3 responses from Mrs Jose Brock (Individual)
1. Mrs Jose Brock (Individual) : 17 Apr 2012 16:09:00
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.
0.0 Whole Document
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
1.4 Use this space to explain your support for the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD.
We have answered "Yes" only because we do not have the legal expertise to answer otherwise.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Evidently the great majority of respondents to the previous phase of the DPD consultation were in opposition to at least some aspects of it. In reaching the present phase, this opposition appears to have been disregarded. It is therefore difficult to see how the DPD can be claimed to be "founded on a robust and credible evidence base".
Furthermore, the DPD in general proposes largely development on green field sites. This does not accord with reported recent government pronouncements.
In particular, in the previous phase of the consultation, we suggested that proposals E4M and E31M breach natural boundaries limiting southward expansion of Kendal into agricultural land. It remains our view that these boundaries should not be breached.
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 Jose Brock (Individual) : 17 May 2012 12:06:00
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.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - E31M KENDAL LAND SOUTH OF K SHOES, NATLAND ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Evidently the great majority of respondents to the previous phase of the DPD consultation were in opposition to at least some aspects of it. In reaching the present phase, this opposition appears to have been disregarded. It is therefore difficult to see how the DPD can be claimed to be "founded on a robust and credible evidence base".
Furthermore, the DPD in general proposes largely development on green field sites. This does not accord with reported recent government pronouncements.
In particular, in the previous phase of the consultation, we suggested that proposals E4M and E31M breach natural boundaries limiting southward expansion of Kendal into agricultural land. It remains our view that these boundaries should not be breached.
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 Jose Brock (Individual) : 17 May 2012 12:09:00
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.
LA1.6 Strategic Employment Sites - E4M KENDAL LAND AT SCROGGS WOOD, MILNTHORPE ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Evidently the great majority of respondents to the previous phase of the DPD consultation were in opposition to at least some aspects of it. In reaching the present phase, this opposition appears to have been disregarded. It is therefore difficult to see how the DPD can be claimed to be "founded on a robust and credible evidence base".
Furthermore, the DPD in general proposes largely development on green field sites. This does not accord with reported recent government pronouncements.
In particular, in the previous phase of the consultation, we suggested that proposals E4M and E31M breach natural boundaries limiting southward expansion of Kendal into agricultural land. It remains our view that these boundaries should not be breached.
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
