4 responses from Mr/s M A McLay (Individual)
1. Mr/s M A McLay (Individual) : 23 Apr 2012 08:40:00
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.
I live in Grange, and my mother lives in Kents Bank. At the moment these are
two well defined entities, but I understand that the SDLC's plan is, not only to
merge these areas, but also to run them into the village of Allithwaite. Keeping
a thin "green" strip, between the newly extended Grange/Kents Bank, and
Allithwaite is just risable.
Apart from the ugly sprawl of hundreds of modem houses being forced upon a
predominantly characterful Edwardian area, which is an abyssmal prospect in
itself, I would be interested to know how the demand for this huge number of
houses was determined? I would appreciate a reply to the way the "demand"
was suggested, and why, and by whom, with some substantiated proof that the demand
for housing actually exists. Grange has approaching 150 homes for sale at present
and this number is currently on the increase.
If provision for local occupancy is required, then it would be more sensible to utilise
the present housing stock, which is immediately available, and could be utilised
very inexpensively, and without any disruption. The council could make the limited
number of purchases as demand arose, and either let them to locals, or sell them
using a scheme which would allow locals to purchase them.
On a more practical note, the infrastructure in the Grange area is already overloaded.
The main street, with its narrowed parking areas, means that cars struggle to get off
the road completely, with all the resulting congestion that that entails. (that was
another piece of foolish planning which we suffer daily) The propsect of many, many
hundreds oflarge lorry journeys through Grange's Main Street is appalling.
In addition, when these houses are occupied, there will be an anticipated additional
500 vehicles to cope with on a daily basis, because the householders will all have
to travel somewhere else to work. Not forgetting the new school provision, which
will be required.
To drop such a large number of people into an area , which cannot provide them
with work is almost embarrassingly ludicrous. And more astonishing, is that you
Planners think that this is a good idea .. .... really??
I think that I have made my opnions fairly clear. Not everyone who opposes this
crazy proposal will take the time to write, but without exageration, I can say that
I have not spoken to one person, who is in favour. To railroad an entire town with
a plan, devised by beaurocrats is wholly unacceptable. It will be opposed at every opportunity until reason prevails.
2. Mr/s M A McLay (Individual) : 10 May 2012 14:54:00
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.
I live in Grange, and my mother lives in Kents Bank. At the moment these are
two well defined entities, but I understand that the SDLC's plan is, not only to
merge these areas, but also to run them into the village of Allithwaite. Keeping
a thin "green" strip, between the newly extended Grange/Kents Bank, and
Allithwaite is just risable.
Apart from the ugly sprawl of hundreds of modem houses being forced upon a
predominantly characterful Edwardian area, which is an abyssmal prospect in
itself, I would be interested to know how the demand for this huge number of
houses was determined? I would appreciate a reply to the way the "demand"
was suggested, and why, and by whom, with some substantiated proof that the demand
for housing actually exists. Grange has approaching 150 homes for sale at present
and this number is currently on the increase.
If provision for local occupancy is required, then it would be more sensible to utilise
the present housing stock, which is immediately available, and could be utilised
very inexpensively, and without any disruption. The council could make the limited
number of purchases as demand arose, and either let them to locals, or sell them
using a scheme which would allow locals to purchase them.
On a more practical note, the infrastructure in the Grange area is already overloaded.
The main street, with its narrowed parking areas, means that cars struggle to get off
the road completely, with all the resulting congestion that that entails. (that was
another piece of foolish planning which we suffer daily) The propsect of many, many
hundreds oflarge lorry journeys through Grange's Main Street is appalling.
In addition, when these houses are occupied, there will be an anticipated additional
500 vehicles to cope with on a daily basis, because the householders will all have
to travel somewhere else to work. Not forgetting the new school provision, which
will be required.
To drop such a large number of people into an area , which cannot provide them
with work is almost embarrassingly ludicrous. And more astonishing, is that you
Planners think that this is a good idea .. .... really??
I think that I have made my opnions fairly clear. Not everyone who opposes this
crazy proposal will take the time to write, but without exageration, I can say that
I have not spoken to one person, who is in favour. To railroad an entire town with
a plan, devised by beaurocrats is wholly unacceptable. It will be opposed at every opportunity until reason prevails.
3. Mr/s M A McLay (Individual) : 10 May 2012 15:08:00
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.
I live in Grange, and my mother lives in Kents Bank. At the moment these are
two well defined entities, but I understand that the SDLC's plan is, not only to
merge these areas, but also to run them into the village of Allithwaite. Keeping
a thin "green" strip, between the newly extended Grange/Kents Bank, and
Allithwaite is just risable.
Apart from the ugly sprawl of hundreds of modem houses being forced upon a
predominantly characterful Edwardian area, which is an abyssmal prospect in
itself, I would be interested to know how the demand for this huge number of
houses was determined? I would appreciate a reply to the way the "demand"
was suggested, and why, and by whom, with some substantiated proof that the demand
for housing actually exists. Grange has approaching 150 homes for sale at present
and this number is currently on the increase.
If provision for local occupancy is required, then it would be more sensible to utilise
the present housing stock, which is immediately available, and could be utilised
very inexpensively, and without any disruption. The council could make the limited
number of purchases as demand arose, and either let them to locals, or sell them
using a scheme which would allow locals to purchase them.
On a more practical note, the infrastructure in the Grange area is already overloaded.
The main street, with its narrowed parking areas, means that cars struggle to get off
the road completely, with all the resulting congestion that that entails. (that was
another piece of foolish planning which we suffer daily) The propsect of many, many
hundreds oflarge lorry journeys through Grange's Main Street is appalling.
In addition, when these houses are occupied, there will be an anticipated additional
500 vehicles to cope with on a daily basis, because the householders will all have
to travel somewhere else to work. Not forgetting the new school provision, which
will be required.
To drop such a large number of people into an area , which cannot provide them
with work is almost embarrassingly ludicrous. And more astonishing, is that you
Planners think that this is a good idea .. .... really??
I think that I have made my opnions fairly clear. Not everyone who opposes this
crazy proposal will take the time to write, but without exageration, I can say that
I have not spoken to one person, who is in favour. To railroad an entire town with
a plan, devised by beaurocrats is wholly unacceptable. It will be opposed at every opportunity until reason prevails.
4. Mr/s M A McLay (Individual) : 10 May 2012 15:09:00
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.
I live in Grange, and my mother lives in Kents Bank. At the moment these are
two well defined entities, but I understand that the SDLC's plan is, not only to
merge these areas, but also to run them into the village of Allithwaite. Keeping
a thin "green" strip, between the newly extended Grange/Kents Bank, and
Allithwaite is just risable.
Apart from the ugly sprawl of hundreds of modem houses being forced upon a
predominantly characterful Edwardian area, which is an abyssmal prospect in
itself, I would be interested to know how the demand for this huge number of
houses was determined? I would appreciate a reply to the way the "demand"
was suggested, and why, and by whom, with some substantiated proof that the demand
for housing actually exists. Grange has approaching 150 homes for sale at present
and this number is currently on the increase.
If provision for local occupancy is required, then it would be more sensible to utilise
the present housing stock, which is immediately available, and could be utilised
very inexpensively, and without any disruption. The council could make the limited
number of purchases as demand arose, and either let them to locals, or sell them
using a scheme which would allow locals to purchase them.
On a more practical note, the infrastructure in the Grange area is already overloaded.
The main street, with its narrowed parking areas, means that cars struggle to get off
the road completely, with all the resulting congestion that that entails. (that was
another piece of foolish planning which we suffer daily) The propsect of many, many
hundreds oflarge lorry journeys through Grange's Main Street is appalling.
In addition, when these houses are occupied, there will be an anticipated additional
500 vehicles to cope with on a daily basis, because the householders will all have
to travel somewhere else to work. Not forgetting the new school provision, which
will be required.
To drop such a large number of people into an area , which cannot provide them
with work is almost embarrassingly ludicrous. And more astonishing, is that you
Planners think that this is a good idea .. .... really??
I think that I have made my opnions fairly clear. Not everyone who opposes this
crazy proposal will take the time to write, but without exageration, I can say that
I have not spoken to one person, who is in favour. To railroad an entire town with
a plan, devised by beaurocrats is wholly unacceptable. It will be opposed at every opportunity until reason prevails.
