8 responses from Mr Richard Evans. (Individual)
1. Mr Richard Evans. (Individual) : 14 Apr 2012 10:16:00
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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
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
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.
Site R121M (modified) is not within the development plan boundary as specified on the plans drwn up after the last review about ten year ago. There has been no community approval of plans to develop land outside this boundary. There is no evidence of a need to build 40 unaffordable homes on such a site. There may well be some evidence of a need to build 20 affordable homes but to build three times as many homes as are needed is wholly illogical and unjustified. Building on this site is unsustainable and impractical,
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.
Kendal does not need that many new homes. It is unreasonable to build three times a s many houses as may be needed. Given that one third of homes are to be affordable, the implication is that you are to spoil three times as much landscape as necessary to fulfil the need. That is totally unsound and illogical. The DRD needs to address the issue of funding to build affordable homes only, without inadvertently developing unaffordable homes.
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.
We are assured that this Inspection and Planning Decision will be independent of the vested interests of the officers of SLDC. I regret to have to confirm that I do not trust these officers to reflect the wishes of the residents.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr Richard Evans. (Individual) : 14 Apr 2012 10:33:00
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
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 DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
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.
High quality and sustainable development requires that development preserves a clear landscape framework. The DPD has not taken into consideration the fact that site R121 is above the 60m contour in a highly visible location. The green rolling landscape can be seen from the whole of the West side of Kendal, from the main road A684, from the main railway line, from the branch line which conveys thousands of visitors to Windermere and from Castle Green Hotel which is the single most used visitor accommodation in Kendal. It is impossible to build on R121 without destroying this prominent landscape.
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 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.
National policy is that developments safeguard landscape. This particular site R121 is so highly visible that it cannot be destroyed. The DPD needs to reflect this fact and to be edited to eliminate such a disastrous proposal. Even a single storey development here would be seen from all over the valley. To build 60 homes on this site would certainly require two storey development, if not three. It is completely unviable.
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.
I do not trust SLDC to represent the majority view.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mr Richard Evans. (Individual) : 14 Apr 2012 10:44:00
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.
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
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.
Site R121 cannot legally be developed because it is the habitat of a legally protected species, namely the Great Crested Newt. To include it in the DPD is therefore unsound.
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 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.
The only way around this would be to apply for a licence to damage and destroy the habitat. This application to English Nature would if successful permit such damage and destruction, which would otherwise be illegal. If the licence were to be granted, there would be a number of conditions attached and these would all have cost implications for the develoopment. Given that the prime objective of the exercise is to build affordable homes, the proposal is unsound.
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.
I want to be sure that due regard is given to the wishes of the majority.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
4. Mr Richard Evans. (Individual) : 25 Apr 2012 09:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
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
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.
A) the land R121 is outside the development boundary. A new development boundary needs to be democratically agreed.
B) the proposal will not be permitted under the wildlife and countryside act because of great crested newts
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 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.
The Great Crested Newt is a remarkable and unusual amphibian which is why it is
protected in law. It is an offence to do anything which damages its chances of successful
breeding. Two surveys have demonstrated a population of newts which inhabit land
identified as Rl21, Rl41, R56 and R677 in the Local Development Plan.
Newts are totally dependent for their survival on wetland for 7 months of the year,
and dry stone territory for 5 months. They inhabit the dry stone walls around the fields
specified above. Consequently it is impossible to develop habitation without either
committing an offence or possessing a licence from DEFRA. Such a licence can permit
activities which would otherwise be unlawful. Licences are only issued when there is an
over-riding justification on the grounds of public safety, public interest and no
alternative.
To propose building on Rl21 and R56 is not enhancing public safety or the public
interest. Furthermore there are many alternative sites for development. Consequently the
proposal is thoroughly undeliverable.
The process of obtaining a licence is also protracted. English Nature publishes
documents detailing the Mitigation Guidelines for Developers. If an application to
develop Rl21 and R56 were made, the law requires satisfactory alternative habitats to be
established in the locality. This is unfeasible. In some locations alternative ponds and
drystone walls can be constructed nearby, but not here in Kendal. There are very few
ponds in Kendal. The fact that this population exists at all is because the pond is well
suited to newts, although isolated from other ponds. It does not have any fish or large
numbers of ducks, unlike many others. Again, it is apparent that the proposal to develop
is illogical and faulty.
I attach your map modified to indicate the extent of the wetland and the wals
which are used by the newts. The wet area is larger than shown on your published maps.
The Development Plan Document omits to consider the implications for this land. The
law rightly exists to protect a vulnerable species and to proceed here is illegal.
This proposal to develop ,Rl21 and R56 is unsound.
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.
I do not trust SLDC planners to take due account of the majority view
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
5. Mr Richard Evans. (Individual) : 25 Apr 2012 09:19:00
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?
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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
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
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.
A) The land R121 is outside the development boundary. A new development boundary needs to be democratically agreed.
B) The proposal will not be permitted under the wildlife and countryside act because of the great crested newts.
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 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.
The proposal is undeliverable, unfeasible, illogical and faulty. I attach a letter.
Unsound democracy around R121 Land Allocation
Central government and local government officers tell us that as a society we
need to build ever more houses despite the fact that many existing properties are unused
or underused. In a small community like Kendal the residents are decent people with a
conscience about injustice and disadvantage. Despite this, 95% of those residents believe
there is a right place and a wrong place to build new houses and for some of the more
beautiful locations that means that all but the one or two who seek to gain monetary
advantage object to such building.
So we have a situation where public servants are paid to facilitate the building of
new houses against the wishes of the vast majority who have to live with the
consequences of their endeavours. This is not democracy. As a democratic process it is
completely unrepresentative.
Despite continual objections the SLDC promote such unpopular proposals
through first one, then two, then three phases of "consultation". We the consultants have
expressed our views in no uncertain terms, and still the attack persists. The only defence
we have is to repeatedly reiterate our views. Ultimately it comes down to a decision taken
by an inspector of planning who liaises closely with local authority officials and that is a
further demonstration of an unfair bias.
I do not trust SLDC officers. They are untrustworthy. Councillors are more
likely to make democracy work. Any inspector is faced with a huge volume of objections
for a site such as Rl21, being such a high profile location above the 60m contour on the
extreme edge of town. Please do be sure to inspect all the objections thoroughly,
especially at this, the final stage of a long process.
This letter is not in the format specified for responses but I still expect it to be
studied by the man who makes the final decision.
If you do not undertake an inspection of all the thousands of such objections the
whole process will have been flawed from start to finish. Please do not permit the ship of democracy to be wrecked against the rocks of vested interest.
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.
I do not trust the SLDC planners to take due account of the majority view.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
6. Mr Richard Evans. (Individual) : 9 May 2012 12:53:00
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 Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
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
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.
Site R121M (modified) is not within the development plan boundary as specified on the plans drwn up after the last review about ten year ago. There has been no community approval of plans to develop land outside this boundary. There is no evidence of a need to build 40 unaffordable homes on such a site. There may well be some evidence of a need to build 20 affordable homes but to build three times as many homes as are needed is wholly illogical and unjustified. Building on this site is unsustainable and impractical,
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.
Kendal does not need that many new homes. It is unreasonable to build three times a s many houses as may be needed. Given that one third of homes are to be affordable, the implication is that you are to spoil three times as much landscape as necessary to fulfil the need. That is totally unsound and illogical. The DRD needs to address the issue of funding to build affordable homes only, without inadvertently developing unaffordable homes.
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.
We are assured that this Inspection and Planning Decision will be independent of the vested interests of the officers of SLDC. I regret to have to confirm that I do not trust these officers to reflect the wishes of the residents.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
7. Mr Richard Evans. (Individual) : 9 May 2012 12:58:00
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 - 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 DPD has not been prepared in accordance with the Town & County Planning Regulations 2004 (as amended)
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.
High quality and sustainable development requires that development preserves a clear landscape framework. The DPD has not taken into consideration the fact that site R121 is above the 60m contour in a highly visible location. The green rolling landscape can be seen from the whole of the West side of Kendal, from the main road A684, from the main railway line, from the branch line which conveys thousands of visitors to Windermere and from Castle Green Hotel which is the single most used visitor accommodation in Kendal. It is impossible to build on R121 without destroying this prominent landscape.
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 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.
National policy is that developments safeguard landscape. This particular site R121 is so highly visible that it cannot be destroyed. The DPD needs to reflect this fact and to be edited to eliminate such a disastrous proposal. Even a single storey development here would be seen from all over the valley. To build 60 homes on this site would certainly require two storey development, if not three. It is completely unviable.
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.
I do not trust SLDC to represent the majority view.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
8. Mr Richard Evans. (Individual) : 9 May 2012 13:01:00
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.
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
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.
Site R121 cannot legally be developed because it is the habitat of a legally protected species, namely the Great Crested Newt. To include it in the DPD is therefore unsound.
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 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.
The only way around this would be to apply for a licence to damage and destroy the habitat. This application to English Nature would if successful permit such damage and destruction, which would otherwise be illegal. If the licence were to be granted, there would be a number of conditions attached and these would all have cost implications for the develoopment. Given that the prime objective of the exercise is to build affordable homes, the proposal is unsound.
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.
I want to be sure that due regard is given to the wishes of the majority.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
