5 responses from Rev. Kevin M. Price, Burneside Parish Council
1. Rev. Kevin M. Price, Burneside Parish Council : 24 Apr 2012 13:09:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - M38M BURNESIDE LAND OPPOSITE HOLME HOUSES
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.
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.
A couple of points from Burneside PC concerning the Land Allocations document:
The report refers to The Tennis Club in Burneside when it should be the Village Recreation (Willink) Field and tennis courts. (Site M38M). This would involve a minor change in name.
2. Rev. Kevin M. Price, Burneside Parish Council : 24 Apr 2012 13:19:00
Paragraph No.
3.106
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.
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.
A couple of points from Burneside PC concerning the Land Allocations document:
The report refers to The Tennis Club in Burneside when it should be the Village Recreation (Willink) Field and tennis courts. (Site M38M). This would involve a minor change in name.
3. Rev. Kevin M. Price, Burneside Parish Council : 24 Apr 2012 13:22:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R170M-mod KENDAL NORTH OF LAUREL GARDENS
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 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.
I was asked to draw the attention of SLDC to the proposed development land at Lanefoot, (R149 opposite the entrance to Carus Green golf course) which the Council believes is not sound if the land cannot be acquired and if the issues regarding flooding have not been addressed.
4. Rev. Kevin M. Price, Burneside Parish Council : 24 Apr 2012 13:25:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Burneside sites
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 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.
Submission to the Planning Inspector
SLDC Land Allocations DPD April 2012
1. The Council believes that the DPD is unsound in that it is not deliverable,
with key elements of the dependent infrastructure lacking investigation.
2. The ageing infrastructure of the area requires substantial improvements
that are likely to need contributions from several partners to deliver. These
improvements cannot be delivered piecemeal by waiting for developers to
submit planning applications as implied by the document. There needs to be
an overall credible plan for infrastructure.
3. The Council asks that approval of the DPD be witheld until there is such
an infrastructure plan which shows the impact of the three main sites located
within Strickland Ketel & Strickland Roger on the overall infrastructure of the
Burneside/Kendal/South Lakeland area, and with solutions identified and
costed to prove the economic deliverability of the sites.
5. Rev. Kevin M. Price, Burneside Parish Council : 24 Apr 2012 13:27:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - E32M BURNESIDE LAND ADJ CROPPERS PAPER MILL
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 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.
Submission to the Planning Inspector
SLDC Land Allocations DPD April 2012
1. The Council believes that the DPD is unsound in that it is not deliverable,
with key elements of the dependent infrastructure lacking investigation.
2. The ageing infrastructure of the area requires substantial improvements
that are likely to need contributions from several partners to deliver. These
improvements cannot be delivered piecemeal by waiting for developers to
submit planning applications as implied by the document. There needs to be
an overall credible plan for infrastructure.
3. The Council asks that approval of the DPD be witheld until there is such
an infrastructure plan which shows the impact of the three main sites located
within Strickland Ketel & Strickland Roger on the overall infrastructure of the
Burneside/Kendal/South Lakeland area, and with solutions identified and
costed to prove the economic deliverability of the sites.
