3 responses from Ms Michelle Bates (Individual)
1. Ms Michelle Bates (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 23:56:00
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 - R81 ARNSIDE REDHILLS 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 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
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 R81 should be removed from the DPD.
Changes are required to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and with the Core Strategy of SDLC. Site R81 is a greenfield site bordering on woodland and sits within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB, which is afforded a level of protection similar to a National Park. As such “planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances”. Further, “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)”. In my view SDLC has not made a credible case that development in R81 is an exceptional circumstance, nor has it allowed sufficient time or expended sufficient energy in exploring development of alternative brownfield sites within Arnside that would, in contrast to exploiting site R81, actually enhance the area.
Community involvement in developing the DPD with respect to Arnside has almost exclusively consisted of ignoring the wishes of local residents. The Inspector will be aware of a local petition against development of R81 and the views of the Parish Council, Arnside Parish Plan Trust and AONB management, none of whom support development on this site. I am yet to meet any local person who is in favour of development on this site. Thus SDLC have not taken account of the views of the community.
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.
Site R81 should be removed from the DPD.
In my view there is no justification for substantial housing development in Arnside. Widely varying estimates for housing needs have been made and revised several times, these are at best internally inconsistent, do not stand close scrutiny and are grossly overstated. Already the largest village in south Lakeland, building on any significant greenfield sites such as The Common (R81) should not happen, and would seriously compromise the environment for residents and visitors alike. This is neither needed nor wanted and it is surprising that this is being contemplated at all in an AONB. Although there is much comment about affordable housing being needed in the general area, the Inspector should be aware that Arnside itself already has a good mixed housing stock, with many existing apartments, terraced and smaller semi-detached properties available. I would support development on brownfield sites within the village as this would make good use of redundant land and actually enhance the village. I would also support sustainable development in the area outside the AONB. However, there is no justification for any significant building on greenfield sites within an AONB – these small but precious regions of our landscape must be protected for future generations.
The proposal to build 30 properties on The Common seems particularly ill considered. Even a cursory examination of the site reveals that these will be high density dwellings – it is difficult to see how they could be crammed in and certainly not in keeping with the surroundings. Moreover, this area has been designated an “important open space”, and it gives an enjoyable aspect to a popular walking route to Arnside Knott used by both residents and visitors. As tourism is one of the few sources of local commerce any action that threatens this is to be avoided. Another problem with developments at this site would be a big increase to congestion at an already busy junction where Redhills Road joins Silverdale Road, and further the need to create a new access road on a bend and close to the junction with High Knott Road and/or through Lawrence Drive, with attendant road safety concerns, again hardly likely to enhance tourism. It is also disingenuous to refer to R81 as an “infill site”. In reality it is a strip of land bounded on one side by woodland (providing contiguity with a large area of mixed woodland and open areas to the south) and on the other by the back gardens of residents on Redhills Road. The dimensions of the site are such that it would not be possible to build houses on both sides of any access road for much of it (the site is too narrow) also meaning any road would have to run along the back gardens or by the footpath. It should also be noted that the site provides a link for wildlife through to the Ashmeadow area, which would otherwise become more isolated. It is true that R81 is not currently accessible to the public other than via the footpath along the southern boundary. However, rather than building on this site it would be better to acquire and develop this site of limestone grassland for the enjoyment of the public (e.g. like Dobshall Wood and meadow) and with advice from AONB management to enhance its biodiversity, for example as a hay meadow that would support wild flora and fauna. This would be consistent with AONB management plan objectives and with the recent award of the Morecambe Bay Limestones and Wetlands Nature Improvement Area recognising the national importance of this area to biodiversity.
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. Ms Michelle Bates (Individual) : 15 May 2012 09:31:00
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
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 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
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.
Community involvement in developing the DPD with respect to Arnside has almost exclusively consisted of ignoring the wishes of local residents. The Inspector will be aware of a local petition against development of R81 and the views of the Parish Council, Arnside Parish Plan Trust and AONB management, none of whom support development on this site. I am yet to meet any local person who is in favour of development on this site. Thus SDLC have not taken account of the views of the community.
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.
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. Ms Michelle Bates (Individual) : 15 May 2012 09:36:00
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 Arnside sites
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 had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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.
In my view there is no justification for substantial housing development in Arnside. Widely varying estimates for housing needs have been made and revised several times, these are at best internally inconsistent, do not stand close scrutiny and are grossly overstated. Already the largest village in south Lakeland, building on any significant greenfield sites such as The Common (R81) should not happen, and would seriously compromise the environment for residents and visitors alike. This is neither needed nor wanted and it is surprising that this is being contemplated at all in an AONB. Although there is much comment about affordable housing being needed in the general area, the Inspector should be aware that Arnside itself already has a good mixed housing stock, with many existing apartments, terraced and smaller semi-detached properties available. I would support development on brownfield sites within the village as this would make good use of redundant land and actually enhance the village. I would also support sustainable development in the area outside the AONB. However, there is no justification for any significant building on greenfield sites within an AONB – these small but precious regions of our landscape must be protected for future generations.
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
