Response from Mr John Fitch (Individual)
1. Mr John Fitch (Individual) : 29 Apr 2013 15:11:00
Please add your response below, quoting the main modification reference number: (limit 3000 words)
Levens Site RN121M-MOD
(Levens Former Poultry Sheds, Brigsteer Road)
Ref: MM014
I submitted a representation dated 13 April 2012 on behalf of North Levens Residents in respect of the above site. The representation argued that the SLDC proposals for the site did not comply with the legal and soundness requirements of the planning legislation and was accompanied by a petition signed by around 80 local residents.
We note that in the Updated Schedule of Main Modifications you propose removing this site allocation. We welcome and support this proposal.
However, we also note that you propose that the Village Development Boundary should incorporate the site and we have the following observations:
1. The Inspector specifically drew public attention to this point during the Hearings last year. It was notable that there was no open statement explaining the reasons why it was proposed to retain the site within the development boundary. No explanation was offered at the hearing.
2. The statement that “part of this site is no longer available” is disingenuous. There is no evidence that it was ever available.
3. The reason now given to retain the site within the development boundary should be clarified and expanded upon. It is asserted that retaining the site within the development boundary “offers the opportunity to bring about significant environmental improvements”. I have previously pointed out (my representation dated 13 April 2012) that SLDC has statutory powers in circumstances where there are derelict buildings and that a failure to exercise such powers should patently not be an accepted reason to encourage development. SLDC is therefore asked to state clearly what environmental improvements it is referring to. An explanation of why it has not exercised statutory powers would also be helpful.
4. We remain concerned about the vague and open implications of this proposal. If it were more specific we may be able to support suitable employment use for the site providing it is limited to Class B1 (without generating any nuisance to local residents) or to housing development if the scale, density and quality is similar and complementary to the existing housing development in the immediate vicinity.
Finally, I would welcome the opportunity to give evidence at the re-convened hearings.
John R Fitch
