3 responses from Mrs Josephine Viney (Individual)
1. Mrs Josephine Viney (Individual) : 6 Jun 2008 19:01:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
3.69 - 3.78 PO4 - Balanced Housing Market - You Told us That & Introduction
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.
Page 59 Para 3.69
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.
The housing level merely reflects the view of an unelected body, which the population unanimously declared they do not want. Why should SLDC slavishly follow their advice without their own assessment? In the Grange area there is no need for additional mid and high cost housing. Low cost-affordable housing is probably needed. See Page 16 Para 2.28 referring to the range of housing meeting local needs; Page 16 Para 29 again refers to local people and local occupancy. For Cartmel local should apply to all of any development. We have had a recent development in Allithwaite where the low cost housing was outside the range of local people and so attracted those from outside the area to the "cheap" housing. Para 3.59 suggests that PO1 means that housing strategy should "be flexible to local circumstances (environmental capacity, exisitng size and infrastructure provison and meet the need for affordable housing as locally as possible)". Which means that on Page 66 Option 4 is the only suitable option for any development in the Grange area. Local must be local. If it is not possible to fill the houses from local people, where is the need to build the dwellings? A wider interpretation of local may make development more attractive to developers, but we, the residents of Cartmel do not want more development. We have sufficient mid and high cost houses, many of which are not selling. Page 9 Para 2.7 identifies South Lakeland's significantly higher numbers of road injuries and deaths. Yet there is no suggestion of improving the roads in the area, despite the building of 880 dwellings, with the consequent increase in cars and accidents.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Build no more than the 57 affordable houses in the Cartmel Peninsular Area, as identified on Page 61 para 3.74. Leave any subsequent development until the need arises and further consideration of roads infrastructure.
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. Mrs Josephine Viney (Individual) : 6 Jun 2008 19:21:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025
Please 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.
Page 153. Para 5. Page 154 Para 6 and 8.
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.
I have already commented elsewhere on the need for housing, beyond low cost, affordable houses for LOCAL (in the narrowest sense) people. The Orchards Close site (Para 8) is unsuitable if only that that the exit onto Aynsome Road affords a very restricted view of the road. The proximity of the Primary School means that cars are frequently parked at this entrance, further restricting the view. Orchard Close itself is a small community where children play in the roads; constant access by additional cars would lead to serious injuries. There is no need for any but low cost housing. Para 5 identifies an area, which might provide some housing land, but again the access would be limited with vision restricted, at a corner of Haggs Lane where cars park and the the site of many a "near-miss" on Haggs Lane. Para 6 identifies an area between Clogger Beck and Headless Cross where a row of maisonettes could provide, probably sufficient housing for Cartmel. However, this land is held In Trust and I believe the Trustees may be unable to sell for developemnt.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Delete Paragrah 5-8 and references to Cartmel and Allithwaite as Local Service Centres
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
I have mentioned the infilling between Clogger Back and Headless Cross, Similarly the row of houses to the West of Allithwaite Road could be extended to the same length as those on teh East. In additon the housing line culd be extended along the Cark Road (possibly widening the road) to Merebeck. Were all these maisonettes/flats I am sure this smalld evelopment would more than meet Cartmel's housing need, without taking too muc good agricultural land.
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
3. Mrs Josephine Viney (Individual) : 8 Jun 2008 11:38:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025
Please 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.
PO13. Page 156. Para 6
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.
It has probably escaped the planners notice, but there are already 2 small supermarkets in Grange a Spar and a Co-Op. Both with extended opening times. Both of which cater for more than the basic needs of most people. Booths, while a reasonable supermarket does not cater for all tastes, it is expensive and, when I shop there - and I do to get my parking money back in Kendal - I find I still have to visit other supermarkets to get the things I am unable to buy in Booths. The indendendant shops and supermarkets in Grange more than cater for most peoples basic food needs and Booths does not supply the more exotic, and while one has to accept that these shops tend to be located at one end of the town - the answer is not to locate a Booths at the other end.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Delete the reference to a small supermarket.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
Perhaps substitute a small shopping arcade? Or a petrol station (or a pump!). The latter would certainly serve a need in the area!!
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