Response from Mr Roderick Wilson (Individual)
1. Mr Roderick Wilson (Individual) : 5 Jun 2008 21:22:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025
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 principle I accept the need for growth within the South Lakeland District Council Area to create additional housing and further employment opportunities.
I have serious reservations about the preferred option suggested for Allithwaie and Cartmel. I also have concerns about the Council's present approach to securing affordable housing which need urgent reveiew.
Prefered Option - Allithwaite and Cartmel
A number of options should have been put forward for discussion and not a preferred option.The number of houses which will be built in the two settlements is specified only in percentage terms. Actual numbers do not feature in the document. They should as it helps all involved to have a more practical understanding of what is proposed. Meaningful comment is impossible without numbers and in this respect the document is seriously flawed. It is highly probable that both villages will be asked to take around 80 new dwellings (1% of total fr each service village ). In the existing village envelope for Cartmel there are 220 houses. There are more in Allithwaite but the proportion of new development to established village is disproportionate with unfortunate consequences for services,schools and general quality of life unless the infrastructure is improved.
For both villages the preferred option would :-
* invite large scale and intrusive developemnts within both villages which will be out of character with the village.
* be out of scale and disproportionate in comparison with the existing settlements which have evolved growing fairly gradually over the years if as seems likely 80 new properties are built.
* make it virtually impossible to deliver good quality planning and design which was in sympathy with the host village and to make the new developments look and feel integrated into their communitiy.
* by adopting what appears to be a collective approach to planning on a large scale - one size fits all approach, ignoring the opportunities to look for sensible opportunities to infill and to create a number of smalller developments which enlarge both villages in a more natural and organic way.
* act as a planning blight and if designated increase seriously the risk of unsuitable development
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
* The preferred option should be withdrawn with a new round of consultation which looks at a number of alternatives.
* More homes are needed but the link between expansion and afffordable homes needs to be carefully considered. ( see below )
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
* The definition of eligibility for local occupancy should be narrowed to the SLDC area with consideration for returning graduates and other young people returning home for employment.
* Affordable housing must be esentially for local people and be retained within the affordable housing pool.
* SLDC need to review the approach to procuring affordable housing and to consider whether they shold be more proactive and directly involved than is presently the case. There are examples elsewhere where former local authority housing bodies operate in a developmental and entrepreneurial manner to provide affordable housing and to develop their community.