Local Development Framework Consultation

Dear Sir

Response to consultation on further proposed SLDC main modifications to Local Plan Land Allocations

I make my response by email given that your web link to respond online at www.southlakeland.gov.uk/ldf/consultation/login.aspx is broken. This is poor practice on your part, considering this is an active consultation and the technical means exist to ensure that such links should be working.

I make my response with particular reference to site R121M land east of Castle Green Road.

This is at MM072U page 23 in the Schedule of Further Proposed Main Modifications (Ex061UU) and page 6 of the Highway Clarifications Technical Note by AECOM, July 2013 (Ex104)

1. The Schedule states that some land has been deleted from allocation but gives inadequate details on any implications. SLDC should be require to provide answers to the following:
• What is the status of the land deleted (ownership and any impact on other landowners of the site)?
• What impact does its deletion have on the viability of the site?
• What impact does its deletion have on access to the site?

2. The Technical Note states that the use of Oak Tree Road as an access point is not a requirement for development, however it is desirable to provide, as a minimum, a pedestrian connection from the main site access road to Oak Tree Road.
• Can SLDC confirm that Oak Tree Road is still being considered for vehicular access to R121M, despite the serious concerns previously raised by others corresponding in previous consultations?
• If vehicular access via Oak Tree Road is not being considered, can SLDC still confirm that pedestrian access from Oak Tree Road to R121M is still available?
• If pedestrian access via Oak Tree Road to R121M is not permitted then what impact does this have on the viability on R121M if this was stated as a minimum requirement?

This restriction of this further consultation to (in the case of this site) only two document updates which have any relevance to this site is at the least regrettable and, in truth I feel, insulting. I say this with regret, as I should like the Inspector Mr Berkeley to know that those including myself who have raised serious objections to this site covering a number of subjects (of which I do not propose to reiterate here) have received responses from SLDC which can only be categorised as either negligible or derisory. It raises the most profound questions on SLDC's own assessments of this site, its continued refusal to engage with the objections or the evidence base gathered by us against this development and the nature of the relationship between major developers and SLDC.

Yours sincerely

D R Baxter