4 responses from Mrs Ann Park (Individual)
1. Mrs Ann Park (Individual) : 13 Apr 2012 14:31:00
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.
LA1.1 Development Boundaries- ENDMOOR
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.
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.
1, The consultation process is flawed as the proposals now put forward do not bear any resemblance to the original proposals we were asked to comment upon, therefore we not been given the opportunity to consult on the land allocation plans. Furthermore little attention appears to be given to the people who are unable to make their comments electronically in fact feel it has been positively obstructive given the question put to myself by the residents.
2, Endmoor gave a very positive response to the introduction of new housing however it would appear we are being asked to take many more houses in a shorter period than was ever suggested to us. The village cannot sustain this amount of development as the infrastructure is not in place. We are being asked to take a disproportionate amount of housing in comparison to the service centres located nearby. We do not have: Doctors, a pharmacy, a bank, a dentist, we have one small village store and an outreach post office located in the village hall. The size of the proposed development will undoubtedly change the nature of the village as it will increase the village in one area by 48%. Can this be well thought out? The numbers are not sound in that as the Parish Clerk I am aware of previous surveys taken on behalf of SLDC that showed a need for 10 houses up to and including the year 2012 and yet we are being asked to take 100 in one area, 44 of them as affordable housing.
3. The sewerage system within Endmoor is to say the least poor, my own house being on a septic tank as are my neighbours due to lack of sewer infrastructure, when asking SLDC and United Utilities about the intention to upgrade there is nothing in the pipeline - do we assume 100 houses are all going to have septic tanks and the resulting sewerage trucks. In this day and age is this sound reasoning? Little is said about the intention to deal with surface water does this not indicate a lack of planning forethought?
4. The road infrastructure around Endmoor is geared to rural traffic, farm vehicles etc and many are single track, the influx of so many houses being built in one area will cause many problems and until a carefully thought out plan is in place to accommodate this increase this proposal should not be granted. I do not see anything in the plan to ease my concerns.
5. Endmoor is surrounded by industrial sites, Summerlands currently has numerous units empty as it is too far from Kendal to make business viable, Gatebeck also has sites empty for the same reason, why build more when we cannot fill the ones available?
I am happy to see some growth in housing in the village and feel it necessary for the future however as a resident I am keen to ensure the village grows whilst retaining its character not simply adding 100 dwellings on the edge of the village, which will dwarf the village and cause untold problems with sewerage, surface water, traffic, all the new residents will need to go outside the village for services, therefore many more journeys. With regard to employment the village is too far out to attract businesses as is the current situation, SLDC has talked about storage, whilst in theory is possible in practice the sites suggested do not lend themselves to heavy traffic so where it the justification or soundness in this plan? I feel little has been thought through with regard to the infrastructure problems in general and therefore feel in addition to the lack of consultation the soundness is brought into question.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I 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. Mrs Ann Park (Individual) : 18 May 2012 11:55:00
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?
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.
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.
1, The consultation process is flawed as the proposals now put forward do not bear any resemblance to the original proposals we were asked to comment upon, therefore we not been given the opportunity to consult on the land allocation plans. Furthermore little attention appears to be given to the people who are unable to make their comments electronically in fact feel it has been positively obstructive given the question put to myself by the residents.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I 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. Mrs Ann Park (Individual) : 18 May 2012 11:57:00
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.
1.10
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.
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.
1, The consultation process is flawed as the proposals now put forward do not bear any resemblance to the original proposals we were asked to comment upon, therefore we not been given the opportunity to consult on the land allocation plans. Furthermore little attention appears to be given to the people who are unable to make their comments electronically in fact feel it has been positively obstructive given the question put to myself by the residents.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I 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. Mrs Ann Park (Individual) : 18 May 2012 11:59:00
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 Endmoor sites
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.
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.
2, Endmoor gave a very positive response to the introduction of new housing however it would appear we are being asked to take many more houses in a shorter period than was ever suggested to us. The village cannot sustain this amount of development as the infrastructure is not in place. We are being asked to take a disproportionate amount of housing in comparison to the service centres located nearby. We do not have: Doctors, a pharmacy, a bank, a dentist, we have one small village store and an outreach post office located in the village hall. The size of the proposed development will undoubtedly change the nature of the village as it will increase the village in one area by 48%. Can this be well thought out? The numbers are not sound in that as the Parish Clerk I am aware of previous surveys taken on behalf of SLDC that showed a need for 10 houses up to and including the year 2012 and yet we are being asked to take 100 in one area, 44 of them as affordable housing.
3. The sewerage system within Endmoor is to say the least poor, my own house being on a septic tank as are my neighbours due to lack of sewer infrastructure, when asking SLDC and United Utilities about the intention to upgrade there is nothing in the pipeline - do we assume 100 houses are all going to have septic tanks and the resulting sewerage trucks. In this day and age is this sound reasoning? Little is said about the intention to deal with surface water does this not indicate a lack of planning forethought?
4. The road infrastructure around Endmoor is geared to rural traffic, farm vehicles etc and many are single track, the influx of so many houses being built in one area will cause many problems and until a carefully thought out plan is in place to accommodate this increase this proposal should not be granted. I do not see anything in the plan to ease my concerns.
5. Endmoor is surrounded by industrial sites, Summerlands currently has numerous units empty as it is too far from Kendal to make business viable, Gatebeck also has sites empty for the same reason, why build more when we cannot fill the ones available?
I am happy to see some growth in housing in the village and feel it necessary for the future however as a resident I am keen to ensure the village grows whilst retaining its character not simply adding 100 dwellings on the edge of the village, which will dwarf the village and cause untold problems with sewerage, surface water, traffic, all the new residents will need to go outside the village for services, therefore many more journeys. With regard to employment the village is too far out to attract businesses as is the current situation, SLDC has talked about storage, whilst in theory is possible in practice the sites suggested do not lend themselves to heavy traffic so where it the justification or soundness in this plan? I feel little has been thought through with regard to the infrastructure problems in general and therefore feel in addition to the lack of consultation the soundness is brought into question.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I 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
