Your Details
What is your name?
Name
(Required)
Jack Baxter
What is your organisation (if applicable)?
Organisation
FTR Investments OY
It is a requirement of the Local Plan consultation process that all responses are published. May we have your permission to publish your response?
Please select all that apply
Checkbox:
Ticked
Yes, you may publish my response
Easy Read Summary
To what extent to you agree with the issues and options we've outlined? Do you have any other suggestions or comments that you'd like us to consider as we prepare our draft Local plan?
Your comments on our summary document
A focus on how planning can reduce traffic congestion.
one issue is service vehicles stopeped in the wrong place causing tailbacks whilst they unload.
with home delivery being used much more than 10 years ago, time limited loading places for amazon / tesco / asda delivery vans would help reduce congestion and risk of accidents on busy highstreet roads in towns.
one issue is service vehicles stopeped in the wrong place causing tailbacks whilst they unload.
with home delivery being used much more than 10 years ago, time limited loading places for amazon / tesco / asda delivery vans would help reduce congestion and risk of accidents on busy highstreet roads in towns.
Vision, Objectives and Priorities (Questions 1 to 3)
1. Do you agree with the vision for South Lakeland by 2040?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Please give us your views on the Vision
new development whilst keeping the historic and quaint characteristics of the local areas is a great idea and is something that I support in the Vision.
2. Do you agree with the proposed objectives for the Local Plan Review?
| Objective 1 Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Objective 1 No Radio button: Not checked No | Objective 1 Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| Objective 2 Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Objective 2 No Radio button: Not checked No | Objective 2 Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| Objective 3 Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Objective 3 No Radio button: Not checked No | Objective 3 Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| Objective 4 Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Objective 4 No Radio button: Not checked No | Objective 4 Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| Objective 5 Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Objective 5 No Radio button: Not checked No | Objective 5 Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| Objective 6 Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Objective 6 No Radio button: Not checked No | Objective 6 Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| Objective 7 Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Objective 7 No Radio button: Not checked No | Objective 7 Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| Objective 8 Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Objective 8 No Radio button: Not checked No | Objective 8 Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
Theme 1: Tackling Climate Change (Questions 4 to 10)
4. Which of these policy options for achieving carbon reduction in new development do you think is appropriate and why?
| PO1.2/i: Rely on national standards and do not introduce higher local standards for homes Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PO1.2/i: Rely on national standards and do not introduce higher local standards for homes No Radio button: Not checked No | PO1.2/i: Rely on national standards and do not introduce higher local standards for homes Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PO1.2/ii: Set higher local standards for homes Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PO1.2/ii: Set higher local standards for homes No Radio button: Checked No | PO1.2/ii: Set higher local standards for homes Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PO1.2/iii: Continue to require BREEAM ‘Excellent’ on major commercial development Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PO1.2/iii: Continue to require BREEAM ‘Excellent’ on major commercial development No Radio button: Checked No | PO1.2/iii: Continue to require BREEAM ‘Excellent’ on major commercial development Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PO1.2/iv: Introduce BREEAM ‘Very Good’ requirement for minor commercial and residential conversions Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PO1.2/iv: Introduce BREEAM ‘Very Good’ requirement for minor commercial and residential conversions No Radio button: Not checked No | PO1.2/iv: Introduce BREEAM ‘Very Good’ requirement for minor commercial and residential conversions Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
If you would like to provide reasons for your answer please do so below
national standards are good and the area does not necessarily need higher local standards. Building companies understand that new houses should be energy efficient, in order to sell, due to energy prices being so expensive.
with regards to BREEAM it is my opinion that very good, is more than sufficient
to achieve a higher BREEAM score materials or design may need to be used that is not in-keeping with local architecture or character thus causing additional complications.
with regards to BREEAM it is my opinion that very good, is more than sufficient
to achieve a higher BREEAM score materials or design may need to be used that is not in-keeping with local architecture or character thus causing additional complications.
5. Which of these policy approaches to sustainable construction and design to mitigate climate change impacts, do you support and why?
| PA1.3/a: Strengthen local policy on sustainable design and construction Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA1.3/a: Strengthen local policy on sustainable design and construction No Radio button: Not checked No | PA1.3/a: Strengthen local policy on sustainable design and construction Unsure Radio button: Checked Unsure |
| PA1.3/b: Prepare local guidance on sustainable construction and deisgn Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA1.3/b: Prepare local guidance on sustainable construction and deisgn No Radio button: Not checked No | PA1.3/b: Prepare local guidance on sustainable construction and deisgn Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
If you would like to provide reasons for your answer please do so below
I have experience with several sustainable builds in Finland where wood is a common building material, however mold and wood eating beetles are to be considered also as sustainable materials such as wood have a reduced service life over Brick.
Fire risk should also be considered with sustainable builds.
local well researched guidance on sustainable construction and design seems a great idea however when strengthening local policy I believe that fire safety should and distance between sustainable developments should be considered.
Fire risk should also be considered with sustainable builds.
local well researched guidance on sustainable construction and design seems a great idea however when strengthening local policy I believe that fire safety should and distance between sustainable developments should be considered.
6. Which of these policy options for promoting renewable energy infrastructure do you think is appropriate and why?
| PO1.4/i: Retain criteria-based policy supported by current planning guidance Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PO1.4/i: Retain criteria-based policy supported by current planning guidance No Radio button: Not checked No | PO1.4/i: Retain criteria-based policy supported by current planning guidance Unsure Radio button: Checked Unsure |
| PO1.4/ii: Identify suitable areas for renewable energy schemes including wind turbines Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PO1.4/ii: Identify suitable areas for renewable energy schemes including wind turbines No Radio button: Not checked No | PO1.4/ii: Identify suitable areas for renewable energy schemes including wind turbines Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
7. Would you like to see renewable energy schemes in your local area such as solar farms or wind turbines?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
If so please indicate locations or types of locations where you would consider these acceptable?
wind turbines on costal areas.
tidal energy projects, such as turbines in moambe bay
correction of flood areas that has repeatedly devastate residential properties, by combining the building of flood defenses along the river Kents banks with the investment from energy companies who could install turbines in the same area to take green energy from the Kent.
tidal energy projects, such as turbines in moambe bay
correction of flood areas that has repeatedly devastate residential properties, by combining the building of flood defenses along the river Kents banks with the investment from energy companies who could install turbines in the same area to take green energy from the Kent.
8. Do you support this policy approach to landscape resilience for the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change discussed in this section?
| PA1.5/a: Promote natural flood management; carbon storage and off-setting; biodiversity net gain; and Cumbria Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA1.5/a: Promote natural flood management; carbon storage and off-setting; biodiversity net gain; and Cumbria Local Nature Recovery Strategy. No Radio button: Not checked No | PA1.5/a: Promote natural flood management; carbon storage and off-setting; biodiversity net gain; and Cumbria Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Unsure Radio button: Checked Unsure |
9. Do you support this policy approach to reviewing and updating policy on flood risk?
| PA1.6/a: Take account of latest flood risk evidence, schemes, and stakeholder advice. Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA1.6/a: Take account of latest flood risk evidence, schemes, and stakeholder advice. No Radio button: Not checked No | PA1.6/a: Take account of latest flood risk evidence, schemes, and stakeholder advice. Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
Theme 2: Where Should Development Go? (Questions 11 to 22)
11. Which of these policy approaches to reviewing the place hierarchy do you support and why?
| PA2.2/a: Population size Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/a: Population size No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/a: Population size Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/b: Type and range of facilities Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/b: Type and range of facilities No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/b: Type and range of facilities Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/c: Identity and character of place Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/c: Identity and character of place No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/c: Identity and character of place Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/d: Sustainable travel connections Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/d: Sustainable travel connections No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/d: Sustainable travel connections Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/e: Environmental capacity and resilience Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/e: Environmental capacity and resilience No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/e: Environmental capacity and resilience Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/f : Proximity to larger towns Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/f : Proximity to larger towns No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/f : Proximity to larger towns Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/g: Economic growth potential Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/g: Economic growth potential No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/g: Economic growth potential Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/h: Infrastructure and services Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/h: Infrastructure and services No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/h: Infrastructure and services Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/i : Creation new communities and sense of place Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.2/i : Creation new communities and sense of place No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/i : Creation new communities and sense of place Unsure Radio button: Checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/j : Housing need and market Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/j : Housing need and market No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/j : Housing need and market Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/k: Regeneration needs and opportunities Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/k: Regeneration needs and opportunities No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/k: Regeneration needs and opportunities Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/l: Availability of land and extent of constraints Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/l: Availability of land and extent of constraints No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/l: Availability of land and extent of constraints Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.2/m: Community ambitions Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.2/m: Community ambitions No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.2/m: Community ambitions Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
If you would like to provide reasons for your answer please do so below
PA2.2/i creation new communities and sense of place, if it is needed. some villages may seem a bit lost and need a sense of place, in which case a new industrial estate may bring work opportunities to the residents of that village, however some may have old routes, charm and history. In that case tourism and historical charm should be kept and a new sense of place is not needed, just the re-energization of the villages current character.
22. Which of these policy approaches for selecting sites for allocation for development do you support and why?
| PA2.6/a: Prioritise brownfield land/vacant/ derelict land and buildings Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/a: Prioritise brownfield land/vacant/ derelict land and buildings No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/a: Prioritise brownfield land/vacant/ derelict land and buildings Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/b: Re-use under-used facilities within established uses Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/b: Re-use under-used facilities within established uses No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/b: Re-use under-used facilities within established uses Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/c: Higher densities with sustainable access to services and facilities Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.6/c: Higher densities with sustainable access to services and facilities No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/c: Higher densities with sustainable access to services and facilities Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/d: Avoid sites where environmental constraints cannot be overcome Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.6/d: Avoid sites where environmental constraints cannot be overcome No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/d: Avoid sites where environmental constraints cannot be overcome Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/e: Avoid sites where environmental harm cannot be mitigated Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.6/e: Avoid sites where environmental harm cannot be mitigated No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/e: Avoid sites where environmental harm cannot be mitigated Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/f: Sustainable transport access to services and facilities Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.6/f: Sustainable transport access to services and facilities No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/f: Sustainable transport access to services and facilities Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/g: Community needs and viable employment development Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.6/g: Community needs and viable employment development No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/g: Community needs and viable employment development Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/h: Allocate sites for strategic housing and employment development Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.6/h: Allocate sites for strategic housing and employment development No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/h: Allocate sites for strategic housing and employment development Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/i: Prioritise sites with access to existing sufficient infrastructure Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.6/i: Prioritise sites with access to existing sufficient infrastructure No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/i: Prioritise sites with access to existing sufficient infrastructure Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/j: Avoid loss of valued local green /open spaces Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/j: Avoid loss of valued local green /open spaces No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/j: Avoid loss of valued local green /open spaces Unsure Radio button: Checked Unsure |
If you would like to provide reasons for your answer please do so below
a lot of brownfield sites specifically derelict buildings have historic attachments or are listed buildings that add charm and character to the village or town. i think it would be a shame to build new in place of those and I personally would favor the idea of reducing green belts between villages and building on dis-used fields.
as for areas of green/ open spaces
the environment, airpolution and noise polution could be tackled together by creating managed forestry areas to border schools/ industrial estates/ quarries /other areas of noise
this would provide replacement habitat for wildlife from any green areas that have been developed. amongst other advantages
as for areas of green/ open spaces
the environment, airpolution and noise polution could be tackled together by creating managed forestry areas to border schools/ industrial estates/ quarries /other areas of noise
this would provide replacement habitat for wildlife from any green areas that have been developed. amongst other advantages
Theme 3: Thriving Market Towns, Villages and Rural Areas - Milnthorpe (Questions 52 to 61)
52. Have we identified all the relevant strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for Milnthorpe?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
53. Have we identified the correct features or issues on the map? Are there additional features or issues that should be included?
Please give us your views below
The large green gap along the east between Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite is causing the town to grow south along the A6. this is causing the historic town center, the school and the main bus stop to become a larger distance away from the new development areas.
my preposal would be to create a smaller green gap to divide Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite possibly with trees and a walking routes, allowing for more houses to be built in the fields north and south of the school.
my preposal would be to create a smaller green gap to divide Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite possibly with trees and a walking routes, allowing for more houses to be built in the fields north and south of the school.
54. Which of these policy approaches for the good planning of Milnthorpe to 2040 do you support and why?
| PA3.4/a: Review of housing sites to support additional development Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA3.4/a: Review of housing sites to support additional development No Radio button: Not checked No | PA3.4/a: Review of housing sites to support additional development Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA3.4/b: Review of land for business and employment Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA3.4/b: Review of land for business and employment No Radio button: Not checked No | PA3.4/b: Review of land for business and employment Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA3.4/c: Support for suitable site new medical centre Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA3.4/c: Support for suitable site new medical centre No Radio button: Not checked No | PA3.4/c: Support for suitable site new medical centre Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA3.4/d: Small scale development sensitively located and designed Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA3.4/d: Small scale development sensitively located and designed No Radio button: Not checked No | PA3.4/d: Small scale development sensitively located and designed Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA3.4/e: Brownfield and other windfall opportunities within built up area/town centre Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA3.4/e: Brownfield and other windfall opportunities within built up area/town centre No Radio button: Not checked No | PA3.4/e: Brownfield and other windfall opportunities within built up area/town centre Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA3.4/f: Integrated walking and cycling networks Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA3.4/f: Integrated walking and cycling networks No Radio button: Not checked No | PA3.4/f: Integrated walking and cycling networks Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA3.4/g: Public realm enhancements in the Square and Conservation Area Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA3.4/g: Public realm enhancements in the Square and Conservation Area No Radio button: Not checked No | PA3.4/g: Public realm enhancements in the Square and Conservation Area Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
55. What do you think the role of the town centre should be and how should its role develop in response to trends and challenges such as on-line retailing? For example, if there are less shops in future, should housing and other non-retail uses such as leisure, food and drink be encouraged? (See section 4.6.6 of the Issues and Options Report)
What do you think the role of the town centre should be and how should its role develop in response to trends and challenges such as on-line retailing? For example, if there are less shops in future, should housing and other non-retail uses such as leisure, food and drink be encouraged? (See section 4.6.6 of the Issues and Options Report)
The center should remain a market town as it has done for hundreds of years. Extra parking could allow greater success of Milnthorpe market.
To create extra life in the town on an evening, one sugestion would be to allow restaurants in the square to erect temporary outside covered seating areas.
To create extra life in the town on an evening, one sugestion would be to allow restaurants in the square to erect temporary outside covered seating areas.
56. Have we identified the right open spaces that need protecting in Milnthorpe on the Policies Map (link below)?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
If no, please explain why?
I agree with the fields surrounding Dallam tower, however the field to the East of Haverflats lane and to the north of Dallam school should be re-considered.
This land is very large, has good drainage and could be a great place to build affordable housing within walking distance of Milnthorpe town square and school.
In my opinion the green belt between Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite is a bit too large when considering the true scale and the connection with both villages using Milnthorpe for the infrastructure such as bus routes, fuel station high school and shops.
This land is very large, has good drainage and could be a great place to build affordable housing within walking distance of Milnthorpe town square and school.
In my opinion the green belt between Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite is a bit too large when considering the true scale and the connection with both villages using Milnthorpe for the infrastructure such as bus routes, fuel station high school and shops.
Do some open spaces also merit designation as Local Green Spaces (see section 4.4.5 of the Issues and Options Report)? If yes, please indicate which areas below
I think not because of AONB being so close. As well as so many surrounding fields.
60. Have we correctly identified the services and facilities in the Settlement Services and Accessibility Assessment document? (See section 4.2.2 of the Issues and Options Report).
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
61. Which of these policy options for possible directions of growth for Milnthorpe do you support and why?
| PO3.4/i: Grisleymires Lane area – for employment or housing Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PO3.4/i: Grisleymires Lane area – for employment or housing No Radio button: Checked No | PO3.4/i: Grisleymires Lane area – for employment or housing Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PO3.4/ii: Ackenthwaite – for housing Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PO3.4/ii: Ackenthwaite – for housing No Radio button: Not checked No | PO3.4/ii: Ackenthwaite – for housing Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PO3.4/iii: South Milnthorpe – for housing Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PO3.4/iii: South Milnthorpe – for housing No Radio button: Not checked No | PO3.4/iii: South Milnthorpe – for housing Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PO3.4/iv: Mainline – additional employment development Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PO3.4/iv: Mainline – additional employment development No Radio button: Not checked No | PO3.4/iv: Mainline – additional employment development Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
If you would like to provide reasons for your answer please do so below
Grisleymires lane area, Yes for employment no for housing. no for housing as this location for housing would see the children crossing the A6 when walking, or riding bicycle to school or into town square.
Ackenthwaite, (north) yes for housing as the land is away from rivers and potential flood risks and is close to the school.
south Milnthorpe, yes for housing. However this housing would be louder with quicker access to the A6 than the hills just north of Ackenthwaite.
Mainline Yes
Ackenthwaite, (north) yes for housing as the land is away from rivers and potential flood risks and is close to the school.
south Milnthorpe, yes for housing. However this housing would be louder with quicker access to the A6 than the hills just north of Ackenthwaite.
Mainline Yes
Theme 8: Enhancing the Natural and Built Environment (Questions 142 to 148)
146. Have you any suggestions for areas which may merit designation as a Coastal Change Management Area? Please identify these and give your reasons
Please provide your answer in the box below
wooded areas to act as a natural sound barrier between towns and motorways / railway lines /busy roads. This will reduce noise pollution and help to improve air quality amongst other benefits.