2 responses from Mr Geoffrey Stebbens (Individual)
1. Mr Geoffrey Stebbens (Individual) : 26 May 2008 11:12:00
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Oppose
Please write your comment or explain your reasons for supporting or opposing this part of the Report. You may also wish to refer to the tests of soundess in the glossary of the Preferred Options document before making your comments.
If further development is GENUINELY required for Allithwaite the area around Templand indicated 3 in the plan does seem to be a possible area to develop.
However Allithwaite has already had a large development of new housing in Greendales off Church Road.
This consists of approximately twenty five HOUSES which when planning was originally proposed were supposed to be ,I believe, twenty three BUNGALOWS. The quality and size(height and number of properties)of the development has been a considerable blight on the housing in Church Road.Dwelling housing for local residency were incorporated in this development.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Allithwaite has had considerable development recently and more concentration of housing will perpetrate the destruction of what is now a village.The village boundary line as indicated on your plan does not indicate this latest development and the extension it created to the village boundary.
I specifically feel all land between Wart Barrow Lane and Kents Bank Road to the East of Church Road and Holme Lane should be included in the Green Gaps category as should all areas which would mean the extension of the existing village boundary should building be permitted.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
If absolutely necessary the area most suitable for minor development is quite obviously on Vicarage Lane where a road system/drainage/mains services already exist.This could be on both sides of the road between the Old Vicarage and Green Lane and would act as infil development between Church Road and Green Lane without extending the outer perimeter of the village or intruding directly on other properties.
CONCLUSION:-
My wife and I oppose further development of the village at this stage based on the evidence presented at this time.
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination
Adopted by the District Council
2. Mr Geoffrey Stebbens (Individual) : 5 Jun 2008 23:47:00
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Oppose
Please write your comment or explain your reasons for supporting or opposing this part of the Report. You may also wish to refer to the tests of soundess in the glossary of the Preferred Options document before making your comments.
Further to our comments already sent in and the disscussion at Cartmel Village Hall attended by SLDC's Alistaire Mc Neil when an extension to the closing date for comment was confirmed:-
It appears that the demand for extra housing in, specifically Allithwaite but generally in the area is purely a 'knee jerk' reaction to unreasobable demands made by an ineffectual government who are trying to "prove " they are doing something and may not even be in office when these plans are to be implemented.
When South Lakes District council can prove the need for extra housing in the area it will be supported I am sure by most people but the fact is that housing is not required.
Please send somebody to check the number of houses for sale in the area and how long they have been on the market. One in Quarry Lane where we live has been on the market for eight months with no sign of it selling.
Send them to check on the Housing at Greendales Allithwaite. Not all of these houses have been sold and I understand that none of them have been sold to local people. They were built approximately three/four years ago! Even the cheap housing for locals was not totally occupied by local people.
The plan attached to the report is not accurate. The housing development at Greendales is NOT included and therefore does not represent the green field development already imposed on Allithwaite. Also there is no mention of the holliday chalets to the West of Allithwaite. I realise that they come under a different 'umbrella' to housing but they are still built on a green field site and represent a considerable loss of the green area around the village.
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WOULD GAIN FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE LAND ON WHICH THEY ARE TO BE BUILT
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
There are large areas of agricultural land which should come under the 'green' category especially if the economic and environmental targets of the government are to be met. These areas should be included in the plan.
ALL areas of development which encroaches onto green land, whatever the purpose might be, must be included in the plan for whatever that development might be it still represents a 'green loss' however the terminology 'dresses 'it up.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
If South Lakes District Council want to do a constructive excercise one option is to buy up housing which has been on the market for ages and provide 'cheap housing' for locals.
Another alternative is to double the council tax on second /holiday homes rather the subsidising it as is now the case. This would create more homes rather than having numerous properties standing empty for most of the year.
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination
Adopted by the District Council