Local Development Framework Consultation

Dear Sir or Madam

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).

In general we support the draft, in so far as it aims to comprehensively consult with the community on Local Plan documents and planning applications. We have always found staff in SLDC’s planning department to be helpful when we have contacted them.

However, there are several points we wish to make about the planning process in general, which we hope can be taken on board.

There have been proposals in recent months to limit the opportunities for members of the public to speak at planning committee meetings. I understand that these proposals were rejected. This is to be welcomed as, through personal experience, we know how important it is for the ‘voice’ of the local community to be heard by councillors when they are considering the more controversial planning applications, which have attracted strong local opposition.

In cases where there is significant local opposition to a proposal development, including from representative bodies such as town and parish councils and organisations such as Kendal Civic Society and Friends of the Lake District, we are concerned that the weight of such opposition is not always given enough sufficient emphasis at the planning committee stage. While we accept that all councillors can read letters of objection online, the agendas at the meetings tend to be a summary of what has been said and the level of opposition can sometimes be indicated during the meeting by comments from planning officers simply that, for example, ’there have been 65 letters of objection to the proposals’. This also reinforces the importance of giving local people to be given the opportunity to stand up at meetings and comment on applications that affect them. In some instances three minutes is not sufficient to summarise a community’s objections to a major planning application.

In general in the planning process, we feel that the ‘balance of power’ lies too much in the hands of developers. An applicant can apply to develop a piece of land and, even if it is opposed by large numbers of residents and local representative organisations and then rejected overwhelmingly by the planning authority, the developer can submit further similar plans for the same site as many times as they wish. Developers also have the right to appeal planning decisions, unlike those who oppose the plans. This means that communities can face years of uncertainty as speculative developments keep coming back, time and again. This can be extremely wearing for local residents and can cause considerable stress and anxiety for extended periods of time.

In theory, developers can use the planning process to wear down communities. We would urge South Lakeland District Council to lobby the Government to change planning rules so that developers cannot effectively hold communities to ransom in this way. There should be a defined period after a scheme has been rejected before the same developer can return with an amended, but essentially very similar, plan for the same site. If the site was not allocated for the proposed use on the Land Allocations Document then we feel that period should be at least five years.

Increased weight should also be given to the council’s Land Allocations Document. Preparing such plans is a long and detailed process, which involves huge amounts of consultation. Plans are then approved by a Planning Inspector and adopted by the local authority. The LAD allocates sufficient land for housing and business developments for many years. However, developers can still submit applications for sites that are not allocated. While we understand that some sites can become available as ‘windfall’ sites we believe there should be a strong presumption against developments of sites that are not allocated under the LAD, particularly when there is a high level of local opposition, unless an overriding and specific need can be demonstrated why such a site should be developed. If this is not the case, then the LAD appears to carry very little real weight.

Thank for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely

Andrew and Anne Thomas