Local Development Framework Consultation

This response has been approved by the TOG Committee.

CONSULTATION ON MATTER 1.6: RESPONSE FROM TRIANGLE OPPOSITION GROUP (TOG)

This is largely a technical consultation on methodology. While TOG does not contest the site selection framework we object most strongly to the way in which subjective judgements and bias have been brought to bear in populating the framework in order to justify selection of favoured sites. We would quote the following examples:

* For sites RN133M and M2M on the Oxenholme Triangle, officers have assessed the potential to compromise separation or green gap as moderate/neutral (AMBER). This definition ignores the fact that both sites fall in a currently designated green gap and omits mention of the previous history of public inquiries which prevented exploitation of this area in the recent past
* For sites RN133M and M2M it is indicated that they have “received very little community support”. This does not do justice to the outright hostility of local people. In the council’s consultation for site M2M, 246 out of 248 responses were opposed, for site RN133M, 230 out of 231 were opposed. It is believed that only the landowner supported development
* For site RN133M, traffic access has been assessed as accessible, with no obvious constraints (GREEN). This is an obvious nonsense, as shown by planning officers querying the current planning application for this site in terms of access. Access to the site would either be from the narrow Oxenholme Road with a roundabout at a dangerous point on the road and/or through the private close of Hard Knott Gardens across a sensitive tributary of the River Kent

Encouraged by both councillors and officers to suggest alternatives, TOG proposed alternative nearby sites of M40 and R140, opposite ASDA superstore. We believe that these two sites have many advantages over the Triangle sites, including minimal impact on coalescence and other houses, access on to the main A65 and lower flooding risk. The land is apparently available for development. Despite this community support, the treatment of these sites in the framework is biased in the opposition direction ie towards rejection:

* Under community views, for both sites it is indicated that there is limited community support. This despite the fact that SLDC were given 198 signed statements from local residents giving TOG authority to represent their views. For site R140 the assessment is RED, significant level of objections(negative)
* Under traffic access, unlike RN133M, access is defined as AMBER, even though this site already has access onto an existing roundabout on the A65

It is our contention that these and other biased judgements have been made to ensure favoured sites score appropriately. It is our belief that sites RN133M and M2M were earmarked for development at a very early stage, following discussions with the landowner, and the whole consultation process for these sites has been a sham. This is evidenced in TOG’s representations on the Land Allocations DPD in a written response to TOG from a senior councillor, before the consultation exercises had even been concluded. Furthermore at no stage has the Council been prepared to discuss with us their reasoning in terms of site selection or to explain to us why our alternative site suggestions were rejected out of hand.

The Council’s response to the Inspector still lacks information on weightings and the judgement process that would enable us to understand why RN133M and M2M have been selected objectively above R140 and M40.


DENNIS REED

CHAIR TOG