Response from Mr TIM WALLIS (Individual)
1. Mr TIM WALLIS (Individual) : 17 Apr 2012 11:53:00
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 - RN121M-mod LEVENS FORMER POULTRY SHEDS, BRIGSTEER 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 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.
Inadequate consultation. It is hard to understand an argument that there was adequate consultation when one of the landowners concerned was not asked about the proposal. The late amendment adding this site was no doubt made for honest reasons, but it has had the effect of an ambush. The recent petition shows the views of people in the immediately local area. The fact of the matter is that those who live nearby were not adequately consulted about this proposal. The petition shows that, had they been consulted, any question of "support" for this proposal would have been highly doubtful.
The village "support" quoted in favour of this site should be scrutinised closely: any such support does not come from those who live nearby.
The input of the Parish Council is also, in my opinion, open to question; I refer here to the mismatch between the PC minutes, the statement to Levens Residents Group that it was "neutral" and its correspondence with the council.
(Incidentally, the complicated nature of this process and the consultation make it inaccessible, in my view, to a significant proportion of the population.)
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.
The problems with compliance/inadequate consultation impact on soundness - the evidence base was not robust or credible. It is certainly not an appropriate strategy to build urban density housing in the open countryside on the grounds put forward. The site is adjacent to the proposed boundary of the National Park and, as has been previously mentioned by planners, any development here would be unduly prominent when viewed from the National Park. The road and drainage systems are inadequate - and there has been no commitment/costings in relation to the formulaic mitigation measures refered to.
No consideration appears to have been given to the obvious consequence of allowing such development, namely the infilling by way of further development between this site and the village proper which is some distance away.
Such support as there is for this site appears to be influenced by the fact that on some portions of it there are derelict buildings. It is perverse to consider this to be a good reason for urban density house building when the council has powers which it could and should have used to deal with this problem in this area of scenic beauty.
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
I wish to state my view.
I wish to question those who assert the proposals are compliant and sound.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
