Response from Miss Ellen Bernfield (Individual)
1. Miss Ellen Bernfield (Individual) : 10 Oct 2012 10:06:00
Please add your response below: (Limit 3000 words)
Matter 1.6 – Arnside 17 September 2012
Matter 1 - Basis for the overall approach - 1.6
With particular reference to Site R81 Redhills Road, Arnside
“Has the site selection process been ….based on appropriate criteria?”
There are several misleading or inaccurate statements in the Summary of Assessment for R81:
-The site is not strictly on the edge of Arnside as stated – it is an enclosed space (see below) close to the centre of the village and overlooked by existing housing.
-In 1989, the Inspector refused a development application on this site on the basis that development would be “unneighbourly” on account of the noise nuisance caused by its enclosed position below a steep wooded hill (topped by housing, including a nursing home) which runs along the entire southern boundary. (The nuisance factor caused by a large development will have considerable impact on all neighbouring and closeby properties, but has been totally overlooked by SLDC.)
-The statement that the site is developed on 75% of its boundary is misleading – all the long southern boundary is protected woodland, including a public footpath, and the short eastern boundary is open to Redhills Road, offering extensive views west towards the National Trust Knott and protected Woodland Trust area.
-Hence, the site has more than “moderate landscape character impact”, as SLDC states.
-The site has significant problems of access (on a very busy cul-de-sac serving the entire western end of the village), plus has extremely adverse highway-safety implications (detailed elsewhere) for the centre of the village. These access problems are not “surmountable” as SLDC states; in fact, further development will significantly worsen the inherent dangers.
• Request reappraisal of appropriateness of suitability criteria in site selection (R81) taking the above important factors into account.
“Has the site selection process been objective?”
SLDC’s selection process is heavily weighted in favour of development because this site (R81) is owned by a former builder, who is very keen to sell on for building.
-No changes were made to the criteria or weighting during the process, even though there is significant local opposition to further development of this site, and this opposition has been maintained for a considerable number of years. The site is designated as an “important open space” within the village and there have been numerous development refusals over the years (since 1986: Parish Council; SLDC; Inspectors; DoE) before the site was formally protected.
SLDC’s site selection process is not objective and this site option is not the most appropriate in the circumstances; not least as the village is historically dead against its continued development, and SLDC themselves recognized its importance when they listed it in their Policy extract document ‘Important Open Spaces for Amenity’ in South Lakeland, the “Land to North of Dobbs Hall, Arnside (The Common)” as land which will not be built on; this policy re-stated in October 2010.
Plus, if the site selection process has been objective, why does the Conclusion of Assessment recommend R81 (The Common) for development, even though the Summary of Assessment notes that “there was significant objection to this site” while for Site RN183 and Site R395 (not recommended for development) the Conclusion of Assessment notes that both sites are “designated as open space”? Why the different conclusions - the respective Summaries are virtually identical for all three sites, with the exception that R81 has “significant objection” to development?
• Request review of criteria for R81, to demonstrate complete objectivity in the selection process, in line with RN183 and R395.
“Is the DPD based on a sound process of ... testing of reasonable alternatives?”
SLDC have failed to test or even consider reasonable alternatives (as put forward by Arnside Parish Plan Trust/Arnside Parish Council) as they are bound to do by the Localism Act and the NPPF.
• Request urgent review of site selection process to take account of Arnside Neighbourhood Plan.
