4 responses from Mr Colin Jex (Individual)
1. Mr Colin Jex (Individual) : 28 May 2008 14:37:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
2.1 - 2.2 Strategic Vision and Objectives - and 'You told us that'
Please state as clearly as you can the exact part of the Report you are commenting on by quoting the page number (if known), paragraph number, option name or number, or the number of the map, figure or table.
Para 2.22-2.28, South Lakeland in 2025
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment
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.
This section relates to a period 17 years in the future, yet is written in the present tense. This is more than just a grammatical quibble. The section is clearly written with the intention of presenting the whole plan as an inevitable path to a land of milk and honey.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Rewrite it in the correct tense, cut out the spin and write in plain and honest English. Spin is bad enough from political parties, it is definitely inappropriate from local government employees.
2. Mr Colin Jex (Individual) : 28 May 2008 14:55:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
3.97 - 3.102 Options Considered: Alternative Sustainable Economy Options; Options 1 - 5
Please state as clearly as you can the exact part of the Report you are commenting on by quoting the page number (if known), paragraph number, option name or number, or the number of the map, figure or table.
Para 3.99
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.
"The NWDA employment projections are based on a declining employment base
(particularly in the manufacturing and primary sectors). As a consequence, this has
been discarded as a potential option for the Core Strategy as it would be contrary to
the objective of supporting the growth of the value of the local economy."
I.e. throw out the reality and carry on regardless. Is this any way to make realistic plans for the next 17 years?
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Plan on the basis of what is plausible and realistic, not some 'wish list' drawn out of thin air.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
Plan on the basis that the NWDA Employment projections represent what is most likely to actually happen.
3. Mr Colin Jex (Individual) : 28 May 2008 15:31:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2
Please state as clearly as you can the exact part of the Report you are commenting on by quoting the page number (if known), paragraph number, option name or number, or the number of the map, figure or table.
Pages 181 and 185 in online document.
Maps of Storth and Arnside in printed document 'Shaping the Future of South Lakeland to 2005' - collected from SLDC office.
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.
In both cases (Arnside and Storth) the selected areas are unsuitable for any form of development. Online the document refers to area 4 NE Arnside and in printed document it is area 1. Similarly for Storth the online document refers to area 33 and the printed document to area 1. In both cases greenfield sites have been choosen when brownfield sites are available. In both cases access might prove difficult for larger vehicles; in Arnside due to a low bridge and particularly in Storth due to very narrow roads. Both sites are in the AONB and would be very detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. In both cases neighbouring residential properties would be subject to a form of 'planning blight'.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Remove the offending sections on Arnside and Storth. Re-evaluate corresponding sections for other LSCs for similar errors.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
Use only brownfield sites in both villages. There is probably no need for such large developments as SLDC have projected - see my previous comments on Para 3.99.
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
4. Mr Colin Jex (Individual) : 22 Aug 2008 15:01:00
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.
Firstly regarding publicizing the Core Strategy .. Given the amount of tax payers' money spent, and that this seems to be such an important issue for the future of all of us, I am surprised and disappointed that you did not see fit to inform us all individually of this consultation exercise. SLDC have recently sent council tax bills to us all. It would have cost little extra to have included some such notification of this issue. However I can see that this would have involved some cooperation with the Finance Dept. You could also have made sure that 'South Lakes News' reached us all for the start of the consultation period. However again I can see that this would have involved some cooperation and communication with the Publicity Dept.
Secondly regarding the projected demand for housing and employment. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that at the base of these 'projections' or 'targets' or whatever they are, are a number of 'surveys' which are no more than a lot of independent wish lists from various bodies around the region. These wish lists constitute the evidence? They appear to be completely unrelated to what has happened in the past or to what is plausible for the future. A simple graph showing how the projection relates to the actual data on housing and employment development for the last 15 years or so would have shown more professional competence.
Thirdly I will rephrase a question which remains largely unanswered. Will all (or indeed any) of the existing planning controls apply to the areas designated for housing and employment development in the LDF? I note that you state that LDF will take full account of national planning policies in AONBs. Surely that would already preclude developments in Arnside and Storth on the greenfield areas designated in the LDF?