2 responses from Mrs Gail Airey (Individual)
1. Mrs Gail Airey (Individual) : 6 May 2013 12:43:00
Please add your response below, quoting the main modification reference number: (limit 3000 words)
Stainton Court, Stainton, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 0LQ
info@coatesassociates.co.uk
T: 015395 61749 F: 015395 61849
Your Ref:
Our Ref: DHC/
Date: 2 May 2013
Development Plans
Amenities + Development
SLDC
South Lakeland House
Lowther Street
Kendal
Cumbria
LA9 4DL
Dear Sirs
Land Allocations DPD – MM016, Allithwaite, Land west of Brackenedge
Policy LA 1.3
I note the Council now proposes to delete the proposed housing allocation at the above by way of a main modification. This is welcomed, given the overwhelming evidence that there is no right of access to the land and that the existing narrow lane can not be widened or improved to meet highway standards
However, despite the proposed main modification to delete the housing allocation, the Council proposes to retain the same area, but as unallocated ‘White Land’, within the development boundary. It was envisaged that the Council’s agreement to delete the housing allocation would also include modifying the development boundary so that the area remains outside the development boundary. The Council’s current suggestion that the site could be suitable for development at some point in the future is illogical. This is because, as the site has been found not to have a right of access to it, a fact the Council appears to have accepted, the site is therefore unsuitable for any development.
Consequently, as there is no right of access to the land, the inclusion of this land within the development boundary is NOT sound. Furthermore, even if a right of access to the land did exist, the existing narrow lane and junction with Holme Lane can not be widened or improved to an adoptable Highway standard by reason of the existing housing either side of it. This further demonstrates that inclusion of the land within the development boundary as ‘White Land’ is NOT sound. In addition, the allocation of ‘White Land’ does not form part of a strategy within the Land Allocations DPD as a whole, which further demonstrates that the proposed inclusion within the development boundary is NOT sound.
The Inspector is requested to recommend that the development boundary be modified to exclude the area of land (hatched black on the attached plan) to ensure that the plan is sound. This is also consistent with the core strategy and the approach taken by the Council on other sites.
Yours faithfully
David H Coates
Coates Associates
2. Mrs Gail Airey (Individual) : 6 May 2013 12:53:00
Please ensure that the boundary line is amended to its original position re land West of Brackenedge previously R265~now MM016.
The land has been consulted on,agreed as unsound and deleted from the allocation document, as such the boundary should be re instated back to its original position, behind the houses on Holme Lane.This is in line with the core stategy and consistent with SLDC's approach to boundaries on other previously consulted land agreed as unsound and not suitable to go forward.(both in Allithwaite and across South Lakeland)
Regards
Paul and Gail Airey
Brandreth
Holme Lane
Allithwaite
Grange-Over-Sands
Cumbria
