4 responses from Mr & Mrs Tim & Ave Roberts (Individual)
1. Mr & Mrs Tim & Ave Roberts (Individual) : 19 Apr 2012 11:42:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Grange-over-Sands sites
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
Although there have been some reductions in the sites allocated for development in Grange-over-Sands, the SLDC proposals to
go ahead with 497 houses in this area continue to cause great concerns. The effect on the infrastructure on a small town such as Grange-over-Sands would be disastrous
Whilst supporting the necessity to provide additional housing, the longer considerations of th SLDC do not make immediate sese or logic. There does not appear to be an increase of jobs in the SLDC area and therefore the demands for more houses seems illogical unless there is a further proposal to induce more industry or jobs in South Lakes. Grange-over-Sands without a major restructuring of the town and local district would not lend itself to increasing industry unless it was related to tourism.
At the edge of the National Park further building would defeat the main local industry of tourism as the many visitors come to see the wide open and beautiful contryside not more housing or industrial estates that can be seen in most of the rest of the country.
Before embarking on any further building in the area, the SLDC must take a more considered, long term view of what their present strategy will result in if they wish to maintain the Lakes as a tourist venue.
If there is truly a genuine demand to build additional housing can the SLDC choose areas that are more discreet, closer to main transport arteries and preferably on "brownsite" land that has no impact on environmental, agricultural, historical or geological interestsWe would be grateful to be kept informed of future developments.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr & Mrs Tim & Ave Roberts (Individual) : 10 May 2012 14:49:00
Policy/Site No.
LA3.1 Mixed Use Allocation at Berners Pool, Grange-over-Sands
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
Although there have been some reductions in the sites allocated for development in Grange-over-Sands, the SLDC proposals to
go ahead with 497 houses in this area continue to cause great concerns. The effect on the infrastructure on a small town such as Grange-over-Sands would be disastrous
Whilst supporting the necessity to provide additional housing, the longer considerations of th SLDC do not make immediate sese or logic. There does not appear to be an increase of jobs in the SLDC area and therefore the demands for more houses seems illogical unless there is a further proposal to induce more industry or jobs in South Lakes. Grange-over-Sands without a major restructuring of the town and local district would not lend itself to increasing industry unless it was related to tourism.
At the edge of the National Park further building would defeat the main local industry of tourism as the many visitors come to see the wide open and beautiful contryside not more housing or industrial estates that can be seen in most of the rest of the country.
Before embarking on any further building in the area, the SLDC must take a more considered, long term view of what their present strategy will result in if they wish to maintain the Lakes as a tourist venue.
If there is truly a genuine demand to build additional housing can the SLDC choose areas that are more discreet, closer to main transport arteries and preferably on "brownsite" land that has no impact on environmental, agricultural, historical or geological interestsWe would be grateful to be kept informed of future developments.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mr & Mrs Tim & Ave Roberts (Individual) : 10 May 2012 14:50:00
Policy/Site No.
LA3.2 Mixed Use Allocation at Land South of Allithwaite Road, Kent's Bank, Grange-over-Sands
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
Although there have been some reductions in the sites allocated for development in Grange-over-Sands, the SLDC proposals to
go ahead with 497 houses in this area continue to cause great concerns. The effect on the infrastructure on a small town such as Grange-over-Sands would be disastrous
Whilst supporting the necessity to provide additional housing, the longer considerations of th SLDC do not make immediate sese or logic. There does not appear to be an increase of jobs in the SLDC area and therefore the demands for more houses seems illogical unless there is a further proposal to induce more industry or jobs in South Lakes. Grange-over-Sands without a major restructuring of the town and local district would not lend itself to increasing industry unless it was related to tourism.
At the edge of the National Park further building would defeat the main local industry of tourism as the many visitors come to see the wide open and beautiful contryside not more housing or industrial estates that can be seen in most of the rest of the country.
Before embarking on any further building in the area, the SLDC must take a more considered, long term view of what their present strategy will result in if they wish to maintain the Lakes as a tourist venue.
If there is truly a genuine demand to build additional housing can the SLDC choose areas that are more discreet, closer to main transport arteries and preferably on "brownsite" land that has no impact on environmental, agricultural, historical or geological interestsWe would be grateful to be kept informed of future developments.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
4. Mr & Mrs Tim & Ave Roberts (Individual) : 10 May 2012 14:51:00
Policy/Site No.
LA3.3 Mixed Use Allocation at Guide's Lot, Grange-over-Sands
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
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.
Although there have been some reductions in the sites allocated for development in Grange-over-Sands, the SLDC proposals to
go ahead with 497 houses in this area continue to cause great concerns. The effect on the infrastructure on a small town such as Grange-over-Sands would be disastrous
Whilst supporting the necessity to provide additional housing, the longer considerations of th SLDC do not make immediate sese or logic. There does not appear to be an increase of jobs in the SLDC area and therefore the demands for more houses seems illogical unless there is a further proposal to induce more industry or jobs in South Lakes. Grange-over-Sands without a major restructuring of the town and local district would not lend itself to increasing industry unless it was related to tourism.
At the edge of the National Park further building would defeat the main local industry of tourism as the many visitors come to see the wide open and beautiful contryside not more housing or industrial estates that can be seen in most of the rest of the country.
Before embarking on any further building in the area, the SLDC must take a more considered, long term view of what their present strategy will result in if they wish to maintain the Lakes as a tourist venue.
If there is truly a genuine demand to build additional housing can the SLDC choose areas that are more discreet, closer to main transport arteries and preferably on "brownsite" land that has no impact on environmental, agricultural, historical or geological interestsWe would be grateful to be kept informed of future developments.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
