Response from Mr & Mrs Howker, c/o Garner Planning Associates
1. Mr & Mrs Howker, c/o Garner Planning Associates : 25 Apr 2012 13:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
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.
LA1.1 Development Boundaries- GREAT AND LITTLE URSWICK
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
Great Urswick Settlement development boundary revision - omission.
DPD Policy LA1.1
Note - SLDC site ref. site boundary revision proposed by representor, in its entirety, not previously condidered prior to the publication stage. So no SLDC boundary reference number. Development boundary change differs to those development boundary changes considered and consulted on at the emerging options stage (SLDC refs: MN3, MN8, RN138).
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.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
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.
1.1 Great Urswick is defined in the Core Strategy as Local Service Centre where 21% of the gross housing requirement is to be accommodated.
1.2 The planning authority has not taken the opportunity in the Land Allocations document to
amend settlement boundaries from those defined in the South Lakeland Local Plan but have focussed on housing allocations only.
1.3 A detailed case on the housing land position has been made elsewhere and is relied upon in relation to this specific objection and therefore for the sake of brevity is not repeated here in full. In brief it is considered there is a significant shortfall of housing across the district in all settlement categories including the Local Service Centres and Small Villages and Hamlets.
1.4 It is considered that the area of land indicated on the attached plan should be included
within the settlement boundaries of Great Urswick. The area comprises 20 or so dwellings
close to the heart of the village. This group of dwellings form part of the village and it is
entirely appropriate to place these dwellings within the settlement boundary.
1.5 At present the cluster of houses represents a hamlet on the edge of a village and in planning policy terms it would be clearer if the area was included in the village settlement boundary .
[Also see attached document]
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
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
Yes, If there is to be a discussion on Great Urswick settlement boundaries
