road, Kent's Bank, Grange-over-Sands
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
I have insufficient knowledge of how the whole process has been conducted to challenge its legality so have clicked 'yes' for that reason. I appreciate that others with a greater involvement do not accept its legality.
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.
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.
As far as Grange is considered, start again? That may sound sarcastic but I have spent some time today reading your documents on Grange and then looking at the proposed sites. The description of what you want for this town do not seem to tally with the planned building.
I found the submission at no. 268 on this response site and the leaflet by The Grange and District Action Group both accurately challenged your approach strongly.
My own observations are as follows:
1. The Grange Town Mayor has more than once raised the issue of the physical layout of the town in relation to further development. i.e. the main road in and out is narrow, with many bends and in parts steep. There is already a high level of car ownership in this town. The issue of hundreds of extra houses generating not only more cars but more delivery traffic has not been properly addressed in the document. The roads are already congested and parking restricted. There seems little scope for road improvements given the town layout.
2. Kents Bank. This has a very distinctive peaceful semi-rural quality. At a presentation in Grange's Victoria Hall some time ago an S.L.D.C. representative referred to a mix of housing and industrial units in the Greaves Wood area. When he showed me the map he could not be specific about what industry he meant. Your document talks of 'employment opportunities'. If what you propose involves industrial units in or near Kents Bank it would be totally out of place here. Using words such as '...there will be a need for great sensitivity in locating here...' just sidesteps the issue.
3. Again, fine words about 'preserving green gaps' are contradicted by the actual plans to locate buildings so as to narrow existing settlements to within a couple of hundred metres of each other. Anyone who has spent any time in Kents Bank with its narrow quiet residential roads next to the bay could not seriously think that this environment is suitable for nearby industry or large amounts of extra housing. There are places such as the existing set of industrial units outside Lindale where industry and housing work well near (but not too near) to each other. The layout of Kents Bank does not make it one of them.
4. It has already been pointed out that there are many unsold houses in Grange, many at the lower price end. We all know that we need more housing in appropriate places. Appropriate being the operative word. This is not a case of nimbyism. It should also not be a case of the Council fulfilling pre-determined quotas, building in inappropriate places whatever the transport and environmental cost and just hoping for the best.
Finally, in the light of extensive growth, how exactly will ongoing infrastructure, environment and quality-of-life issues be reviewed and addressed? I don't see any convincing plans in your documents. Will a gradual degrading of these things be accepted as a price that has to be paid for development?
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
4. Mr Norman Green (Individual) : 11 May 2012 15:54:00
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.
LA3.3 Mixed Use Allocation at Guide's Lot, Grange-over-Sands
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
I have insufficient knowledge of how the whole process has been conducted to challenge its legality so have clicked 'yes' for that reason. I appreciate that others with a greater involvement do not accept its legality.
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.
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.
As far as Grange is considered, start again? That may sound sarcastic but I have spent some time today reading your documents on Grange and then looking at the proposed sites. The description of what you want for this town do not seem to tally with the planned building.
I found the submission at no. 268 on this response site and the leaflet by The Grange and District Action Group both accurately challenged your approach strongly.
My own observations are as follows:
1. The Grange Town Mayor has more than once raised the issue of the physical layout of the town in relation to further development. i.e. the main road in and out is narrow, with many bends and in parts steep. There is already a high level of car ownership in this town. The issue of hundreds of extra houses generating not only more cars but more delivery traffic has not been properly addressed in the document. The roads are already congested and parking restricted. There seems little scope for road improvements given the town layout.
2. Kents Bank. This has a very distinctive peaceful semi-rural quality. At a presentation in Grange's Victoria Hall some time ago an S.L.D.C. representative referred to a mix of housing and industrial units in the Greaves Wood area. When he showed me the map he could not be specific about what industry he meant. Your document talks of 'employment opportunities'. If what you propose involves industrial units in or near Kents Bank it would be totally out of place here. Using words such as '...there will be a need for great sensitivity in locating here...' just sidesteps the issue.
3. Again, fine words about 'preserving green gaps' are contradicted by the actual plans to locate buildings so as to narrow existing settlements to within a couple of hundred metres of each other. Anyone who has spent any time in Kents Bank with its narrow quiet residential roads next to the bay could not seriously think that this environment is suitable for nearby industry or large amounts of extra housing. There are places such as the existing set of industrial units outside Lindale where industry and housing work well near (but not too near) to each other. The layout of Kents Bank does not make it one of them.
4. It has already been pointed out that there are many unsold houses in Grange, many at the lower price end. We all know that we need more housing in appropriate places. Appropriate being the operative word. This is not a case of nimbyism. It should also not be a case of the Council fulfilling pre-determined quotas, building in inappropriate places whatever the transport and environmental cost and just hoping for the best.
Finally, in the light of extensive growth, how exactly will ongoing infrastructure, environment and quality-of-life issues be reviewed and addressed? I don't see any convincing plans in your documents. Will a gradual degrading of these things be accepted as a price that has to be paid for development?
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
