1570 responses.
1. The Occupier (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 12:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
2. The Occupier (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 13:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN109#, RN324#
3. Mrs June Blakey and Mr Graham Matthews (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 15:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN299#
4. The Occupier (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
5. The Occupier (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
6. The Occupier (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
7. The Occupier (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
8. The Occupier (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
9. Mr Mick Abbey (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
10. Mrs B Abbott (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN299#
11. Mr William Robert Abram (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 07:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298# , RN303# & RN 256#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
12. Mr Patrick Adair (Individual) : 13 Sep 2011 14:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN323# R138# RN305# R98# RN43# R471# R656# RN281# RN42#
13. Mr and Mrs P.G. & Gail Airey (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 13:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
14. Mr and Mrs P.G. & Gail Airey (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN265#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
15. A & P Airey (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
16. Mr Ryan Airey (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 13:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
17. Mr & Mrs George & M Airey (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN15#, ON 26#, R689#
18. Mrs Sheila Alcock (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 11:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316# RN326#
19. Mrs Vera Alderson (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:29:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham and Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN39
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Any development on this site will have a significant impact on some of the oldest properties in the village of Leasgill and will alter the character of the village. I feel it is important to maintain some green spaces in the centre of the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A reduction in time span would enable the council to reassess the need for development in the area and take into account the changing economic situation.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
20. Miss Linzi Alford (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 13:57:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689 , RNI5 ,ON26
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
R689, land to E of Cartmel- firstly all original comments re: this site made in 2008 still apply.85 houses is a massive development given scale of Cartmel with its approx permanent dwellers numbering 220.Orchard Close is 20 properties and appearance is still only softened slightly by 19 years of shrubs/plants.The land belongs to Holker Estates.They cite Pedders Cottages as an example of their housing - Pedders Cottages consists of 12 houses and 2 flats- it is an attractive development and is for locals only rental. 85 houses tagged onto edge of village would increase village boundary and spoil the view from Hampsfell and whilst travelling down into the village.
Access through Orchard Close seems unnecessary - why disrupt an existing and settled cul de sac by directing at minimum pedestrians and cyclists through it? And access via Orchard close leads onto a narrow road with not enough room for a proper width pavement on either side and very congested at school times.
Would WELCOME affordable locals only housing but please in manageable bites, no one wants to see a "hallgarth" plonked in their village however tastefully landscaped it is promised to be.
Could the village infrastructure cope with an influx of 85 families + however many in the Home Group extension RN15.
We need development on a much more sympathetic scale which would not intrinsically alter the village character.
ON26 proposal for football /cricket pitch and coach park- appears at first as an altruistic gesture - conveniently covers LDF requirerements with the housing or is there an ulterior motive to fund the move of recreational areas from their existing sites to allow for other development in their place on the racecourse? The reason for new coach park is to ease congestion witthin village- aside from busiest days of the year when it is exceptional congested everywhere there are few "coach -jams" in Cartmel. And would the coaches "drop-off" their passengers in the village centre anyway before parking up?
Has Home group been offered land incorporated in the Holker Estates proposal to build RN15 to cover the locals only rental aspect of the LDF? Home Group Built Orchard Close - and now wishes to extend it? Would that mean that the 85 houses of adjoining R689 were all for sale - what is "local affordable housing " about that?
How about smaller housing developments, in seperate areas- no need to "sponsor" an unecessary coach park and recreation facilities- these have nothing to do with the Development Framework!
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Shorter timelines - who can see as far as 2025 into the future and predict housing needs for then - should be shorter term- and covering immediate housing requirements.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Sites suggested by residents of the areas affected preferable- people who know the areas.
21. Mr/s N Alister (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
22. Mr Phillip Allder (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
23. Dr Gillian Allder (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
24. Ms Kimberley Allder (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
25. Mr Neil Alldridge (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 23:36:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
field between green lane and vicarage road
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site was proposed in a previous round of building applications. The site was turned down by the planning committee of SLDC then for several reasons, CHEIFLY THAT IT WAS NOTE PART OF THE COUNCILS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREAS. Practical reasons for not including the site included very poor access both roads are very narrow with poor exits to Church Road. No route for sewerage connection from the site was available. Water pressure to surounding properties is already low and further additions would make this worse. Development next to the cemetary was considered difficult to sell, and incidentally would also restrict the extension of said cemetary. There is 1 dwelling that backs inmmediatly onto the proposed site and any development would restrict this properties light.The site is designated as open space within the village, development would destroy the character of a village ie: a loose developed area including green space. All of these reasons still apply.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Village development by its very nature should be small, possibly even single plots over a long period of time to reflect local demand.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B would allow developers and pressure groups to form alliances with development not adequatly controled. Leading to undisirable developments against the greater interest.Option A is therefore favoured.
26. MR SIMON ALLENBY (Individual) : 4 Sep 2011 21:31:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
GRAYRIGG
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257# / RN258#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A developement on the proposed sight would have a detrimental effect to our view. The owner of the view may not be the owner of the land.It would also invade our privacy as the new houses would be level with our bathroom and bedrooms.New access roads would have to be built in an area where there is no suitable access, any attempt to make access would cause a danger to the small children that attend the local school.The extra traffic load,created by any development, on an already dangerous road would only increase the likelyhood of accidents to the existing population of Grayrigg.Grayrigg village has very few street lights, a new development would cause light pollution and could interfere with local wildlife.Bats,a protected species,can often be seen on the proposed sight as well as other wildlife.Grayrigg is a small farming community with no amenities this is one of the reasons why the people that come to live here do so,adding to the village would take away the rights of these people who have chosen to live in a small communinty.Any extention to the village would be totally inappropriate.The village church is a grade 2 listed building and enjoys a great vista,the new development would be clearly visable from the site of the church.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
permissions could be given which in later years could prove to be the wrong decission.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
People living in a community know what is best for themselves,they should always have the final say in things that effects thier lives,
27. Mrs Hilda Allonby (Individual) : 30 Aug 2011 16:06:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor Near Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R686SW#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
as a resident of Swarthmoor for the past 50 years and living on Park Road I oppose the above development for the following :- Currently we have open views accross green fields and allowing this development to go ahead would be a travesty. SWARTHMOOR is a village and not a town, we already have a busy road through the village and building yet more houses would cause absolute chaos within our small community.I and many other residents along this Road feel most strongly about these proposed developments they will completely ruin our once small village. WE already have two developments within the boundaries ie:- Trinkeld and Quaker Fold, adding to our already congested small village roads.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
28. Ms Sandie Almond (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:58:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R642M and RN42
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Message Body
I wish to raise grounds for objection to some new proposed sites for development in Milnthorpe.
My comments are all with reference to 2 development boundaries:
MILNTHORPE R642M and RN42.
1 These are NOT new proposed sites. They have been looked at before and rejected in previous submissions.
2 Availability of farm and accompanying land is not planning grounds to grant residential development consent.
3 In order to support existing urbanisation, rural land and especially agricultural land should be maintained. this area should support an infill only policy.
4 The aglomeration and merging together of Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite should be prevented, so as to preserve individual settlement identity.
5 A reference to "other" land use is useless. How can we accept something when we don't know what it is e.g. industrial, retail - Tescos etc.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
29. Ms Sandie Almond (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 12:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN42
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Message Body
I wish to raise grounds for objection to some new proposed sites for development in Milnthorpe.
My comments are all with reference to 2 development boundaries:
MILNTHORPE R642M and RN42.
1 These are NOT new proposed sites. They have been looked at before and rejected in previous submissions.
2 Availability of farm and accompanying land is not planning grounds to grant residential development consent.
3 In order to support existing urbanisation, rural land and especially agricultural land should be maintained. this area should support an infill only policy.
4 The aglomeration and merging together of Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite should be prevented, so as to preserve individual settlement identity.
5 A reference to "other" land use is useless. How can we accept something when we don't know what it is e.g. industrial, retail - Tescos etc.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
30. Ms Sandie Almond (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 14:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R642M RN42
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
31. Ms Christine Amison (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 08:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN260#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
32. Mr Nigel Anderson (Individual) : 14 Sep 2011 09:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Flookburgh
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN263# RN158# RN159# EN25# RN160# EN41
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
33. Mr David Anderson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN11
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
34. Mr David Anderson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
35. Mr David Anderson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN58
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
36. Mr David Anderson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN63
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
37. Mr David Anderson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN211
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
38. Mr David Anderson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN329
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
39. Mr David Anderson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN330
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
40. Dr & Mrs Dick & Doreen Anderson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN42 EN49
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
41. Mr Nigel Anderson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Flookburgh
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN158#
42. Mr Stephen Appleby (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 14:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
43. Mr. Giles Archibald (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 17:47:00
Kendal SW
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R143
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There are several reasons for my opposition. I list two below.
1. Building houses in this location will force most of the residents to drive into and through Kendal town to go to work/to shop/to socialise. Kendal air pollution levels are above accepted and targeted norms in several streets already. This is a currently a health hazard for several hundred residences. In addition, I understand such air quality may potentially subject the residents of Kendal to fines. The plans would worsen the situation.
2. The proximity to a landfill. This is too near the old waste tips. While further away than the other land on R129, the plans take no account of EC guidance on the distance that should be preserved between landfills and buildings.
I would further refer to the earlier submission of Mrs Harvey and others, during the first consultation, relative to R129. Most of these concerns also apply to R143
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
44. Mr & Mrs Richard Archibald (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#,RN303#
45. Ms Colleen Armer (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 11:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
46. Mr Terry Armistead (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN330,RN63,RN211,RN11,RN329,RN13 & EN58
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
47. Mr & Mrs Alan & Linda Armistead (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
48. Mr & Mrs Alan & Linda Armistead (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
49. Mrs Sandra Armstrong (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 12:03:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As a nearby resident, I strongly believe that this should be left under Green Gap protection. Otherwise development will create a blur between Ulverston and Swarthmoor, with ribbon development and traffic chaos that this will bring. Ulverston will lose its character, and town boundaries will blur.
Under no circumstances should the suggestion that this be designated for retail be approved because:
a) It will undermine Uvlerston's vitality and vibrancy
b) It will put traders out of business and lose the heart of the town
c) Retail only brings low value jobs - and Ulverston needs high value jobs
d) Such a development would also inevitably lose jobs so balancing this out, it would result in a net loss (cf New Economics Foundation calculations - 274 jobs on average lost when a large retail development comes)
e) It would create chaos in the building
f) The road is dangerous enough already without more cars, with thousands of trips per week being generated
I oppose any retail designation, and wish to see the land kept as a greenfield site
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
People must be allowed to have a say
50. Mr and Mrs G & D Armstrong (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R42#, R43#, R98#, R138#, RN281#, R656#, R323#, R305#, R471#
51. Mr & Mrs D Armstrong (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
52. Mr Peter Ashby (Individual) : 3 Aug 2011 21:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Bowston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R664
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See my previous comments for this site - this is a larger area and my concerns all apply in greater force.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It is better to concentrate on deliverable sites to avoid uncertainty in respect of other areas of land which may not be brought forward. It will also allow for a re-appraisal in the light of changing circumstances.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I have not chosen a particular option as both may be appropriate in different circumstances. On the one hand there may be sites which could be allocated now if there was no harm to the character and appearance of the settlement; but this option should not close the door to other sites which may be brought forward by communities, developers or individuals.
There should always be scope for allowing windfall sites which are appropriate in their setting - there will be many cases such as that at Raw Green, New Hutton, where small scale infill development can deliver valuable additional housing units without compromising the character of the hamlet.,
.
53. Ms Rachel Ashton (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
54. Mr/s H Askins (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 14:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
55. Mr David Aspinwall (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Bowston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R664#
56. Mr & Mrs Aspinwall (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
57. Ms Frances Astor (Individual) : 18 Nov 2011 10:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121, R141, R56
58. Mr R. J. Atfield (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 12:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282#, RN291#, R142#, R105#, EN45#
59. Ms Fiona Atkinson (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:55:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I am writing on behalf of my father, Patrick Gudgeon,85, who lives in the bungalow 'Wayleaves' which directly backs onto the land north of the vicarage and is very concerned, as all the rest of our family is, about the effect that the proposed car park and/ or housing development would have upon my mother.
'My wife is 90 years old and suffers from serious health problems which require her life to be as peaceful and stress-free as possible. She has vascular dementia as well as a heart problem which means she never leaves her home so spends the greater part of her days looking at the view outside. I bought the bungalow nearly 3 years ago expecting her to be able to live out her life here in peace and quiet. Any such development would destroy her enjoyment of her surroundings thus depriving her of a simple but enriching pleasure in a life that is extremely restricted. Furthermore, the noise and disruption during its construction would cause her severe distress thereby seriously threatening her health.I trust the council will do all they can to preserve the beautiful views and quality of life that are the main reasons that many of us have chosen to live in Natland.'
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
60. Mr & Mrs. Atkinson. (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
61. Sir Christopher Audland (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 09:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN281#, RN42#
62. Miss E M P Audland (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 15:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
63. Mr & Mrs S Baber (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange over Sands
64. Mr Richard Bagguley (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Arnside
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
65. Mr Richard Bagguley (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
66. Mr and Mrs T & S Bainbridge (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 09:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121
67. Mr and Mrs T & S Bainbridge (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
68. Mr and Mrs T & S Bainbridge (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
69. Mr Edgar Baines (Individual) : 2 Sep 2011 14:41:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Mixed employment and residential may or may not be appropriate for this site, but Retail is not. It is an edge-of-town site and the adopted Core Strategy for Ulverston states, as a key challenge and objective, "Improving the vitality and viability of Ulverston town centre, to ensure it remains competitive and expenditure is retained locally." Retail on M11M# would reduce the vitality of the town centre and is unnecessary as Ulverston already has almost all the shops one could want and expect from a small market town; Barrow has the rest. I believe the site is also in a green belt and while housing and jobs are important, retail in this area is not.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Government devise the strategy, others should implement that strategy in accordance with existing planning regulations. Mistakes or problems with Land Allocations document will only come to light when development is proceeding, by which time it is too late to remedy. Case-by-case consideration is much more flexible and adaptable to changing times and circumstances.
70. Mrs Ella Baker (Individual) : 12 Aug 2011 16:35:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal North (Ullswater Road)
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. The land is already subject to flooding from a stream running through the field which is very steep. My garden backs onto the field and there is a small drain in the field which then runs under my garden. However this is subject to regular blockage and my land is then inundated with a fast flowing stream. In 2009 this also resulted in flooding on Ullswater Road and, if it was not for a local resident unblocking the field drain and the road drains, the flooding would have crossed the road into houses there. Please note that the Council and the field owner were not interested in doing anything. Any building on the field would result in a massive loss of natural soaking into the ground therefore causing heightened danger of flooding onto my land and Ullswater Road.
2. There will be a considerable increase of traffic on Ullswater Road, Grasmere Crescent and Peat Lane. There will also be resultant increases at the bottlenecks on Appleby Road and Sedburgh Road as traffic attempts to leave or come into Sandylands. This is already horrendous at times without any extra housing.
3. Loss of privacy to my home. The field rises steeply behind my home with any new houses being above the level of my apartment and therefore looking straight into my bedroom, bathroom and kitchen.
4. The field rises very steeply to the railway main line which is on an embankment above that. If there was to be a similar derailment to the tragedy at Grayrigg the train would roll down the hill into the houses with serious risk to life.
5. A loss of green land and natural environment on the edge of Kendal.
6. Almost certain reduction in value of existing property on Ullswater Road.
7. Local schools are already over-subscribed so where will any new resident children go?
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
71. Mr & Mrs Brian & P A Baker (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
72. Mr & Mrs Brian & P A Baker (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
73. Mr/s B S Baker (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
74. Mr Gareth H. Ball (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 11:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
75. Mr Carl Ballantyne (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 10:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swathmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
SO216S
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
South Lakeland is a beutiful place to live, due the rural nature of the area, yet you propose to build housing on green fields and turn a small village into another suburb of Ulverston by joining it together. Creating an urban sprawl.
Ulverston has large areas of brown field site (north lonsdale road and the canal area) that should be considered before we start digging up farming land.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
76. Mrs Daphne Banks (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R141, ON50#, RN302#
77. Mrs Maureen Barber (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 14:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
General
78. Mr & Ms Allan & Cher Bargh (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#
79. Mr & Ms Allan & Cher Bargh (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
80. Mr & Ms Allan & Cher Bargh (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
81. Mrs Helen Barker (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689 ON26
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
82. Miss L.M Barker (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN6#
83. Mr and Mrs David and Julie Barker (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 13:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M
84. Mr and Mrs David and Julie Barker (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
85. Mr and Mrs David and Julie Barker (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
86. Mr Peter Barley (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 15:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
87. Mr Leon Barnes (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
88. Mrs Michelle Barrow (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 22:41:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN315
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The comments I submitted opposing the development of RN109M apply equally to the extension of this to include the development of RN315.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
89. Mr & Mrs Wilfred and Rita Barrow (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
90. Mr & Mrs Wilfred and Rita Barrow (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
91. Ms Susan Barstow (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 08:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19#, M11M#
92. Mr/s Dermot F. & Margaret H. Barton (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 08:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN281# RN291# RN142# R105# EN45#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
93. Mr/s D Barton (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
94. V & J Bateman (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
95. V & J Bateman (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
96. Mrs Edna Bateman (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
97. Mr & Mrs David John & Fiona Batten-Hill (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
98. Mr & Mrs David John & Fiona Batten-Hill (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
99. Mr and Mrs Richard and Dorothy Batty (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 09:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
100. Robert Baxter (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SE
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON50 RN302
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
101. Robert Baxter (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
102. Robert Baxter (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
103. Mr Alan Beach (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 11:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19 M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
104. Mr/s S Beaumont (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
105. Paul, Jean & Sean Beavan (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
106. Paul, Jean & Sean Beavan (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
107. Paul, Jean & Sean Beavan (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
108. Ms Anne Beer (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 08:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
109. Mr Eric Bell (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
110. Mr/s L Benn (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
111. Mr/s L Benn (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 15:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
112. Mrs Marianne Bennett (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 20:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656# R138#, R471#, R98#, RN281#, RN305#, RN318#, RN323#, RN42# and RN43#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This consultation is skewed in favour of development.
The "alternative" site of R656# was in the original consultation while the other "alternative sites" R138#, R471#, R98#, RN281#, RN305#, RN318#, RN323#, RN42# and RN43# have been proposed by one or two individuals.
In the last few years the Green Gap inbetween Ackenthwaite and Milnthorpe has been urbanised with extensive new build over the Dallam School playing fields. This was fiercely opposed by local residents but given the go ahead under the guise of 'saftey' in the form of a new (and accident prone) mini roundabout entrance for Dallam School. The proposed developments would further urbanise an important agricultural area, destroying ancient hedgerows, flood plains and requiring a major overhaul of the existing road network which includes single track lanes. The single track lanes are well used by children from the existing housing estate of Owlet Ash following the removal of the school playing field. The lanes are also well used by horses, walkers and cyclists. Wildlife in the Ackenthwaite area proposals include species on the critical list including lapwing, curlew and bullfinch. The increasingly rare habitat of floodplain and ancient hedgerows are too important to be swept away by these proposals.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Scrapping the land allocations document would be preferable and let development happen organically as it is needed/proposed rather than shoehorning out of proportion development into hamlets, villages and towns.
A reduction in time would just consolidate bad decisions in favour of development.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Same reason as above
113. Mr Peter Mark Bennett (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 19:38:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale and Low Biggins
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN205#, RN331# and RN292#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1 Firstly, I do not believe this further consultation was broadcast in the proper manner. Unlike the previous consultation, well publicised throughout, this was much lower key. I heard about this by chance from a neighbour, and believe this is unacceptable given the potentially enormous impact of land allocation conclusions.
2 The three blocks of land, all to the south of the A65, represent a complete break from the contiguous, integral development of Kirkby Lonsdale. Major developments on some or all of these sites would completely alter the footprint and aspect of Kirkby Lonsdale. They would represent development akin to the offensive and untramelled "ribbon" development predating planning structures.
3 The A65 represents a major boundary for Kirkby Lonsdale: its construction as a by-pass was prefaced on providing a safe routing around the town for through traffic. To carry out major developments across this boundary would be a huge step away from the logic of the current relatively traffic calmed built environment of the town.
4 The safety issues relating to an extremely busy highway driving through old and newly developed areas would be huge. It is hard to see that newly developed areas south of the A65 could reasonably be integrated with the rest of the town and its services. Tunnels and or bridges would add significantly to the cost of any development. If other urban development straddling major highways is any guide, such devices do not solve the problems of a separated sense of community. The A65 would create ghetto like conditions for developments to the south, and a much increased risk of accidents, with pedestrian victims most likely the elderly and the young.
5 Junction points such as Biggins Lane or the Booths roundabout would be absolutely lethal with the extra weight of traffic, the extra options for drivers to consider (such as extra exits on the roundabout) and a very sharp increase in the conflict between slower local traffic and faster through traffic. The volume of traffic is progressively increasing on the A65, with a high proportion of HGVs, combined with heavy holiday traffic and the normal twice daily school run pressures. To add to this mix further cross traffic and further hazard would be absurd. It is already the case that A65 through traffic takes risks with speed and overtaking on this by-pass. This is often generated by impatience with local traffic which would be much increased with further development to the south.
6 Site RN205# is a well tended sports ground belonging to QES, regularly used for sports activities, not just for rugby but for PE generally, as an alternative to the lower sites nearer school or the football field to the west. Whether or not QES current management wish to continue using the field, this land should not be taken from sporting or recreational community use. Any designation should be restricted to sporting or leisure use. Having lost one sporting site, that now being developed as Masters Field on Biggins Lane, so very recently, to lose a second site within a few hundred yards should not be acceptable.
7 Sites RN331# and RN292# are sloping sites facing the town to the north across the A65. Accordingly, they are of high visibility whose development would completely alter the persepctive of the town wither from the A65 or from the current southern edges of town. However well designed and laid out, this vista of sprawl would create a much poorer impression of the town than currently, where tourist success had been based on the well preserved old rather than the sprawling new.
8 Given the separation from Kirkby created by the A65, these sites would represent a seismic shift in the nature of the village of Low Biggins with which they would be contiguous. Biggins would cease to be a separate rural community proximate to Kirkby and become an extension of a south Kirkby sprawl. Every home in this village would be affected to a greater or lesser extent with all properties to the east of the Biggins road looking onto structures and development rather than fields and fells.
9 A development over this wide area south of the A65 would have a huge impact on the landscape and vista from the southern side of town. Footpaths running through RN205# and up to Woodend, or past Woodend Farm and along the line of woods, would be far less attractive and much less chosen for walking than now. Walkers of every sort use these pathways: many Kirkby and Biggins residents for recreation and dog-walking, as well as larger groups for organised and holiday walking. The impact of development on these sites would be significant for walking and enjoyment of the landscape.
In conclusion, the development of these sites would not be logical and not be safe. It would be bad for Kirkby Lonsdale and devastating for Biggins. The sites should be excluded altogether from the land allocation plans.
114. Mr/s R D Bennett (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN303#, RN298#
115. Ms Jeanette Bennett (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
116. Mr Tim Bennett (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
117. Mr and Mrs EK & S Benson (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN330#, RN11#
118. Mr & Mrs Frank and Joyce Benson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
119. P Benson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 14:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
120. Mr/s S D Benson (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 09:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN15#, R689#, ON26#, EN51#, EN53#, EN52# EN50#
121. Mr David Benyon (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 15:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Endmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON52#, EN33#, RN285#, RN239#, R83#, EN59#, M41M#
122. Mr and Mrs AJ & MY Beresford (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 12:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282#, RN291#, R142#, R105#, EN45#
123. Mr and Mrs AJ & MY Beresford (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 12:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282#, RN291#, R142#, R105#, EN45#
124. Mrs Jennifer Berge (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 20:52:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This particular site is 6.22ha, room for over 180 houses, far in excess of the needs of Levens village. The field is an apron to show off Levens village when viewed from the A590 with its 18th century limestone cottages. There are footpaths through this field that are extensively used. The needs of the village were clearly set out in the village plan and in my opinion this document should be used as a guide. There are more appropriate sites for the small amount of housing needed in Levens. Other issues involve the effect of increased traffic, inadequate resources and lack of infrastructure generally to support the increased housing.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The origianl time frame seemed satisfactory and changing the goal posts only adds confusion.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
All villages whether large or small should have the right to suggest sites as the Levens Residents' Association are doing.
125. Mr Andrew Bernie (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 08:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
126. R & E Berryman (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
127. R & E Berryman (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
128. Mr and Mrs Gordon J. and D. Biddle (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 11:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291 RN282
129. Ms Andrea Bigland (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R130#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
130. Mr/s K Billington (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
131. Mr and Mrs R and J Birch (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
132. Mr and Mrs R and J Birch (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
133. Ms Iris Birkby (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 15:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689ULV
134. Mr David Birkett (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN228#, EN46#
135. Mr/s P J Blackbourn (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
136. Mrs I Blackburn (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 13:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW RN328 RN105/106
137. L & J Blackstone (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M RN302 ON50 R56
138. Mr Jason Blackstone (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 09:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, R141, RN302#, ON50#,R56
139. L & J Blackstone (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
140. L & J Blackstone (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
141. Denis, Chris & Thomas Bland (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
142. Denis, Chris & Thomas Bland (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
143. Denis, Chris & Thomas Bland (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
144. Mr and Mrs B & J Blenkharn (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON51#, RN256#
145. Mr/s A Boast (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
146. Mr A D Bobbett (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
147. Dr Christine Bold (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 19:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN290
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Site RN290 is not a 'new' site - only a small paddock/orchard adjoining Cartmel Road is a new addition to the previously designated R692 north of Templand Park. All the many objections to building a large development on this site, from those who attended meetings and individuals, have been previously documented in consultation. These objections remain, and in addition the loss of the small orchard, to provide access to Cartmel Road would reduce, as has happened in the past, the number of productive fruit trees around the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support a reduction in the timespan if it is a genuine opportunity to ensure that more attention is given to local supply and demand. A reduced timespan and its subsequent reduction in the number of houses projected for that timespan, should allow villages such as Allithwaite to ensure that necessary smaller-scale development occurs. The emphasis should be on local occupancy and social housing needs, maintaining the village structure and atmosphere and with regard to its sustainability as a village community.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Local plans and initiatives are more likely to ensure that local needs are met in a sustainable manner and with regard to more members of the community provided that relevant local committees have the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding of the issues overall and are prepared to make fair decisions that take account of all views.
148. Dr Christine Bold (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 20:12:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN72, R347, RN261, RN262, RN84, RN77, RN78, M32, RN79
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
All of these seem to be small sites that have minimal impact on their surrounds, some follow the linear nature of development while others infil small areas near other relatively new developments. For any site there is need to improve the road and footpath infrastructure around the whole village e.g. use of mini roundabouts, widening roads, providing footpaths to allow ease of access to the church, school and other amenities. In addition, any new properties would need plenty of parking space, plus opportunity to have land/allotments. Obviously there is an economic impact with any new development that is essential for future sustainability.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
149. Mr Matthew Booth (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN290
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
150. Mrs Margaret Booth (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 12:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
151. Mr Tom Bowden (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:33:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I think that this should be kept as a greenfield site under its current Green Gap Protection. This is to avoid the substantial risk of ribbon development happening along the A590.
If anything is to be developed, I strongly oppose attempts to designate this site for retail use. If any development is to happen, and Green Gap protection is to be lost, it must be for high value (not lower-value retail) use. That would be the only justification for development on this land. High value light industrial (e.g. high tech) would also mean that traffic problems were not so acute as they inevitably would be if it were a retail development.
I also strongly oppose any attempt to designate this site for retail use because:
1) It would undermine the vitality and vibrancy of Ulverston. Ulverston's unique selling point is its small shops and independent retailers and this would be seriously undermined by any superstore being developed of this nature
2) The retail would be out of town - a death knell for the centre of town
3) The traffic chaos at this particularly difficult corner would be huge, potentially, undermining both Ulverston's and Barrow's access routes.
I strongly oppose this development
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
152. Mr/s C Bowe (Individual) : 12 Dec 2011 12:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
153. Mr & Mrs David and Julie Bowler (Individual) : 4 Sep 2011 22:30:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN299# (formerly RM169M)
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Lane Foot Farmhouse
Windermere Road
Kendal
Cumbria
LA9 5RY
4th September 2011
Dear Sir or Madam,
SOUTH LAKELAND LAND ALLOCATIONS - FURTHER CONSULTATION 29th JULY 2011 – SITE RN299#
In response to the further consultation announced on 29th July 2011 in respect of the emerging options for development within the Local Development Framework, we would like to submit our comments.
Specifically our comments are in relation to site RM169M, which since the previous consultation has been re-labelled as RN299#.
The history of this site is instructive in that in the first LDF documents it was shown with a relatively small development for employment, it then was shown with a potential development for housing and has most recently almost doubled in size, once again it is indicated the development of housing.
Presumably the scale of the new proposed development is required to make it commercially viable for the landowner and developers as considerable civil and highway works will be required to make the site work. The presumed high cost of this proposed development raises the serious question of the number of affordable properties that it would yield. For example, previous consultation papers indicate that significant investment would be required to deliver utility services to the site.
The proposed site has been cleverly labelled, in several documents, as ‘adjacent to the present development boundary of Kendal’, this misses the more critical point that the site is outside the development boundary and is in the green gap between Kendal and Burneside. If this development was to proceed it could well be the start of coalescence between these two population areas.
Development of this site would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and now extends to the top of a drumlin feature which would make the development visible from many points in and around the town of Kendal.
It is well documented that the land between Lane Foot and Burneside suffers from flooding due to run-off and the proposed development would result in considerable hard surface areas which would only add further to this problem. In addition the site extends over several open water courses, and also a number of hidden water courses, these flow into tributaries of the river Kent, some of which contain native crayfish.
The proposed site crosses a public footpath and more significantly is on land that is protected by a covenant made between Edwin Ellis and the National Trust in 1944, which restricts development of the land surrounding Lane Foot Farm. This covenant has been applied very strictly to present occupiers of properties in the Lane Foot ‘hamlet’.
Documents submitted on behalf of the land owners, indicate that the residents of the proposed development will be able to travel to their jobs, to schools and to healthcare facilities by using the Windermere Road route into Kendal town centre. However, the final version of the Kendal Traffic Assessment, prepared by Atkins and published in June 2009, indicates that the congestion on Windermere Road will worsen and could potentially require, for example, the signalisation of the Windermere Road/Queen’s Road junction. There is no mention in that report of a development at RN299# (or RM169M) and therefore the conclusion must be that development on the scale proposed would put immense traffic pressure on Windermere Road and the linked road network, leading to expensive highway engineering requirements.
In conclusion we would like to register our opposition to the development of site RN299#, the proposal is completely out of reasonable proportion, the proposed housing density is high, it will destroy the visual amenity of the local landscape and would erode the green gap between areas of habitation.
Yours sincerely
D A and J L Bowler
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
154. Mr & Mrs David and Julie Bowler (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN299#
155. Mr Robert Boyd (Individual) : 2 Sep 2011 14:42:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kendal NW
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E48
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Quarry basin abuts National Park and since it is no longer been used as a working quarry it is now overgrown with trees and shrubs becoming a haven for wildlife. The site is very deep and flooded , making it expensive and unsuitable for development.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
156. Mr Robert Boyd (Individual) : 2 Sep 2011 15:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kendal SW
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R143,RN254,RN297
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
RN 254 and RN 297 are both unsuitable for housing development as building will be over the Blind Beck watercourse, which could cause potential flooding problems if R129 is developed. In addition, a rat run from Brigsteer road to Underbarrow road is likely to occur with people trying to access the bypass at Boundary Bank.
With regard to R143 which would extend R129 to the Bypass, if this is developed it will increase the number of cars accessing the Underbarrow road ,which is totally unsuitable for such traffic. The site is also intrusive on the landscape when viewed from the Racecourse and Scar.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
157. Mr/s C Boyd (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
158. Mr and Mrs J & V Bracken (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
159. Mrs H Braithwaite (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 09:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
160. Mr & Mrs R & B Braithwaite (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
161. Mr & Mrs R & B Braithwaite (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
162. Mrs H Braithwaite (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
163. Ms Dae Brannan (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
164. Mr/s J. Bratt (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
165. Ms Rachel Breakell (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
166. Mr Stephen Briggs (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R211#
167. Mr Chris Broad (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 12:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R271
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
168. Mr and Mrs Ian and Krysia Brodie (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 08:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282# RN21# RN295# RN123# R105# R127# EN45# E50# E51# E52# E53# E54# E55#
169. Mr/s W Broekhuizen (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#, R121#, R141#, R56#, R616#, R676#, R100#
170. Mrs Sheila A Brooks (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R17#, R100#, RN154#, RN302#, ON50#
171. Mrs Sheila A Brooks (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
172. Mr and Mrs A Broomby (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
173. Mr Vic Brown (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton Holme
174. Dr Robert Brown (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 09:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
Rn299#
175. Mr Terence Brown (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark Holker
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN49
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
176. Ms Hilary Brown (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 13:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
177. Mr S Brown (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 14:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
178. Ms Lyndsey Brown (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
179. Ms. Heather Bruce (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 10:21:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston south
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# eastern part of M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
to develop this site would impinge on green belt, a site where the newly released red kites have taken to
An out of town shopping area would be the final nail in the coffin for Ulverston as a small town shopping centre
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
180. Ms. Heather Bruce (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 10:28:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston North
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN1F8
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This sale of land for building could ensure the future of Ford Park for the town, the group work tirelessly for the benefit of Ulverston and a few houses here would provide accommodation for more people to use the town centre for shopping instead of all jumping in cars to go out of town
This development would help to save Ford Park and the town centre
The members and trustees of Ford Park are passionate about saving Ford Park for future generations of Ulverston. Over the last 12 years they have made major improvements to this facility. This has been achieved with major grants from central government as well as many other charitable organisations and funding bodies.
By including RN 178 into the local development plan would enable to group to pay its outstanding loans and have a sustainable and viable future.
RN178 is a very small part of the park which has houses either side of it. A small development here would in no way be detrimental to the park as a whole.
I urge you to include this plot of land in the final land allocations plan and in doing so help to save Ford Park for Ulverston
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
181. Ms. Heather Bruce (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 22:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston North
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This sale of land for building could ensure the future of Ford Park for the town, the group work tirelessly for the benefit of Ulverston and a few houses here would provide accommodation for more people to use the town centre for shopping instead of all jumping in cars to go out of town
This development would help to save Ford Park and the town centre
The members and trustees of Ford Park are passionate about saving Ford Park for future generations of Ulverston. Over the last 12 years they have made major improvements to this facility. This has been achieved with major grants from central government as well as many other charitable organisations and funding bodies.
By including RN 178 into the local development plan would enable to group to pay its outstanding loans and have a sustainable and viable future.
RN178 is a very small part of the park which has houses either side of it. A small development here would in no way be detrimental to the park as a whole.
I urge you to include this plot of land in the final land allocations plan and in doing so help to save Ford Park for Ulverston
This community group can help to give the young people of our town a future, at a time when we all know communities need to feel cohesion and self worth
This is an opportunity to give Ulverston a boost by supporting of our very proactive event organisers
PS potentially the second entry as I put the wrong ref number in initially on this very user unfriendly consultation site
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
182. Ms. Heather Bruce (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 11:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
183. Ms. Heather Bruce (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 14:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19#
184. Mr William Brumfitt (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R565#
185. Mr Graeme Buckley (Individual) : 12 Aug 2011 09:44:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M# and E19#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A large superstore on this site, with free car parking, will have a big impact on independent local traders in the town centre. It will draw trade away from the centre, and directly undermine the businesses of between 30% and 60% of our independent traders. This is likely to lead to the closure of independent shops, with a consequent knock-on effect on Ulverston’s local economy.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
186. Mrs Jan Burgess (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
187. Mr Dennis J Burles (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 15:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
188. Mr & Mrs Scott & Tina Burns (Individual) : 14 Sep 2011 08:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124 R616
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
189. Mr/s W Burns (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
190. Mrs Helen Burrow (Individual) : 16 Sep 2011 15:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R682LVM R291#
191. Ms Linda Burton (Individual) : 14 Sep 2011 08:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
192. Mr Geoffrey Buswell (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
193. Mr Peter F Butler (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 13:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
194. Mrs Emma Butterworth (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
195. Mrs Emma Butterworth (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
196. Mrs Emma Butterworth (Individual) : 12 Dec 2011 12:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
197. Mr/s S Byrom (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
198. Mrs Rose Byron (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 23:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose the proposed retail development of this green gap site which is outside the Development Boundary of Ulverston for the following reasons:
1.OUT OF TOWN development such as the rumoured huge superstore would lead to the total demise of Ulverston as a viable market/tourist town. A site as large and expensive to purchase as this means every acre would have to be utilised - encompassing every type of retail from food/electrical/clothing/opticians/pharmacy etc Why no one need ever go into town again - because no other business could hope to compete with development on this scale.
Any low paid employment created would be of low added value merely replacing those jobs lost in the closure of town centre shops, with no economic contribution to the area.
2.Traffic on the A590 is already extremely high volume and dangerous.Living on it we have witnessed countless accidents & near misses.It is a pedestrian nightmare running through residential areas with narrow and in places no pavement as well as narrow collision black spots. More RIBBON development such as proposed would exacerbate the congestion and the frequent stationary traffic we already suffer on a daily basis. It is accepted that ribbon development increases congestion, so couple that with continuous superstore traffic at both ends of Ulverston will surely result in more traffic misery with a narrow urban corridor that will be like a 'bypass' of the town centre.
3.The green gap at M11M# provides valuable drainage to both the A590 & the B roads whose run off water is carried onto it and then courses down lower to our fields. Any loss of greenfield to concrete would have an adverse affect on the A590 which despite efforts to rectify has standing water at Hillfoot/Pennington Lane Ends every time it rains and is flooded long after the rest of the carriagway is dry.
4. The proposed retail (superstore)use of this site would for residents have a huge impact on an already difficult blind 'pull out'whether by car or cycle due to the increase in traffic. Presently we have known quiet traffic times but with retail there would be a 24/7 element and increase in traffic, disturbance and noise that at present is predictable and we do get some respite from. Also residents would have loss of privacy and increased smells/pollution.
5. M11M# is home to many species of wildlife you expect to find in farmland including bats,small mammals, foxes, owls and recently we have been seeing the red kites here too. It is designated Green Gap and should not be sacrificed so that an individual can profit at the expense of the town. It would be unheard of to reinstate fields - when its gone that's it!!
We feel there is no justification for the release of MIIM#, in part or as a whole, from its current Green Gap allocation consistent with the LDF and Government current and future planning policy,the development of a large supermarket would be completely contrary to that policy as well as undermining the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The Land Allocations' process goes through a democratic, consultative process which residents have a better chance of influencing.
Developers and powerful land agents who only want to make money would would exploit option B
199. Mr Chris Byron (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 22:15:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# ie M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose the change to the above Green Gap land to retail use as proposed by land agents acting on behalf of sainsburys. This is for the following reasons
1 OUT OF TOWN DEVELOPMENT-This is contrary to SLDC own 'Local Plan Document for the future of Ulverston' which states'it is important that the overall vitality and viability of the town centre is protected and enhanced. To achieve this, the Local Plan will seek to improve the attractiveness of the town centre whilst at the same time limiting new retail development which would jeopardise the vitality of the existing shopping area. Small scale development and re-development schemes will be allowed in the centre, providing that they are appropriate in scale and character'
If this goes ahead Ulverston will be lost as a market/tourist town as the small,unique shops we have would be gone along with tourists who come and spend money in our town.
2. Jobs would be lost. A temporary increase in low paid retail jobs would occur but where superstores arrive there is a resultant net loss of jobs. In 1998, a report by the National Retail Planning Forum (quoted by the Competition Commission in its major report on superstores ten years later), based on a study of a number of superstore openings, reported that each new superstore actually resulted in a net loss of 276 jobs within a 15km radius.]
3. Traffic- recent traffic surveys have estimated over 16,000 vehicles with a large HGV component use this stretch of trunk road. Ribbon development schemes such as this proposal massively exacerbate the urban corridor further. Presently this is an extremely dangerous section of the A590 with some residential properties a metre from the road! properties in Swarthmoor have driveways that lead to them reversing into one of the busiest roads in Cumbria. Some sections have NO pavement and the road is so narrow in places HGVs & other traffic frequently collide! Any further increase in traffic volume will lead to more congestion, risk taking and accidents.
4.Ouside the development boundary of Ulverston.Need to preserve the Green Gap between Swarthmoor village and Ulverston. This land is rich with wildlife and should not be developed for the greed of individuals and faceless supermarkets.
5.Drainage is a problem here. These fields are at present acting as a natural soakaway and absorb the run off water from the A590 and Pennington.
6. As a resident on a personal level I strongly object to the general noise, disturbance, pollution and loss of privacy which a superstore 'open all hours' would bring. Access onto the A590 is at present difficult and would be impossible with any further increase in traffic.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In my opinion option B prevents individuals putting forward unsuitable schemes for financial gain at the expense of the wider community.
200. Mr Chris Byron (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 22:30:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN1F8
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The allocation of this small portion of land for possible low cost town centre homes could ensure the future of Ford Park for the town. The group work tirelessly for the benefit of Ulverston and the community they live in and this allocation as I understand it would be a 'safety net' should they need to realise finances to ever save Ford Park from disappearing to a large development in dire times.
The size of allocation seems to be small and would be next to existing housing and within easy walking distance of the amenities in the centre.I am sure covenants and clauses could ensure no pricey executive homes would be built but designate affordable housing which we need in Ulverston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
201. Mrs Rose Byron (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 22:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN1F8
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The allocation of this small portion of land for possible low cost town centre homes could ensure the future of Ford Park for the town. The group work tirelessly for the benefit of Ulverston and the community they live in and this allocation as I understand it would be a 'safety net' should they need to realise finances to ever save Ford Park from disappearing to a large development in dire times.
The size of allocation seems to be small and would be next to existing housing and within easy walking distance of the amenities in the centre.I am sure covenants and clauses could ensure no pricey executive homes would be built but designate affordable housing which we need in Ulverston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
202. Mrs Rose Byron (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 22:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
PLEASE NOTE DUE TO TYPING ERROR WITH THE REFERENCE NUMBER ON MY LAST RESPONSE I HAVE HAD TO RE SEND THIS WITH THE CORRECT REF. NO.
The allocation of this small portion of land for possible low cost town centre homes could ensure the future of Ford Park for the town. The group work tirelessly for the benefit of Ulverston and the community they live in and this allocation as I understand it would be a 'safety net' should they need to realise finances to ever save Ford Park from disappearing to a large development in dire times.
The size of allocation seems to be small and would be next to existing housing and within easy walking distance of the amenities in the centre.I am sure covenants and clauses could ensure no pricey executive homes would be built but designate affordable housing which we need in Ulverston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
203. Mr & Mrs Simon & Rochelle Byron Keeler (Individual) : 13 Sep 2011 15:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
204. Mr Bill Calderbank (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN281# RN42# R656#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
205. Mr and Mrs David and Hazel Callaghan (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holker
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN229
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
206. Mr Peter Callow (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 16:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
207. Mr Anthony Cannan (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
208. Mr & Ms Capstick (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 15:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
209. Dr Gordon Carnachan (Individual) : 12 Dec 2011 12:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
General
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
All
210. Mr/s J Carnelly (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
211. Mrs Susan Carr (Individual) : 2 Aug 2011 19:48:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal North (Ullswater Road)
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124~
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I feel that any housing development on this proposed site would disturb the visual amenity of this part of Kendal as this land currently provides a natural break between town and countryside. It provides a haven for wildlife and plants.
Building on this potentially flood prone land cannot be sensible as it would disturb the existing flood defenses and could cause further flooding to existing properties.
Developent here would lead to increased traffic flows in already congested streets such as Peat Lane and Ullswater Road and further afield in Sandylands.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
212. Mr David Carr (Individual) : 2 Aug 2011 19:51:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal North (Ullswater Road)
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We feel that any housing development on this proposed site would disturb the visual amenity of this part of Kendal as this land currently provides a natural break between town and countryside. Building on this potentially flood prone land cannot be sensible as it would disturb the existing flood defenses and could cause further flooding to existing properties. Also developent here would lead to increased traffic flows in already congested streets such as Peat Lane and Ullswater Road and further afield in Sandylands.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
213. Mr David Carr (Individual) : 2 Aug 2011 19:55:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal North (Ullswater Road)
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We feel that any housing development on this proposed site would disturb the visual amenity of this part of Kendal as this land currently provides a natural break between town and countryside. Building on this potentially flood prone land cannot be sensible as it would disturb the existing flood defenses and could cause further flooding to existing properties. Also developent here would lead to increased traffic flows in already congested streets such as Peat Lane and Ullswater Road and further afield in Sandylands.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
214. F Carrister (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
215. Dr Richard Carson (Individual) : 17 Aug 2011 21:25:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston East
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN246#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1 This area with its associated footpaths is an important recreational resource for the people of Ulverston.
2 It is a significant element in the landscape seen from many parts of Ulverston town.
3 It is close to(ie one field back from)the shoreline of a Morecambe Bay, a RAMSAR site, with implications for nesting birds.
4 It incorporates a Geological SSSI.
As a site for housing it is unsuitable for many reasons
5 There are a number of historic iron mines with potential for collapse.
6 The water table is variable and high. At high tide the build-up of fresh water is rapid and drainage is poor.
7 There has been seepage from former waste disposal sites in quarries on the eastern boundary.
8 Road access is very poor.
9 It is outside the Ulverston Development Boundary.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We need stability in planning - the present rush to commit is very damaging.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B will lead to a free-for-all which will promote strife and damage community relations.
216. Mr & Mrs Paul & Ankharet Cass (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 07:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
217. Mr D J Cassells and C Henderson (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 09:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
218. Mr D J Cassells and C Henderson (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
219. Mr Philip R. Castle (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
220. Mr and Mrs James and Sylvia Caveney (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN 303#, RN298#
221. Mr and Mrs James and Sylvia Caveney (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN 303#, RN298#
222. Mr Steven Cervetti (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#, RN298#, ON51#, RN303#
223. Dr Andrew Chadwick (Individual) : 29 Aug 2011 23:16:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
In terms of effects on Levens itself, R142 would obscure the old village boundary with its 18th century limestone cottages and, because it spans the entire southern boundary of the village, it would impact on the visual amenity of a large number of dwellings, including the village school.
The A590 passes to the south of Levens and provides an exceptionally scenic drive along the northern edge of the Kent Estuary, wholly rural from the M6 junction to Ulverston. The current view of the southern end of Levens from the A590 forms the skyline on the limestone ridge and includes the old cottages and the church spire. This is a striking and unusual view which is enhanced by the fact that the rising field between the A590 and Levens is reputedly the largest in Westmorland. A new housing estate on R142 would destroy both the field and the view, with a consequent loss of amenity to users of the A590.
There is a public right of way through R142. This much-used footpath essentially runs from the church, past the old cottages and through the field mentioned above, ultimately linking to the Cumbria Coastal Way. The proposed development would totally ruin the character of this walk.
R142 would therefore impact in a number of varied ways, not only on the village of Levens itself, but on a much wider community, including people entering the Lake District National Park from the south. In doing so it does not appear to meet any reasonable sustainability criteria.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Allocation should be an integrated process with a fair assessement of needs and impacts on all communities.
224. Mrs Rosemary Channon (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 13:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
225. Mr Nigel Channon (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 13:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#
226. Mr & Mrs John and Anne Chapman (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 11:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316 RN326 RN118M
227. Mr Ian Chapman (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Flookburgh
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN158#, RN159#, RN263#, RN160#
228. Mr & Mrs D & S Chapman (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 16:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#, R121#, R141#, R56#
229. Mr & Mrs Peter & Mary Charlton (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
230. Mr & Mrs G & E J Charlton (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
231. Mr & Mrs G & E J Charlton (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 14:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
232. Mr/s E Charlton Dixon (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
233. Mr/s T Chatburn (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
234. JM Cheminais (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#, RN280#, ON56#, E52#, E53#, E54#
235. Mr and Mrs John and Valerie Chew (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 09:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham Milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R48M# RN316# R445#
236. Navjyoat Chhina (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 12:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
237. Mr & Mrs Colin and Julie Clarke (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Beetham & Slackhead
238. Mr Brian Clarke (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
239. Mrs Jean Clayton (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
240. Mr/s J Clemend (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
241. Mr & Mrs M & E Close (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 10:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#, ON51#
242. Richard & Stacey Close (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 14:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
243. Richard & Stacey Close (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 14:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
244. Mr & Ms Robert & Carole Cloudsdale & Atkinson (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#
245. Mrs Gillian Cochrane (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
246. Mr J Cocker (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Headless Cross
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN157 RN147
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
247. Mr William R Cockshott (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 09:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN15#, ON26#, R689#
248. Ms Shanti Cole (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
249. Mr Peter Coleman (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
250. Mr Peter Coleman (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E50#, E51#, E52#, E53#, E54#, E55#
251. Mr Peter Coleman (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON56#
252. Mr Peter Coleman (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
253. Mr and Mrs John and Joan Collinge (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
254. Mr and Mrs John and Joan Collinge (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
255. Miss Tracy Collins (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:33:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Flookburgh and Cark
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN229 and ON44
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The proposed development of over 100 houses on the green fields between Cark and Flookburgh should not be permitted due to:
THE ACCESS POINT ON STATION ROAD - This is on a very sharp bend and the addition of a through road on this corner would be extremely dangerous! The access to Cark train station is just beyond this bend. There are no pavement on one side of the bend and a very very narrow pavement on the other. Increased traffic flow will cause more DANGER, CONJESTION and DISRUPTION!
THE ACCESS POINT ON MARKET STREET - Adjacent to a sharp, narrow bend leading onto Winder Lane. This is the route many children take to their local School - pavements along this route are very narrow, especially on the corner of Market street and winder Lane. Increased traffic flow on this corner will cause more DANGER, CONJESTION and DISRUPTION!
VILLAGE IDENTITY - The proposed site is the area of land which seperates the villages of Cark and Flookburgh. Developemt on this site will merge the very different villages into one.
LOW EMPLOYMENT - Very little employment in this area.
SECOND HOMES - Due to lack of employment in this area locals are being priced out of the market. There are already a huge number of second homes and in my opinion this number will increase if this development is permitted.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
256. K & F I Connaughton & Cheme (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19#, MN6#
257. Mr and Mrs John and Jane Corbett (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
258. Mr and Mrs John and Jane Corbett (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
259. Mr and Mrs Matthew and Elizabeth Corry (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
260. Mrs Andrea Cottis (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 12:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
261. Mr Mark Coulthwaite (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kirkby Lonsdale
262. Mr & Mrs William and Kathleen Coward (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
263. Ms Gillian Cowburn (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
264. Mr and Mrs A. Craig (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
265. Mr and Mrs A. Craig (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
266. Mr & Mrs Edward Craker (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 17:43:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Storth and Sandside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN28#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I have no view.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document.
An important reason for having a Local Plan/Local Development Framework and particularly the Land Allocation Document is to give confidence and permanance to the forward planning process.
For example, a person consulting the LDF will know that if an area is not designated for development, then development is very unlikely to happen in the life of the plan.
Personal decisions can then be taken e.g.regarding house purchase, with a degree of confidence.
If the time span is shortened, that confidence is reduced, and consequently the value of the LDF is diluted.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support option A.
I see no virtue in having what would amount to a two tier process, which is what option B effectively is.
267. Dr Roger Crawley (Individual) : 10 Aug 2011 14:59:00
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E31# (6.21) and E4M# (18)
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
My previous comments dated March 2011 regarding these two sites apply equally to the Alternative allocations. E31M is not an appropriate choice for employment, housing, or use as football stadium. E4M is not appropriate for either employment or housing.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The Land Allocations process is already underway and should not be interrupted.
268. Mr/s J Creaney (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
269. Mr Michael Croft (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 09:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Flookburgh & Cark
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
270. Mr R Croskory (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
271. Mr/s B K Crossley (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 12:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
272. Mrs Janet Crowe (Individual) : 22 Aug 2011 16:56:00
North Lonsdale Road, Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
Plot ON43
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It is beyond belief that the above site is being considered for any sort of development following the catastrophic flooding which occurred during November 2009, which devasted the homes of many residents (council tax payers one and all) for almost 2 years and caused untold misery.
Having read the document, it appears that SLDC are in agreement that the land falls in Zone 3a - at high probability of flooding. Common sense should prevail at this juncture - MORE DEVELOPMENTS MEAN LESS NATURAL DRAINAGE; unbelievably however, the document goes on to say that the floor level of any planned structure should be at 800mm (nearly 3 feet) above potential flood level. In other words, SLDC seek to protect these industrial units at the expense of residents' homes, where inevitably the flood water will find its way. This is both an abhorrent and unscrupulous state of affairs.
Another disturbing line in the document was that this plot could form open space which may possibly be used by travellers and gypsies. Due to the flooding it is already proving impossible for North Lonsdale Road residents to sell their homes, a fact I can personally vouch for since my home has been on the market for quite some time. Does the Council seriously intend to rub salt into our wounds by allowing further desecration of the area by allowing these people within feet of an established and respectable residential area!?
Another line in the document raised concerns about the drainage of any proposed developments into Ulverston Canal, causing a problem with pollution. The Canal is one of Ulverston's beauty spots and a thriving haven for numerous species of wildlife - this cannot be allowed to happen! Notwithstanding that the Canal belongs to the Glaxo Company who would almost certainly refuse the willful pollution of their property.
The last thing to say about further industrial development in South Ulverston is that there are still plenty of factory units available on both Cross Lane and at the former tannery site which have been vacant for a protracted period of time. Does SLDC need another white elephant?
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We have no comment about this - our only concern is that good old common sense and decency prevails, and that no further developments are allowed to take place on North Lonsdale Road, Ulverston.
The recent flooding has forced North Lonsdale Road residents to endure a miserable time, and this is now essentially a MORAL issue.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We feel unable to comment since the population of Ulverston has remained static for many years. We do not believe more housing is necessary, and whilst employment is always important, as mentioned earlier there are already industrial units available which have not been filled - the priority should be persuading companies to utilise these before further development is even considered.
In any case, any future developments should only be considered for brownfield sites - there can be no justification for using any greenfield sites in and around the market town of Ulverston.
273. Ms Elizabeth Cummings (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
274. Mr David Cummings (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
275. Mr G Cutler (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 12:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN63#
276. Miss Jane Dalton (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 17:02:00
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In principle, my answer to the above question should be (B), however I am reluctant to submit this as my response as there are a number of related issues that are of great concern. My actual preference would be for an additional option of (C) which would allow for control to be put into the hands of the residents of small communities and for the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to be heavily amended to take power away from landowners and developers, and to protect our countryside against over-development, and against inappropriate/unwanted development in small settlement and hamlets. The protection of the rural landscape and the need for any development to be in keeping with, and proportionate to, existing settlements is also of immense importance to the majority of us who have chosen to live in small communities – and the future development of any such community should be in the hands of that community – not in the hands of landowners, developers and local authorities.
The consultation question is posed within the context of the South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) Local Development Framework (LDF) and Core Strategy document. The SLDC LDF's Core Strategy has the considerable advantage that it is a strategy, and a well-reasoned one at that, which carefully protects small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside and thereby the character of South Lakeland. For that reason, I would be minded to favour option (A), although as we have not yet seen the outcome of our initial responses to this consultation this feels like a dangerous path to tread.
Additionally, the whole situation must now be interpreted in terms of the current government's Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or whatever version of this becomes law, and in that context option (B) may well have unforeseen and perhaps undesirable consequences.
My understanding of the implications of option (B) for development in small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside, based on reading of the NPPF in conjunction with the Core Strategy document in the SLDC LDF and the online documentation associated with the present Further Consultation, is as follows.
1. In line with the NPPF's localism agenda, which aims to devolve as much control as possible as locally as possible consistent with the general central government guidelines which it articulates, development provision for small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside in South Lakeland would be taken out of the planning regime proposed in the Core Strategy component of the LDF and given instead to these communities to manage for themselves.
2. Management of development in small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside is based on neighbourhood plans drawn up by parish councils and/or 'neighourhood forums' which 'give communities direct power to plan the areas in which they live. Parishes and neighbourhood forums can use neighbourhood plans to:
* Develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood.
* Set planning policies for the development and use of land, and
* Give planning permission through Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders' (NPPF:13).
Once a neighbourhood plan is formulated and approved by an independent examiner (NPPF:13-14) and ratified by a local referendum (NPPF:14), 'the policies it contains take precedence over existing policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood (in the present case the SLDC LDF) where they are in conflict (NPPF:13). These provisions are taken to constitute 'a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community' (NPPF:13).
3. The caveat to the 'powerful set of tools' is that 'the ambition of the neighbourhood should be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider area. Neighbourhood plans, therefore, must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan' (NPPF:13). The Local Plans are, moreover, subject to the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking' (NPPF:4). As a consequence, 'the application of the presumption will have implications for how communities engage in neighbourhood planning. Critically, it will mean that neighbourhoods should:
* Develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in Local Plans, including policies for housing and economic development.
* Plan positively to support local development, with the power to promote more development than is set out in the Local Plan, and
* Identify opportunities to use neighbourhood development orders to grant planning permission for developments that are consistent with an adopted neighbourhood plan' (NPPF:4).
The 'powerful tools' which the NPPF proposals give to neighbourhoods to 'develop a shared vision of their neighbourhood...to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community' are in fact highly constrained in that they entail a strong convergence of NPPF proposals, Local Plans, and neighbourhood plans.
This criteria and the associated guidelines lean heavily towards a requirement on neighbourhoods to plan for development – this is a worrying presumption that could easily create a situation in which landowners and property developers are given more power than the communities that the localism legislation should be serving.
Given good faith on all sides, this is not a problem. It is, however, not difficult to see how self-interested parties might exploit this to the detriment of small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside. The last-quoted excerpt from NPPF:4 to the effect that neighbourhoods 'plan positively to support local development, with the power to promote more development than is set out in the Local Plan', together with the reference to 'neighbourhood development orders' in the same excerpt, looks on the face of it like an attempt to circumvent Local Authority control over planning.
A neighbourhood landowner might, for example, propose a development for personal gain rather than in the best interests of the community, and the NPPF provides absolutely no criteria on which the community could base an objection; as the NPPF currently stands, and given in particular 'presumption in favour', there is nothing obvious in the NPPF to prevent the development going ahead against the wishes of the community. It is difficult to see how this gives 'communities direct power to plan the areas in which they live', as the NPPF claims -just the opposite, in fact. If such a scenario were replicated across South Lakeland, the result would be random development to the detriment of the area as a whole. Anyone who has spent time in countries such as Spain, Ireland and North America, where development planning has been much less stringent than the current UK planning arrangements, will have seen the unattractive effects of the consequent suburban sprawl at first hand.
As mentioned above, the SLDC LDF's Core Strategy, if followed, currently protects small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside and thereby the character of South Lakeland. I am therefore minded to say that my preference is therefore to stick with parts of Option (A) but to combine it with aspects of Option (B) as well as my option (C) i.e. keep the protection that the Core Strategy document gives to small settlements and hamlets, but also base decisions (whether in the LDF or outside of it) on the views and the local needs of the residents of those communities.
277. Ms Patricia Davey (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
278. Mr John Davidson (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 11:46:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298# and RN303#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Utilisation of this area would encroach on the greenbelt which is intended to keep Natland and Oxenholme as distinct and seperate villages and is intended to help them maintain their distinctive characters.
Additionally it would detract visually from the entrance to the Lake District as viewed from the main line railway.
The sites RN298# and RN303# are not in a position which could be described as infill development. After seeing a spokesman for Lancashire County Council on TV recently stating a policy of no development on greenfield sites hopefully SLDC will follow suit.
Villages have always been part of British life. The idea of allowing them to increase in size defeats the whole atmosphere of people knowing each other, helping and the feeling of security.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The longer period gives time for development on a considered basis and is more economic as it would delay a further consultation period for a further 5 years.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
SLDC should continue to be responsible for the allocation as they can consider the district as a whole taking into account transport as well as building.
279. Ms Patricia Davies (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 20:14:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal South west
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E4M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I am opposed to the building of housing on this site because of the adverse impact that this scheme will have on the immediate environment and the wider area.
The development of the adjoining farmland will undermine Scroggs Wood as a nature reserve. Scroggs Wood provides a valuable nature reserve on the southern edge of the town. It is used by many people as a quiet rural recreational area. I have observed many different flora and fauna there including fallow deer. Building here will not only damage the woodland but also cut it off from other ‘wildlife corridors’ and reduce its effectiveness in providing a refuge for wildlife
The area outlined also includes a section marked as a floodplain. The negative environmental impact of building on flood plains, not only for the building sited thereon but also the surrounding areas is so well known that it should not need spelling out.
Probably the most important aspect of my objection is both aesthetic and pragmatic. This development would adversely affect the attractiveness of the town, damaging the appearance of the major approach to Kendal from the South to visitors and tourists. Tourism is a major industry for the town and the loss of revenue from tourism may well outweigh the jobs which might be created in the business park.
Creating more housing here is no guarantee that it will provide homes for local people. Housing in Kendal is always going to remain expensive whilst it is still attractive enough to entice people who wish to retire to the Lake District.
It is important to consider the long term effects of a development which will have such an impact not only upon the attractiveness of the Town, but also the negative image it will have on the gateway to the Lakes.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
280. Mr Andy Davies (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 07:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Flookburgh & Cark
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN158# RN159# EN25# EN41# RN160# RN263#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
281. Mr. Michael Davies (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN332#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
282. Robyn Davies (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
283. Mr/s B Dawson (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#
284. Mr/s S Day (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
285. Mr and Mrs J Day (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
286. Mr and Mrs J Day (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
287. Mr & Mrs J Deakin (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 10:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
288. Mr Barry Dean (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 09:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
289. G & H Deane (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
290. G & H Deane (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
291. Mr Philip Degg (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142#
292. Mr/s M Delaney (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
293. Mr Geoff Dellow (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 07:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
294. Mr T Derbyshire (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 09:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN339
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
295. Mr Michael Dickinson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
296. Mr/s J Dickinson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
297. Mr and Mrs Richard and Cheryl Dickson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
298. Mr and Mrs Richard and Cheryl Dickson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
299. Ms Susan Dixon (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
300. Ms Eileen Dixon (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
301. Mr and Mrs J & J Dixon (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
302. P & A Dobson (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
303. P & A Dobson (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
304. Mr and Mrs Neil & Sheila Dodds (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 08:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R138 R656 R98 R305 R43 R323 R281 R471 R318
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
305. Mr/s Doherty (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
306. Mr & Mrs Thomas & Laura Domville Powney (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 14:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257#
307. Drs. A & B Donato (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
308. Mr & Mrs B N Dowker (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
309. Mr Stephen Downham (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 13:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
310. Mr Stephen Downham (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 13:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#, RN298#, RN303#, ON51#
311. Mrs Patricia Dracup (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 09:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN267#
312. Mr/s G Draper (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
313. Mrs Mary Drinkwater (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 16:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, R141, RN302#, ON50#, R56
314. Mrs Mary Drinkwater (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
315. Mrs Jane Duckworth (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
316. Mr/s P Dudgeon (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
317. Mr Michael Duff (Individual) : 16 Sep 2011 15:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298# RN303#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
318. Mr Michael Duff (Individual) : 16 Sep 2011 15:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256# ON51#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
319. Mr/s EJ Duggan (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
320. Mr & Mrs Alan & Joyce Dunn (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 11:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316 RN326 RN118M
321. Mr & Mrs Alan & Joyce Dunn (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 11:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316 RN326 RN118M
322. Mr Michael Dyer (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 13:03:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN127
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Seems obvious extension to village for a small development. Inadequate resources eg.electricity supply/broadband/water etc. which are already overstretched still an issue.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The original period seemed perfectly satisfactory when agreed and in my view this should be seen through rather than changing the goalposts at every opportunity which only causes confusion and suspicion of ulterior motives.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I see no reason why all should not come under the same principles because all villages whether large or small should have the right to suggest sites just as the Levens Residents Assn. are doing.
323. Mr Michael Dyer (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 13:25:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The selling of a product or idea entails identifying a need, and demonstrating the benefits/features of that product or idea. This particular site is 6.22ha, room for over 180 houses which is far in excess of the needs of Levens Village. The needs of the Village are clearly set out in the Village Plan and it is my view that this document should be used as a guide. This field is an apron of the Village when viewed from the A590 with original 18th century limestone cottages seen. The footpaths through the field are extensively used. There are more appropriate sites suitable for the small amount of housing needed in Levens.Other basic issues involve the effect of increased traffic, inadequate resources eg.electricity supply/broadband/water etc which are already overstretched.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The original period seemed perfectly satisfactory when agreed and in my view this should be seen through rather than change the goalposts at every opportunity which only causes confusion and suspicion of ulterior motives.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I see no reason why all should not come under the same principles because all villages whether large or small should have the right to suggest sites just as the Levens Residents Assn. are doing.
324. Mr Michael Dyer (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 13:29:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN123
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
An Eyesore in Levens Village and could provide 3/4 smaal cottages for existing residents to move into making larger property available.
325. Mr Michael Dyer (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 13:30:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN45
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Development acceptable depending on the type of light industry.
326. Mr Michael Dyer (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 13:34:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282 and RN295
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Having looked at the physical position of these sites they would appear to be fairly unobtrusive to existing residents but there is still thehuge problem of access and of course utilities which are already overstretched.
327. Mr Michael Dyer (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 13:39:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R291
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Housing on this site is just not acceptable. It is an amenity/feature of Levens Village seen by by visiters and residents alike using that ruote in/out. The road is single file and again the resources to accommodate such housing is just not available.
328. Mr Michael Dyer (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 14:39:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Seems obvious extension to village but would have detrimental effect on traffic through centre of village and through Greengate. There are more appropriate sites suitable for the small amount of housing neede in Levens. Other basic issues apart from the effects of increased traffic - inadequate resources eg. electricity supply/broadband/water etc. which are already overstretched.
Site only practical if solutions found to these issues.
329. Mr/s D Eastwood (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
330. Mr Idris Eckley (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 12:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
331. Mr John Edmondson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
332. Dr Peter Edward (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As noted in earlier comments, a major characteristic of Levens which maintains its ‘village’ feel despite having expanded over the years towards the south east of the village centre (the area around the shop) is that most of the development has been away from the historic roads through the village in locations that neither impact on the views from those roads nor impact on views of the village from across the Lyth Valley. The most significant location which maintains the open, village atmosphere is the largely undeveloped tract of land running north of the village centre between the Brigsteer Road and the floor of the Lyth valley. This site, which is a large open grazing field, forms a large proportion of that tract. The development of the site would be totally out of keeping with the ‘lightly developed’ feel of the northern end of the village and would therefore dramatically change the atmosphere of Levens damaging the village atmosphere and replacing it with a more town-like or semi-urban character. Developing this site would both damage the most significant views from the village, namely those across open fields from the Brigsteer Road across the Lyth Valley and, because the site is highly visible from across the valley it would radically alter the view of the village from the west side of the valley. At present, because most development in the village has been to south and west it is largely hidden so that when viewed from the West across the picturesque Lyth valley Levens still retains the impression of being a small village in keeping with the other villages in the valley. Development of this site would adversely change that impression that the Lyth Valley is largely underdeveloped and rural.
This site is immediately adjacent to the limits of the proposed LDNP extension and its access is via a small country lane on a steep hill. The junction at the top of the hill is difficult to navigate, especially when turning left, and is very constrained by the steep topography of the location so that it would be difficult to modify the junction to handle any volume of traffic. Going down the hill leads into a small hamlet (Cotes/Underbarrow) and narrow winding lanes so that is not an access option either. Furthermore, in the last two winters this hill, which is probably the most susceptible to snow and ice in the entire village, has been impassable to all but tractors and 4-wheel drive for several weeks continuously in both directions (both uphill and downhill) from the access to this site.
Looking at access more generally, development of this site would probably mainly generate traffic heading over the hill east towards the A590 down Heaves Hill: a relatively narrow road leading to a difficult junction on the dual carriageway where, even with its relatively light use currently, there are regularly bad traffic accidents and a hill which again is notorious locally for being dangerous and impassable for much of the winter. The only other feasible access would be through the bottleneck of lanes at the village centre creating a significant extra hazard to pedestrians.
For these reasons (impact on the village atmosphere and on views across the Lyth valley, poor access and increase in traffic dangers, inappropriately large development that would destroy the largely rural feel of the village which has to date been skilfully retained by focusing major development to south and east of the village) I strongly oppose the development of this site.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Given the increasing localism and the uncertainty over long term estimates of future demand it seems unnecessary and potentially unwise to take decisions today about housing needs more than ten years away
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
333. Dr Peter Edward (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:34:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site represents an extension of the adjacent site to the South (RN682LVM) which was in the earlier consultation and which I opposed, so the same reasons apply to this site as to that earlier consultation.
As noted in those earlier comments, a major characteristic of Levens which maintains its ‘village’ feel despite having expanded over the years towards the south east of the village centre (the area around the shop) is that most of the development has been away from the historic roads through the village in locations that neither impact on the views from those roads nor impact on views of the village from across the Lyth Valley. The most significant location which maintains the open, village atmosphere is the largely undeveloped tract of land running north of the village centre between the Brigsteer Road and the floor of the Lyth valley. This site, which is an open grazing field, forms a very prominent part of that tract as it lies immediately below the Brigsteer Road where the lanes in the village centre first open out into open country with extensive views across these fields towards the Lakeland fells. The development of the site would be totally out of keeping with the ‘lightly developed’ feel of the northern end of the village and would therefore dramatically change the atmosphere of Levens damaging the village atmosphere and replacing it with a more town-like or semi-urban character. Developing this site would both damage the most significant views from the village, namely those across open fields from the Brigsteer Road across the Lyth Valley and, because the site is highly visible from across the valley it would radically alter the view of the village from the west side of the valley. At present, because most development in the village has been to south and west it is largely hidden so that when viewed from the West across the picturesque Lyth valley Levens still retains the impression of being a small village in keeping with the other villages in the valley. Development of this site would adversely change that impression that the Lyth Valley is largely underdeveloped and rural.
Looking at access more generally, development of this site would probably mainly generate traffic heading over the hill east towards the A590 down Heaves Hill: a relatively narrow road leading to a difficult junction on the dual carriageway where, even with its relatively light use currently, there are regularly bad traffic accidents and a hill which again is notorious locally for being dangerous and impassable for much of the winter. The only other feasible access would be through the bottleneck of lanes at the village centre creating a significant extra hazard to pedestrians and traffic disruption in the confined village centre.
For these reasons (impact on the village atmosphere and on views across the Lyth valley, poor access and increase in traffic dangers, inappropriately large development that would destroy the largely rural feel of the village which has to date been skilfully retained by focusing major development to south and east of the village) I strongly oppose the development of this site. In fact, as stated in my earlier response, this is such a central site to the feel of the village that it beggars belief that it even made it onto the original consultation.
334. Dr Peter Edward (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:36:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN295#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site represents an extension of the adjacent site to the South (RN121M) which was in the earlier consultation. In the earlier consultation I expressed the following opposition to development of this site: I am aware that while this site [RN121 on old map, now included as North end of RN295# on current map] is not included in the SLDC consultation it has been proposed for housing by the parish council in the past. As stated also in my response on R682LVM, there are two distinctive features which define the character of Levens village. One is the sweeping open views across agricultural land to the Lyth valley and the distant fells as you head north out of the village along the Brigsteer Road. The other is that when you look back at the village across the Lyth valley the village looks remarkably less built up, and therefore less intrusive on the view, than it actually is because most of the housing on the west side of the village is shielded behind trees. Development on this site, particularly since illegal felling of the trees below the site a few years ago which would otherwise have shielded the site from view from across the valley, would significantly intrude on both of those features. It would make the village look much more built up from across the valley and would remove what is one of the few and best views in the village down over the Lyth valley towards Morecambe Bay.
335. Dr Peter Edward (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:37:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R105#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Levens is a surprisingly large village although this is not apparent to most visitors because the main village ‘feel’ is provided by the compact village centre and its narrow streets which lead quickly on the northern side of the village to open views across fields (under consultation as RN291#, RN282#, R682LVM) towards the Lakeland fells and because views back across to the village from the west side of the Lyth valley make the village seem relatively undeveloped since those views take in this more open northern end but do not see the development to south and east of the village which is largely hidden behind the hill. In fact, development on this south and east corner is largely hidden from view from most directions (especially development on the east side of the village). Furthermore, this side of the village has ready access to the A590 so that traffic generated by the development will mainly be drawn away from the village rather than having to pass through the village centre and the narrow rural roads on the north and west of the village. For these reasons I would support development of this site subject to the caveat that consideration is given to improving the access road into the village from the south east (where the slip-road junction with the dual carriageway exists). If this access road is improved and the junction with the A590 remodelled to improve those turning west as they leave the village onto the A590, then this area might work well for housing development (it is also close to the village school and playing fields) without major detriment to the character of the village or to traffic through the village, and without generating significant extra traffic at the notoriously dangerous T-junction intersections of the other village roads out onto the A590 (i.e. the junction further west and those at Heaves Hotel and Gilpin Bridge).
336. Dr Peter Edward (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:38:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R680LV#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Levens is a surprisingly large village although this is not apparent to most visitors because the main village ‘feel’ is provided by the compact village centre and its narrow streets which lead quickly on the northern side of the village to open views across fields (under consultation as RN291#, RN282#, R682LVM) towards the Lakeland fells and because views back across to the village from the west side of the Lyth valley make the village seem relatively undeveloped since those views take in this more open northern end but do not see the development to south and east of the village which is largely hidden behind the hill. In fact, development on this south and east corner is largely hidden from view from most directions (especially development on the east side of the village). Furthermore, this side of the village has ready access to the A590 so that traffic generated by the development will mainly be drawn away from the village rather than having to pass through the village centre and the narrow rural roads on the north and west of the village. For these reasons I would support development of this site subject to the caveat that consideration is given to improving the access road into the village from the south east (where the slip-road junction with the dual carriageway exists). If this access road is improved and the junction with the A590 remodelled to improve those turning west as they leave the village onto the A590, then this area might work well for housing development (it is also close to the village school and playing fields) without major detriment to the character of the village or to traffic through the village, and without generating significant extra traffic at the notoriously dangerous T-junction intersections of the other village roads out onto the A590 (i.e. the junction further west and those at Heaves Hotel and Gilpin Bridge).
337. Dr Peter Edward (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:39:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Levens is a surprisingly large village although this is not apparent to most visitors because the main village ‘feel’ is provided by the compact village centre and its narrow streets which lead quickly on the northern side of the village to open views across fields (under consultation as RN291#, RN282#, R682LVM) towards the Lakeland fells and because views back across to the village from the west side of the Lyth valley make the village seem relatively undeveloped since those views take in this more open northern end but do not see the development to south and east of the village which is largely hidden behind the hill. In fact, development on this south and east corner is largely hidden from view from most directions (especially development on the east side of the village). Furthermore, this side of the village has ready access to the A590 so that traffic generated by the development will mainly be drawn away from the village rather than having to pass through the village centre and the narrow rural roads on the north and west of the village. For these reasons I would support development of this site subject to the caveat that consideration is given to improving the access road into the village from the south east (where the slip-road junction with the dual carriageway exists). If this access road is improved and the junction with the A590 remodelled to improve those turning west as they leave the village onto the A590, then this area might work well for housing development (it is also close to the village school and playing fields) without major detriment to the character of the village or to traffic through the village, and without generating significant extra traffic at the notoriously dangerous T-junction intersections of the other village roads out onto the A590 (i.e. the junction further west and those at Heaves Hotel and Gilpin Bridge).
338. Mr Peter Edwards (Individual) : 6 Aug 2011 08:26:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Bowston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R664#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This proposal is even worse than R664M in the original consultation. Bowston is a small hamlet; a development of this size would swamp the existing hamlet. Bowston is already big enough. New houses should be built in Kendal or Burneside, not Bowston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I think that it is inappropriate to allocate land in advance for small hamlets such as Bowston. Development should be directed by local needs and local views, within the overall rules for new development.
339. Miss Margaret Edwards (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
340. Dr J.A. & K.A. Edwards & Parrott- Edwards (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Slackhead
341. Mr and Mrs Eric and Judith Eland (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 08:39:00
Kendal sw
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E4M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1 Disturbance to wild life including birds (Lapwings) & native crayfish found in the stream running into the Kent
2 Ruin the current beautiful visual approach into Kendal from the south.
3 Increase in traffic will make it horrendous to exit onto Milnthorpe Road from existing housing. It is already extremely difficult to exit onto road, any increase in traffic will make it impossible.
4No infrastructure in place for drains etc. Already problems with drains & sewers following the building of the Travel Lodge
5Any building here will lead to a fall in the value of housing in the locality.Low cost high density housing is completely out of character for the Stonecross area of Kendal
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
342. Mr and Mrs Eric and Judith Eland (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 08:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
A590 corridor & M6 junction
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
A590 corridor & m6 junction mixed residential/employment
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This option has no proposer & is extremely vague.The approach from the M6 is beautiful unspoilt countryside that is an incentive for tourists.If it is turned into a long industrial estate it will ruin the approach to the best asset that South Lakeland has to offer.Tourists will just keep going to Scotland 1 hour up the motorway. Surely it is better to look at existing sites & work to make these more efficient e.g.d the new site for the auction mart.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I think local communities should be involved, however, there should be some overall guidance to keep developers in check who may not have the interests of the local community at heart
343. Mr & Mrs Thomas and Jean Elliott (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 11:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
344. Mr and Ms Tony L. and Jean Elliott (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 11:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
345. Mr Quentin Elliott (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Greenodd Penny Bridge
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN236
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
346. Mr Quentin Elliott (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Greenodd Penny Bridge
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN312
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
347. Mr Quentin Elliott (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Greenodd Penny Bridge
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN336
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
348. Mr/s S M Ellwood (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
349. Mr Paul Elwood (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 14:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328# RN105# RN106# R686SW# RN242# RN243# RN234#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
350. Mr Paul Elwood (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 10:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328# RN105# RN106# R686SW# RN242# RN243# RN234#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
351. Mr/s R Ensoll (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
352. Mr/s R Ensoll (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 16:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
353. Mr KJ Errard (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 10:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
354. Mr John Errington (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
355. Mrs Patricia Etches (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
356. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 12:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON26, including RN15 and R689
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Strongly oppose! The development is disproportionate to the size of the existing village, even in terms of the residential proposal alone. R689 would be visually intrusive, let alone the rest of ON26 - it is conspicuous from all major viewpoints and footpaths down into the valley from both west and east and along the main road into the village itself (Aynsome Road). The local infrastructure could not accommodate this number of extra residents. The loss of prime agricultural land adjacent to its farm (Pitt Farm) would make it impossible for the farm to conduct its current dairy business effectively. This loss of farm land so close to the village would also fundamentally alter the village/countryside interface.
The rest of the proposal is a red herring and does the village no favours at all. The wish to move leisure facilities to this new location is almost certainly to free up the use of the racecourse for even greater commercial exploitation than at present (current use of the racecourse is about as much as the local community can bear). As for the coach park, coaches are not generally the major traffic issue in the village and in any case they will still want to unload (often elderly) passengers within the village before parking up here. If Holker are genuine in their desire to meet local affordable housing needs, they could offer smaller parcels of land locally for the benefit of the community rather than arguing they must be bound by the open market principle.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Given all the current uncertainties of the economic climate and national planning context, the shorter timescale makes sense. However, I see no reason why SLDC wishes to move ahead with finalising its LDF ahead of many other local authorities up and down the country: surely the uncertainties referred to, along with the scrapping of the spatial strategy and urgency of revisiting local housing needs figures, offer a strong argument for SLDC's dragging its feet for as long as it can.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I am a bit concerned that inertia may naturally inhibit development proposals emerging for local hamlets, etc so that all of the onus for development will fall on the larger villages like Cartmel and Allithwaite. However, on balance I support Option B because it does allow for community proposals which can focus on affordable housing solutions rather than the wasteful open market approach.
357. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 18:45:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN14
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In principle agreement but it depends whether the relocated stables would be on a much larger scale, in which case the overall environmental impact would be negative. (See ON54 comments). The only other concern about RN14 is that I believe there may be some historically significant remains on this site (part of old monastic wall?), which would obviously need investigating and conserving.
358. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 18:48:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON54/55
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This seems a reasonable relocation for the stables but obviously on a far larger scale than the present ones. I would not expect anywhere near this amount of land to be utilised for this purpose - and any other purpose I would view as inappropriate for this part of the village, e.g. business new build or residential development.
359. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 18:52:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN35
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Strictly this clearly constitutes a small settlement separate from Cartmel. However, it represents quite a neat infill solution which would not have the same detrimental impact as infill closer into the village would do.
360. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R690
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Clearly this would depend on a view of the future of the holiday park business there. However, it seems a suitable site in its proximity to the village and not being too conspicuous.
361. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:01:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R691
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The ground probably rises rather too high for this site to be sufficiently inconspicuous.
362. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN306
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I understand some excavation might be needed to enable houses to be built along the roadside. However, despite its being ribbon development and technically an infill between Cartmel and the 'hamlet' of Headless Cross (depending on how Headless Cross is defined), I do not feel it would be as detrimental to the locality as many other locations proposed.
363. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:06:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN307
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Ground too elevated to be sufficiently unobtrusive.
364. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:08:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN147
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Though it does slightly extend the boundary of Headless Cross to the south, this can be seen as a more discreet solution than some other proposed locations in the area.
365. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:10:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN148
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Though the ground rises somewhat south of the existing settlement boundary, this seems a reasonable compromise as a modest contribution to required local development.
366. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:13:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN171
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Does not significantly intrude into the neighbouring countryside and the lie of the land ensures any development would not be too conspicuous.
367. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:16:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN308
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A sensible use of one of the less aesthetic corners of the village. It would not bar the important view of the priory from the south and it would also serve to screen the less than attractive secondary school from views out from the Causeway and Clogger Beck.
368. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:21:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark & Holker
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN287
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A sensible answer to the need for affordable housing for employees of the Holker estate (and other local businesses). Holker's own developers would ensure a style of housing in keeping with the existing Holker village style.
369. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark & Holker
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN309
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See comments relating to RN287
370. Mr Ed Evans (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN49
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
371. Mr Richard. Evans (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON50#
372. Mr Richard. Evans (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 13:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R100#, RN154#
373. Mr Richard. Evans (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 14:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
374. Mr Richard. Evans (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
375. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 09:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON26#
376. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
377. Mr John Evans (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 09:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON26#
378. Ms Anne Everingham (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E31# E31M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
379. Mrs M A Ewart (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
380. Mr/s M E Exton (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
381. Mr M P Farley (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 13:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
382. Mr M P Farley (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
383. Mr and Mrs D & J Faulkner (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
384. Mr Anthony Fell (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 15:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#, E19#
385. Mr & Mrs David & Janet Fellows (Individual) : 2 Sep 2011 15:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site may be suitable for business or light industrial use, complementing similar nearby sites but would certainly be very unsuitable for retail use as has been recently been mentioned in the local press. Not only would access be directly out on to the A590 trunk road, which, to bring a degree of safety would require another roundabout adding one more bottleneck to the smooth running of goods, services, etc, in and out of Low Furness but it would be big nail in the coffin of the town’s retail centre.
The site is 0.5 miles from the Coronation Hall area and 0.6 from the Market Cross. For the average pedestrian this equates to around a 15 minute walk. On the other, Eastern, side of the town, we have Booths, a fine supermarket but 0.6 miles from the Coronation Hall area.
As keen geographers we have for over 40 years studied many towns of a similar size to Ulverston. The message is clear. For a town centre to survive it needs some free or modestly priced parking and a walking (footfall) distance of no more than five minutes to the central parts of the town. In Clitheroe, Lancs' where a population of 16,000 supports four supermarkets and a busy town centre, the large Sainsburys store is no more than a five minutes walk to the very heart of the centre.
Booths has already siphoned off much of the town centre "total spend". To put another store, eg. Sainsburys at the other extremity of the town would spell disaster!
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
386. Mr & Ms Graeme & Sarah Felstead (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 13:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
387. Mr & Ms Graeme & Sarah Felstead (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 13:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
388. Mr Michael Fennell (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 13:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN154#, R100#, ON50#, RN302#, MN22#, R17#
389. Mr Michael Fennell (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
390. Mr Greg Fiddes (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:51:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257 RN258
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I completely oppose this Document and the proposed development of this site. Not only will the proposed development have an adverse affect on us, the existing residents of Grayrigg, I believe it will also be an unsustainable strain on the resources of the local area.
Furthermore, Page 17 of the STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT tells of 50 locations surveyed for feasibility. Grayrigg was not one of them and, therefore, should not even be on the list for consideration. The proposed development has not been sufficiently advertised, and we, the residents of Grayrigg have not been properly informed of the proposal. I also believe the projected figures of 13,518 dwellings to be built in South Lakeland in the next 15 years is completely unrealistic given the hilly surroundings.
Despite being a recent arrival in the village, I have lived in the South Lakeland area for many years and spent more than two years searching for a suitably quiet, peaceful rural location such as Grayrigg before purchasing my property. I now find out that this proposed development will not only impinge upon my privacy, but threatens to ruin the quiet, peaceful setting that myself and my fellow villagers cherish.
Housing from the proposed development will overlook directly into my home and garden completely obscuring the view I have of the surrounding countryside. The value of my property will also be adversely affected. Had I had known about the proposed development at the time, I would not have proceeded with the purchase of my property.
The unique rural location of Grayrigg makes it completely unsuitable for such a development – as well as the personal affect it will have on my property, a sudden influx in residents will have a devastating affect on local resources and wildlife. The village currently has very little street lighting and has, at its centre, a Grade II listed church that will be adversely affected by the proposed development.
Due to its aforementioned rural location and the lack of services it is more often than not the case that only families with vehicles can live here, so any increase in housing will inevitably lead to an increase in traffic in the village and surrounding areas. Such an increase, coupled with the area’s high and exposed location (making driving often hazardous in winter) would be a real danger to residents, particularly children.
I doubt very much if the services that this proposed development require can be met by the current levels of infrastructure in Grayrigg. Both waste and fresh water services will be put under severe strain.
I also believe that the proposed development will have a devastating affect on the wildlife that is currently abundant in the area – such dramatic change to the natural habitat of these animals will result in irreconcilable damage to the environment in which they currently thrive.
I completely stand by and support all other respondents who are against this proposed development.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Residents have control of where they live.
391. Mrs Marie Fielding (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
392. Mrs Marie Fielding (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
393. Mrs Linda Fife (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#
394. Mrs Linda Fife (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
395. Mrs P A Finley (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 11:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316 RN326 RN118M
396. MR JEREMY FISH (Individual) : 11 Sep 2011 17:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This would be a significant expansion of a rural hamlet within the village of Kirkby, in area about a third again of the most densely housed section of Upper Beckside aloong the narrow road down from the Mill and the right angle turn to Ulverston. It is a notorious bottle neck for traffice, where collisions between vehicles occur from time to time. Adding houses would also add vehicular traffic turning onto the road and along the road into the narrows. Pedestrians have to share the road with vehicles where the short stretches of pavement end. Vehicles parked on the pavement force pedestrians into the road. Extra cars of additional residents and their visitors will exacerbate these problems. The road surface will deteriorate more quickly, with no additoinal resources for the Highway authority to maintain it. In the other direction, the increased vehicular traffic will increase the hazards for pedestrians and cyclists on the road to the A595 at Four lanes End, who include children ging to primary and secondary schools (in the dark ion winter) and people, including children, going to and from the playing fields, Church, shop/Post Office and pub.
The road through Beckside becomes a fast flowing stream, making Beckside live up to its name, in heavy rain. Surface water run off will increase as green field is covered by Tarmac and concrete, for which the storm drains may not cope after a few years lack of maintenance.
The proposed development will put added strain on the drains and other services, which would need upgrading at considerable disruption to residents. The building work itself would be highly disruptive to residents daily lives with heavy traffic associated with the building works, noise and dirt carried onto the road.
The Cottage at the end of our row, and the detached garage belonging to our house beyond it, flood in exceptionally heavy rain when the higher ground can absorb no more water. A development of housing uphill of these premises will have an unknown effect on this problem.
The proposed development will diminish the amenity of our hamlet, which retains an open aspect onto grazing land on the undeveloped side of the road. It would give the hamlet a feeling of enclosure and suburbanisation.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Allocating sites after a thorough consultation and in accordance with transparent criteria is a more democratic and accountable way than the alternative. Allowing developers and 'communities' to bring forward proposals is in effect an invitation for small interest groups and business interests to impose their plans on the majority, with less overall planning anmd therefore less accountability.
397. Mr Stuart Fisher (Individual) : 14 Sep 2011 08:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN32# RN337# RN269# RN267#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
398. Mr & Mrs Eric and Judith Fisher (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
399. Mr & Mrs Eric and Judith Fisher (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
400. Mr Charlie Fisher (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
401. Mr and Mrs Colin and Sara Fisher (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
402. Mr and Mrs Colin and Sara Fisher (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
403. J & R Fisher (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
404. J & R Fisher (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
405. Mr Michael Fishwick (Individual) : 23 Aug 2011 09:01:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. The development is at the Northern boundary of the village and would detrimentally alter the appearance and character of the village. There are a number of better "fill in" sites on unused land within the village that have been proposed.
2. There are insufficient amentities, school places etc to support a large development of any nature.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I do not believe it is appropriate to set rigid development plans that may seem appropriate today but will apply over such a long period as community needs may change considerably over a 10/15 year timeframe.
406. Ms Susan Jayne Fishwick (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 16:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN35#, ON54#
407. Mr John Fitch (Individual) : 15 Aug 2011 13:25:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282# & RN295#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Sites are outside the accepted village boundary and are therefore in open countryside.
Access would be on to wholly unsuitable narrow lanes.
Traffic from the development would need to travel through the narrow village centre to access the A590.
Development would be clearly visible from the National Park amd would repreesent an unjustified green-field extension to the existing village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
408. Mr John Fitch (Individual) : 15 Aug 2011 13:39:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The development of this site would be to the detriment of the village. Quite apart from the expansion of the village that this would represent, it would remove the open views from the village across the Lyth Vally and into the National Park.
The development would be likely to conflict with the site line for traffic turning in to the village from the Brigsteer direction.
The access from the development would be on to a narrow lane which, even if widened, would feed the additional traffic through the narrow centre of the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
409. Mr John Fitch (Individual) : 15 Aug 2011 13:41:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN123#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is currently an eye-sore in the middle of the village and should be developed for residential use in a way sympathetic to the surrounding properties.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
410. Mrs Ann Fitch (Individual) : 15 Aug 2011 14:08:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is an open countryside plot of land and totally unsutable for development. Access would be on to extreemly narrow lanes and would cause congestion / traffic through the narrow roads in the village and to access the 590. the village does not lend itself to expansion in this area.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
411. Mrs Ann Fitch (Individual) : 15 Aug 2011 14:21:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Levens is a gate way village into The National Park and this area of pasture is a Vista Point, and very important to the residents and the village and visitors alike. Development of this area in particular would impact severly and destroy the character and atmosphere that exists in the village. The area is clearly visable from the national Park and development of this site would make the village look like a n ugly area of over development. Open space is and important past of planning and building on this site would expand the village in the wrong direction and lead to traffic congestion on the narrow lanes through the existing village to get to the 590.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
412. Mrs Ann Fitch (Individual) : 15 Aug 2011 14:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN123#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is a dilapidated eyesore in the centre of the village, and could be developed in keeping with its surroundings into affodable housing.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
413. Mrs Ann Fitch (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
414. Mr Mike Fleetwood (Individual) : 29 Jul 2011 21:30:00
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
2020-2025 is too far ahead and offers too much uncertainty for realistic planning. Therefore it is preferable to plan for a proportion of the original number of housing units over the shorter period to 2020, as suggested.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Development in the most rural areas needs to be planned on a micro-scale and with local knowledge of possible sites. Small developments which offer greatest chance for integrating the new residents into the community are preferable. Developments in small rural communities must have the support of the community. For all these reasons Option B is preferable.
415. Mr & Mrs Owen & Val Fleetwood (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 12:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
416. Mr & Mrs Owen & Val Fleetwood (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 12:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
417. Ms Alice Fleming (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
418. Mr Michael Fletcher (Individual) : 16 Sep 2011 15:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Greenodd & Penny Bridge
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN312#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
419. Mr Bob Fletcher (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 09:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
420. Mr Bob Fletcher (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 13:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#
421. Mr D Flower (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
422. Mrs K Foran (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 18:40:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
south ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose any retail development on the above site on the grounds that it is a green gap area and outside the Ulverston development boundary.
Any out of town retail development is going to be detrimental to the businesses in the town and decrease footfall in town.
It will also increase the already horrendous traffic problems on The A590 one of the busiest roads in Cumbria.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
423. Mr/s D Forrest (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
424. Mr Michael France (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
425. Mrs Isobel Fraser (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 15:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121#, R141#
426. Mr & Mrs S French (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
427. Mr Graham Fugler (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
428. Mr Graham Fulford (Individual) : 12 Aug 2011 11:42:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Any development of this site is contry to the Core Strategy.Ackenthwaite is classed as a small village/hamlet and the policy states that only rounding off and in filling should occur.
Completly unsuitable access roads ie very narrow country roads used by farmers,walkers,cyclists and horse riders.
The site is a flood plain in winter and attracts many species of wild life.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The maximum time should be allowed to ensure full consultation.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
To much self interest would occur with option B.
Option A i think would be the best option with full consultation period.
429. Mr Graham Fulford (Individual) : 12 Aug 2011 12:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R138
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Any development of this site is contary to the core stratagy.Ackenthwaite is classed as a small village/hamlet and the policy states that only rounding off and infilling should occur.
Unsuitable narrow country roads for the increase in traffic this site would generate.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The maximum time should be allowed to ensure full consultation.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
To much self interest would occur with option B.
Option A i thing would be the best option with full consultation period.
430. Mrs Jennifer Gale (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#, ON51#
431. Mrs Jennifer Gale (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
432. C Gamble (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
433. Mr Nick Gannicliffe (Individual) : 14 Sep 2011 08:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316# RN326#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
434. Ms Julie Gannicliffe (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 09:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316# RN326#
435. Mr/s J T Garnett (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 15:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN323#, R138#, RN305#, R98#
436. W W & J M Garnett (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 15:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN323#, R138#
437. Mr & Mrs Dan & Patricia Garnett (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 09:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN105#
438. Mr & Mrs Dan & Patricia Garnett (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 09:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
439. Mrs Karen Garstang (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 21:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R686SW/R685SW/RN234/242/243,244
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. Does Ulverston require a housing development plan on such a large scale? Looking at what has been put forward we are looking at an area roughly the size of the existing Croftlands estate! Where is the demand/ people to warrant such an increase? And more importantly where are the jobs? Surely the most important thing is to bring/ increase the job opportunities within the town so as to warrant new housing. And how much of the proposed increase includes affordable housing for first time buyers? To which, incidentally is very important.
2. Urswick road is already very busy with traffic coming from not only the existing housing on and around this area but also by residents of the new estate on High Carley, Swarthmoor and by traffic coming off the A590 to get to other parts of the town so as to avoid going through the centre of Ulverston. Any increase in housing is only going to make an already situation worse.
3. Flooding/drainage - this area is quite badly effected by flooding. Will future building work include plans to alleviate the problem or will it make matters worse? As for the drains we have a tanker coming at least once a week if not twice to clean out the drains on the junction of Birkett Drive/Urswick Rd. During warm spells the smell emitting from these drains is disgusting! Again any increase in housing is just going to make it worse. I do not believe the existing drains would be able to cope.
4. The market town of Ulverston and the village of Swarthmoor have their own identities and by “narrowing” the green belt between these two settlements will spoil the uniqness and history of the area. The farmland between the two is also used for organic farming. Surely this should be encouraged and by taking away valuble farmland will have a detrimental effect rather than a positive one. It is also an area full of wildlife and any loss of habitat will drastically affect the natural eco system in the area.
But the most important point is that to lose the existing “green area” between Ulverston and Swarthmoor will have a damaging and irreversibly negative effect on the individual identities of these two settlements.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
440. M E Garstang (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
441. Mr David Gaulton (Individual) : 24 Aug 2011 14:09:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In the original consultations, Site RN150, which is part of the proposed RN256, was not considered suitable for development and the reasons given then remain valid. Little evidence has been provided of the need for significant housing development in Natland and there is a serious risk of overdevelopment of the village. There are already traffic and parking problems. Further housing development on the scale available on this proposed site would increase congestion and the risk to pedestrians (There are narrow roads and no walkways in the village centre.).
The suggestion, by the proposer of RN256, that a car park could be incorporated (Site ON51) does accord with an identified need. However, the proposed access near the village hall is not suitable for two-way traffic and it is unlikely that this site would be used by many of the people currently parking inappropriately in the centre of the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
442. Mr Doug Gaunt (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
443. Mr Alan Gendle (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257# RN258#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
444. Mr CB Gesch (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
445. Mr CB Gesch (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 15:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
446. Mr/s J Gibson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
447. Mr Douglas Gillam (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:38:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose the proposed retail development of this green gap site which is outside the Development Boundary of Ulverston for the following reasons:
1.OUT OF TOWN development such as the huge superstore would lead to the total death of Ulverston as a viable market/tourist town. A site as large and expensive to purchase as this means every acre would have to be utilised - encompassing every type of retail from food/electrical/clothing/opticians/pharmacy etc Why no one need ever go into town again - because no other business could hope to compete with development on this scale.
Any low paid employment created would be of low added value merely replacing those jobs lost in the closure of town centre shops, with no economic contribution to the area.
2.Traffic on the A590 is already extremely high volume and dangerous. More RIBBON development such as proposed would mean the congestion gets worse. It is accepted that ribbon development increases congestion, so couple that with continuous superstore traffic at both ends of Ulverston will surely result in more traffic misery with a narrow urban corridor that will be like a 'bypass' of the town centre.
3.The green gap at M11M# provides valuable drainage to both the A590 & the B roads whose run off water is carried onto it and then courses down lower to our fields. Any loss of greenfield to concrete would have an adverse affect on the A590 which despite efforts to rectify has standing water at Hillfoot/Pennington Lane Ends every time it rains and is flooded long after the rest of the carriagway is dry.
4. The proposed retail (superstore)use of this site would for residents have a huge impact on an already difficult blind 'pull out'whether by car or cycle due to the increase in traffic. Presently we have known quiet traffic times but with retail there would be a 24/7 element and increase in traffic, disturbance and noise that at present is predictable and we do get some respite from. Also residents would have loss of privacy and increased smells/pollution.
5. M11M# is home to many species of wildlife you expect to find in farmland including bats,small mammals, foxes, owls and recently we have been seeing the red kites here too. It is designated Green Gap and should not be sacrificed so that an individual can profit at the expense of the town. It would be unheard of to reinstate fields.
We feel there is no justification for the release of MIIM#, in part or as a whole, from its current Green Gap allocation consistent with the LDF and Government current and future planning policy,the development of a large supermarket would be completely contrary to that policy as well as undermining the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
needs to be long term
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It must not be left up to developers
448. Mr/s G Gilmore (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
449. Mr Steven Gilyatt (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN42# RN462# R151# RN281# R656# RN318#
450. Mr Steven Gilyatt (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN42#, R462M#, R151M#, RN318#, RN281#
451. Mr Jon Ginesi (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
452. Ms Eileen Gledhill (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
453. Ms Catherine Gleeson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 14:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E31# E4M# R143# R299# RN46# RN47# R124# RN302# ON50# R100# R154#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
454. M & P Glover & Dawson (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 11:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#, ON56#, RN322#, E50#, E55#, E56#
455. M & P Glover & Dawson (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 14:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
456. Mrs Joan Goddard (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 08:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
457. P & J Goodley (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 16:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
458. Miss Sally Goodwin (Individual) : 2 Aug 2011 06:48:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal/Ullswater Road
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. 2 years ago, severe flooding on Ullswater Rd which culminated in neighbours and I requesting sandbags from SLDC to attempt to prevent flooding water streaming down footpath as traffic passed and entering houses. Have had to manage my budget to incorporate house content insurance against flooding.
2. Water from fields flows under my house despite water being previously re rooted, if the natural flow is further prevented, some serious potential damage is possible.
3. Traffic flow from more build down into Sandylands to join bottle neck at the entrance to Appleby Road would be horrendous and cause serious problems
4. The costs involved to build on a land so delicate/susceptible to flooding and which is in a state of precarious balance with the environment/building would outstrip the need for social housing which could be built on land which does not carry such high risk and possible future expenditure should flooding occur as it already has as per above.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Community whether new or existing has the right to discuss and influence the issues it is faced with and work towards the best interests of itself and its social/community obligations.
459. Mrs/s Mary D Gordon (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
460. Mr Rennie Goth (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 09:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E31# E4M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
461. Mr Christopher Gough (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 08:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
462. L Grattan (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
463. Mr and Mrs Russell and Anne Graves (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 21:48:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
R124# still floods even now after the Stockbeck Flood relief scheme has been implemented. The fields are a natrual soakaway, this is essential. This would be lost if development was allowed, and the water load would increase due to extra run off. The Stockbeck flood scheme takes water from area R124# and elsewhere, during heavy rain, down to the holding reservoir. This reservoir has been filled to maximum capacity on the last 2 flooding/heavy rain periods. Obviously, this reservoir will not cope with more run off water that extra housing would bring.
Any of the suggested housing development sites at this eastern end of Kendal, that would run into the Stockbeck flood scheme reservoir, would surely be unsuitable.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
People local to the community should be involved in the decisions affecting that community
464. Mr and Mrs CP and RH Graves (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN272#, RN273#, RN275#, MN33#
465. Mr and Mrs Russell and Anne Graves (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
466. Mr and Mrs Russell and Anne Graves (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
467. Mr Jamie Graves (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
468. Mrs Sharon Greenhow (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
469. Mr Ian Greenslade (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 09:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
470. Mr Ian Greenslade (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 12:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
471. Mr Ian Greenslade (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 12:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
472. Mr/s E Greenwood (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
473. Mr Gerard Griffin (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
474. Mr and Mr David and Freda Griffith (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 08:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R169 RN299#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
475. Mrs Barbara Griffiths (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 08:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON43#
476. Mr/s M Grubb (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
477. Mr Simon Guest (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 08:15:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose the proposed retail development of this green gap site which is outside the Development Boundary of Ulverston for the following reasons:
1.OUT OF TOWN development such as the rumoured huge superstore would lead to the total demise of Ulverston as a viable market/tourist town. A site as large and expensive to purchase as this means every acre would have to be utilised - encompassing every type of retail from food/electrical/clothing/opticians/pharmacy etc Why no one need ever go into town again - because no other business could hope to compete with development on this scale.
Any low paid employment created would be of low added value merely replacing those jobs lost in the closure of town centre shops, with no economic contribution to the area.
2.Traffic on the A590 is already extremely high volume and dangerous. It is a pedestrian nightmare running through residential areas with narrow and in places no pavement as well as narrow collision black spots. More RIBBON development such as proposed would exacerbate the congestion and the frequent stationary traffic we already suffer on a daily basis. It is accepted that ribbon development increases congestion, so couple that with continuous superstore traffic at both ends of Ulverston will surely result in more traffic misery with a narrow urban corridor that will be like a 'bypass' of the town centre.
3.The green gap at M11M# provides valuable drainage to both the A590 & the B roads whose run off water is carried onto it and then courses down lower to our fields. Any loss of greenfield to concrete would have an adverse affect on the A590 which despite efforts to rectify has standing water at Hillfoot/Pennington Lane Ends every time it rains and is flooded long after the rest of the carriagway is dry.
4. The proposed retail (superstore)use of this site would for residents have a huge impact on an already difficult blind 'pull out'whether by car or cycle due to the increase in traffic. With a retail development there would be a 24/7 element and increase in traffic, disturbance and noise that at present is predictable. Also residents would have loss of privacy and increased smells/pollution.
5. M11M# is home to many species of wildlife you expect to find in farmland including bats,small mammals, foxes, owls and red kites. It is designated Green Gap and should not be sacrificed so that an individual can profit at the expense of the town. It would be unheard of to reinstate fields - when its gone that's it!!
We feel there is no justification for the release of MIIM#, in part or as a whole, from its current Green Gap allocation consistent with the LDF and Government current and future planning policy,the development of a large supermarket would be completely contrary to that policy as well as undermining the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The Land Allocations' process goes through a democratic, consultative process which residents have a better chance of influencing.
Developers and powerful land agents who only want to make money would exploit option B
478. Mr/s P M Gunson (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 09:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
479. Mr & Mrs Tom & Dot Hadwin (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#, RN84#
480. Mr & Mrs Tom & Dot Hadwin (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#, RN84#
481. Mr & Mrs John and Joyce Hadwin (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#, RN84#
482. Mr & Mrs John and Joyce Hadwin (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#, RN84#
483. Mr & Mrs John and Joyce Hadwin (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#, RN84#
484. Mr Richard Haigh (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R339#
485. Mr & Mrs B & J Haigh (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
486. Mr & Mrs B & J Haigh (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
487. Mr & Mrs Grahame & Christine Hall (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322# RN280#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
488. Mr/s A Hallam (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
489. F M Hallen (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 16:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
490. Mr and Ms Craig and Claire Halliwell and Sweet (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 11:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
491. Mr & Mrs T Hamer (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316 RN326 RN118M
492. Ms Jan Hancock (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 08:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
493. Mrs Anne Handley (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
494. Mr and Mrs William and Anne Hanes (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
495. Mrs Fiona Hanlon (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 11:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R100# RN154#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
496. Mrs Fiona Hanlon (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 11:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
497. Mr R K Hare (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 10:23:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I am strongly opposed to the proposed change of use of this parcel of land to include food retail for the reasons:
- an aggressive supermarket development (it would be aggressive no matter how the wolf is dressed up in sheep's clothing) would destroy the lively market town character of Ulverston. The centre of town small traders would fail, exactly as their counterparts have done throughout the length and breadth of the country where such developments have been approved and implemented. The sourcing of local produce will die with these businesses. Promises of additional employment are baseless, in reality replacing the full time jobs of businesses lost with a mix of poorly paid often temporary appointments , mostly part time. Business decision making, currently owner and therefore largely community based will be replaced by directives from executives in London or Birmingham. This would be a retrograde step for Ulverston.
- a supermarket would encourage even more car travel on the already congested A590, and the scale of development with its attendant traffic management demand would ruin the currently attractive western entrance to the town.
- ideally this greenfield expanse at the edge of the town should remain as a green breathing space between the town and its neighbour Swarthmoor. The alternative is continued creep and urban sprawl whereby both the town and the village will lose part of their character and identities.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Any process which secures greater involvement of local communities in decision making has to be a good thing.
498. Mr R K Hare (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 10:46:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This enabling development will be key in securing the future of Ford Park as a vital recreational asset for the community of Ulverston. As a trustee of the Ford Park Community Group I cannot stress too highly how important it is to include this site in the Land Allocations document.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
499. Mr R K Hare (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:14:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It would be a travesty to allow further encroachment towards the site of historic Swarthmoor Hall. This oasis of tranquility should be preserved at all cost. Any development of RN244 would inevitably mean losing the lane to provide increased access with attendant traffic and noise pollution. This is unthinkable.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
500. Ms Maureen Harper (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 12:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON56#, RN280#
501. Ms Jane Harris (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 20:08:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose the proposed retail development of this green gap site which is outside the Development Boundary of Ulverston for the following reasons:
1.OUT OF TOWN development such as the rumoured huge superstore would lead to the total demise of Ulverston as a viable market/tourist town. A site as large and expensive to purchase as this means every acre would have to be utilised - encompassing every type of retail from food/electrical/clothing/opticians/pharmacy etc Why no one need ever go into town again - because no other business could hope to compete with development on this scale.
Any low paid employment created would be of low added value merely replacing those jobs lost in the closure of town centre shops, with no economic contribution to the area.
2.Traffic on the A590 is already extremely high volume and dangerous.Living on it we have witnessed countless accidents & near misses.It is a pedestrian nightmare running through residential areas with narrow and in places no pavement as well as narrow collision black spots. More RIBBON development such as proposed would exacerbate the congestion and the frequent stationary traffic we already suffer on a daily basis. It is accepted that ribbon development increases congestion, so couple that with continuous superstore traffic at both ends of Ulverston will surely result in more traffic misery with a narrow urban corridor that will be like a 'bypass' of the town centre.
3.The green gap at M11M# provides valuable drainage to both the A590 & the B roads whose run off water is carried onto it and then courses down lower to our fields. Any loss of greenfield to concrete would have an adverse affect on the A590 which despite efforts to rectify has standing water at Hillfoot/Pennington Lane Ends every time it rains and is flooded long after the rest of the carriagway is dry.
4. The proposed retail (superstore)use of this site would for residents have a huge impact on an already difficult blind 'pull out'whether by car or cycle due to the increase in traffic. Presently we have known quiet traffic times but with retail there would be a 24/7 element and increase in traffic, disturbance and noise that at present is predictable and we do get some respite from. Also residents would have loss of privacy and increased smells/pollution.
5. M11M# is home to many species of wildlife you expect to find in farmland including bats,small mammals, foxes, owls and recently we have been seeing the red kites here too. It is designated Green Gap and should not be sacrificed so that an individual can profit at the expense of the town. It would be unheard of to reinstate fields - when its gone that's it!!
We feel there is no justification for the release of MIIM#, in part or as a whole, from its current Green Gap allocation consistent with the LDF and Government current and future planning policy,the development of a large supermarket would be completely contrary to that policy as well as undermining the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre.
I strongly oppose the change to the above Green Gap land to retail use as proposed by land agents acting on behalf of sainsburys. This is for the following reasons
1 OUT OF TOWN DEVELOPMENT-This is contrary to SLDC own 'Local Plan Document for the future of Ulverston' which states'it is important that the overall vitality and viability of the town centre is protected and enhanced. To achieve this, the Local Plan will seek to improve the attractiveness of the town centre whilst at the same time limiting new retail development which would jeopardise the vitality of the existing shopping area. Small scale development and re-development schemes will be allowed in the centre, providing that they are appropriate in scale and character'
If this goes ahead Ulverston will be lost as a market/tourist town as the small,unique shops we have would be gone along with tourists who come and spend money in our town.
2. Jobs would be lost. A temporary increase in low paid retail jobs would occur but where superstores arrive there is a resultant net loss of jobs. In 1998, a report by the National Retail Planning Forum (quoted by the Competition Commission in its major report on superstores ten years later), based on a study of a number of superstore openings, reported that each new superstore actually resulted in a net loss of 276 jobs within a 15km radius.]
3. Traffic- recent traffic surveys have estimated over 16,000 vehicles with a large HGV component use this stretch of trunk road. Ribbon development schemes such as this proposal massively exacerbate the urban corridor further. Presently this is an extremely dangerous section of the A590 with some residential properties a metre from the road! properties in Swarthmoor have driveways that lead to them reversing into one of the busiest roads in Cumbria. Some sections have NO pavement and the road is so narrow in places HGVs & other traffic frequently collide! Any further increase in traffic volume will lead to more congestion, risk taking and accidents.
4.Ouside the development boundary of Ulverston.Need to preserve the Green Gap between Swarthmoor village and Ulverston. This land is rich with wildlife and should not be developed for the greed of individuals and faceless supermarkets.
5.Drainage is a problem here. These fields are at present acting as a natural soakaway and absorb the run off water from the A590 and Pennington.
6. I strongly object to the general noise, disturbance, pollution and loss of privacy which a superstore 'open all hours' would bring to local residents. Access onto the A590 is at present difficult and would be impossible with any further increase in traffic.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B would give developers carte blanche to bring forward unsuitable developments
502. Professor & Mrs P J Harrison (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 10:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON51# RN256# RN298# RN303# RN300#
503. Mr E Harrison (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON45#
504. Mr and Mrs J Hart (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 12:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316#, RN326#, RN118M#
505. Ms Margaret Hartley (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
506. Mrs Margaret G Hartley-Hall (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN63#
507. Mr and Mrs Elizabeth and Robert Harvey (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange over Sands
508. Mr & Mrs R Harvey (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN154#, R100#
509. Mr & Mrs R Harvey (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
510. P Harwood (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
511. Dr Isabel Fiona Haslam (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 16:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN148#
512. Mr and Mrs Robert and Megan Hastewell (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M
513. M & A Hawthorn (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 13:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN299#
514. Mr/s T Haygarth (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
515. Mrs J Haysom (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 14:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
516. Mr/s J Hayton (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
517. Ms Dorothy Hayton (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
518. Mrs Doreen Head (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 11:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316 RN326 RN118M
519. Ms Gill Heal (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
520. Mr and Mrs AC Heap (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 12:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#
521. Mr Nigel Alan Heap (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 12:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#
522. Mrs Sandra Heap (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 12:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#
523. Mr & Mrs Adam & Liz Hearnden (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 11:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN127#, R142#, R105#, RN123#, RN291#, RN282#,
524. Mrs Ann Heath (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
525. Mr/s A Heath (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
526. Mr & Mrs Ann & Brian Heaton (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 09:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
527. Dr G.I. Helsby (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#, R67#, R121#, R141#, R56#, R100#, R17#, R587#, R606#, R586#
528. Mrs Julie Henderson (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 08:10:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R677
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I would support that this site is included in the Land Allocations document if the developer would guarantee to devote at least 35% of the properties to affordable housing and also guarantee that all the properties were subject to local occupancy restrictions. For Holme to thrive as a community, I believe SLDC has a duty to ensure any new residential development will provide homes for people who are actively participating in the local community on a daily basis because they are employed in it or have an existing family connection. Twelve of the thirty-nine properties that are next to this site on Holmefield, Farleton View and Sheernest are already second homes, holiday lets or rented out on shorthold tenancies so I would strongly oppose this site being included in the document if local occupancy restrictions could not be guaranteed.
I am also very concerned that the development of this site could cause damage to the Holme Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary of this site. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal. How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during the building project and after any development of the site?
With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?
There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?
As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?
There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?
In summary, I would support the inclusion of this site in the Land Allocations document so long as any subsequent development can be shown to be for the long term benefit of the village, and that the development would not impact adversely on the Coke Ovens, the canal frontage, the oak tree, existing households and road safety.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document because it should be in response to need.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Land should be developed for housing and emploment to serve the needs of its community.
529. Mrs Julie Henderson (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:36:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN293#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I would support that this site is included in the Land Allocations document if the developer would guarantee to devote at least 35% of the properties to affordable housing and also guarantee that all the properties were subject to local occupancy restrictions. For Holme to thrive as a community, I believe SLDC has a duty to ensure any new residential development will provide homes for people who are actively participating in the local community on a daily basis because they are employed in it or have an existing family connection. Twelve of the thirty-nine properties that are next to this site on Holmefield, Farleton View and Sheernest are already second homes, holiday lets or rented out on shorthold tenancies so I would strongly oppose this site being included in the document if local occupancy restrictions could not be guaranteed.
This site is part of site R677 in which the Holme Coke Ovens are situated. I am very concerned that the development of the site could cause damage to the Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal. How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during the building project and after any development of the site?
With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?
There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?
As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?
There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?
In summary, I would support the inclusion of this site in the Land Allocations document so long as any subsequent development can be shown to be for the long term benefit of the village, and that the development would not impact adversely on the Coke Ovens, the canal frontage, the oak tree, existing households and road safety.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document because it should be in response to need.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Land should be developed for housing and emploment to serve the needs of its community.
530. Mr John Henderson (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 18:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN293#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I confirm that I agree with all the points made in the response by Julie Henderson re site reference RN293#, a transcript of which follows:
I would support that this site is included in the Land Allocations document if the developer would guarantee to devote at least 35% of the properties to affordable housing and also guarantee that all the properties were subject to local occupancy restrictions. For Holme to thrive as a community, I believe SLDC has a duty to ensure any new residential development will provide homes for people who are actively participating in the local community on a daily basis because they are employed in it or have an existing family connection. Twelve of the thirty-nine properties that are next to this site on Holmefield, Farleton View and Sheernest are already second homes, holiday lets or rented out on shorthold tenancies so I would strongly oppose this site being included in the document if local occupancy restrictions could not be guaranteed.
This site is part of site R677 in which the Holme Coke Ovens are situated. I am very concerned that the development of the site could cause damage to the Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal. How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during the building project and after any development of the site?
With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?
There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?
As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?
There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?
In summary, I would support the inclusion of this site in the Land Allocations document so long as any subsequent development can be shown to be for the long term benefit of the village, and that the development would not impact adversely on the Coke Ovens, the canal frontage, the oak tree, existing households and road safety.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document because it should be in response to need
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Land should be developed for housing and emploment to serve the needs of its community
531. Ms J M Henderson (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON54#
532. Ms J M Henderson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RB35#
533. Mr and Mrs Geoff and Jane Henderson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
534. Mr/s S Henderson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
535. Mr & Mrs RJE & Kathleen Hendley (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
536. Mr & Mrs RJE & Kathleen Hendley (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
537. Ms Yvonne Henfe (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
538. Mr James Hepworth (Individual) : 21 Aug 2011 10:20:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Castle Ward
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The Sandylands and adjacent estates are already sizeable housing developments, with most of the drainage going into the Stock beck flood protection scheme. This system is already stained to bursting at several times and more water draining into this will only make problems worse. Areas such as Ullswater road and Whitbarrow close could become more prone to flooding as a result of development in the R124 fields. It would also lead to increased traffic flows through the Sandylands estate and along Sandylands road and Old sedbergh road, which are already busy residential streets.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A longer period keeps more opptions open for a longer period giving greater scope to adapt proposals etc.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This option gives the local communities more say in housing proposals and schemes and would lead to fewer objections to proposed sites and less conflict between developers and local communities.
539. Ms Patricia Herman (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
540. Ms Patricia Herman (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#
541. Mr and Mrs John and Jean Hetherington (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
542. Mr & Mrs Richard & Brenda Hewlett (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 11:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN256#, ON51#
543. Mr & Mrs Richard & Brenda Hewlett (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 11:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN256#, ON51#
544. Mr Merlin Hibbs (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 16:45:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A number of arguments can be made which show the unsuitability and undesirability of RN279# for housing development. These are as follows.
1 Does not meet the Core Strategy
South Lakeland Local Development Framework – Core Strategy CS1.2 – The Development Strategy (Page 18) states:-
“New small-scale infilling and rounding off development will be permitted outside the service centres, in ?order to satisfy local need across the numerous smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District.”
On Page 22 infilling is defined as
“building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage.”
RN279# is neither small scale (at 0.79ha) nor does it have any frontage on to a built-up street.
2 Previous planning policy
Previous planning policy recognised the need to keep parts of the village separate in development terms. In the 1980s, the Council only gave planning permission to build to the end of existing Barnrigg ie permission was given to build Stirk House in its position at the end of Barnrigg to recognise the end of the Cul de Sac. The South Lakeland Local Plan 2006 confirmed the development boundary at the end of Barnrigg. The reasons that this land was not considered appropriate for development remain today and include some of those arguments within this submission.
3 Access
Currently there is only one vehicular access to the site, a nominal 4 metre wide, 40 metre long track alongside Stirk House. This track exits with an awkward dog leg on to one of the ‘points’ of the hammerhead at the end of the Barnrigg Cul de Sac. There is poor visibility on the track of vehicles approaching from the other direction. The track is separated from Stirk House only by a 1 metre wide path and fence. It does not seem reasonable that this track could provide the sole vehicular access to a housing development on this site without severe traffic flow problems and disruption to Stirk House, Oak House and to Barnrigg more generally. It is clearly inappropriate for this plot to form part of the SLDC Land Allocation without a clear understanding of how access will be provided.
4 Character of open spaces in the village
Barbon nestles under Barbon Low Fell and Middleton Fell along the valley of the Barbon Beck. On the West side of the village, the land slopes away toward the River Lune and then rises toward Mansergh and Old Town. Toward the South West, Hutton Roof Crags are prominent. To the North the Howgill Fells can be observed.
Barbon is a very open village with a number of separately identifiable groups of development. Between the groups there is open space that allows for views on all sides of the village to be seen. It is this open nature of the village that is so much appreciated by the inhabitants and visitors alike. It is important to the village that this open nature is maintained. The development of RN279# will appreciably affect this, joining up two distinct areas of the village and spoiling the views from places such as Watery Lane, the Village Hall and the houses at the end of Barnrigg.
5 Natural Environment
Core Strategy “CS8.4 - Biodiversity and geodiversity” Page 102 specifically focuses on protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of land.
RN279# currently provides the only reasonable size piece of open land in the village not subject to either housing or intense farming (eg grazing or hay production). As a result the land has developed a very diverse population of flora and fauna. Whilst I am not aware of any formal assessment of the biodiversity it is clearly extensive and needs an authoritative assessment to understand its nature. The village would be poorer with the loss of this rich habitat.
6 Amenity
A development of housing on RN279# will completely change the nature of the end of Barnrigg. Low Fell House, Stirk House and Oak House have their significant outlook South over an area of quiet wilderness with a variety of plant, animal and bird life which changes over the seasons. One of the reasons that we bought the land and subsequently built Low Fell House was that we were at the edge of the Development Boundary and that our South aspect was not going to be the subject of any housing development. This same aspect is enjoyed from the Village Hall, Watery Lane and a number of dwellings in the vicinity. Whatever development takes place on RN279# will significantly change that for the worse and residents and visitors will not be able to enjoy the area in the same way.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Long term stability is needed in the planning process.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Empowerment of local population to determine their future.
545. Mr Helier Hibbs (Individual) : 13 Sep 2011 15:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
546. Mr Helier Hibbs (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
547. Mrs Muriel Hildrew (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 16:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#, ON50#
548. Mr Keith Hildrew (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#, ON50#
549. Mr Keith Hildrew (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
550. Mr Keith Hildrew (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
551. Mr & Mrs John & Mavis Hill (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 12:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
552. Mr and Mrs M S Hill (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#
553. Mr Michael Hill (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
554. Mr Michael Hill (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
555. Mr Michael Hill (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
556. Mr Michael Hill (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
557. Mr/s P R Hill (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
558. Mrs L Hinchcliffe (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON43#
559. Mr D.M. Hinde (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 18:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105 + those including all or part thereof eg RN328 RN688a
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. Wildlife use this area hence the name of the area WILD DUCK as appearing on property deeds.
2. This area floods regularly and water is already a problem, particularly since the Trinkeld Park development removed the natural run off for the excess water.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Longer time is needed for consultation and realisation of ramifications particularly in view of recent flooding problems throughout SLDC area.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The residents have a better knowledge of the areas involved than the people in offices 20 to 30 miles away.
This consultation was not widely published, rural communties do not visit town libraries very often if at all plus not everyone takes the Evening Mail. Why was it not mentioned in the Cumbria CC newsletter that is distributed by the Post Office to Every household. The timing of theis consultation encompassed the main holiday season as well.
This is the second attempt at sending this response - you acknowledged it before but it has not sppeared in the list on the website.
560. Mrs. J. Hinde (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 18:59:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105 + those including all or part thereof eg RN328 RN688a
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. Wildlife use this area hence the name of the area WILD DUCK as appearing on property deeds.
2. This area floods regularly and water is already a problem, particularly since the Trinkeld Park development removed the natural run off for the excess water.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
If all consultations are poorly advertised like this one then the more time the better. Rural residents cannot be relied upon to visit the town library or take the Evening Mail, Why not make use of the Cumbria CC newsletter or the infrequent SLDC version?
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Communities have a better understanding of the needs and impact of developments on the local villages than people in a town office 20 or 30 miles away.
561. Mr/s E B Hodgson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
562. Mr Chris Hodgson (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
563. Prof Ian Hodkinson (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 19:41:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is an extension of an existing proposal and the same criticisms apply to this proposal as to the original. Firstly this would completely alter the character of Levens Village as the open aspect of this site is a defining feature of the the aesthetic approach into the village. The proposed development is completely out of scale and would plant what is effectively an urban estate into a rural village. There are potential major problems concerning downhill drainage of storm water and sewage and access to Old Chapel Lane or Hutton Lane as well as road access from above, particularly in winter. I suspect a majority of the houses if built would end up as rarely inhabited second homes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
People wish to have a say in the development of their communities and they need primarily to ensure that developments are meeting local needs and that developments are not seen as lucrative enterprises by speculative builders who can override the wishes of local inhabitants
564. Prof Ian Hodkinson (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 19:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site will be visually less obvious than some others and will not block the extensive landscape view from the Crossings. There are, however,problems of resticted site access to be sorted out. This site is preferable to the field above (RN295#)as it will sit more naturally along the hillside and will be less visually obvious.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see my comments under RN291#
565. Prof Ian Hodkinson (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 20:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN295#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The field below is a better option provided access could be sorted. Development of this site would block the extensive view of the Landscape from the Crossings. It should be noted that many Levens residents live here because the village provides pleasant access for walkers to vantage points such as the Crossings and the loss of such freedoms would be deeply regretted by the community. There would again be major problems of access, particularly during winter.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see comments under RN291#
566. Prof Ian Hodkinson (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 10:30:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN127#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The scale of this site is more in keeping with the village and it is contiguous with existing development. It would not crate major problems of access or impinge greatly on existing properties.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see my comments under RN291#
567. Prof Ian Hodkinson (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 10:44:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There is potential for some development at this site provided it was small and sympathetically landscaped to the land contour. There is a danger in developing the whole areaa that it would create a visully intrusive housing estate out of character with the village and visible for a long distance. Access would be less problematical than in other areasof the village.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see my comments under RN291#
568. Mrs Elaine Hodkinson (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Positive: Suitable for development 'along' the hillside, in keeping with the village.
Negative: Access to the site could be difficult. It's a long way from the school, suggesting an increase in traffic on Cinderbarrow hill and/or Brigsteer Road.
I support this site 30%.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I would rather have a fairly settled longer term plan.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It's better to have an overall view for the District.
569. Mrs Elaine Hodkinson (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:58:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Positive: This site is close to the village centre, shop, school, bus stop.
Negative: I feel that 70 houses added on one site is too many to be absorbed easily into a village of less than 500 homes. I would be happy with 25 houses.
The proposal mentions a proposed new route through from Brigsteer Road to Hutton Lane. I think security of any housing would be better served by having an enclosed estate. I believe Police recommendations are not to have roads or paths 'through' housing as this facilitates thefts.
My support for this site is 70%.
570. Mrs Elaine Hodkinson (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 16:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Positive: Site is convenient for access, school, church, bus stop, etc.
Negative: I would not want to have a large development. 25 houses would be about the most that could be absorbed into a village of this size (less than 500 homes).
I support this site 80%
571. Mrs Elaine Hodkinson (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 16:26:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R105#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Village has already expanded enough in this direction.
572. Mrs Elaine Hodkinson (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 16:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN45#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support (90%) this site for business, subject to the following comment.
This land has access from/to the lane that is a designated National Cycleway [20]. As such it is well used by locals and visitors for both walking and cycling. Any increase in traffic would be detrimental and could be dangerous.
573. Mr & Mrs R Hoggarth (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON51#, RN256#
574. Mr Ian Holcroft (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 13:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN306#, RN307#, RN147#
575. Mr Ian Holcroft (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 13:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN308#
576. Mr & Mrs David & Val Holland (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN145#
577. Ms Anne Holloway (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
578. Mr & Mrs John Holman (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
579. Mr & Mrs John Holman (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 11:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
580. Ms K M Holmes (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN343#
581. Ms K M Holmes (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R686SW#
582. Ms K M Holmes (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN242#
583. Ms K M Holmes (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN106#
584. Ms K M Holmes (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
585. Ms K M Holmes (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328#
586. Ms K M Holmes (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
587. Ms K M Holmes (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
588. Mr and Mrs Alan and Sue Holt (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
589. Mrs Kathryn Hooker (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 23:13:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN154#, R17#, R100#, ON50#, RN302#, MN22#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I have commented on previous occasions about the landscape importance of many of these sites to Kendal and how their development would undermine the visual amenity and be to the detriment of the town - a larger area on the elevated eastern fringe of the town is now being proposed and my concerns now apply to an even greater extent, please see my previous comments.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Circumstances change, the current economic climate, and lack of new employment opportunities in the Kendal area do not warrant allocation of land 15 years hence.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option A will give some certainty, but both may be appropriate depending on the circumstances.
590. Mr/s D L Hope (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
591. Mr/s D L Hope (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 15:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
592. Mr Brian Horn (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
593. L R & H M Horn (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 12:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
594. Mr and Mrs B Hornby (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
595. Mr and Mrs B Hornby (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
596. Mr Donald Horrocks (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#
597. Mr Christopher Horsfall (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
598. Mr Christopher Horsfall (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
599. Mr Christopher Horsfall (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON56#
600. Mrs Sylvia Horsfall (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
601. Mrs Sylvia Horsfall (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON56#
602. Mrs Sylvia Horsfall (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
603. Mr Colin Hotchkiss (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
604. Mr & Mrs JT & DM Howard (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 09:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
605. Mr & Mrs JT & DM Howard (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
606. Mr & Mrs JT & DM Howard (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
607. H, C, J L & A Howson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON50 R302
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
608. Mr & Mrs Brian and Joan Howson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN79# RN265# RN230#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
609. H, C, J L & A Howson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
610. H, C, J L & A Howson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
611. H, C, J L & A Howson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
612. H, C, J L & A Howson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
FCLE767
613. Dr Brian S Hoyle (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 07:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
EN43#, E50#, E56#, EN56#, E57#, E58#, E61#, E62#, M7#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
614. Dr Brian S Hoyle (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 07:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
615. Dr Brian S Hoyle (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 08:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON50#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
616. Dr Brian S Hoyle (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 08:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN100#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
617. Dr Brian S Hoyle (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 08:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN154#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
618. Dr Brian S Hoyle (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 08:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
619. Dr Brian S Hoyle (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 08:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
620. Dr Brian S Hoyle (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 08:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
621. Dr Brian S Hoyle (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
622. Mr/s J Huggonson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
623. Mr and Ms V. M and A. Hughes (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
624. Mr and Ms V. M and A. Hughes (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
625. Mr & Mrs J Hughes (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN250#
626. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 12:55:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Only on the bottom part of land. Excellent access onto Holme Lane. Make footpath through to centre of village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
627. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 12:57:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN265#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Good site, good access onto Holme Lane, use footpath through RN230# to centre of village
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
628. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:01:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN79#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Good site, improve bad corner, put in crossing to footpath down Holme Lane, Saves traffic going through village
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
629. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:03:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN84#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Completes line of houses on Holme Lane, improve corner, saves traffic going through village
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
630. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:07:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M32#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Keep houses in bottom part of field but away from road so as not overlooking any other houses, improve entrance to site from road, put footpath through fields to middle of village to make life easier for anyone walking to shop, school etc.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
631. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:09:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN261# & RN262#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Low lying land could flood
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
632. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:10:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN37# & RN87#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Only if access was from road to Humphrey Head and not onto corner by Pheasant pub.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
633. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN224#, RN195# & RN86#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Good site if houses not built next to road or behind existing houses. Make parking place for cars from houses with no parking area, improve Narrows ie: traffic lights, make that corner tidier, put footpath through fields to centre of village - could join with one from M32#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
634. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:20:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R339# & RN73#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Excellent site for retirement/disabled bungalows next to Old Vicarage. Leave room for churchyard extension and make a 'village green' with seats and view through to church
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
635. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:21:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN72#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Infill down Vicarage Lane
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
636. Mr David Human (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 13:26:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN290#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
All traffic would go along narrow roads - almost single track - in all directions, Church Road has cars parked right along one side (houses have no-where else to park) and often on both sides of road causing a real bottle-neck and a danger for pedestrians and drivers alike.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
637. Mrs Pauline Hunt (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 10:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
638. Bill and Carol Hunt (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 16:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN42#, R462M#, R656#, RN281#
639. Mr Chris Hunter (Individual) : 14 Sep 2011 08:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN337 MN32 RN269 RN267
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
640. Mrs Sue Hunter (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 08:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN337 MN32 RN269
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
641. Mrs Ruth Hunter (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
642. Mr Brian Hutchinson (Individual) : 11 Aug 2011 15:26:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Totally unsuitable location for housing
Sloping field site with drainage problems as RN291
Lacking any safe and adequate access - NE end of site on sharp blind bend of steep single track lane.
Certainly no Public Utility services to the site
Would spread sprawl of existing village - Levens is not a suitable village with its minumum infrastructures for any large scale development. Infilling, yes, small developments also but not estates.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See my previous comments on site RN291
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See my previous comments on Site RN291
643. Mr Brian Hutchinson (Individual) : 11 Aug 2011 15:41:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R105, R142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
These two sites have better access to the roadsystem than the sites to the NE of the village.
Access lanes would still require improvement,lighting and pedestrian paths. Public Utilities could probably be more easily supplied. Both locations would extend the village "envelope" but not destroy the ambience of the existing village,
BUT, anything other than small developments would be too great for existing facilities and infrastructure and being on the edge of the village most open to view from the A590 would impact detrimentally and could lead to further growth in the future thus leading to the impression of Levens as a housing estate rather than a village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See my previous remarks
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See me previous remarks
644. Mr Brian Hutchinson (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 13:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#, RN282#
645. Ms Ceri Hutton (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 09:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose the proposal to a) designate E19 and any part of M11M for mixed use and b) designate MN6 for employment/housing. My objections are based on a concern for the immediate area, traffic safety issues, serious concerns about the real threat of 'ribbon development' which such land allocations would bring, and more general concerns about the potential undermining of Ulverston as a vibrant and thriving market town should any significant retail outlet be allowed at yet another out of town site (Booths already existing in Ulverston at Canal Foot).
1.M11M is currently covered by Green Gap protection for good reason - it enhances the area, preserves the distinct characters of Swarthmoor and Ulverston and vitally does not allow for ribbon development along the A590. This site should be preserved as a greenfield site, and not allowed for any development at all ideally.
2. The loss of the greenfield site would also have a highly practical difficulty in relation to drainage, with water being carried onto it and then courses to the fields. Conversion of greenfield to concrete would exacerbate the appallingly bad drainage which already exists at the Hillfoot/Pennington Lane every time it rains.
3. The only justification for removing this greenfield site from Green Gap protection would be if it makes a significant and higher value contribution to the economic development of the area. As SLDC's own Sustainable Community Strategy points out, retail is NOT higher value, it is low value in terms of the income it generates for the people who work there, and subsequent potential to reinvest back into the area. M11M should definitely, therefore, not be allowed to be retail under any circumstances.
4. Sainsbury's is proposing the redesignation of this site as retail and I would note that a large out-of-town supermarket of this nature would have a seriously detrimental effect on the economy and the vitality of Ulverston. Whilst shops in Ulverston are struggling with the recession, there is still a good representation of independent retailers which, as recent national and local media articles testify, provide a primary draw for tourists and visitors to the town. Ulverston does not have one major attraction (such as a castle) - its tourist and visitor attraction depends, vitally, on the mix of the small shops, events and festivals it offers. These would be seriously undermined from having a second supermarket (Booths already existing) which is out of town.
4. How Planning say that a mix of uses is 'preferable' for the site. This is completely challengeable. It is not preferable in terms of the kind of jobs it would generate which are demonstrably primarily low-paid (and higher-paid jobs are often filled by out of town managers who drive in to work). Furthermore, there is no evidence at all from SLDC's retail assessment, or even a retail assessment undertaken recently in support of a supermarket (on the Brewery Site) to suggest that there is anything like the sufficient capacity for such a large-scale retail development to be supported. All evidence speaks to the fact that there is NO NEED AT ALL FOR A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (I.E. SUPERMARKET) OF THIS SIZE. Ulverston's unique locus needs to be in relation both to its independent retailers and the boosting of various higher value job sectors, such as high-tech jobs.
5. A supermarket would generate traffic chaos on the A590. It would be entirely car-based, and the number of car trips generated from dawn to night would mean that an already busy and often congested part of the A590 was subject to severe pressures which would result in further delays with the knock on inconvenience to residents, and to those retailers and industries in Barrow which rely on the road for their trade. A light industrial development, where only the staff were going in and out, would have nothing like this impact.
6. Finally, redesignating this site would be contrary to the LDF and the government planning policy which states that authorities should 'positively plan for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks or knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries'. Retail is no such thing - it is low value.
I urge that the M11M site be kept as a greenfield site under its Green Gap Protection. I further urge that under no circumstances whatever should Green Gap Protection be dropped for a low-value, traffic-based retail development which would ruin the town, create traffic chaos, undermine the local economy and be in direct contravention of local and national policy.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Long-term decisions need to be made in planning in order to ensure that land allocations are not subject to the vagaries of policy and political changes. Sustainable development relies on this. I would not support any substantial reduction as a result.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
'B' is an appalling option, potentially usable by developers (who operate in entirely commercial, rather than public, interests) to bully residents and local authorities to accept proposals which are 'smoke and mirrors'. Developers are notoriously not from the area - they come in, make arguments, put forward dazzling business cases and then leave, leaving the residents and councils to pick up, often, on the fallout of what they have done. Option 'A' has to be the way forward - it must go through a process susceptible to consultation and influence, albeit in a limited manner.
646. Mrs Adrienne Ibison (Individual) : 13 Sep 2011 14:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN205 RN331 RN292 RN238 RN293
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
647. Mr Brian Ingersent (Individual) : 2 Sep 2011 11:54:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I oppose the plans to build on "The Pasture", reputed to be the largest field in Westmorland. Building here would destroy the unique view of the village from the A590 where currently many of the village's older properties and indeed the church spire can be seen. Levens would simply look like a large housing estate and not the attractive village it is today. There is also a footpath running through the field and of course there is amenity value - the old village football pitch was in this field.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
648. Mrs MI Irving (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#, RN280#
649. Mr and Mrs Isherwood (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
650. Mr and Mrs Isherwood (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
651. Mr Michael Jackson (Individual) : 28 Aug 2011 11:57:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston East
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN246#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is a large area of land with the potential for a significant number of houses (700-800?)
Housing development on this land has many disadvantages:
1. The area has the potential to flood (I have witnessed first-hand the devastation and expense this causes).
2. It is a very large area. If planning was requested and approved for the whole allocation it could result in a very densely populated area. I don't believe this would be right for the character of Ulverston. Also, have medical, transport, employment and educational needs been considered for the significant increase in people?
3.Old iron mines have the potential to collapse and there has been seepage from former waste disposal sites - building on unstable and contaminated land is not acceptable.
4. It is not clear where road access would be. Daily difficulties are encountered by passing cars on the road from Booths to Plumpton. Increased traffic here would not be possible and if the road was made bigger it would alter the nature of this rural area. If access was given along the canal path, this would spoil the enjoyment of the many walkers and cycles who use this route.
5. The area includes a Geological SSSI and is close to the coastline. Development would have implications for nesting birds and hedgerows.
6. It is outside the Ulverston Development Boundary.
I can only assume this consultation has been done in accordance with government guidelines and timescales. Personally, I have not found the consultation to be well-communicated, and the timing of it during school holidays means that many people will be away. If there are very few responses to this land allocation proposal I believe these may be contributing factors. If you were to re-publicise this, in plain English, you would generate more responses.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Planning periods needs to be longer-term, rather than shorter. It costs the tax payer time and money to revisit decisions uncessarily. However, decisions need to be made on a sound basis and sufficient time for the consideration of all implications for people, the community and the environment is essential (which is not the case with this consultation).
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Planning needs to be done in a structured way, rather than on an adhoc basis, in order to consider the best interests of the community as a whole. It also avoids personal neighbour/community disputes and potential or perceived unfairness.
652. Mrs Christina Jackson (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 12:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257# & RN258#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Grayrigg is a small community and with the proposed development being at the lower end of the village, a large percentage of the village would have an obstucted view of the surrounding countryside. New access roads will need to be built, but I feel there is no where suitable for this without causing a danger to local children, adults and wildlife. The development would bring more traffic, including wagons and heavy plant to an already dangerous road and so close to the primary school. There are no amenities in this little village, making it one of the reasons why it should be left alone. The majority of the community appriciate the countryside on their doorstep, be able to see the wildlife up close and enjoy the peace and quite that you would expect from this, but, the development would ruin this beautiful way of life.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
22 years is too long as the wrong decission could be made in later years.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
People in a small community should have a final say on anything which could affect their way of living, as any changes will nearly be on their doorstep.
653. Mr & Mrs Sandra and Peter Jackson (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 08:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282# R142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
654. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
655. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN234#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
656. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN106#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
657. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN130#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
658. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN243#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
659. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN242#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
660. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
661. Mrs E Jackson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
662. Mr and Mrs Peter and Delia Jackson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#, R121#, R141#, R56#
663. Mr/s E M Jackson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
664. Ms Anne Jackson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
665. Mr Simon Jackson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
666. Mr and Mrs B Jackson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
667. Mr Andrew Jake (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
668. Mrs Anne James (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
669. Mr & Mrs Simon & Susan Jarvis (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Broughton Beck
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN209
670. Mr Chris Jasper (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
671. Mrs Jan Jay (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 09:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON43#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
672. Mr Dennis Jaynes (Individual) : 12 Aug 2011 15:19:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# & MIM#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site has already been identified for development. it is an excellent site for a Supermarket and has been identified by Sainsbury which would open up the land for the further employment uses.
Ulverston needs a supermarket and also employment sites to create jobs.
The site is on the side of the A590, it has excellent access and is very close to Ulverston Town Centre, but without problems of site servicing, parking or access to public transport.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Sites need to be identified and planned so that infrastructure can also be planned to service them.
673. Mrs Mary Jeffrey (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 09:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
674. Mr & Mrs Stephen & Mary Jeffrey (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
675. Mr & Mrs Stephen & Mary Jeffrey (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
676. Mr/s J E Jeffrey (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
677. Mr Kenneth Jenkins (Individual) : 13 Sep 2011 15:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN232# EN43#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
678. Mr Peter Jenkinson (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 23:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Land at The Bee Hive
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Issues: M11M# Land at The Bee Hive.
(1) The whole site is in the Green Gap between Ulverston and Swarthmoor.
(2) No access from the Busy A590 and the many problems of the road at this area.
(3) Retail on this site will severely effect the viability and vitality of Ulverston Town Centre. The Town needs to develop this within the existing boundaries and thus continue to attract the external/internal customers evolving with the traditional market town environment.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Time frame allocated may restrict the need to review future community conditions promptly and fairly.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
679. Mr Derek Jenkinson (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# ie M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I OPPOSE any development of the above proposed site as it would be situated in the green gap area between Ulverston and Swarthmoor and outside the Ulverston development boundary.
The proposed site access is directly onto the A590 which would involve vehicles having to cross the road in both directions approx.100 yards from the start/end of a dual carriageway (the scene of a number of traffic acccidents and incidents)carrying over 16,000 vehicles a day including a large proportion of HGV's.
A major consideration for a proposed large retail store on the outskirts of Ulverston must include traffic volume on the A590 with no consideration to Ulverston and the disastrous effect this would have on the existing town centre trading community.
SLDC's Local Plan Document for the Future of Ulverston states 'the Local Plan will seek to improve the attractiveness of the town centre whilst limiting new retail development which would jeoparise the vitality of the existing shopping area'.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
680. Mr E Johnson (Individual) : 24 Aug 2011 10:20:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Castle Ward , Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R100#, R154#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Any visitor into Kendal off the M6 down the A684 is drawn by one of the best views of Kendal Castle across the two plots (R100 and R154)suggested for development in the alternative plans.
If Kendal is to grow and prosper as heritage/ food/ history town, to build houses and obscure the view would seem illogical. Its a great free advert.
Some weeks hundreds of visitors arrive at Castle Green Hotel with this view creating a good impression of the town.First impressions are important, there must be a better site for development.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The world is changing so fast, so difficult to know.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
681. Ian & Dagmar Johnson (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 14:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257#
682. Mr John Terence Johnson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 08:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#
683. Mrs S Johnson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 13:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
684. Mrs Sylvia Johnson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
685. Mr John Terence Johnson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
686. Mr E Johnson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
687. Mr Bob Johnson (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 15:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689#
688. Mr Bob Johnson (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 15:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN50#
689. Mrs Judy Johnson (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 15:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON54#, RN35#, ON55#, RN307#, EN50#
690. Mr Richard Johnston (Individual) : 2 Aug 2011 11:42:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
LINDAL IN FURNESS
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R209
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The site was identified as part of a Local Service Centre in the plan in the earlier stages being located within the confines of an existing village. External consultation with planning consultants indicated that the site was A1 in respect of sustainability and developability and that it met with the landscape requirments. It was also recognised as a brown field site with the last known use being railway sidings. One point raised by the consultants was th atthe issue of drainage would need further consultation with the utility companies, however I submit that this issue was resolved by the recent building of the new pumping station to replace the septic tanks at Lowfield. I am aware of the ongoing work by the Highways Agency to resolve the flooding, on the A590 at Lowfield, and I suggest that any development could possibly incorporate a suitable scheme to resolve the problem.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Given that it will be at least late 2012 before the plan takes effect and the cost and the amount of work I consider the period to 2025 to be reasonable. However I consider that there should be a provision to re visit the plan and make changes at any time, should the need arise. The LDF plan should not be used as a means to block any development, not already identified, as the need for local housing and employment are constantly changing.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In order to have a basis for a plan which will run to 2025 it would be better to identify the preferable (public opinion) and available sites for inclusion in the LDF
Option B should be used to introduce sites not identified in an adopted plan at any stage in the duration of the plan. This would address the constantly changing needs of housing, employment and leisure. I submit that the Core Strategy document should be used for guidance and not as a tool to block any desired development. It should be possible to have both options.
691. Mr Richard Johnston (Individual) : 2 Aug 2011 12:21:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Lindal in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M31
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The SLDC's original idea of Lindal in Furness becoming a Local Service Centre was sound given the non availability of sites in the village area controlled by Barrow Borough Council.
The site, part agriculture and part derelict, met with requirments for desirabilty, sustainability and landscape when outside considered by outside consultants.
The needs for housing and employment should not be considered separately and a scheme which removes the need to travel to work can only be a good thing
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The document should run to 2025 given the cost and time implications as well as proposed changes to the planning system.
It should be possible to introduce a site at any time in the duration of the plan to take account of changing needs and government policies
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In order to have a plan to 2025 it would be desirable to identify sites, at this stage, which met with the publics approval following the public consultation.
The LDF should not preclude any site being put forward at any time in the future if it were considered to be in the public interest (option B).
The Core Strategy Document and Allocations of Land need flexibility and should be used for guidance, not as a devise for refusing planning consent
692. Ms Christine Johnston (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 13:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
693. Mrs Ella Johnston (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
694. Mrs Ella Johnston (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
695. Ms Julie Jones (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
696. Mr & Mrs Kevin and Sharon Jones (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
697. Mr Raymond Jopson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 07:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale High Biggins
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN205# RN331# RN292#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
698. Mr David Judson (Individual) : 29 Jul 2011 22:46:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal Quarry
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN48#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I can not see the logic in trying to develop the quarry basin. It is already flooded and would need major works for access and to supply all the services needed.
Much better to leave it to age naturally and support wildlfe that already exists there. There are many other more sutable sites for the type of delelopment suggested.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Whilst a long term plan is a good thing, too long is not neccessarily so.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
699. Mr Simon Just (Individual) : 26 Aug 2011 21:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN154, R100, R121M, ON50, RN302
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Firstly, my family and I proposed the re-inclusion of R100/RN154. We wish to make it clear that the proposal for re-inclusion of R100/RN154 was because SLDC did not adopt a full site evaluation on the site and not because we wish it to be developed upon. SLDC must, we believe, fully evaluate and create fact files for all sites proposed not just reject sites on the basis of a view (of any kind) because this will potentially create problems not only for SLDC but for residents in future.
R100/RN154 were not re-proposed by us because as some responders to this latest consultation (e.g. Mr Mike Norton) wish to believe because we object to R121M and to deflect our opposition to R121M to other site(s) but to allow local residents an opportunity to evaluate their development potential without SLDC giving it a higher priority for rejection than other sites (especially on flaky grounds such as a view - which has no bearing on private planning applications and could effectively be applied to many sites in the proposals) and especially given no comments have been previously registered for the sites. Frankly we resent the accusation as such as it has no basis in fact. We would ask SLDC to review especially Mr Norton's accusation as it could constitute a serious written public misrepresentation of the truth - it is one thing to express an opinion it is another to make a false accusation.
SLDC must go through the correct processes and not give special treatment to one site or another especially when the information included in the existing fact files is totally inaccurate.
We have received abusive mail (through the post which is a criminal offence) regarding our reproposal of R100/RN154 and we would wish to point out to anyone reading this that the mail received has been passed onto the Police to investigate and we would strongly urge anyone else receiving such correspondence to do the same.
As for RN302 and ON50 - these are just attempts by the developer Russell Armer to "juggle" with the existing proposals and effectively adds MORE dwellings into a proposed area that is already unviable for development. The modification with RN302 does nothing to change our views regarding R121M (which RN302 forms part of) - R121M is NOT viable for development. ON50 is just a carrot being dangled to try and get the development passed by offering up an area that would be difficult to access due to it's terrain as a public open space.
The issues regarding flooding, affects on protected species etc are not going to go away by the new proposals with RN302, ON50. More dwellings in fact create more problems for the local community, landscape and environment not less.
Therefore this represents formal opposition to sites R100, RN154, RN302, ON50 and a repeat of our opposition to R121M.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The timespan for these plans is if anything now too small - there is a real danger by shortening the timespan of the plans that this will encourage potentially non-essential developments to take place at the wrong time. If anything we feel that the timespan needs to be increased not shortened.
In addition we would wish to remind SLDC that the need for spacial strategies such as this have actually been abandoned by central government and would therefore question whether there is any real need to progress with a full "master" plan for the area.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
700. S R, S & M Just (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
701. S R, S & M Just (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
702. Mr Simon Just (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
703. Mr Derek Kay (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 08:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN154#
704. Dr Simon Kaye (Individual) : 10 Aug 2011 00:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN331#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I believe that this is the most logical place for expansion.
Vehicle access is best of any proposal.
Easy pedestrian access to all town services - including GP surgery( at which I am a doctor)
Already existing settlements south of A65 at Robraine and Biggins - this just continues this.
Any visual impact on passing traffic could easily be screened and "The Big Shed" that is QES sports centre is hardly a thing of beauty enhancing the A65 anyway!
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
No need to accelerate and current financial climate precludes much early development.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
705. Dr Simon Kaye (Individual) : 10 Aug 2011 00:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Logical to extend development this way as a second priority if needed in addition to R331# - though vehicle access and also town pedestrian access much less easy than R331#.
However already existing property in this area and extending this way makes sense.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
706. Dr Simon Kaye (Individual) : 10 Aug 2011 00:12:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN317#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
this development fits well within existing developments and makes use of the redundant site of the school. There is already established access.
anything that reduces the liklehood of development to the west of town and which therefore avoids the extra traffic that would result on the Kendal Old Road and up Hop House Lane- which is an accident waiting to happen again - is to be supported. Any development increasing traffic on the Kendal Old Road must be avoided - it is narrow, dangerous and unfit for the existing levels of traffic - and the communicating section to the A65 is even worse with 2 blind bends that are not wide enough for 2 vehicles.
the school site is ideal for access to all the existing community services - unlike proposed developments to the west of town.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
707. Mrs Dawn Kelly (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 17:10:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The planned area is in an inappropriate location. Due to the rural location of Grayrigg and the timing of public transport,most people who move to the village need their own vehicles. Any increase in housing will I feel lead to an increase in traffic along a narrow stretch of road,with no pavement, and insufficient parking. It will make it unsafe for children and could cause a potential problem for the residents. Visability joining onto and coming off the A685 (it is on a bend) is not good as many motorists speed through the village.Grayrigg has very little street lighting,making it ideal for night-time wildlife. Bats and owls can often be seen on and around the proposed sight,any development will produce an increased level in light pollution impacting on the privacy of existing residents, and have a detrimental effect on the wildlife. Increased noise levels could cause problems for residents who moved here for the peace and tranquility. I am concerned also about the sustainable land drainage from RN257#,when it rain heavily at present water runs down the lane past my house. There are no amenities in Grayrigg and I feel the character of the village would be adversely impacted on through any excessive development.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
708. Mr and Mrs Kelly (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
709. Mrs Valerie Kennedy (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 15:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN260# RN79# RN82# RN84# RN268# RN332#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
710. Sir John Kerr (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 13:51:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There are several reasons why I oppose this site. First, the SLDC Core Strategy policy for small villages such as Barbon is that development might be acceptable if it is small scale in-filling or rounding-off. There are also some specific exceptions listed when development might be allowed. The proposed site RN279# satisfies none of these criteria: it is not small scale (indeed it is large scale by Barbon standards), it is not in-filling or rounding-off, and it does not fall within the exceptions listed.
Second, this big site would breach the important green gap between the core of central Barbon and the settlement of Town End. At an appeal in 1986 the Inspector referred to the land south of Barnrigg in these terms: 'this is a matter of considerable importance,in my opinion, as any further extension would be a very obvious expansion into open countryside.' This remains the situation today: the whole character of the area would change with the appearance of ribbon development - not only for the houses in the immediate vicinity but from several viewpoints elsewhere in the village such as the approach road past Kiln Cottages and the Village Hall. This plot is part of an area which provides one of the defining characteristics of Barbon with, close behind it, the fells.
Third, housing need. The most recent Housing Needs Survey (2010) identified the need for 2 affordable houses in Barbon during the next 5 years. These can easily be satisfied from other sites, including RN4 which has already been endorsed by the Parish Council. Barbon has seen significant development over recent years, and there are several permissions outstanding, and proposals, which would satisfy more closely the Core Strategy critera. There is simply no housing need to justify a developoment site the size of RN279#.
Fourth, agricultural use. This plot is designated by SLDC for agriculture and until relatively recently it was used for grazing; the fact that it is overgrown today reflects the choice of its owner. The old railway track which formed a strip through it was lifted many years ago, and a glance north or south of Barbon will show the ease with which the track can be incorporated into normal agricultural use.
Fifth, biodiversity. Developing the proposed site for houses would have a seriously detrimental effect on the biodiversity and natural environment. This area must be one of the largest wild areas in the parish and as such it should be protected.
Sixth. Access. Vehicular access is only possible by a narrow strip of land owned by the applicant at the foot of Barnrigg. It is specifically designed to enable maintenance vehicles to reach the old railway bridge over Watery Lane.It has not been used during the past three and a half years, and hardly at all before that. It passes very close indeed between two houses at the foot of Barnrigg, where there is a busy turning area for the whole road with three houses opening directly on to it. The strip towards the site has a particularly awkward approach at this point with a blind corner and tight turn; and the sightlines are such that it is impossible to see along it, or vehicles entering or leaving the adjoining houses until the last minute. This strip is not suitable beyond its original purpose, and any development would lead to significant safety concerns as well as substantially reducing the amenity for those who use or live in Barnrigg.
In summary, I wish to stress that I am in favour of appropiate development in Barbon, including new houses, to enable it to thrive. I recognise the need to identify building sites. But in my view this proposal for site RN279# is most definitely not the right one for the future: it is too large, out of proportion, and would have too negative an impact on the character and amenities of the village and its surroundings.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The planning system is going through a period of great flux and undertainty, and it is by means certain that the government's proposals concerning localism and the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be enacted as currently envisaged. Although this might point to a shorter term for land allocations, on balance I favour trying to bring more stability into the system so that people and organisations know where they stand; I would stick with the longer term. Presumably the situation might become clearer over the next few months and so in the very short term the Council might find it esier to determine which way to proceed.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is to do with scale. I consider that it would be better to use the relevant core strategy policies, tuned to the specific needs of a particular community. This would be much more sensitive to local wishes (and manageable) than using the Land Allocation document which suits bigger development in more urban areas, and in the higher settlement tiers set out in the Core Strategy.
711. Sir John Kerr (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
712. Lady Ann Kerr (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
713. Mr Matthew Kerslake (Individual) : 16 Sep 2011 15:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
714. Mr & Mrs Philip & Carol Key (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 13:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#, ON50#
715. Mr Jeremy Kiernan (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
My reasons for opposing the proposed allocation are:-
1. A housing development on the land in question would have a profound detremental effect on the open aspect of this end of the village of Barbon. At present the village is effectively split at this location - the dividing area being a continuous strip of agricultural land providing clear, uninterrupted views to the Barbon Fells. Any development of this area would change the character of the aspect of the village.
2. The ancient bridleway, Watery Lane, skirts the Southern boundary of the land in question. This bridleway has a unique character which is enjoyed by villagers and visitors alike. For instance, it provides a very attractive, almost magical, start to the famous Barbon Round hill walk. Any development here would undoubtedly have a negative affect on the character of the bridleway.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
More likely to have less local opposition.
716. Mrs Patricia A Kilshaw (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#, MN6#, E19#
717. Mr and Mrs S and A King (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
718. Mr and Mrs S and A King (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
719. Mr Paul Kingsnorth (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 12:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
720. Mr & Mrs Derek & Yvonne Kinley (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
721. Mr & Mrs Derek & Yvonne Kinley (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
722. Mr Stephen Kirk (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
723. Mr and Mrs Kirkby (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 11:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
724. Mr and Mrs Kirkby (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
725. Mr and Mrs Kirkby (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
726. Mr & Mrs Eric and Jean Kirkham (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
727. Mr & Mrs Eric and Jean Kirkham (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
728. Ms Helen Kirsopp (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 20:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Poor acess onto an already bad junction. Vision from this junction is very difficult. Pedestrian use here would be made more dangerous than it already is as there is no pavement and the road to Beckside/community ammenites/children's play park is very narrow. Would also interfere with field access to neighbouring fields.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Should be reviewed regularly say every 5 years. Housing market can change considerably in short periods of time.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I am a strong believer in localism and believe local planning should be what the actual community wants or needs not imposed by regional or national government or dicatated by developers.
729. Ms Helen Kirsopp (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:02:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R211#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Good access from Burlington Close by opening up present cul-de-sac. Safe access for pedestrians to school/shop/community ammenites/children's play park as no need to cross A595. Would blend with housing on current estate and would not cause any loss of visual ammentiy.
730. Ms Helen Kirsopp (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:07:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN11#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Natural village extension but would have to leave appropriate margin near power lines as has already been done for plots R211# and RN329#. Safe vehicular access to A595 and safe pedestrian route to school/shop/community ammenities/children's park without crossing said main road. Would blend with existing estate and cause no loss of visual ammenity. Would hopefully attract families with young children to attend a very good school.
731. Ms Helen Kirsopp (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:11:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Poor access from a very narrow lane. Would oppose any expansion of housing at Beckside for this reason. Negotiating existing lane with parked traffic by current residents/visitors is an obstacle course.
732. Ms Helen Kirsopp (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:19:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN330#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Access would have to be from narrow and steep road of Askewgate Brow. Traffic already heavier than normal here because of health centre. Only other alternative would be along other narrow road behind the Villas which again is inappropriate. Would cause loss of visual ammentiy and would mean more vehicles using the poor junction at the top of Askewgate Brow with the A595 and pedestrians having to cross this busy road to use the village school and other facilities. Would not blend with the houses in this part of the village very well as it would be a large modern block against the existing mixed-age ribbon development.
733. Mr & Mrs Kitchen (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
734. Mr/s AW Kitchen (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
735. Dr David Knight (Individual) : 12 Aug 2011 21:12:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The access roads are completely unsuitable for any type of development, being single track lanes that are frequently used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders.
The proposed site floods regularly during heavy rain.
Any development of this site is contrary to the Core Strategy. Ackenthwaite is classed as a small village/hamlet and the policy states that only rounding off and in filling should occur.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B is too open to influence by individuals and short term considerations.
736. Dr David Knight (Individual) : 12 Aug 2011 21:16:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN281#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The access roads are completely unsuitable, being single track lanes used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders.
Any development of this site is contrary to the Core Strategy. Ackenthwaite is classed as a small village/hamlet and the policy states that only rounding off and in filling should occur.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B is open to too much self-interest, influence by individuals and short-term thinking.
737. Ms. Jacqueline Knight (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 16:13:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656, R138 , R471, R98, , RN305, RN323, RN42 and RN43
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Whereas I understand the need to democratically consider alternative proposals, it should be noted that all these suggestions for Ackenthwaite have been suggested by only a very few individuals, who do not reside in Ackenthwaite itself.
Site R656 has been resurrected from an initial consultation proposal; it was then taken no further- the North of Milnthorpe was designated a non-preferred option.
This site and the other remaining sites in Ackenthwaite are wholly unsuitable and unsustainable for many reasons including topography,the wildlife supported here, the importance of the area agriculturally and the road infrastructure but additionally for the following reason: development of these sites would constitute a reversal of the principals defined in the Core Strategy Document (CSD):
Namely:
• CSD—has at its heart the designation of a series of Green Gaps , protecting green infrastructure, preventing coalescence and also preventing the creation of large urban areas which have a reduced inter-relation with the surrounding open countryside.
—the expansion and closing off of these Green Gap areas in Ackenthwaite would however do just that.
Also, Ackenthwaite is a very distinct area which has as its western boundary Kirkgate Lane and then merges into varied and rich countryside to the East and North. The SLDC Site Options document notes that to the South and West :
'When travelling through/past Ackenthwaite, there is a distinct sense of leaving Ackenthwaite...before entering Milnthorpe...Sites RN42 and RN43 contribute most to the sense of separation between the two places ...'
• The CSD-stresses the importance of the maintenance and enhancement of the natural, historic and other distinctive features that contribute to the character and biodiversity of local settlements and landscape
—Ackenthwaite , designated as part of an important ‘County Landscape’( this from the Core Strategy ) has its own historic roots, is an area of natural beauty, supporting a wide variety, in all seasons, of wildlife, birdlife and plantlife within the age-old hedgerows and on the floodplain , of which R656 is a part - known historically as 'The Ponds '.
St.Anthony’s Tower itself is also seen as important : the ‘Local Development Framework Document' states that any development must conserve and protect the open setting of a feature such as St. Anthony’s Tower—designated ‘an important local landmark ‘ .
• CSD-The Core Strategy Document also makes much of the need for the provision of open-spaces and community recreational amenities
-- Ackenthwaite already provides such an informal open space and amenity; the lanes of the hamlet are used regularly by many in Milnthorpe and other surrounding hamlets as a safe place to walk, push a pram, cycle, horse-ride and exercise whilst enjoying unspoilt open views. One small lane forms part of the National Cycle Route. It can be argued that if Milnthorpe provides Key Services for Ackenthwaite, then the hamlet provides an important reciprocal recreational function for the more developed parts of Milnthorpe.
For all these reasons I strongly oppose the alternative and new proposals for Ackenthwaite. To quote once again the SLDC, in its Site Options Document, Ackenthwaite is described as having
‘an identity which is quite distinct from the nearby much larger village...of Milnthorpe’.
The SLDC recognises this distinct identity and I would urge this body to adhere to its core principals and provide sustainable, balanced and sympathetic development of preferred sites in Milnthorpe as decided last Autumn 2010.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A reduction in time would not be in local interests-far better a longer time span to allow for a measured assessment of actual, rather than projected needs.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As in 1st response above.
738. Ms. Jacqueline Knight (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 14:54:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN281
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This new site, proposed by 3 individuals (including the landowner), is to the North of the Dallam School site in Ackenthwaite. Its inclusion for consideration is in direct contravention to previous SLDC conclusions from their ‘Green Gap Assessment ‘ document which clearly states
‘A Green Gap be designated to cover .......several fields to the North of Dallam School between Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite. ‘
For this reason, as well as all the reasons summarised below for the other plots of land in Ackenthwaite, I oppose its inclusion for consideration.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A reduction in time would not be in local interests-far better a longer time span to allow for a measured assessment of actual, rather than projected needs.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Takes into account the views of local residents and takes away the more remote views of planners.
May encourage more 'organic' development which is dictated by demonstrable local need .
739. Ms P Knowles (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 21:09:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316/RN326
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Against SLDC policy of concentrating housing at key centres i.e. Milnthorpe and Kendal should be areas for affordable housing
Vehicle access to sites problematic and dangerous
Loss of countryside of high landscape value
Inspector turned down this site
Utilities and infrastucture wholly inadequate
Village is not near any employment sites
Gross distortion in size of small village
Against SLDC policy of green transport as village dwellers highly dependent on motor car
Initiative supported by CCC and SLDC to create access to dismantled railway would be futile if green area becomes over-developed
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
740. Ms Angela Knowles (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
741. M & A Knowles & Johnson (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
742. M & A Knowles & Johnson (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
743. Miss A Kramer (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
744. Mr and Ms Arthur and Jean Lambert (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN242#, RN243#, RN234#, RN106#, RN105#, RN328#
745. Mr/s J F Lambert (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
746. Ms Jean Lancaster (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 13:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
747. Mr Peter Lancaster (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
748. Mr Peter Lancaster (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
749. Ms Mary Lane (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 13:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316#, RN326#
750. Mr/s K Lappin (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
751. Mr/s H G Lappin (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
752. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 16 Sep 2011 15:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN299# EN46# E23k# RN46# RN47# E4M# EN48# R111# R154# EN18# E56# E57# E58# M7# E50#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
753. Mr Paul Latham (Individual) : 26 Aug 2011 20:44:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E31# E31M# E4M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
E31# E31M# have both been considered in great detail and dismissed nothing has changed that now makes these sites suitable for the uses suggested
There is no need for a football stadium/leisure facilities on this site being adequately catered for elsewhere probably little chance of finance this
development at all on this site would diminish the landscape setting of Kendal and open development would mean Kendal eventually joining with Natland The owner of the land is a contracting business who has reduced the workforce and interest in Kendal, they appears to be motivated in this development for financial reason
There is no housing nearby site M4M surrounded by housing is a more suitable choice
E4M#
this is unspoilt woodland that should be left for furture generations
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
local communities should be involved, but , developers need to be contriolled and often have no long term intrest
754. Mr & Mrs Steve & Nicky Lawless (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
755. Mr & Mrs Steve & Nicky Lawless (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
756. Mr & Mrs Steve & Nicky Lawless (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
757. Mrs Penny Lawrence (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:28:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The level of traffic at Cross a moor at peak times is already a problem and Main Road is treated as a rat run. It is difficult to get onto the A590 and building many more homes along Main Road will only exacerbate this.
There are road safety issues with children walking to Pennington nursery and school - increased volume of traffic will exacerbate this.
There is also a dangerous t junction from Park Road onto Main Road and heavier traffic will cause problems here.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
758. Mrs Penny Lawrence (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 19:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
traffic is heavy at peak times on Main Road and access to the A590 will be made worse by development here - Main Road is already treated as a rat run.
There are road safety issues with children walking to school at Pennington school/nursery which will be exacerbated by increased volume in traffic.
There is regular flooding of this part of Main Road and flooding of the fields included in the proposed site.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
759. Ms Claire Lawson (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
760. Dr Marisa Le Masurier (Individual) : 1 Aug 2011 21:44:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Development on this area of greenfield land would be one step further towards coalescence of Natland with Kendal, which goes against the strategic plans of the Council. In addition, it would be replacing agricultural land with housing and encroach on the fields and farmhouse belonging to Natland Park Farm. Development of area RN256 would damage the privacy of a number of houses which have been on the boundary of the village and designed to look onto open farmland for many years. In addition, the village infrastructure is not able to support any significant housing development, especially as the plot proposed is totally out of proportion to the total size of the village. The feel of the village would be fundamentally altered if the proposed site is used for development.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
761. Mrs Joan A Leach (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 14:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M
762. Mr and Mrs J Leach (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
763. Mr Roger Leather (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 16:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
BOWSTON
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R664#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Bowston is a peaceful English hamlet in balance and at ease with is itself.
Bowston has no employment, no shops, no bus service, no railway station, no broadband and no schools! The location is entirely rural. The development would lead to the destruction of a green field. Further, an open toxic dump (of soft bogey constituency) lies immediately to the south of the proposed development. It is clearly reckless to place housing development juxtaposition to an open toxic dump. The proposed site also “backs-up” in heavy rain and floods.
The argument for the development is for local people to fill local jobs does not match the facts: Bowston has few jobs and no un-employment! A good percentage of the development built would quickly be in the hands of second home owners.
The idea that the development is for people working within the National Park is unacceptable. Housing should be built in the vicinity of people’s work. If the National Park does not want its workforce to live within its boundary, then the Park has reached the limit of its natural development! Otherwise, we have an ideology which leads to a “gated” Park where one type of person lives in the Park and those that “service-it” live outside. Not acceptable.
In the 2008 LDF, the Bowston/Burneside area was identified as having socio-economic imbalances and yet more “affordable” housing is proposed. Anyway “affordable” is undefined, and without doubt second homes will be acquired in the development. Second homes are the root cause of the housing shortage across what was Westmorland.
Any residential development will entail hundreds of additional work related journeys through Bowston, its adjacent lanes and Burneside village out to work places away from Bowston with many headed to south of Kendal, including Lancashire since Bowston has no local employment. For others, the “back-road” from Burneside-to-Kendal was re-modelled (artificially narrowed, high curbs introduced, etc) by the Council to discourage use, so traffic will favour the route through Burneside village and to Kendal to further worsen the bottle next where the Burneside road joins the Windermere road in Kendal, near St Thomas’s church. To the north, the Plantation Bridge Windermere Road/Winter Lane junction is a death trap, as evidenced recently.
Empty brownfield sites at Kirkland, Burneside Road, Gilling Grove and Highgate should be utilised, and empty houses in Kendal. Also, some developments in the area are not selling. The proposed Bowston site is on the edge of the village on an existing boundary, on virgin agricultural land and the socio-economic case does not exist for the sites development. Any development would increases Bowston’s housing stock by near 100% - this is not acceptable.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
764. Mr Roger Leather (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Bowston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R664#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
765. Mr Ivan Marcus Leigh (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 21:06:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal NW
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN299
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I have already expressed my concerns regarding the two previous proposed area of development in this area, namely E65 and R169M to which RN298 is now a further proposed extension. All my earlier comments apply to this proposed extension and indeed, given the new extent of this proposal, are even more relevant. I trust that my earlier comments will be taken into account with respect to this latest proposal.
Not withstanding the accepted need for affordable new homes in rural areas, to which I readily subscribe, there can be little merit in trying to achieve this objective, by destroying the very environment which makes the benefits of living in these areas so desirable.
The extensive nature of what is now being proposed, appears to be driven more by a need to satisfy the commercial aspirations of land owners and external developers, rather than catering specifically and sympathetically for the housing needs of the local population.
The intrusion of development into this green space and the prolification of urban sprawl that it will create, can only significantly damage the visual amenity that exists and which is valued by all who know and love this part of Kendal and South Lakeland.
It is clear from the propals that extensive infrastucture works will be required to facilitate the highway engineering requirements of the development. These alone will, in themselves, present significant disruption, alteration and intrusion into the the landscape of the area. The very nature of such extensive engineering works indicates the volume of traffic that the development will create. Given the already significant delays and congestion into Kendal from the North, at peak periods, this will adversely affect not only the local population, but all those who need to access Kendal from this direction, tourists and residents alike.
Given the topography of the area, it would be difficult to adequately screen the original proposals from a visual aspect from Windermere Road. The new proposal would be impossible to screen. The detriment to the visual amenity in this locality cannot be overstated.
The additional impermeable surfacing that will result, if this proposal is permitted, will significantly increase the speed of surface water run-off into the local steams, all of which ultimately outfall into the River Kent in Burneside. In times of storm, this will inevitably exacerbate the serious problems experienced by local residents in that area last year. The geology and complex drainage regime that exists, both in the fields concerned and in the hillside above, will be affected by any development, but particulary so by the scale of what is being proposed. Any attenuation measures to reduce the problem of increased flooding downstream would be expensive, extensive and could not be relied upon to entirely eliminate this problem.
The proposal development straddles an existing footpath and whilst this could perhaps be re-routed, I would ask that its presence and the significance of this, is taken into account, in reaching any decision on the proposal.
The very nature of South Lakeland that makes it so attractive to residents and visitors and indeed upon which the valuable tourism industry depends, can only be adversely affected if wholesale developments of the type being proposed are permitted. Surely, it must be much more preferable to incorporate new housing in discrete developments, that fit snugly and sympathetically into the landscape and which serve to compliment, rather than destroy the environment.
If the objective of the Council is to facilitate affordable housing, as set out in the Core Planning Proposal, then this particular site will, in my opinion, prove to be expensive in providing all the necessary infrastucture required. The topography, the provision of new services, highway engineering, environmental measures, planting and screening that will be required, will all add to the cost of developing the site, none of which is compatible with providing affordable homes.
My own home at Lane Foot Farm will potentially be adversely affected from an amenity aspect, by any development that is allowed in this area. In the past, my home has been the subject of restrictions imposed by the National Trust with regard to a submitted planning application. It would be perverse in the extreme, if an adjacent development of the type now proposed was permitted, given the planning restrictions applied to minor improvements, to which Lane Foot Farm residents have been subjected in the past.
A beautiful environment, such as the one at Lane Foot Farm, once disfigured by inappropriate development, cannot ever be replaced and will be lost to present and future generations for ever.
With regard to the concept of "sustainable development", I believe that this proposal fails on two of the three criteria, namely environmental and economics. Indeed, given that it is unlikely that the development will produce many affordable homes, it is likely to fail on social grounds as well.
It is clear that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of the Core Development Plan in many significant areas. It will devastate a large portion of intrinsic high quality natural environment, it will not provide housing where the greatest need has been identified, ie to the Eastern areas of Kendal; it does nothing to improve accessibility; it will not provide "a balanced community"; it does not intend to use existing buildings or infrastucture; it is unlikely to produce affordable housing; it will do nothing to promote tourism or economic benefit.
I strongly request that this proposal is rejected.
Ivan M Leigh
4, Lane Foot Farm
Windermere Road
Kendal.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I believe that development, paticularly in sensitive areas of the environment, should only be sanctioned if they fully satify the needs of the local community and only after full consultation with that community. It should always take into account the stated aims of the relevant Core Strategy. Sustainable development, in my opinion, can only be provided by integrating new development sympathetically into the existing environment in a way that compliments and improves the existing facilities. This can only be done in an area like Kendal, by small scale developments incorporated into existing settlements in such a way that they do not adversely affect, or over stress the existing infrastructure. Sensitively designed, small scale developments that fit pleasingly and naturally into the existing environment can provide attractive, long term sustainability that serves the needs of the community. Large scale intrusive developments in rural areas seldom do this.
766. Mr John Leighton (Individual) : 29 Aug 2011 15:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN205 and R679KL
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
To build anywhere South of the A65 will immediately bring the A65 within the built environment of Kirkby Lonsdale.
The various enquiries held into the de-trunking of the A65 area 2006 established that the Northern end of the road carried between 9000 and 13000 vehicles per day. It was noted that these figures took no account of the summer and bank holiday peaks, and it is also likely that the amount of traffic on the A65 has increased significantly since then.
If building is allowed on these sites, the extra numbers of pedestrians and vehicles trying to cross the A65 from the South side will increase the danger to all road users along this stretch significantly.
Mention has been made elsewhere about the undesirability of creating ghettos when housing developments are built without reference to proper integration into the existing road and pathway network.
The A65 will ensure that any building on the South side will never be properly integrated into Kirkby Lonsdale.
For many years throughout the country the development of main roads and housing has concentrated on trying to separate the two in the interests of safety and quality of life. To incorporate the A65 into Kirkby Lonsdale will do just the opposite. The councils and residents of Long Preston, Hellifield and Gargrave will all testify to the undesirability of that situation.
Additionally, the South side of Kirkby Lonsdale is presently an attractive are of countryside, enjoyed by many walkers on the limestone pavement overlooking the site and development would spoil the considerable natural beauty of the area and risk swamping Low Biggins by closing the gap between Kirkby Lonsdale and Low Biggins. Maintaining the separation of communities is recognised as an important part of the planning process in the Local Development Framework.
There are far more suitable areas for housing development in Kirkby Lonsdale with sites R127M and R118 even though the town itself is ill prepared for a significant increase in population.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The reduction in the timescale will encourage poorly considered decisions and reduce the amount of time available for consultation with people that may be effected
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
If the Land Allocations process is to mean anything there needs to be a proper formal process for considering and enforcing the policies adopted. Any development that ever takes place will be around for many years to come and it is unreasonable to have this occur on an ad hoc basis.
767. Mr John Leighton (Individual) : 29 Aug 2011 16:11:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R127M and R118
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Properly planned, these two sites could provide the development needed to satisfy the needs of the Local Development Framework in respect of Kirkby Lonsdale.
The sites are large enough to accommodate sufficient housing whilst keeping a gap between the school and Harling Bank, an area of congestion at school times.
The main vehicular access to the sites could be westwards to the A65 which would keep such traffic away from the congested area, especially since a significant proportion of people would require access to Kendal/M6 for work, rather than Kirkby Lonsdale.
Part of R118 could be used for improved parking/turning for cars and buses for the schools, further improving the congestion problem. The existing road from the A65 to QES could be widened if necessary, further improving the traffic flow.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The reduction in the timescale will encourage poorly considered decisions and reduce the amount of time available for consultation with people that may be effected
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
If the Land Allocations process is to mean anything there needs to be a proper formal process for considering and enforcing the policies adopted. Any development that ever takes place will be around for many years to come and it is unreasonable to have this occur on an ad hoc basis.
768. Mr Tom Leighton (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 14:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
769. Mr Tom Leighton (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 14:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
770. Mr Stephen Lennie (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 10:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Endmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN59, M41M, RN239, RN255, EN33
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Further to the Endmoor Village Open Meeting on Monday 14th May 2011, called in the name of Preston Richard Parish Council and extracted from the minutes of that meeting :"The villagers are strongly in support of the preservation of open space north of the School. The Development Framework identified the need for more green space & traffic-free path/cycle ways. We fully agree, and have ideas to discuss with the Planners on how a network of links could help".
It was agreed that the large attendance fairly represented the views of the community. Of those present, only the meeting organiser and one other were in support of any developing North of the School, other than adjacent to the A65 north of Sycamore.
The areas do offer a strong amenity value which many villagers wish to access these areas for cycle and walk ways.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The extended process and all considerations to date have been based on the period to 2025. To change at such a late stage would undermine and invalidate the work so far and in order to reflect the community views fairly would necessitate beginning the process over again.
The fact that consideration of changing the time scale at such an advanced stage itself raises concerns as to the soundness of the review.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Provided that the Land Allocation process is communicated clearly and directly to the communities provides a controlled structure around which people can make life decisions.
Option "B" would be constantly divisive, splitting communities and more susceptible to abuse by purely commercially driven proposals, contrary to the interests of the community at large.
771. Mr Stephen Lennie (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 10:36:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Endmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R83
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Least adverse visual impact on village, existing drainage network infrastructure and proximity to sewage facility. Least disruptive of all sites proposed.
Requires careful though re access and traffic management.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
772. Mrs Kate Lennox (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN229 EN49
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
773. Mrs Fiona Lewis (Individual) : 17 Aug 2011 07:06:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN205#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It is disappointing that the site South of the A65 at Kirkby Lonsdale RN311# and especially the QES Rugby Pitch RN205# have been included in the list of sites considered as part of the additional Land Allocation Consultation Summer 2011.
These comments relate specifically to the Rugby pitch RN205# although changes to planning rules resulting from the introduction of the Localism bill presents a new risk that any allocation of other sites South of the A65 including RN311# will provide developers with a precedent to extend future development closer to Low Biggins.
I oppose any development of the QES Rugby Pitch RN205# due to the reasons listed below and request that the site RN205# be defined as a Green Gap to protect it from the potential expansion of new developments which are currently taking place just North of the A65 and the spread of any potential development on site RN311# if it were to be allocated for development.
Any development of the Rugby Pitch RN205# would have a devastating impact on our home, would risk destroying the character of the hamlet and go against SLDCs own Strategic Vision 2005 which states “Towns and villages will have been kept distinct from one another by green gaps that keep individual settlements distinct and protect their individual character”
The Land Allocations document (Kirkby Lonsdale Fact File R679KL / RN205 page19) recognised the strong local opposition to development of the site including Kirkby Lonsdale Town Council. Main concerns relate to the severance effect of developing South of the A65, adverse impact on the character of the area clearly visible from the A65, loss of school playing field and the presence of the Haweswater aqueduct bisecting the Rugby Pitch preventing any development for a distance of 10.5m either side.
Responses to the Core Strategy Preferred options published on the SLDC website relating to what was then Alternative option 3 South Kirkby Lonsdale, showed a overwhelming majority of respondents opposing the option highlighting several significant factors each of which should be sufficient to justify the removal the pitch RN205# from what was then area R679 irrespective of the fact that it is a frequently used sports facility. The main factors listed below are discussed in more detail later in this response.
1. The A65 forms a strong boundary to Kirkby Lonsdale any development on the South side would cause severance and increase the number of pedestrians crossing an arterial route to the Lake District.
2. The Thirlmere aquaduct runs diagonally across the QES pitch limiting any development.
3. Housing proposed in the LDF would be inappropriate for Low Biggins in terms of scale, character, and context
4. Fields to the South of the A65 provide a green gap distinguishing the hamlet of Low Biggins from Kirkby Lonsdale
5. The area South of the A65 is clearly visible to traffic, houses adjacent to the QES rugby pitch are in an area of special advertising control. The localised ridge referred to in the LDF is not large enough to screen any development in the area
6. Any development on the QES rugby pitch would overlook existing properties to the West in Low Biggins.
7. The preferred Option for development to the North and West of Kirkby Lonsdale scored significantly higher in the Area Strategy.
We purchased Springfield Lodge in July 2007 after returning to the area in 2003 and spent four years in rented accommodation while we searched for the ideal property to convert into a family home, raise our family and eventually retire. We received planning permission for extending Springfield Lodge in January 2008, building work commenced in May 2008 and is now approaching completion.
We have invested our life’s savings into the improvements, any development on the QES pitch would have a devastating impact on the peaceful enjoyment of our property, eliminating the views of open countryside to the rear and resulting in a loss of privacy due to overlooking. The LDF consultation process is already having a detrimental effect on the enjoyment of our home.
1. The A65 forms a strong boundary between Kirkby Lonsdale and the open fields and small hamlets including Low Biggins which characterise the area. The A65 is an arterial route to the Lake district, any new development South of the A65 would result in a significant increase in the number of pedestrians needing to cross the A65 to access schools and facilities in Kirkby Lonsdale and increase the amount of traffic on the A65 for existing residents of Low Biggins crossing the A65.
The Core Strategy proposes that Kendal become a Principal Service Centre providing employment to many residents of the proposed developments in the Key Service Centre of Kirkby Lonsdale. Developing the area South of the A65 would increase the amount of traffic along the A65 adjacent to the school increasing the risk to children crossing from Low and High Biggins during rush hour periods. Any development South of the A65 would have the effect of drawing the road towards the heart of Kirkby rather than its current effective role as a bypass to the town.
At the Kirkby Lonsdale Civic Society public meeting referred to earlier, one speaker commented that Long Preston and Hellifield were examples of current settlements where development had been allowed to take place on either side of the A65. In both these cases the development occurred before the A65 became a trunk road and local residents in both Long Preston and Hellifield have been campaigning for years to secure a bypass that will relieve the communities from noise, air pollution, vibration and severance effects of the A65.
2. The Thirlmere Aquaduct runs across the fields to the South of the A65 directly behind the houses to the East of Low Biggins and diagonally across the centre of the QES pitch. Any development in this area would be severely limited by constraints associated with the aquaduct and risk damaging this vital infrastructure which has been providing water to Manchester since 1894. Access hatches to the four large pipes which make up the aquaduct are visible in the corner of the QES field to the North of the A65 opposite the road leading to Low Biggins and just behind the top of the ridge to the South of the A65 where there is a large gap in the trees as the aquaduct passes through the top of the ridge.
The four pipes have a total width of 11 meters; United Utilities advised that there would also be a minimum 5 meter easement either side of the aquaduct producing a protected strip 21 meters wide along the length of the aquaduct. Building within the easement of the aquaduct is prohibited and the provision of services to any development would be made more complex and expensive by the presence of the aquaduct. The aquaduct is mentioned in the deeds of several properties on the East side of Low Biggins where limitations associated with the aquaduct are defined and provision made for the access of equipment to perform maintenance and repairs. There is also a public footpath which runs through the centre of the pitch.
3. Strategic objective 4 states that new development will need to be appropriate in terms of design, scale, character and context and be sensitive to the surrounding environment (natural and built). Housing proposed in the LDF has a density of around 44 dwellings per hectare or 17 dwellings per acre which would be inappropriate for Low Biggins in terms of scale, character, and context. A planning application made in 2000 (No.5002660) by the previous owners of Springfield lodge to build two houses on the site which is adjacent to the QES pitch was rejected as SLDC considered that the development would be prominently sited and detract from the character of the locality which is within countryside designated as Landscape of County importance. Any larger development in immediate vicinity would inevitably have a much larger detrimental impact to the character of the area than that previously rejected by SLDC and would clearly breach Strategic objective 4.
4. The principal strategic vision states that in 2025 “Towns and villages will have been kept distinct from one another by protecting green gaps that keep individual settlements distinct and protect their individual character” the fields to the South of the A65 provide a green gap distinguishing the hamlet of Low Biggins from Kirkby Lonsdale.
5. The area South of the A65 is clearly visible to traffic, houses adjacent to the QES rugby pitch are in an area of special advertising control. The localised ridge referred to in the LDF is not large enough to screen any development in the area. The rugby posts which are located towards the middle of the field and are 6.4m high, slightly less than a typical house yet they clearly visible to traffic from the East, North, and West of the playing field. The QES pitch was created using infill over uneven countryside, towards the North East corner of the pitch this infill is visible to a depth of approximately 2 meters. Any development on the pitch would require special foundations to reach through the infill adding to the cost of building and increasing the risk of future subsidence.
6. The QES pitch is elevated by approximately 1.5 meters in relation to Springfield Lodge so any development on the QES pitch would overlook our property with much of the inside of the lounge and master bedroom being clearly visible, especially at night through the large glazed areas which were originally intended to take advantage of the views to the rear.
7. The preferred Option for development to the North and West of Kirkby Lonsdale scored significantly higher in the Area Strategy. The preferred option has the potential to draw together many of the key objectives of the core strategy with the potential for future growth making it clearly more attractive than any of the alternative options considered including limited development South of the A65. The specific site and design of any new housing in the preferred area should attempt to minimise the impact on existing residents in the adjacent area, SLDC should consider reducing in the number of houses allocated to Kirkby in light of the current down turn in the housing market. Comments supporting the preferred option in part were submitted during the LDF consultation.
To date the LDF consultation period has been rife with rumours and speculation over which sites in Kirkby Lonsdale would be identified for future development. We suspect that PR representatives for local developers have been busy working behind the scenes trying to influence the opinions of key decision makers and the general public in an attempt to put the South Kirkby Lonsdale option back in contention with the preferred option of West Kirkby Lonsdale identified in the LDF. We request that the SLDC planners hold true to their original feelings that the A65 forms a strong boundary to the town which must not be breached.
The site RN205# (ON9) part of R679KL was suggested as a green gap through the Allocations of Land Discussion Paper. Although the site was not put forward as a preferred option for residential use its designation as a green gap was rejected as it was considered that the A65 and QES school grounds to the North already provide a strong measure of protection against coalescence between Kirkby Lonsdale and the small linear Hamlet of Low Biggins. It was also noted that should the issue of development South of the A65 be raised again then it would be appropriate to reconsider the green gap issue in relation to the QES pitch site RN205#(ON9).
The QES Pitch RN205#(ON9) should be reconsidered for green gap status due to the fact that site MN24, part of the school grounds North of the A65 is one of three sites proposed for development by QES and that Russell Armour are currently constructing around 50 new houses on an adjacent site R638 which was formally the Cedar House school playing fields. The green field sites north of the A65 which help differentiate Kirkby Lonsdale from Low Biggins and help give the area its unique character are disappearing fast.
There have also been rumours that a local developer with close contacts to a local estate and land agents has targeted the QES pitch RN205#(ON9) for possible development. The introduction of the new localism bill may provide them with the opportunity to manipulate public opinion and bypass the recommendations of the SLDC consultation and Strategic Policy. The legislation is likely to result in planning by numbers with new developments pushed into less densely populated areas such as Low Biggins. Designating the pitch as a green gap site now will protect the field against potential expansion of any development on the adjacent site RN311#, should it be allocated, help protect our own and adjacent properties in Low Biggins against the devastating impact of any development of the rugby pitch and help uphold the planning strategy developed by SLDC which protects the unique character of the area.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Reducing the timescale will possibly result in hasty decisions and reduced consultation with local people affected by any development.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There need to be some formal process of enforcing core planning policy aimed at protecting the character of rural areas. Personally I think it absurd that the council is preventing the conversion of disused barns into homes yet proposing to hand over swathes of green field sites to developers who will make massive profits and be required to allocate less than 30% of the houses they build as affordable housing.
The shortage of affordable housing for local residents in rural areas is fuelled by the nations obsession for second homes. The government should penalise rather than reward second home ownership through the tax system and local councils in rural areas should be empowered to act at a local level to discourage second home ownership which saps the lifeblood out of rural communities as they stand empty for most of the time. Planning and government policy needs to be more closely linked and can only be enforced through consultation processes such at this.
774. Mr/s G W Lewis (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
775. Mr & Mrs Lewis (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
776. Ms Peggy Lindow (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:01:00
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
My initial response to option B was positive however on closer reading of relevant documents it appears that this route could undermine the democratic process currently in place by circumventing local authority control over planning. I am concerned about the possibility of powerful landowners being able to exploit such a process particularly with the introduction of the principle of presumption in favour of development.
777. Mr & Mrs A.E. and C.A. Line (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Greenodd & Penny Bridge
778. Mrs Brenda Linney (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#
779. Mrs Margaret Lister (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN303#
780. Mrs Margaret Lister (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#
781. Mr and Mrs N C Little (Individual) : 14 Sep 2011 08:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
782. Mr and Mrs N C Little (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
783. Mr and Mrs N C Little (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
784. Mr/s M Little (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
785. Mr Brian Littley (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
786. Mr Philip Livesey (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 18:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SE
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
My reasons for opposing this site as an extension to R97M are the same as those opposing R97M.This basically is that it would destroy the community of Natland Mill Beck Lane and with it the local amenity provided by this lane, being a little bit of country accessible to people living in the south east of Kendal
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
787. Mr Philip Livesey (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 19:03:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SE
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M40# & R140#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The reasons for opposing these two sites are the same,namely that they would destroy the route into Kendal by covering what is at present highly visible country landscape with highly visible buildings. The increased congestion on an already busy road, due to Asda, B & Q and the Hospital, would cause even more problems in this area.We are in danger of destroying the reason most of us love to live here and replacing it with a vast urban sprawl
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
788. Mr Philip Livesey (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 19:12:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SE
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E31#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The further encroachment of Kendal on land which is part of Natland Parish, and borders on the historic site of the Roman Fort and also the "Sattery" is to be resisted. If the canal is ever reopened this site would straddle a large part of it's arrival at the border of Kendal, is this really the sort of first impression we want to give to visitors?
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
789. Mr Philip Livesey (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 19:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SW
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E4M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This area should be left what it is at present, namely an attractive rural border to Kendal. Not destroyed for someone's selfish profit.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
790. Mrs Lomax (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 08:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
791. Mr & Mrs Terence and Barbara Long (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 11:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
792. Mrs Gillian Longhurst (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 11:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R120# RN301#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
793. Mr & Mrs Keith & Pippa Longney (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
794. Mr Alan Lord (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 09:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
M6 Junction 36
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
795. Mr & Mrs Albert and Brenda Lowe (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 12:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN109M
796. Mr/s D MacGovan (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
797. Dr & Mrs Alistair and Elizabeth MacKenzie (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:43:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Oxenholme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN253, M2 and M5
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
RN253 Very large site - would alter and detract from the fine and distinct views of Helm, open countryside and farmland driving out of Kendal. Would increase amount of traffic going through village of Oxenholme and onto A65.
M2 and M5 Again very large sites - would alter the character of Oxenholme as a linear village and its identity as a separate village as it would merge into Kendal. Again traffic would be increased onto A65.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There is a risk that allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document will stop proportional and reasonable building. However with a locality plan already developed and planning restrictions being made easier by the government, the balance of protection may now rest at a village rather than a town level. It should be about proper representation and also who will pick up the bills as well.
798. Mr John Macleod (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 11:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322 Part of Rn19 RN280 RN56
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Sites are more appropriate for village development
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Keep to existing planning period. More time for consultation
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A great danger of a "free for all situation" developing in the villages
799. Mr and Mrs J & K Maddock (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
800. Mr and Mrs Peter and Hazel Major (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 16:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
801. Mr and Mrs Peter and Hazel Major (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 16:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
802. Miss Emma Marcinko (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:40:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN293#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I agree with the response made by Julie Henderson(re site reference RN293#) as follows
I am very concerned that the development of this site could cause damage to the Holme Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary of this site. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal. How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during the building project and after any development of the site?
With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?
There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?
As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?
There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?
In summary, I do not support the inclusion of this site in the Land Allocations document because of the above!
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
no view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
no view
803. Mr Nigel Markham (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 11:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#, RN322#, E50#, E51#, E52#, E53#, E54#, E55#, ON56#
804. Mr Nigel Markham (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
805. Mrs Christine Marland (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
806. Mr John T Marsden (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN281#, RN43#, RN42#
807. Mr Michael Marshall (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 20:37:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
ulverston south
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN130
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. Development in the above field will exacerbate flooding in Dragley Beck,both in the valley and further down stream.
2.Any access to the site will be difficult and potentially a hazard to traffic either on Rake Lane or Springfield Road.
3. Previous planning apps have been refused and there are no valid reasons to approve an
application now.
4.Dragley beck has been the cause of serious flooding in south Ulverston 2 years ago.The beck alters within hours from a few inches trickle to a raging torrent and development in the above field will create much greater problems in the valley and in South Ulverston.
5. The bridge across Dragley Beck in Victoria Road is a further problem to development of this land as the way it has been built makes it susceptible to blockage by debris, such as logs,washed down when the beck is in spate.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As we are already in the latter part of 2011 the shorter period does not seem very realistic. Planning is a long term thing not a short term fix.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Planning should be a considered "planned" process -not determined by the whims of individuals/companies suggesting areas of development. This seems a strange way to manage the growth of any area.
808. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick Brettargh
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E50#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
809. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E51#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
810. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E52#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
811. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E53#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
812. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E54#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
813. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E55#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
814. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN56#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
815. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E57#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
816. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E58#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
817. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M7#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
818. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN18#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
819. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E61#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
820. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E62#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
821. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN32#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
822. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Broughton
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN288#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
823. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Broughton
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN289#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
824. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN251#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
825. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN252#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
826. Mrs Heather Marshall (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN109#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
827. J & K Marshall (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
828. J & K Marshall (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
829. Mr/s B Marshall (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
830. Mr/s C Martin (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
831. Mr & Ms J & M Martin (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 11:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#, ON56#
832. Mr CD Martin (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN294#
833. Mr/s C Martin (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 16:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
834. Mr M W Martindale (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146 RN205
835. Mr and Mrs Andy and Maggie Mason (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
836. Mr/s Annette Mason (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
837. Ms Sarah Matthews (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 13:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
838. Mr Michael Matura (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 12:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#, R130#
839. Mr Douglas McBride (Individual) : 16 Aug 2011 21:08:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R100#, R17#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Both of the areas identified as R100 and R17 are very small and back onto an already very busy road currently used by a large volume of traffic avoiding Kendal town centre, development of any sort will greatly increase the volume of traffic with its attendant noise and air pollution. This area currently houses a relatively elderly population which could be at risk from the increased volume of traffic coming to and from this sit. The site contains a number of mature trees regularly used as roosting sites for a variety of bird species. Any development would overlook the current housing stock to the detriment of the quality of life of the occupants. The land is currently used to graze sheep and produce winter fodder which is not only of value to farming but greatly adds to the rural feel of an already growing urban environment
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Local communities must be involevd in future developments of their areas to ensure proper and meaningful consultation thus utilising their local knowledge of the areas under consideration
840. Ms Ann McCabe (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 13:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316# RN326#
841. S & S McClure (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
842. S & S McClure (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
843. Ms Gail McCreadie (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 18:18:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN293#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
i agree entirely with the response made by Julie Henderson (re site reference RN293#)
Transcript follows
"I would support that this site is included in the Land Allocations document if the developer would guarantee to devote at least 35% of the properties to affordable housing and also guarantee that all the properties were subject to local occupancy restrictions. For Holme to thrive as a community, I believe SLDC has a duty to ensure any new residential development will provide homes for people who are actively participating in the local community on a daily basis because they are employed in it or have an existing family connection. Twelve of the thirty-nine properties that are next to this site on Holmefield, Farleton View and Sheernest are already second homes, holiday lets or rented out on shorthold tenancies so I would strongly oppose this site being included in the document if local occupancy restrictions could not be guaranteed.
This site is part of site R677 in which the Holme Coke Ovens are situated. I am very concerned that the development of the site could cause damage to the Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal. How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during the building project and after any development of the site?
With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?
There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?
As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?
There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?
In summary, I would support the inclusion of this site in the Land Allocations document so long as any subsequent development can be shown to be for the long term benefit of the village, and that the development would not impact adversely on the Coke Ovens, the canal frontage, the oak tree, existing households and road safety".
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
844. Mrs Margaret McDonagh (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M32#
845. Mrs Margaret McDonagh (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M32#, R230#, RN84#
846. Mrs Margaret McDonagh (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 12:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN37#, RN73#, RN86#
847. Miss Clare McEntegart (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 18:43:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291# (also R105#, R142, RN282)
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I consider any large scale development in Levens to be inappropriate given that there are no local jobs to speak of and no public transport to speak of. A development of this sort goes against any kind of sustainability criteria which the Council is / should be not only adhering to but setting an example in. This development would result in greatly increasing the amount of road journeys required over what would be generated if development was limited to being nearer to where the need is. It also destroys what is currently green land – of concern not only for the loss of amenity to the local population and to visitors but also with regard to concerns over food security issues (this is currently farm land) and contribution to climate change through “concreting over” of green spaces.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Don't feel I know enough about the implications of this to comment
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Don't feel I know enough about the implications of this to comment
848. Mrs Laura McGowan (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 17:23:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# M11M# MN6#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I oppose the retail development of this green gap site as I feel it will be detrimental to the character of Ulverston. I find Ulverston of a similar charm of Kendal and feel a supermarket giant will ruin the feel of the town. I visit frequently and on the odd time pop in to Booths and this is more than plenty for the area. With a giant Tesco, Morrisons and Asda in Barrow-in-Furness, surely that is enough for the area.
Ulverston is a lovely town and should not start to look like every other town where the giants move in and the small independent shops close down and up go the boards.
This development would kill Ulverston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As above
849. Mr and Mrs A & J McIntyre (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
850. Mr David McKendry (Individual) : 23 Aug 2011 14:31:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Land behind Quaker Fold, Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This proposal cannot be serious! If SLDC recall land at Quaker Fold was sold by the Quaker movement in London to the dismay of the local Quaker members. I recently spoke to the current Manager of the Swarthmoor Hall and the sale of land (now Quaker Fold) still holds bitter resentment amongst this group. They are also dismayed that Swarthmoor Hall and it's history, outlook and peacefulness has and will only be further disrupted by further development on the land around it. Do we not take these things into consideration any more? We have an attraction which encourages many visitors to our town and we appear to be destroying it! Please think again.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
851. Mrs Philippa McMurdo (Individual) : 13 Sep 2011 15:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
852. Mrs Philippa McMurdo (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291# R682LVM#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
853. Mrs Philippa McMurdo (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282# RN295#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
854. Mrs Philippa McMurdo (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN45#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
855. Mr and Mrs MA & PA McPherson (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58#
856. Mr/s P Meldrum (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 14:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
857. Mr Steven Mellows (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 19:15:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN140
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Site forms part of the Designated Green Gap between Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite.The Green Gap has been significantly reduced by recent developments at Dallam School approved by SLDC despite local opposition. The site is very close to a floodlit artificial pitch making it unsuitable for Housing.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
858. Mr Steven Mellows (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 19:20:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN42
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Site forms part of the Designated Green Gap between Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite. The site has been put forward as an access route to emerging option site R642M. This location is totally unsuitable for an access road due to it's proximity to a busy roundabout at the entrance to Dallam School.It would also interfere with the tranquility of the adjacent cemetery.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
859. Ms Suzanne Menice (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
860. Mr Neil Metcalfe (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 09:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN246#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
861. Mr Peter Metcalfe (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R686SW#
862. Mrs P.E. Metcalfe (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
863. Mr/s G Mills (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
864. Miss A. Mitchell (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 14:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#, ON50#
865. Mrs Lara Moate (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 13:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
866. Mr and Mrs K Monks (Individual) : 21 Aug 2011 23:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I feel this would greatly impact on the look of the village. Any one on the A590 passing the village would see any development here. This is a view of the village which includes some of the original houses rather then the newer properties in Levens and as such should remain unspoilt.
This field is the largest in Westmorland and it would be a shame to loose it.
Also there are footpaths running through this field which are greatly used and if developed would be a lose to the village.
From a builders point of view, the road noise here would impact on the prices of the houses and there are better locations which as per the Levens Residents Group the villagers are in agreement to having developed - this is inkeeping with the localism bill.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I'm not sure how this would affect us. However whatever decission is made I still feel that the figures are way too high and the only people to gain here will be the builders!
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I feel that the villagers should be able to have a view on this as per the localism bill. However I think that this should be the same for all the villages involved in the process!
867. Mr and Mrs K Monks (Individual) : 22 Aug 2011 00:03:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I feel this on a whole is too large a site for the size of the village. However it would impact on the residents of the village less than the other sites suggested and due to the trees in this area it would be less on display than some of the other locations.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Villagers should have a say what happens in their villages!
868. Mr and Mrs K Monks (Individual) : 22 Aug 2011 00:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This would be on view to the whole village and the view acrossfrom the village to Whitbarrow and surrounding areas would be lost to all the villagers. \There are better locations than this.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
869. Mr and Mrs K Monks (Individual) : 22 Aug 2011 00:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN123
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Wholly support this site. It is an eyesore in the village and definately needs sorting out. It is a site large enough to make good size housing and should be looked into under the Empty Homes policy.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
870. Mr and Mrs K Monks (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 09:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R105
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Access for this site is passed the school and will impact on a junction that is already very busy at school times.
871. Mr J M Monks (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
872. Mr John Moore (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 14:21:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN317 (Cedar House) RN334 (Terret Dene) R640
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
All these sites are within the built environment of Kirkby Lonsdale. They have good accesss and an established infrastructure is available. As construction sites they are each capable of receiving a relateively high density of development and avoiding neighbour objections.
These sites are logical infil locations and provide oportunities for imaginative economic and varied design solutions to meet different needs. At the same time there are oportunities to add to the qualities of the built environment in Kirkby Lonsdale.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Having lived in Kirkby Lonsdale and seen the changing needs over 40 years, I cannot imagine that the changes and needs will be any less in the next 17 years and require reviewing.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I am assuming that this will provide for a greater flexibility and for individual cases to be reviewed
873. Mr John Moore (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 14:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Site R146 should be rejected on the grounds of access, both in terms of traffic movements within Kirkby Lonsdale and the physical characteristics of the site which is set high above Fairbank behind a characterful stone retaining wall and sheltered by mature trees, both of which are valuable features. Accessing this site could not be done without significant environmental damage.
There would be major environmental impact factors which would have to be addressed and consideration given to views of the site from the wider valley where it could be seen as skyline development.
Over-riding all these aspects, however is the illogical introduction of further traffic and its management into an already congested Kirkby Lonsdale. Any major extension for housing to Kirkby Lonsdale should be to the N W, having links to Kendal Rd or an improved Harling Bank, avoiding the necessity to circulate through the town.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
874. Mr John Moore (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 14:23:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN 331 RN292 RN205
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
These sites should not be considered as suitable because they represent an undesirable extension of the town across the A65. Though a suitable vehicular approach could be achieved from the A65 roundabout the proximity of the town would almost certainly encourage pedestrians to be crossing a very dangerous road. A clear example can be witnessed at the Town End crossing to Whittington road.
To now accept the A65 as a route originally formed to by-pass, to now pass through the market town by such a large expansion of Kirkby Lonsdale, would be stacking up problems for the longer term. The major growth of KL's housing should be to the NW as I have explained elsewhere
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
To allow for flexibility and common sence to be applied
875. Mr John Moore (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 14:23:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN238
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Site RN238 would seem to be a logical piece of rounding off on what is otherwise unused and waste land. I do believe that in past years it has been used as a tipping site and construction may not be totally straight forward.
The site is in close proximity to all mains services, and in my view should be included
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Individual sites such as this one should be dealt with on this basis.
876. Mr John Moore (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 14:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN 335
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Site RN335 is somewhat different from the other sites being promoted in so far as it is on the edge of the hamlet and would involve the demolition of unattractive agricultural builings which are currently used for storage purposes.
I understand an application currently provides for improved pedestrian access along the approach lane, which would be of benefit to High Biggins itself.
On balance I believe that this site should be included on the grounds of general improvement and as appropriate "rounding off" at this end of the hamlet
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I see this site as being typical of what is best dealt with under option "B"
877. Mr and Mrs R and H M Moore (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 13:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN233#
878. Mr Alistair Morgan (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 12:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
879. Dr. F. Morgan (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 15:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
General
880. Mr Alan Morphet (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
881. Mr Walter Morrison-Gardiner (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 09:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
882. Mrs/s Louise Moss (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 11:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
883. Mrs/s Louise Moss (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
884. Mr Keith Mower (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
885. Ms Eunice Mullagh (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 15:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN15#, RN307#, RN306#, RN609#, ON26#
886. Ms Alison Murphy (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN20#, RN27#
887. Mr Graeme Murray (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Endmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M41M# EN59 RN285
888. Miss Margaret Myers (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 15:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#, ON51#
889. O J Myers (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
890. Mrs Kathleen Nelson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R100#, RN154#
891. Mrs Barbara Nelson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R298#, RN256#, RN303#
892. Mr & Mrs Stephen & Wendy Nelson (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
893. Ms Diane Nesbitt (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 11:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
894. Ms Pamela Nevinson (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
895. Mrs Nadine Newby (Individual) : 14 Sep 2011 08:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R130
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
896. Ms Ada Newell (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 11:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN33#
897. Mrs J M Newton (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
RN207 RN208
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
898. Mr Mike Norton (Individual) : 4 Aug 2011 16:15:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R17#, R100#, RN154#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I have written on several previous occasions regarding the importance of these sites and as I understand those views will still be considered for this consultation I will not repeat my views. However, I do wish to point out one additional fact.
The reason these 3 sites have been proposed is not for the benefit of the development of the town but purely to serve the proposers' interests. The proposers for sites RN154 and R100, living on Sedbergh Road and Castle Green Lane, will both be affected by the proposed development of the land at R121M. Therefore, I believe they are only proposing alternative sites, that the Council has already considered and dismissed in the previous consultation period, in the hope that the Council will change their minds on site R121M. I strongly feel that the Council's previous designation as Amenity Open Space (AS97) should remain for these two sites.
The proposer for site R17, again previously consulted on and designated as Public Open Space (PS206)is acting on behalf of the landowner who clearly wishes to squeeze houses onto this small site for financial gain, disregarding the importance of the site for the residents who use it. Again I would strongly urge the Council to keep the previous designation and protect these allotments, and this important green space.
Thank you for your time considering my response.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
With Government policy constantly changing, and already changed since SLDC started this process, the shorter time frame the better to allow the council to respond to these changes, and not build unnecessary houses that are no longer required by Government targets.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
If this is the best way for larger communities, I don't see any difference for smaller communities.
899. Dr Lisa Norton (Individual) : 24 Aug 2011 15:13:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302,ON50, R17
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
RN302 and ON50 should have nothing to do with building companies and have been put forward in part to provide compensation for destruction of adjacent habitat of landscape value in areas poorly sited in terms of impact on traffic entering Kendal and impacts on water flow in areas R121 and R56.
R17 I have already objected to, but would like to add that the creation of 3 houses (which are unlikely to be inexpensive) therefore providing little ease to housing problems in Kendal, are not worth the sacrifice of a valuable ecological habitat with high social value.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Things may change in the shorter term and it may be realised for example, that the demand for housing is not as anticipated.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Local people know best what is needed and where it may be appropriate to develop
900. Mr Mike Norton (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
901. Mr Stan O'Connor (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 18:14:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN303
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site was not chosen by the SLDC in their land development proposals and the reasons that led to its exclusion are still valid i.e coalescence with Oxenholme, loss of agricultural land, the worsening of existing traffic problems, visual impact on environment etc. We should adhere to the principle that new development in Natland should continue to be infill, and not further extend the village boundaries which, when added to previous developments, would destroy the concept of Natland as a village. As Natland has no industry, residents normally work in Kendal. Surely it would be more sensible to develop approved sites in Kendal and see how demand for houses is being met, before building on sensitive green field sites such as the one in this proposal.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A reduction in the time span will reduce the number of approved sites and enable us to ascertain eatlier the progress made in resolving housing demand thus testing the validity of the development plan proposals.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Providing Government guidelines do not enable developers to add to the agreed sites in The Land Allocations Document.
902. Mr K O'Farrell (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R31#
903. Mr & Mrs Anthony & Jan Offer (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 09:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON26#, RN15#, R689#
904. Mr & Mrs John and Camille Ogden (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#, ON50#
905. Mr & Mrs John and Camille Ogden (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
906. Mr & Mrs John and Camille Ogden (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
907. Mr and Mrs A & M O'Hara (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
908. Mr and Mrs A & M O'Hara (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
909. Mr and Mrs Ian & Vanessa Oldham (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
910. Mr and Mrs Ian & Vanessa Oldham (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
911. Ms Catherine Oldham (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
912. Mr & Mrs Chris & Mary Ormerod (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328#, RN105#, RN106#, RN242#, RN234#, RN243#, R685SW#, R686SW#
913. Mr & Mrs Chris & Mary Ormerod (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
914. Mr & Mrs Chris & Mary Ormerod (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
915. Mr John Owen (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316 RN326
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
916. Dr C D Paice (Individual) : 13 Sep 2011 14:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN205#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
917. Dr C D Paice (Individual) : 13 Sep 2011 15:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
918. Mrs Jennifer Paley (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 10:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON51#, RN256#, RN298#, RN303#
919. Mrs Joanne Park (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 17:44:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# M11M# MN6#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose the proposed development of the green gap(green field) site especially the new suggestion for retail use/superstore.This is an important green gap that separates Swarthmoor and Ulverston and is ouside the planning boundary for Ulverston.
We are already over catered for by huge 24 hour superstores in this area which have closed many Barrow town centre shops and now it seems our local market town Ulverston is to go the same way.There would be a significant loss of employment and only a few low paid jobs made.
The A590, in this section especially, is at saturation with severe congestion, multiple accidents (fatalities)and narrow collision spots.It is madness to add to this with more ribbon development.
I urge you to stop any development on this site and preserve this unique market town.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
think it's fairer to go out to proper consultation and not for individuals to suggest sites just to make money.
920. Mr and Mrs S & J Park (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
921. Mr and Mrs S & J Park (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
922. Mr David Parker (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
923. Mr Ian Parker (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
924. Mr & Mrs Duncan and Allison Parkes (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E50# E51# E52# E53# E54# E55# E56# ON56# RN280# RN322#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
925. Mr and Mrs Lee and Debbie Parkinson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
926. Mr and Mrs Lee and Debbie Parkinson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R686SW#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
927. Mr and Mrs Lee and Debbie Parkinson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
928. Mr and Mrs Lee and Debbie Parkinson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN106#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
929. Mr and Mrs Lee and Debbie Parkinson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN234#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
930. Mr and Mrs Lee and Debbie Parkinson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN242#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
931. Mr and Mrs Lee and Debbie Parkinson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 14:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN243#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
932. Mr & Mrs Parrish (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
933. Mr and Mrs H W Parrott (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Slackhead
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN233#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
934. Ms Barbara Parsons (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 07:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291 RN282
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
935. Ms Laura Parsons (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 13:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#, RN282#, RN295#, EN45#, R105#, R142#, RN127#, RN123#,
936. Mr and Ms Jeremy and Barbara Parsons (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#, RN282#
937. Mr/s H Parsons (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
938. Mrs Dorothy Pass (Individual) : 11 Aug 2011 13:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN315#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The author of the Story Homes submission seems to have ignored the reasons given in the Fact File document for restricting the original R109 option to the Emerging Option RN109M for the simple reason that RN109M provides sufficient space for the number of houses thought to be required. “Development on this scale would be inappropriate in the context of the Core Strategy…..”.
Story Homes is a Carlisle based builder who would no doubt love to become established in the south of the county but who might not be satisfied with the potential offered by RN109M. Hence, the cynical attempt to increase the size of the cherry.
There has been a mass of objections to RN109M and they all apply equally to this latest proposal i.e. RN315#
The best options have been identified repeatedly and they should be adopted as Emerging Options instead of the sites to the west of the A590. A mistake has been made and now is the time to correct it.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
To give the localisation bill to take over.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The existing arrangements were fine...we don't need the LA process.
939. Mr Christopher Patching (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:12:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
HEVERSHAM AND LEASGILL
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R109 RN325 RN310 RN221 R167 RN326
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Heversham and Leasgill have been designated a rural village where only limited development should be allowed under the definitions of “infill” and “rounding off”.
The village lies within an area designated by the revised Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance Toolkit (CLCG) as 8b Broad Valleys. Core Strategy policy CS8.2 identifies that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character landscape types identified in the CLCG.
With regard to development the CLCG identifies the importance to conserve and protect the character of historic stone built villages in their landscape settings. To minimise the impact of housing development by careful siting, avoiding open valley floors and obstruction of corridor views. Setting high standards of landscape treatment.
The village lies on the eastern edge of the valley floor. We can all enjoy the open views to the West of the village over towards the upper tidal estuary of Morecambe Bay and the wide open floodplain of the river Kent (areas of national and ecological importance) which are backed by ancient mosses and hillsides. It is also crossed by the Cumbria cycleway.
Also,to the East the land rises up to Heversham head.
Core Strategy policy CS8.2 also identifies the importance of “Green Gaps”:
1. To avoid coalescence between settlements.
2. To maintain a settlement’s identity, landscape setting and character.
3. Comprise predominantly open land maintaining an “open” aspect.
4. Where possible afford recreational and biodiversity opportunities.
It would not be consistent with these policies to develop every Greenfield space along the road side, which would also destroy the rural aspect and character of the village when viewed from the wider landscape or as you travel through the village. Also, it would not be consistent with the definition of “infill” or “rounding off” where there is not a built-up street frontage, or areas of previously developed land particularly to the North of the village.
The following alternative sites put forward cannot be seen as better options due to:
R109 (including RN324) visually more prominent site when viewed from the A6 and entrance to village and as you travel through village. Not infill or rounding off. Weaker scores on SA.
RN325 (part of R75) visually more prominent site when viewed from A6 and coastal road due to steep slope of site and relationship with surrounding open countryside. Would obstruct the only “open” valley views towards estuary and beyond which we all can enjoy and should be treated as a “green gap”. Not infill or rounding off. Weaker scores on SA. Multiple ownership.
RN310 (part of R75) problems with access off very narrow side road. Not infill or rounding off. Multiple ownership.
RN221 problem with narrow access past listed Plum Tree Hall giving weaker score on SA. Not infill or rounding off.
R167 problem with narrow access past school. Not infill or rounding off.
RN326 large site considering village status; but RN316, or part of, could be considered an alternative.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Due to the changing circumstances in the economy and with new government proposals, it is sensible to have a review part way through the plan period.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
940. Mrs Anne Pater (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
941. Mrs Anne Pater (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
942. Mr Geoffrey Payne (Individual) : 3 Sep 2011 12:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The whole of this site is proposed for housing.This is not in accordance with the core strategy and is confirmed in an email to me dated 09/08/11 from Alistair McNeill, which went on to say a smaller part of the site may be considered for allocation
I oppose the proposal by Holker on the basis that it is for the whole of this site to be allocated for housing. I have not seen any smaller part of this site as an option for housing.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
2020 or 2025 is a long time ahead. Plans will need to change as requirements will inevitably change.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This option will better provide for the need at any particular time in the future
943. Ms Kathleen Pearson (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 11:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN339#, RN72#, RN79#, RN347#, RN230#, RN265#, RN224#, RN195#, RN86#, RN37#
944. Mrs Kath Pearson (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 09:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
945. Mr & Ms B & E Pease (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 11:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#, ON56#
946. Mr Geoff Pegg (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
947. Mr Geoff Pegg (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 11:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Holme
948. Mr Allen Toby Pennington (Individual) : 30 Aug 2011 18:47:00
Rame Farm, Plumpton Woods and land towards Next Ness, N of Ulverston Canal, Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN246#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. Flood liability due to low lying nature. This area has been frequently flooded in the near past. There is also the concern that a housing estate would disturb runoff and/or the ability of the ground to absorb water thus increasing the chances of flooding offsite.
2. The access roads via Tebay and Alpine lane are totally inadequate to the task of supporting volumes of traffic represented by both construction and end use.
3. The proposal impacts on a a geological SSSI
4. The proposal impacts on a RAMSAR site and inland nesting sites for rare birds
5. Recreationally activities in the area would be curtailed. The paths across the area are presently in use by Ulverston residents
6. Danger represented by the nearby closed dump with ground water seepage on the boundary of the site. This has occurred in the past.
7 The site is not within the Ulverston development boundary
8 Geo-technical issues due to the presence of ancient iron works.
9 The character of the view from both the Hode and Morecombe bay may be adversely effected[amongst various locations].
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
hasty planning applications such as this represent an inability to plan for the long term. It would also allow propsals to pass because concerns were not renewed
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
option B is meaningless. It is a charter for relatively powerful interest groups to manipulate the planning process by recruiting agents from within the community which is likely to cause a great deal of harm.
949. Mr & Mrs David & Janet Pennington (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 16:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN154#, MN22#
950. Mr and Mrs M Pennington (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
951. Mrs C J Penwarden (Individual) : 14 Sep 2011 08:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
952. Ms Kay Percival (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:58:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This should be kept as Greenfield site, otherwise this is going to end up as part of a ribbon development towards Swarthmoor and then Barrow.
I strongly oppose it being developed and losing Green Gap Protection.
If it were developed, it should not be used for retail under any circumstances - this would kill the town's vitality and vibrancy and:
a) bring traffic chaos - which I know as I travel the route daily is already severe at times
b) create an out of town centre which would mean people bypass the town
c) undermine local businesses and traders and Ulverston's vitality
d) not create any high value jobs, and put the money into the pockets of out of town superstores
I oppose any development, and particularly designation to retail
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Must be long term
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Should be a matter for consultation
953. Ms Judy Pickthall (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
954. C & J Pickthall (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN211#, RN63#, RN11#, RN329#
955. Mr and Mrs Neville and Kate Pinkney (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M40# R140#
956. Ms Sheila Pittard (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 08:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange over Sands
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
957. Mr Alan Pixton (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 16:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316#, RN326#, RN118M, R48M
958. Mr Dennis Pook (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
959. J & G Poole (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
960. J & G Poole (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
961. Mr and Mrs Anthony and Edna Porter (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
962. Mr Barry Postlethwaite (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
KIRKBY-IN-FURNESS
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN330# EN58# RN13#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
RN330# No Access to these fields without granting the fields already marked in Red( R189M ) These fields( R189M) have been refused planning previously, as I'm sure you know, as the campaign must be very well documented.
EN58# There are enough Industrial Units standing empty in the Furness area , plus access into any units on this site would bring traffic out on the already dangerous Four lane ends junction on the A590.
RN13# The road to this site is narrow, has many parked vehicles making Access difficult.Off road residents parking and parking of patrons using the Beckside rooms causes vitual gridlock at certain times. I do not see this land as suitable.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Local Parish councils/ Housing groups are more in touch with Village needs than County/District Councils .
963. Mr John Postlethwaite (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R692ULV
964. Mr & Mrs D Postlethwaite (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#, R339#, RN84#, M32#, RN37#, RN82#, RN224#
965. Mr & Ms James & Katherine Pottinger (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 11:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
966. Mr/s L Pratt (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
967. Mr David John Prescott (Individual) : 1 Aug 2011 13:24:00
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
For development to be acceptable and successful, the majority of the community must be supportive.
Additionally, there are a considerable number of sustainability issues that are not supported by a large scale overview
968. Mr John Preston (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 17:30:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. As this land is significantly higher than Fairbank, unless drastic re-levelling was undertaken, any properties on this site would "over-look" properties on Fairbank such as Glebe Court and The Old Schoolhouse. There would be an intolerable loss of privacy. The land is roughly at roof level to The Old Schoolhouse.
2. Traffic to and from the site. a) There is already a significant parking problem on Fairbank which has resulted in CCC painting double yellow lines to control parking. It would become necessary to ban parking throughout Fairbank, which in the absence of alternative parking facilities, would cause major problems in the town centre (and act as a disincentive to visitors).
b) The principal access to the site would be via Mitchelgate, thence to Fairbank. From the site principal egress from Fairbank would be via Market Street and Main Street. Neither Mitchelgate nor Market Street and Main Street are suitable roads for increased traffic (and cannot be improved).
3. The site at present acts as a visual link between the urban town centre and the surrounding countryside. If built upon, the link is lost and Kirkby Lonsdale becomes ever more urban in nature, ceasing to be a "country" market town.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Any purchaser of property in Kirkby Lonsdale, surely has a right to know whether and where there will be further development, firm for a decent period of time. Reducing the plan period increases the sense of this being a lottery. In any case it looks probable that economic forces will constrain development for at least the next five years
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As above (2), there should be certainty ahead as which sites are to be developed and which are not.
969. Mr W Preston (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 11:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON45#
970. Mr W. B. Preston (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON45#
971. Mr Alan Procter (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
972. Mr E Proctor (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E15#, EN57#, R14#, R109#, R39#, R445#, R167#, RN221#, RN251#, RN252#, RN296#, RN310#, RN324#, RN325#, RN316#, RN326#
973. Mr & Mrs Stephen & Lynne Proctor (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
974. Mr & Mrs Stephen & Lynne Proctor (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
975. Mr Leslie Pye (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244# R130# R685Sw#
976. Mrs K P R Radcliffe (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 12:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
977. Mrs Joan Ratcliffe (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 15:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
978. Mr and Mrs Stephen and Ruth Read (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 13:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#, RN282#, R142#, R105#, EN45#
979. Mrs Olive Norma Reddish (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:31:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R339#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Most of these alternative sites were in the original proposal which were discarded in favour of sites on the periphery of the village, these I believe would have met the given targets.
It seems as though we are now going down the way of urban sprawl and turning Allithwaite into a domitory town, taking all the green spaces out of the village. The infrastuture within the village could not take the amount of buildings that are now being proposed, most of which will go to second homes, destroying the village even more.
The area suggested which is bordered by Vicarage Lane and Green Lane is the only green area within this part of the village. The land does not drain rainfall fully when rain has been heavy and this seeps into Green Lane alongside the field. Should this be removed to provide multiple houses which will have hard standing and pathways the drainage problem would inevitably be increased.
In addition to this there will be the increase in vehicles which will add to the already increased traffic travelling along Green Lane, which has grown greatly in the last 10 years when houses have changed ownership and there are two/three car ownerships now to many properties. Green Lane is already suffering from not only increased traffic from householders but also Home Delivery vehicles and commercial vehicles.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
By reducing your time span, you are losing the opportunity to review at appropriate stages the possibility to make amendments where required to your plans to suit the needs of the area.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
If left to local communities and developers plans are not formatted for the benefit of the area only for the greed of the developers and land owners.
980. Mr David Redgrave (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 18:33:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Flookburgh & Cark Airfield
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN263#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Access to the proposed area is via Moor Lane which is accessed from the square in the centre of Flookburgh - this lane has very narrow access from the square, & the junction is very poor in terms of line of sight. In summer there is already considerable traffic from the holiday park at the end of Moor Lane, & Flookburgh square can be chaotic as there is also an increasing number of shops, a parking area & pedestrians dodging the traffic that enters the square from 4 different directions. There are few pavements around the square, and none on Moor lane as it leaves the square - I have seen many near misses as cars & pedestrians dodge each other. Flookburgh cannot cope with yet more traffic generated from housing development off Moor Lane, and the scale of the housing proposals seems totally out of keeping with the size of the village. There are no jobs in this area, so most houses are likely to be sold either as second homes or will result in people moving in who have to travel considerable distances to major employment centres - why not build homes closer to where the work is?
The Cark airfield area also appears to be flood plain, & the problems associated with housing developments in such areas are now well understood - building on this land will exacerbate potential flooding problems
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Communities are better placed to understand their own needs than remote officials
981. Mrs M E Reed (Individual) : 16 Sep 2011 15:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
982. Mr Andrew Renwick (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
983. T K & W K Reynolds (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
984. T K & W K Reynolds (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 16:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
985. Mr Les Richards (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 07:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13 RN329
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
986. Mrs Doris Richardson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 11:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
987. Mrs Brenda Richardson (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 14:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON56#, RN280#
988. Mr & Ms Terry & Janet Ridal (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R686SW#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
989. Mr and Mrs Ian and Amanda Rigg (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON43 (existing site includes EN35, EN36, ON24, ON25 & part of M27
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
990. Mr & Mrs S & G M Riley (Individual) : 2 Sep 2011 15:43:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal South East
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R100, R154 and R121, ON50, RN302
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I would like to express my objections to any proposed developement to sites R100 and R154 - Kendal Castle is very much the historical hub of the town, recognised by the amount of TLC and money spent on it in recent years, by building on these sites views from Parkside Rd and Castle Green Lane would be obliterated - not only of the castle but of the stunning landscape of Scouts Scar beyond. Very few, if any, of the roads into Kendal aford such an uninterupted view of the Kendal Castle born out by the amount of local people and visitors alike who congregate to watch the fireworks display on Nov. 5th.
The amendments to R121, being RN302 and ON50 have no less impact than the original proposal. It is because of this that I am opposed to this amendment. The affects such developement would have on protected wildlife is no less serious.
I would also like to point out by developing any of these sites good agriculural land would be a great loss to the local farmers and their livelihood, who use these fields for grazing purpose.
I thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
991. Mr & Mrs S & G M Riley (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
992. Mr & Mrs S & G M Riley (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
993. Mr John Ritchie (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
994. Mr Graham Rivers (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 11:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Flookburgh
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN158 RN159 RN160 RN263 RN286 RN309 EN49 EN42 EN25 EN41
995. Ms Sarah Roberts (Individual) : 3 Sep 2011 14:19:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON51#, RN256#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In principle I would support either of these proposals as there is a demonstrable need for parking in the centre of the village, particularly for vehicles associated with the school, church and village hall. However, for the safety of hall users, vehicle access to any development should not be past the front of the village hall. (I am not sure whether this is currently a public byway, but there is certainly a right of access for 5 existing houses and the field gate, which already creates difficulties on occasion.) Any access to a car park under these proposals should be on Oxenholme Lane, with access also available from Natland Road for RN256#. I would also have concerns about the extent of RN256# frontage on Natland Road – frontage for an access road to the site would be necessary but I would not be in support of any housing which adjoined Natland Road.
The sites lie near the centre of the village and largely within the convex envelope defined by existing development so would not have significant visual impact. They also counter the trend for creeping expansion of the village particularly to the south and east.
The financial viability of ON51# as a proposal is doubtful as, unlike RN256# which includes some housing development, there is no mechanism for funding a car park.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Support for 'local' option B in respect of housing and employment land needs in villages and hamlets, but believe that there should be wider oversight in respect of open countryside.
996. Ms Sarah Roberts (Individual) : 3 Sep 2011 14:21:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
RN298#
Oppose this proposal as it slices a little more off the green gap separating Natland from Oxenholme – creeping coalescence. Also there is no way this site could be developed without a road along the narrow site, and the narrowness means that there could probably be houses on one side only – leaving it highly likely that there would be calls for future development to the east on the other side of any road!
RN303#
Oppose this proposal as it substantially destroys the green gap between Natland and Oxenholme.
997. Dr James Robertson (Individual) : 21 Aug 2011 13:10:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Appleby Road, Kendal
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Proposals for development on green fields in Appleby Road Kendal need to consider not just additionally generated traffic flows along Appleby road, but the consequential knock on effect of decrease in flow along, and out of the T junction between, Sandylands Rd and Appleby Road, worsening the problematic congestion and severe detriment to residents already occurring.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The planning period should be commensurate with the likely impact of development, broadly related to the life of buildings and their use, ie at least 60 years.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B encourages development for private gain, which is unlikely to consider the overall benefit/loss for the community as a whole.
998. Mr Stuart Robertson (Individual) : 29 Aug 2011 23:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656# R138#, R471#, R98#, RN281#, RN305#, RN318#, RN323#, RN42# and RN43#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I have already submitted objections (on 24 Jul 08) to land development in Ackenthwaite during the first round of consultation, those being that I oppose development on the grounds of:
a. Poor initial consultation;
b. Inability to improve necessary infrastructure (roads and pavements) on Ackenthwaite Road due to existing housing;
c. No credible plan in place by South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) to improve infrastructure (schools and recreation facilities) to support additional housing;
d. Retaining Ackenthwaite as a green belt site and avoiding a “patchwork” effect of urban development in rural areas;
e. Poor drainage on the site;
f. Inconsistency of the proposed building sites with the SLDC Core Strategy planning policy, and;
g. More suitable alternative sites existing in Kendal and Milnthorpe.
Therefore, I will not repeat all my arguments in detail here, as my original letter remains extant. I do however, express deep concern that despite my original objection and several others from the local community, it has taken proposals by only two parties (Mr and Mrs Conway and Mr S Gilyatt) to require this second consolation period for area R656#; this is despite the SLDC having discounted R656# after the first consolation period. As such, there appears to have been excessive weight given to the sponsors of the latest development proposals in this area for what is essentially, a minority interest and does not represent the majority view in the local community. Equally concerning is the fact that this second consultation period has been instigated to explore ‘alternative sites for consideration.’ As site R656# was in the original consultation document it is, by definition, not an alternative site and therefore, does not warrant a second consultation period. In short, this second consultation period for area R656# is undemocratic, unnecessary and a waste of SLDC resources and taxpayers money.
Equally other alternative sites around Ackenthwaite (R138#, R471#, R98#, RN281#, RN305#, RN318#, RN323#, RN42# and RN43#) only have one or two proposers, which again, makes this second consultation period appear redundant, excessive and does not reflect the majority local interest; in sum, again it is undemocratic.
Local residents were also lead to believe that the SLDC preferred sites (decided after the first round of consultation) west of St Antony’s Hill and east Milnthorpe (sites R624M and RN140), more than met the housing targets that SLDC had set. Why this situation has suddenly been reversed on the strength of an application by one or two parties, simply lacks credibility and transparency towards objective council planning.
While it is encouraging that Mr and Mrs Conway and Mr Giylatt have taken an active interest in the Land Allocations document (LAd), I do not believe their arguments stand up to scrutiny. The Conway’s objected to areas adjacent to Firs road (R462M and R151M) because it is too steep and subject to flooding. They also point out that the A6 is a busy road and could not take additional traffic. They suggest R656# as an alternative, but I would point out that this area too is steep and regularly floods, thus the rationale for suggesting R656# seems ill researched, hypocritical and lacks credibility. Similarly Ackenthwaite Road and Haverfalts Lane cannot be widened due to existing housing so existing road infrastructure could not support additional housing; traffic in Ackenthwaite would not just be busy, but simply dangerous to existing residents in comparison to the A6.
Mr Giylatt makes a compelling and extensive argument in opposing housing on site R151M as it would be developing a green field area that would affect Milnthorpe’s main face to the public. Mr Giylatt suggests that practically all areas surrounding Ackenthwaite should instead, be used for housing. This seems at odds with the thrust of his objection to protect green sites making his argument appear inconsistent. Additionally Mr Giylatt points out that traffic on the A6 is already at levels where more housing and associated vehicular activity in this particular area would be “unsafe and unwanted.” I would again contend that given the current road structure in Ackenthwaite, roads would have to be expanded to enable vehicle and footpath access to any new housing projects. Such a move would require demolishing houses in Ackenthwaite Road and Haverfalts Lane adjacent to Owlets Ash Fields. This seems counter productive when the object of the LAd is to build, not destroy, housing. Mr Gilyatt also suggests that Ackenthwaite is a “soulless cluster of predominantly low cost and/or affordable housing”. This is simply inaccurate as there are many dwellings in Ackenthwaite, which are some 200 years old and have as much right to heritage as any other residence in Milnthorpe. Ackenthwaite is separate from Milnthorpe and viewed by SLDC as an open rural area, thus doubling the size of its residential footprint over a short period of time is unsustainable, inappropriate and unnecessary. Ultimately Mr Giylatt’s argument concentrates on protection of existing green land and potential excessive traffic in an area close to residence. It does not accurately consider road infrastructure in Ackenthwaite, development of facilities in Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite, drainage, Ackenthwaite’s heritage, Ackenthwaite’s right to preservation and the inconsistency of his suggestions with SLDC core strategy of sustainable housing development. As such his suggestion to develop Ackenthwaite for housing is simply moribund, ill conceived and should not be supported by SLDC.
It is worth again highlighting that Ackenthwaite is not only a green field site, but one which supports local agriculture. It should be remembered that agriculture is a key economic employer in the local area which requires robust support from the council following the foot and mouth crisis in recent years and current economic downturn in farming; taking away viable agricultural land would be counter productive in this sense. Green sites around Ackenthwaite should only be used for irreversible housing development if the Ackenthwaite area is critically short of housing; the situation after the first consultation period suggests the housing problem is no longer critical after the identification of preferred sites elsewhere.
Should development be granted on R656# and associated sites around Ackenthwaite, subsequent housing would simply cause a patchwork of urban development in a green area when alternative brown sites or natural areas for expansion already exist in larger urban areas such as Kendal. Also, the inevitable increase in local traffic could not be sustained given the current road and pathway network. Given the local topography of housing in Ackenthewaite, network expansion would be impossible unless existing housing is demolished. Therefore, I strongly believe that the plans to build in north Ackenthwaite (R656#) and surrounding areas around the village, lack intellectual rigour and should not be supported.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Given that the current Land Allocations document (LAd) has so far, been ongoing for eight years and has yet to come to a final conclusion that is fit for ministerial approval, (not to mention currently enduring a second and arguably unnecessary consultation period), this strongly suggests that shortening the LAd to by say five years, will simply cause a situation where local land planning will be under constant review. When considering current progress to date, it is conceivable to suggest that by the time this LAd has been completed under a shorter timeframe, another plan will have to be started. As such, local residents and planners will be in a perpetual state of uncertainty and turmoil with no realistic, clear or sustained housing policy. Instead an ever-changing policy with moving goal posts is likely to evolve which will lack coherence, focus and credibility for local industry, developers and residents. Therefore, I oppose a reduction in the time span of the LAd.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Without doubt, by empowering local communities, businesses and developers to bring forward and argue plans in an open manner via Core Strategies and local plans and initiatives, a more credible method of development planning is achieved than using a single Land Allocations document (LAd). If the local council provides an overarching development policy or strategy, local communities can use this as a “handrail” in assessing and considering local development. Local communities are best placed to decide on development decisions, as they logically understand local topography, mood and aspirations better than a centralised and distant coordination cell or LAd.
The current situation ultimately gives the council exclusive judgement in matters that are often extremely sensitive and important to local residents, which cannot be fully understood by a centralised planning team. By empowering local communities to make development decisions, residents will not only take ownership and responsibility for key strategic planning, but will increasingly take pride in their local area. This naturally leads to a stronger sense of community, greater social well-being, more proactive citizens in the political process and happier residents in South Lakeland. The current method of allocating land via a LAd does not offer these benefits and is ultimately disingenuous to local aspiration or thought.
999. Mr Stuart Robertson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 14:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1000. Miss Sylvia M.C Robertson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange over Sands
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN260#
1001. Mr & Mrs Andy and Vickie Robinson (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 10:14:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal - Castle Ward
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Map: The map published for the public consultation is wrong as it shows site MN22# having access to Parkside Road over land that is not owned by the proponent. Permission to include this adjoining land for development purposes is unlikely to be given.
Access: As access is not possible onto Parkside Road the only access to the site is on the corner of Parkside Road and Singleton Park Road. The current access would need to be enlarged, which could only be along Singleton Park Road making it impossible to construct a mini roundabout with Parkside Road.
Traffic Dangers: Singleton Park Road (A684) is the main feeder route to junction 37 of the M6. It is a very busy road used by many different vehicles (cars, motorbikes, tractors and articulated lorries) and pedestrians (there is no formal footpath on this road). Vehicles travelling down the hill from the M6 to Kendal are usually travelling fast and there are no natural deceleration points before the Parkside Road junction. Due to the size of the vehicles using the A684 it is considered a mini roundabout would be insufficient and a larger roundabout would be difficult to construct incorporating Parkside Road, the proposed site and the entrance to the Business and Training Centre of The Castle Green Hotel. In addition, there is also a very popular footpath to Spindle Wood and Paddy Lane opposite Parkside Road. Consequently, an escalation in vehicle numbers due to the proposed site will considerably increase the danger of accidents, with possible fatal results, at this already busy junction.
Car Transportation: The proposer states, in support of the previous consultation, that “Car transport to town services would not be essential given the short walk to the frequent Larch Grove bus circular.” It is accepted that people may use the local bus service to go to the town centre but they will need vehicles for other purposes, including taking children to school and going to work. These days most households own 2 cars, therefore, with a proposed development of 100 houses a possible additional 200 vehicles might be wanting to access Singleton Park Road, many also using Parkside Road with it’s already limited traffic flow under the railway bridge, thereby exacerbating the congestion on this busy road. In addition, it is felt that more vehicles would use the “rat run” through Valley Drive to avoid the traffic lights at the junction of Parkside Road and Lound Road.
Flood Risk: This site is subjected to frequent flooding caused by water run off from the A684 and also from springs and cisterns in Birklands that were piped to the old Parkside estate, and are still in existence, as shown on the old estate plans held by Cumbria County Archives.
Stream Contamination: A stream runs through this site and is used as a source of water by livestock further downstream. If contaminated surface water discharges into the stream the water quality will be severely affected and the health of livestock put at risk.
Trees: Various trees on the site are subject to Preservation Orders and if access to the site is enlarged several of these preserved trees will need to be felled.
Bats: Numerous bats are seen, at dusk, in the gardens of neighbouring properties. It is not known where they roost but tree habitats support nearly all species of bats and play a fundamental role in their life cycle. Waterways provide the water that bats’ need in order to re-hydrate and also attract midges and other flying insects that are their food source. It could be that the woodland belt running alongside Singleton Park Road, and the stream running through the site, support a bat colony or they may be roosting in neighbouring woods. Further research would need to be carried out to establish this but any alteration to their natural habitat could be devastating to their survival.
Development Boundary: This site is currently outside the existing development boundary. If permission is granted to develop this site, and the development boundary altered, it would create a precedent for further development along this busy road corridor to the M6. The A684 road is much too dangerous to encourage this. In addition, it is contrary to the 2025 Spatial Vision for South Lakeland which states “Towns and villages have been kept distinct from one another by protecting important green gaps.”
Commissioned Reports:
SLDC commissioned Treweek Environmental Consultants to carry out a screening of their Core Strategy. The company produced it’s report in March 2008 and although primarily concerned with the effect on European Sites within SLDC’s area their findings are applicable to many proposed development sites within Kendal. This is because the River Kent is listed with a European Site Status of Special Area of Conservation. The report, at section 3.1 on page 13, lists various factors that can have a significant effect on European Sites including; waste water, increased traffic levels, increased emissions with the associated atmospheric pollution, noise, vibration and other nuisances. All new developments will produce the significant effects listed in the report and, consequently, have an impact on the biodiversity of the River Kent.
Kendal Town Council commissioned Galpin Landscape Architecture to carry out a Local Level Landscape Character Assessment. Their report was published in March 2011 and it specifically identifies land South of Parkside Road, which they call area K4. This area contains all of site MN22# and it states that the area K4 has a medium to high environmental sensitivity due to the visual amenity value of the woodland and the historic environment of the parkland setting. It also states, unequivocally, that there is NO capacity for development on this site.
These reports have been obtained at some considerable cost, therefore, if their findings and recommendations are ignored it has to be asked what was the purpose of commissioning the reports and the associated expenditure.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
SLDC's Core Strategy is until 2025 therefore the land allocation timeframe should be for the same period.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Communities are best placed to understand their own local development needs/requirements. If, as is hoped, the Land Allocation document is incorporated into Core Strategy Polices then Option B must be the preferred option.
1002. Mr & Mrs Andy and Vickie Robinson (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 17:35:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal - Castle Ward
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN154# and R100#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Access: It is assumed that access to these sites would be from Castle Green Lane and, due to the bend and hill on this road, would have to be between Parkside Road and the main entrance to the Castle Green Hotel, being the straighter stretch of road.
Traffic Dangers: Castle Green Lane and then Singleton Park Road (A684) is the main feeder route to junction 37 of the M6. It is a very busy road used by many different vehicles in particular articulated lorries, which have to use Castle Green Lane to avoid the low bridge on Parkside Road. Vehicles travelling from the M6 to Kendal are usually travelling fast and there are no natural deceleration points before reaching the bend and hill after the hotel. Consequently, any escalation in vehicle numbers due to the proposed site will considerably increase the danger of accidents, with possible fatal results, at a new junction on this already busy road.
Increased Vehicle Movement: The combined size of the 2 sites is about 5.45ha. At the average building density this would allow approximately 150 new houses to be built. These days most households own 2 cars, therefore, a possible additional 300 vehicles might be wanting to access Castle Green Lane, many using Parkside Road with it’s already limited traffic flow under the railway bridge, thereby exacerbating the congestion on this busy road. In addition, it is felt that more vehicles would use the “rat run” through Valley Drive to avoid the traffic lights at the junction of Parkside Road and Lound Road. There would also be increased traffic flow on Sandylands Road, increasing congestion at the junction with Appleby Road, and also on Ann Street, which is extremely difficult to drive along already with cars parked on both sides of the road. Additional vehicles on these 2 roads would result in standing traffic, with a consequential increase in air pollution from exhaust fumes.
Trees: Various trees on the site are subject to a Preservation Order.
Kendal Castle: Kendal Castle on Castle Hill is the first sight of Kendal when driving along the A684. Its importance as part of Kendal’s heritage, its dominant position overlooking the town and its historical interest make it a place well deserving of the major repair work to masonry, landscaping and changes to animal grazing habits that were carried out at the end of the last millennium. It is a tourist attraction as well as a local landmark so it must be hoped that the councillors, and the planning officials, will have some regard to this unique historic monument before deciding to obliterate the view of it with lots of modern houses.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
SLDC's Core Strategy is until 2025 therefore the land allocation timeframe should be for the same period
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Communities are best placed to understand their own local development needs/requirements. If, as is hoped, the Land Allocation document is incorporated into Core Stategy Policies then Option B must be the preferred option.
1003. Mr Andrew Robinson (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 09:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R193# R178# ON45# RM311#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1004. Mr John Martin Robinson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 13:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1005. Dr Stanley Robinson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
1006. Mr & Mrs Bryan & Irene Robinson (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 11:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
1007. Mr Dennis Robinson (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 14:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN303#
1008. Mr Austen Robinson (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 15:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R17#, R100#, RN154#
1009. Mr Austen Robinson (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 15:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
1010. Mr Austen Robinson (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
1011. Mrs Anne Robinson (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 13:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
1012. Marilyn & A Robinson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121
1013. Mr Austen Robinson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#, ON50#
1014. Mr Austen Robinson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
General
1015. Mrs Deborah Robinson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
1016. Mr Austen Robinson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1017. Marilyn & A Robinson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1018. Mrs June Rodick (Individual) : 30 Aug 2011 15:58:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
HOLME
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN33
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1.Placing of industrial/business development in a residential area.
2.Other sites already exist within the village for this purpose.
3.We feel it is essential to protect the land adjacent to the canal throughout the village from further development.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Any future housing/business development should be driven by demand.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Should be in response to our community's needs.
1019. Mr/s G Rodway (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1020. Mr Ralph Rogerson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
1021. M Rogerson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1022. Mr D W Roper (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
1023. Mr Johnston Ross (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 10:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R100#, RN154#, R17#
1024. Mrs Sandra Ross (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
1025. K M & R Ross (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1026. K M & R Ross (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1027. Mr Kevin Routledge (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1028. R Routledge (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1029. Mr R Rowan (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sdegwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
1030. Prof & Mrs J & Y Rowan Robinson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON51#
1031. Prof & Mrs J & Y Rowan Robinson (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
1032. Mr & Mrs J Rowlinson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN49
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1033. Mr & Mrs Frank R & Barbara M Rush (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 12:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN319#
1034. Mr Roger Rushton (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 07:34:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
KIRKBY-IN-FURNESS
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN330#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This field would represent a new area of building development and could not be considered "rounding off" or "filling in" a space in an existing settlement.
Traffic is an issue if this site is developed for housing - if an access road were created onto Askew Gate Brow the increased volume of traffic would represent a danger; if a road were made onto the A595 the danger would be even greater.
When taken in addition to the "Emerging Consultations" proposal, the development area proposed on farmland between Sandside and the A590 represents far too big an area. A survey of residents by Kirkby Housing Action Group shows support for not more than 25 new dwellings in the village as a whole, and I understand this is the policy of the Parish Council.
Good farmland should not be lost to housing: planning should ensure that development of only small scale sites of infill or use of brown field sites are allowed.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Local people and their representatives should have more say in land allocations, and presumably a shorter period would allow this.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The recognised need in a village like ours is for low cost or starter homes for local young people and these are not most efficiently delivered by developers who are interested in profit, but by housing associations working with local groups. Presumably Option B would facilitate more local influence.
1035. Mr Roger Rushton (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 07:40:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
KIRKBY-IN-FURNESS
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This field is being put forward as Employment Land, but there seems to be no evidence of a need for employment in the village, nor that any employers want to provide it. The site is not owned by the proposer of the field for employment.
The site is a hill behind the shop at the centre of the village and any development on this hill would inevitably dominate the skyline from all along the A595 and the roads around Four Lane Ends.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1036. Mr Roger Rushton (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 07:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
KIRKBY-IN-FURNESS
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The road from Four Lane Ends to and through Beckside is extremely narrow and already carries too much traffic. Nothing can be done about widening the road through Beckside or near the junction to Ulverston. Adding to the traffic emerging onto the A595 by the shop would be disasterous.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1037. Mrs Julie Rushton (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 10:08:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
KIRKBY-IN-FURNESS
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN330#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is a LARGE area of proposed housing which would substantially alter the rural nature of this village.
It would result in a lot more traffic onto Askew Gate Brow which is narrow - in places two cars cannot pass. Access down into Sandside would be equally problematic.
The proposed area extends way beyond what could be considered 'infill' or 'tidying up'.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I feel strongly that local people should have more control over the place they have chosen to live.
1038. Mrs Julie Rushton (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 10:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
KIRKBY-IN-FURNESS
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is not the right place for business units. It is on a high slope which looks over the central part of the village and would dominate the view from the village. This would detract from the attractive rural aspect of the village.
It would be accessed by the narrow road up to Beckside which is so dangerous that there is a 20 MPH speed limit imposed on it. An increase in traffic in this area would be undesirable.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Those who live in the community should have more control over what happens to it.
1039. Mrs Julie Rushton (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 10:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
KIRKBY-IN-FURNESS
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is undesirable as the access onto the Beckside road would be hazardous. It is a very narrow and windy lane. There are already bottlenecks - places where the houses are so close to those opposite that only one car can pass, and that is with difficulty. More traffic in this part of the village would make an already difficult situation worse.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Local communities should have control over their own environment.
1040. Miss Anne E Rushton (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
1041. Mrs Julie Rushton (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
1042. Ms Katherine Russell (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 08:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swathmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#
1043. Ms Katherine Russell (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
1044. Mr & Mrs J R & J Russell (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1045. Mr & Mrs J R & J Russell (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1046. Mr and Mrs Ron and Rhona Rutter (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 12:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316#, RN326#, RN118M#
1047. Mr Robert J. Ruxton (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 13:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#, R105#
1048. Ian Sager (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 09:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R143# RN254# RN297#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1049. Mrs Marilyn Salisbury (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#, ON50#
1050. Mr & Mrs David & Marilyn Salisbury (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1051. Mr/s A Salisbury (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1052. Mrs Marilyn Salisbury (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1053. Ms Veronica Sanders (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1054. Mrs Catherine Saunders (Individual) : 5 Aug 2011 22:37:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW, R686SW
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This land is ESSENTIAL to Swarthmoor Hall Farm, it is productive farm land. If this land were to be built on it would have a detremental effect on their business.
This land is meant to be preserved as a green gap between Ulverston and Swarthmoor.
Drains already overloaded, needing to be pumped out at least once a week.(Urswick Road)
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Can't comment as don't know the implications of either a long or short time frame.
1055. Mrs Catherine Saunders (Individual) : 5 Aug 2011 22:47:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244 , RN243
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This land is ESSENTIAL to Swarthmoor Hall Farm. Their livlihoods would be threatened should it be built on.
This is a green gap between Ulverston and Swarthmoor, which is meant to be protected.
Drains are already overloaded, having to be pumped out at least once a week.
(RN244) Location to Swarthmoor Hall,(historic Quaker site) is too close.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Very difficult to comment when we don't know the implications of either an earlier or later date.
1056. Mrs Catherine Saunders (Individual) : 5 Aug 2011 22:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN242, RN106
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Closes green gap between Ulverston and Swarthmoor, which is supposed to be protected.
Drains already overloaded, having to be pumped out at least once a week. (Urswick Road)
Roads very busy already, with Urswick Road, Main Road, and Birkett Drive being a rat run.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Can't comment as don't know the implications of either a short or long time frame
1057. Mr/Mrs/s M. Saunders (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1058. Mr Rodney Sayers (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 08:45:00
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The longer time span allows local councils to predict more accurately the housing needs of the area.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In the main, local councils should be encouraged to understand the need for housing in their locality. They know about housing shortages in their area and the reason why.
I would prefer a levy on the council tax for 4 - 5 years which would go to a land trust. The monies raised for this trust would be separate from the Council and could attract another 25% from the Government if set up as a charity. Local councils could then bid for this money as the need for housing in their area was finalised.
The trust would then purchase the land on behalf of the council concerned and the land be free of charge to the developer. This should ensure that only land needed for 'Affordable housing' is identified.
By putting a levy of say £100 (Average)on each counil tax bill per year, the council could raise around £5,000,000 per year for the trust. I note that housing land in North Lancashire is currently fetching around £300,000 per hectare. So 16 - 17 hectares a year could be purchased. Enough for 500 affordable houses without having to rely on giving developers licence to build the other 1,000 houses in the current plan. This would save a lot of land. The land purchased by the trust would be a gift to the purchasers of the affordable housing whether council or private. A return to older values of helping those more in need.
1059. Mr & Mrs Des & Gill Scanlan (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 11:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1060. Mr Brian Schofield (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange over Sands
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN260#
1061. Mrs Geraldine Scott (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 12:02:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This was not supported for development through the previous extensive consultations so I'm not sure why this has come up now. One of the planning officers said to me at the start of all this that "it tidied it up" which is no reason at all for it to be included in these plans. The road through Beckside cannot service any developments that increase traffic along it as it is extremely dangerous as it is with frequent traffic incidents. The road has very narrow parts, completely blind bends and unlit stretches with no pavements at all. School children have to walk up and down the road to get to the bus stops on the main road, as well as anyone wanting to access on foot (or in the case of my neighbour - mobility scooter)the shop, doctor, garage or other service provision in the village. The road also suffers large and fast surface water run off in times of heavy rain as it is steep and removing the natural vegetation which any development would incur, would increase that run off, not only down the road, but also to the houses around - some of which already suffer flooding at times of heavy rain due to the topography. 'Tidying up' would also alter the character of Beckside - turning it into a wind tunnel, closing it all in and removing an open space that is much valued by Becksiders - the people who live here.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option A - because it removes tension from the communities themselves and, in theory, is an open and transparent process but it only works if you listen to what people are saying.
1062. Mr John Seddon (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 12:34:00
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There appears to be no material effect of the proposed alteration.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B seems more aligned with current developments in local community trusts and localism legislation.
It is not practical for a centralised planning authority to give the ideal level of detailed consideration to the small developments which are appropriate in scale to small villages etc. However, even small developments can have a huge impact on the character of those communities. Therefore the the more those communities can be involved in the decision process the better.
1063. Mr Shaun Senior (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 16:02:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal North East
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I write with regard to the proposal to reconsider fields to the rear of Ullswater Road for residential development land, identified as R124, even though this parcel of land was removed as a potential site in the last round of consultations.
My areas of concern are with flooding, access, location, air quality and limited local amenities.
Past flooding in this area to exising houses has potentially been alleviated with the Stock Beck Flood Alleviation scheme; however I understand that issues remain outstanding relating to the success of this scheme, therefore firstly, until its success is proven with the intended adoption by the Environment Agency under no circumstances should additional development even be considered in this area. Any increase in flow to this system, which was not designed for in the alleviation scheme, could have devastating consequences and liabilities for the Council. Does the capacity of the storage reservoir meet its design criteria? I believe not, raising considerable concerns over any increase in additional loadings. Secondly, I understand that discharge from the recent development at Rydal Road (Jenkin Crag) currently discharges into the Stock Beck system, what is the likely impact of this flow if it is not diverted away from this system, as was intended in the planning decision for that site? The attenuation tanks at the Jenkin Crag development are regularly surcharged during rainfall with the property close to flooding on several occasions. Officers from Environmental Health have witnessed firsthand the impact here. Regarding the proposed fields R124, this area lies at the foot of a relatively steep embankment, and currently acts as a storage area in its own right with drainage installed during the Stock Beck scheme to alleviate flooding to properties in this area. What would be the impact if this storage was removed, perhaps flooding to both existing and proposed development. Considerable flow both above and below the surface of these and higher fields regularly flows during rainfall, directly onto the proposed land from unidentified springs and culverted watercourses.
Access roads to properties in this area of town are already congested, recent additional development on Rydal Road, the imminent development of 94 properties at Northeast Sandylands, and the Auction Mart site on Sandylands Road. Any additional development would add to this problem. The exits onto Appleby Road, Wildman Street and Sedbergh Road are already overly congested, with no available space for improvement. Has any impact on air quality from additional vehicles/congestion been considered? bearing in mind the addition of a new supermarket at this end of town. Also the proposed access roads off Peat Lane, Whitbarrow Close and Grisedale Avenue onto any development to the rear of Ullswater Road are too narrow for any additional traffic.
Area R124 is clearly shown to be outside the development boundary, so having removed it once it would be difficult for the local planning authority to justify a reversal of its previous decision and vehemntly be contested by those potentially affected.
Regarding the school, this is already at capacity, where are all the additional school children from the aforementioned developments going to go. Either an extension of the school is required, prior to granting any development, or will parents be required to add to the access problems by ferrying children to other schools in the area? I presume any development in this area would predominantly be low cost affordable housing, a likely source of more children.
I trust you will consider and act with regard to the points raised.
Yours faithfully
S Senior
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option A as Option B would be driven by developers who, although may meet planning constraints of low cost housing, are predominantly driven by profit, with little consideration for those affected by development.
1064. Ms Stephanie Sexton (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 10:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I completely oppose any development on this site, which should be maintained under its Green Gap Protection. This is for a variety of reasons, including the preservation of the wildlife, avoidance of traffic chaos, maintenance of the standards of life of local residents who will be severely disrupted by the development (please note I am NOT a local resident, but an Ulverston Town Centre resident). Perhaps most of all I am concerned about the serious implication for ribbon development if this site is given planning permission - with Ulverston 'leaking' along the A590 towards Swarthmoor, creating vague town boundaries, ultimately joining up with other distinct settlements. Ribbon development of this kind is notoriously undermining of the heart and soul of towns and villages, and I oppose it totally.
If development on the land was absolutely necessary, then I would vigorously oppose any attempt (I gather put forward by Sainsbury's agents) to designate this land for 'retail'. My reasons for opposing any change of use to retail are:
1. It would create traffic chaos, at a very difficult point on the road anyway. This would be a car-based supermarket and that means serious amounts of traffic. It would also impact on a very difficult 'blind pull' for residents.
2. It would undermine the small local retailers for which ULverston is proud. It would be an out-of-town supermarket, and so people would be tempted to do all their shopping there (the size proposed is huge). There are numerous examples of out of town stores killing the centres of market towns stone dead. This would be fundamentally against any sustainable economic strategy in the region and simply serve to ensure that Sainsbury's profits increase whilst the profits of local retailers, suppliers decrease. And incidentally such profits, when generated by a supermarket, leave the area - they don't stay in it. It would be economic suicide.
3. M11M would be better used, if it has to be used at all, for high-value industries for which ULverston is known - developing this would bring far more money into the local area, and also avoid the disruption of traffic which a supermarket would inevitably bring.
4. There is no need for another supermarket in Ulverston. SLDC's own retail assessment says that there is no need for anything like this size (in fact it says there is only 'need' for a further 570 sq metres. Where would the spending in this supermarket come from? Aggressive and competitive underpricing of goods in the first instance by supermarkets ensures that they scoop up local trade quickly, putting local traders out of business. This is why supermarkets now have a 97% share of all convenience goods - not by 'enhancing' local businesses, but by undercutting them and putting them out of business.
In short, I think that Green Gap protection should be maintained but if any development is to happen a retail development must NOT be allowed - it would be death to the town, traffic chaos would ensue, and no economic benefit would accrue. Indeed, Ulverston's vitality and vibrancy would be severely, permanently and criminally undermined.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I think land allocations should take a long term view.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Though Option B says communities could bring forward sites this is risible - in practice, it would be the geared-up, funded developers who would then vie with one another to snaffle up various sites depending on the money they think they can make from them, not the needs of the local residents. It must, must, must be Option A.
1065. Mr Pete Sexton (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
1066. Mr Pete Sexton (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1067. Mr Richard Sexton (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1068. Ms Susan Sexton (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1069. Mr Clive Seymour (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1070. Mr Clive Seymour (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1071. Ms Susan Sharman (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 11:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#, ON56#
1072. Mr & Mrs David & Glennis Sharpe (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 11:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316#, RN326#, RN118M#
1073. Mr and Mrs John & Julia Sharpe (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
1074. Mr Anthony Shaw (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 10:10:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN293#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The proposal put forward by Barden Planning Consultants would result in unbroken housing from the start of the village at Farlton View cottages and detract from the present break up of development within the village. The proposal is falacious on the grounds that it merely facilitaties development for the builder, therefore makeing it easier for them to increase profitablilty against the development of the proposed site on the opposite side of the canal.I do not accept that the bus route 555 which runs adjacent to the site is a reason for development. It assumes that people will buy there rather than walk up Sheeernest to reach the bus route.
Whilst I accept that eventually this site may be deemed suitable for development I support many of the reasons submitted by Mrs Julie Henderson.
Should this application prevail,I believe that the developer should guarantee to devote at least 35% of the properties to affordable housing and also guarantee that ALL the properties were subject
to local occupancy restrictions. For Holme to thrive as a community, I believe SLDC has a duty to ensure any new residential development will provide homes for people who are actively participating in the local community on a daily basis because they are employed in it or have an existing family connection. Twelve of the thirty-nine properties that are next to this site on Holmefield, Farleton View and Sheernest are already second homes, holiday lets or rented out on short tenancies so I would strongly oppose this site being included in the document if local occupancy restrictions could not be guaranteed.
This site is part of site R677 in which the Holme Coke Ovens are situated. I am concerned that the development of the site could cause damage to the Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal.
How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during
the building project and after any development of the site?
With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?
There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?
As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the
proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?
There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor
parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?
Holmefield itself was originally proposed with 5 fewer houses than currently exist, and this has resulted in more intensive housing that was originally agreed due to builders creep.
What guarantees would the local authority be prepared to give that the proposed site would not include a majority of intensive housing, if the proposal by Barden was accepted, thus turning the south of the village into yet another large soulless housing estate. The village needs to retain its 'village' feel and not turn into a sprawling development on the underbelly of the Lake District.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The world moves on and by 2020 it should be clear whether or not the restoration of the Lancaster canal is actually going to happen.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This option gives more local control to proposed development sites
1075. Mr William Shaw (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#
1076. Mr/s M F Shaw (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 09:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN14#
1077. Mr Tony Shelton (Individual) : 29 Jul 2011 16:51:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
grange over sands
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R383#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. There is already a proposal for the old lido, as part of the Berners Vision development. This has public support.
2. R383# would in theory prevent this scheme (or any other development proposal) from going ahead and reduce the chances of making good use of what is now a dangerous eyesore.
3. The aim of the new proposal is not spelled out but presumably it implies restoring the old lido, a scheme which was rejected many years ago and which is not realistic, even if it were desirable which it is not. Thus the site would be sterilised pending something which will not happen.
4. Why Sport England have submitted the proposal is puzzling - I would have thought that their experience with the ill-fated Berners pool, through which they lost £2m, would have made them rather more sensible.
5. The proposal has no place in the LDF.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I would prefer to know what the SLDC position is, why you are asking and why you think the public should have a view on this question.
In general though any organisation that thinks it can plan for more than 10 years ahead is kidding itself.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option clicked by accident - please regard both ticked!The format does not allow a don't know or 'both'.
Both approaches are relevant in appropriate circumstances. Again I would have thought this is up to the council to judge.
1078. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:57:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A row of houses at the bottom of the field to mirror Quarry Lane ie: 15 to 20 houses. Not on the higher ground towards Quarry Lane. The access from here onto Holme Lane is excellent compared with access from The Square. Could a footpath/cycle way go through the field to the centre of the village to save walking/cycling along the narrow road with no footpath?
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We don't want to have all these consultations again in a few years time.
1079. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:52:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN265#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Excellent access to Holme Lane without having to go through the village. A small development would have the same advantages as RN230#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1080. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN79#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
15 to 20 houses in a strip behind a hedge to screen from Jack Hill. They could have their own road with better access for them and Jack Hill properties with an improvement to the bend at this point. A pedestrian crossing or round-a-bout could have a traffic calming effect and give a safer crossing point for pedestrians from Jack Hill, Kirkhead Road as well as the new properties to the existing footpath to Allithwaite village and Grange.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1081. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:54:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN84#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This would continue the properties already in Holme Lane.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1082. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:55:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN82# and R347#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Planning permission already given for 1 property. Site is well screened so a small development would not intrude on views.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1083. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:55:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M32#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A small development of 15 to 20 houses set back from the road but in the south of the field so as not to intrude on other properties in the locality. Access would be near a sharp bend but this already calms traffic and the entrance could be widened to help visibility and access. Could a footpath/cycle way be made to the centre of the village to be used also by other residents of this end of the village who have to walk along a VERY NARROW stretch of road.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1084. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:55:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN86#, RN195# and RN224#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
An excellent site if houses are not built to compromise other properties in the vicinity. They could be set well back from the road and this would improve the entrance to the village which is not very attractive at the moment. Could a footpath/cycle waybe created to join with one from M32# to the centre of the village? Perhaps traffic lights could improve the traffic flow through the Narrows.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1085. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R339# and RN72#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
These are one site really and would be an excellent place for retirement bungalows with a possible link to the local nursing home next door. An open area should left to keep the view up to the church and some land left for expansion of the churchyard. There is a path through the church grounds to Church Road where the shop/PO is situated. There is a bus service from the end of Green Lane.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1086. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN72#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This would infill down Vicarage Lane between existing properties.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1087. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN290#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Developing this field would impact on bungalows in Templand Park, destroy drumlins, and valuable farmland. Vehicles would join Cartmel Road that is very narrow - not much more than single lane - going to Cartmel or going through the village the road is narrowed to single lane most of the way by parked cars (older properties have no parking space or garage), passed the school and childrens' playground.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1088. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:57:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN77# and RN78#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
No real safe access. Stuck behind the pub.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1089. Mr. & Mrs Stephen & Angela Shepherd (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 11:57:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN37#, RN87#, RN261#, RN262#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Only if access was via the Humphrey Head Road with improved access to Flookburgh Road.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1090. MR PAUL SHEPHERD (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 21:54:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
NATLAND
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS NATLAND HAS HAD 3 SITES DEVELOPED, THE NARROW LANES CANNOT COPE WITH ANYMORE INCREASE IN VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.
SMALL VILLAGES LIKE NATLAND DO NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT ANY MORE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, IT WILL ALSO SPOIL THE VIEW SIGNIFICANTLY DRIVING INTO THE VILLAGE MAKING IT LOOK LIKE A NEW HOUSING ESTATE.
BUILDING HOUSES ON THIS SCALE OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AREAS WITH LIMITED BUS ROUTES WILL RESULT IN MORE CONGESTION ON THE ROADS.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1091. Mr & Mrs Nathan & Helen Shepherd (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 14:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1092. Mr & Mrs Nathan & Helen Shepherd (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 14:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1093. Mr John Shorrock (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
1094. Mr Kamal Siddiqi (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R339#, R73#
1095. MR AIDAN SILCOCKS (Individual) : 10 Aug 2011 22:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
ULVERSTON SOUTH
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I object to any development of this site as it currently creates a pleasant green space at the edge of the town.
I object in particular to the prospect of a retail development on this site.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1096. MR AIDAN SILCOCKS (Individual) : 10 Aug 2011 22:26:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN6#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support a small residential development to the west of Beehive cottages.
I do not support any other form of development on this site especially retail.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1097. MR AIDAN SILCOCKS (Individual) : 10 Aug 2011 22:29:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R130#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site is totally unsuitable for development.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1098. Mr Ken Simm (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 10:34:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SW
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E4M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Original proposal of office and general industrial development was completely unacceptable. The alternative of housing is just an example of a developer trying to take advantage of an opportunity to gain support hoping that the general public will see this as the lesser of two evils. The land should remain undeveloped.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
1099. Mr Richard Simpson (Individual) : 2 Sep 2011 17:07:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN326# and RN316#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. Development of these sites could add 140 houses to the village. This is too many additional houses for a village the size of Heversham and would change the character of the village.
2. Development on this scale is unsustainable. The new residents would inevitably have to travel to work - this at a time of rising fuel prices,traffic congestion and concerns over environmental pollution.
3. The site is valuable green open space in the middle of the village. Its loss will lead to a large and unsightly block of housing in place of a rich rural landscape.
4.Development will detract from views to and from Heversham Head.
5. In all likelihood each property will have at least two cars. Use of these will create dreadful pressures on our minor road network, particularly such as Woodhouse Lane, a shortcut to M6 junc 36. Should traffic be permitted through the Dallam School site similar problems will occur in the village.
6.The site represents amenity open space for villagers, it is contiguous to the old railway line now being developed as the Hincaster Trailway, and should be designateed as such.
7.Present residents of Heversham & Leasgill chose to live here because they ARE small villages. This would no longer be the case if these sites were developed for housing.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B may well give more local control over development and each site may be considered on its own merits rather than already have a designation and a presumption for development.
1100. Mrs Susan Simpson (Individual) : 4 Sep 2011 20:01:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316# and RN326#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Either one or both of these two sites would support building of a scale which is totally out of proportion for the village. If a small development were proposed it would not be long before this would be extended to the whole area.
The road infrastructure through the village and along Woodhouse Lane which invariably would be a short cut to the motorway will not support the additional traffic from, say, two cars per household.
Housing on these two sites would be in excess of local needs and be for commuters.
These fields at present form open space within the village, valuable agricultural land adjacent to the developing Hincaster Trailway and wildlife habitats.
This is not a sustainable development.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The local development plan creates presumptions for development. It would be better if local communities and initiatives were the driving force.
1101. Miss M E Simpson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Bardsea
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN102
1102. Mr & Mrs Singagola (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 11:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick Brettargh
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E50# E51# E51# E53# E54# E55# ON56# RN280#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1103. Mr & Mrs Ian & Annette Skillen (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1104. Mr and Mrs N and F Slattery (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 08:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656#
1105. Mr and Mrs Colin & Ann Slinger (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1106. Mr and Mrs Colin & Ann Slinger (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1107. Mr and Mrs Herbert and Freda Smaje (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
1108. Mr Donald Smalley (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#, R105#
1109. Mr Donald Smalley (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#, R105#
1110. Mr John Douglas Smith (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 07:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R14#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1111. Mr and Mrs Thomas & Jean Smith (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
1112. Mr and Mrs Thomas & Jean Smith (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
1113. Mr Patrick Smith (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1114. Mr David Smith (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1115. Mr Paul Smith (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1116. Mr Tim Smith (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1117. Mr and Mrs A and V Smith (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
1118. Mr and Mrs Graeme and Michelle Smythe (Individual) : 31 Jul 2011 19:13:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Castle Ward
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Increased traffic onto Ullswater Road, which is already used by 'boy racers' due to the chicane at the junctions of Ullswater Road, Bowland Drive and Whitbarrow Close.
Inceased noise and pollution.
Detremental to green fields behind Ullswater Road and wildlife therein.
Risk of flooding in the field directly behind Ullswater Road, Whitbarrow Close.
House prices will decrease in the immediate area.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1119. Mr and Mrs WD Southward (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 15:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
1120. Ms Jill Spooner (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#, RN328#
1121. M & Y Spooner (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1122. M & Y Spooner (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1123. Ms Jill Spooner (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 09:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1124. Mrs Joan Stables (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
1125. Mr and Mrs John and Helen Stafford (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#, ON50#, RN302#
1126. Mr David Stamp (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 08:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1127. Mr and Mrs Standish (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1128. Mr/s L Stanley (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1129. Mr & Mrs G Stannard (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 12:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316 RN326 RN118M
1130. Mrs Jean Stanton (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN303#, RN298#
1131. Mr Ronald Starkey (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1132. Mr & Mrs Graham & Karen Staveley (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1133. Mr & Mrs Graham & Karen Staveley (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1134. Ms Bethany Stebbens (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1135. Mr John Steel (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1136. Miss Joanna Steels (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 22:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
beehive site
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
m11m# / e19# / mn6#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
my main concern regarding the construction of a supermarket at the beehive site are the lose of green belt land and the prospect of further development on an already very busy road.This area marks the outskirts of the town and should remain in my opinion an agricultural and green area.
A development of this nature could bring much needed jobs to the area and I feel a brown field site eg the brewery area may be a more suitable option.
1137. Mr Peter Stephens (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 14:15:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN32#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is a brownfield site and could easily accomodate the 15 or so affordable homes the village needs (if indeed they are needed). Additionally there is sufficient space for railway car parking.
This will mean no greenfield sites need to be developed in the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There are over 70 homes currently for sale in Arnside, many have been on the market for some time.
Why the rush to build new houses when so many are available.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We have a shortage of open space as it is, why concrete over more. Scattering development will only add to the carbon footprint.
1138. Mr Peter Stephens (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 14:18:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN337#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is a greenfield site and we have sufficient brownfield sites in the village to accommodate affordable housing requirements.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There are over 70 homes currently for sale in Arnside, many have been on the market for some time.
Why the rush to build new houses when so many are available?
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We have a shortage of open space as it is, why concrete over more. Scattering development will only add to the carbon footprint.
1139. Mr Peter Stephens (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 14:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN269#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is a brownfield site which should be developed before greenfield.
This will mean no greenfield sites need to be developed in the village, which is in an AONB.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There are over 70 homes currently for sale in Arnside, many have been on the market for some time.
Why the rush to build new houses when so many are available.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We have a shortage of open space as it is, why concrete over more. Scattering development will only add to the carbon footprint.
1140. Mr Peter Stephens (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 14:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN267#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is a pleasant small area filled with trees which breaks up the ribbon development along Redhills Road, The site could take a pair of semi-detached dwellings to fit in with others in the immediate vicinity. However, Redhills Road already is very busy with traffic and any substantial development will add to the problems at the Redhills Road/ Silverdale Road junction.
Are services available on this site?
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There are over 70 homes currently for sale in Arnside, many have been on the market for some time.
Why the rush to build new houses when so many are available?
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We have a shortage of open space as it is, why concrete over more? Scattering development will only add to the carbon footprint.
1141. Mr and Mrs S Stephenson (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1142. Mr and Mrs S Stephenson (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1143. Mr. Allan Steward (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:21:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN295
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site comprises two sets of derelict buildings, a riding stable & a poultry unit. It would be a service to the community to build some houses on here & get rid of the mess.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
1144. Mr. Allan Steward (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:33:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is even worse than R682LVM, three times as big, destroying an unrivalled prospect from a public road through the village. This is the last remaining such prospect not obstructed by buildings. It is a public amenity enjoyed by all who pass by. Development of this site is opposed by over 80% of respondents to our recent survey of parishioners re. potential development sites, regardless of whether they live near it.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
1145. Mr. Allan Steward (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:40:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R105
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Another unnecessary grab at agricultural land when we face the need to produce more food in this country. Development of this large site would bring too much additional traffic through the congested parts of the village as well as the Greengate estate itself. It would also be a bulge of develooment protruding into the surrounding landscape.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
1146. Mr. Allan Steward (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:42:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R680LV
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Loss of productive agricultural land. In any case I understand that this site is not available
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
1147. Mr. Allan Steward (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:45:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN123
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A derelict carpet warehouse & shop. Eyesore in middle of village. Could contain a row of small starter homes. Parking could be provided by using some adjoining open space near the bus stop.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
1148. Mr. Allan Steward (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It is an enormous site that if fully developed would be ruinous tho the character of Levens as a rural village, and I can't see how a small er development could be done sympathetically - it would have to be impossibly inconspicuous.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
1149. Mr. Allan Steward (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN127
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
it is at least accessible without going through the rest of the village, and is consistent with the village plan which aims for small-scale developments.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
1150. Mr. Allan Steward (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 16:01:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN45
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I understand that the owners, PV Dobson & Sons, want to regularise their existing use of this site (equipment storage) under the heading of industrial rather than agricultural land. If this site were to be fully developed as a commercial venture (industrial units), I would oppose it because the result would be out of place in the Lyth Valley: In any case the site is only accessible via a very narrow road & 3 narrow hump-back bridges. I imagine it would not be economically viable to rebuild the whole road to give access to the site for HGVs.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
see response about RN282 for my views on this issue
1151. Mr Les Stewart (Individual) : 4 Aug 2011 18:08:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The development of this large site would be contrary to the adopted Core Strategy which identifies Ackenthwaite as a small village where the policy is essentially one of infilling and rounding off on a small scale,to meet an identified local need.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It is taking so long to do this consultation that the maximum time benefit should be derived.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is a sensible approach provided that Core Strategy policies are not compromised.
1152. Mr Les Stewart (Individual) : 4 Aug 2011 18:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R138#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The allocation of this site would be contrary to the Core Strategy policy. Ackenthwaite is classified as a small village where the policy is essentially one of infilling and rounding off with small scale development for an identified local need.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See other response form
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See other response form.
1153. Mr Les Stewart (Individual) : 4 Sep 2011 10:10:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
previously responded
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Further to my previous comment, in light of the Government's Draft National Policy Framework,just published, it would be dangerous not to allocate land to cover a 15 year span. Developers would be able to force planning decisions on land they chose in the absence of adequate allocations by local authorities. The Land Allocations document currently under review should therefore include contingency in the event that the Government's Draft Proposals be adopted.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Previously commented as support for Option B but could be dangerous in light of the likely introduction of the new National Policy Framework,ie developer driven inititives could prevail over local interests. Some protection, therefore, needs to be built in to the Council's Policy.
1154. Mr and Mrs R I Stewart (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
1155. Mr & Ms Gary & Julie Stone & Alexander (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 12:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Bruton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
1156. Mr & Ms Gary & Julie Stone & Alexander (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 12:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
1157. P & S Strickland & Swidenbank (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1158. P & S Strickland & Swidenbank (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1159. P & S Strickland & Swidenbank (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1160. Mr & Mrs W A & B J Summerfield (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
1161. Mr & Mrs W A & B J Summerfield (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
1162. Mrs M A Sumpton (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
SSOP10#, ON43#
1163. Mr Alan Sutcliffe (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside / Natland / Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN304#, RN299, E4M#, E31M#, E31#, MN34#, R120
1164. Mr and Mrs Colin and Margaret Sutherland (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
1165. Mr and Mrs Colin and Margaret Sutherland (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 12:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124#
1166. Mr Robert Sutton (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:45:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I think this should be kept under Green Gap Protection.
It should definitely NOT be designated retail use, for the following reasons:
a) Potential for harmful ribbon development
b) Traffic chaos - this would be a car-based development, generating numerous trips, and bring chaos to an already congested and often flooded area of the A590
c) Undermining fundamentally the vitality of Ulverston's town centre, with an out of town development, stocking all products, providing a serious threat to the small traders, of whom I am one (bookshop)
d) Out of town supermarkets do not provide significant economic growth - they are low value developments as noted under the SLDC Sustainable community strategy
e) There is absolutely no 'need' for such a development, as shown by SLDC's own retail assessment and indeed the retail assessment undertaken for an alternative supermarket site (Brewery development)
I strongly oppose designating this as retail for these reasons, but fundamentally would oppose any development whatsoever and wish it to be kept under Green Gap Protection
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Democratic consultation must be allowed
1167. Mr Ralph Sutton (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN294#, RN274#
1168. Mr J.E Swan (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
1169. Ms Mary Ann Swart (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 09:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON26#, RN15#
1170. Mr Ian Sweeney (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1171. Mr Robert Swindle (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 09:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1172. Mr Robert Swindle (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 11:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN154#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1173. Mr Robert Swindle (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 14:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1174. Mr/s H Swinton (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1175. Mr David and Judith Symonds (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121m
1176. Mr & Mrs C & B Tallon (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1177. Mr & Mrs C & B Tallon (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1178. Mrs Linda Tanfield (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 13:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R141 RN302 ON50
1179. Mrs Linda Tanfield (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1180. Dr Richard Taylor (Individual) : 30 Aug 2011 14:11:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. Access to the site RN244# would either be from Swarthmoor Hall Lane or via Hallfield:
• Swarthmoor Hall Lane is narrow with poor visibility particularly at the junction with
Urswick Road and was not designed to cope with a large increase in traffic such as building
on that field would generate.
• Hallfield was not designed to be a through road - it is narrow, with three bends and
because of covenants placed on the houses when they were built, front gardens have to
remain open-plan. Children play on these gardens and the road and it is therefore
unsuitable for construction traffic or an increase in domestic traffic.
2. Swarthmoor Hall is a tourist attraction and a retreat centre which would lose some of its
unique character if houses were built any closer to it than they are already.
I therefore strongly oppose building on this particular site on the grounds of
both poor access and the nearness of a heritage site
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1181. Mr & Mrs A G & M P Taylor (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1182. Mr & Mrs A G & M P Taylor (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1183. Mr and Mrs G & L Taylor (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1184. Mr Allan Teasdale (Individual) : 11 Aug 2011 11:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN315#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Story Homes has identified RN315# as an addition to RN109M and as such all the well documented objections to RN109M, also apply to RN315#.
The effect of this proposal would be to create a new development equivalent in size to the existing Trinkeld Park estate and well beyond the housing needs for Swarthmoor already identified by the SLDC planners. This enormous development would be on the opposite side of the A590 trunk road to the rest of the village, with the small exception of the Kingsley Avenue area.
The villagers of High and Low Newton, fought a prolonged battle to have the villages by-passed by the increasingly busy A590 and a major factor in the decision to build the by-pass, was the disruption caused to the lives of residents by the village being divided by the busy trunk road. Yet here in Swarthmoor, not more than 12 miles away, our planners are now seriously considering the creation of an identical situation whereby a large chunk of the enlarged village will be isolated from the existing village by that very same trunk road.
The main argument for development to the west of the A590 seems to be that it will smooth out the western outline of the existing village. No matter that this boundary is a natural consequence of the A590 and should by any sensible reasoning remain as it is.
There is absolutely no need to extend the village to the west when there are clearly much better options available in the vicinity Main Road.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Hopefully, the longer it takes the better the chance of commonsense prevailing.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The views of existing residents should take priority and this seems to be the intention of the current government.
1185. Mrs Margaret Teasdale (Individual) : 11 Aug 2011 12:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN315#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
RN315# is a ridiculous proposal that seems to be an attempt by the main landowner to rescue a failed attempt to dispose of all the land between the A590 and Pennington Lane and presumably use the proceeds to fund a move elsewhere.
The development of RN109M would seriously affect the viability of the farm without providing sufficient funds to dispose of the farm but, if RN315# were to be added then the balance shifts in favour of disposal.
In my view, if this proposal is rejected RN109M will not be developed on its own because it will wreck the farm.
Other options have been proposed, some of which are already in the ownership of a highly regarded local builder and these should be pursued rather than provide a foothold for the Carlisle based Story Homes in the south of the county.
There has been no support for any development to the west of the A590 other than by the landowners and their associates. It’s time to listen to the views of the existing community!
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The demand for housing in this area is questionable and development should not be rushed.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Localisation!!!
1186. Mr and Mrs Brian and Denise Telford (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1187. Mr and Mrs Brian and Denise Telford (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1188. Mr Mark Tennant (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 17:46:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There is need for Low Cost Housing in order for the community to be sustainable.
Younger people and families need homes in order to address the demographic shift to older people in the village
There is a need for affordable homes in order to provide accommodation for those working in the service industries and other low paid employment in the area.
However:
The size of the proposed development is out of proportion with the village. The plan would potentially double the population of the village on its own without other proposed sites.
The infrastructure of the village is not developed to cope with the increase in a) traffic (potentially 160 extra VEHICLES)
Schools are at capacity in the village
Pavements and street lighting around this site are inadequate. Pavements do not accommodate wheelchairs or pushchairs. Increased traffic will make it dangerous for wheelchairs/scooters elderly pedestrians and pushchairs / young children.
Roads are badly congested at peak times already around pinch points in the road network of the village.
Part of the site is raised and housing would dominate over the surrounding property and the village.
Adjoining land and houses at Orchard Close are already subject to flooding in times of heavy rainfall as water descends down the slope toward them.There would be additional problems created with run off from extensive building.
There is no indication in the plan of the nature of the housing. Is it to Rent or buy and what proportion of the housing will be low cost. Allocating land to a social landlord will provide some but does not indicate what numbers of houses are going to be low cost in the main site.
The muted 85 homes along with other sites will provide a workforce substantially larger than local employment opportunities this will result in excessive travel to get to work which will by the nature of its location involve cars and the subsequent environmental impact. Unless the intention is to build more expensive retirement or second homes for the village to accommodate older generations and become a retirement center.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Reducing the time span allows for too quick development and the potential to increase numbers even more in 2020.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Care will however have to be taken that communities have democratically worked out local plans in order to avoid rampant development poorly opposed or supported.
1189. Mrs Rebecca Thomas (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 15:48:00
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MIIM#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose the proposed retail development of this green gap site which is outside the Development Boundary of Ulverston for the following reasons:
1.OUT OF TOWN development such as the rumoured huge superstore would lead to the total demise of Ulverston as a viable market/tourist town. A site as large and expensive to purchase as this means every acre would have to be utilised - encompassing every type of retail from food/electrical/clothing/opticians/pharmacy etc Why no one need ever go into town again - because no other business could hope to compete with development on this scale.
Any low paid employment created would be of low added value merely replacing those jobs lost in the closure of town centre shops, with no economic contribution to the area.
2.Traffic on the A590 is already extremely high volume and dangerous.Living on it we have witnessed countless accidents & near misses.It is a pedestrian nightmare running through residential areas with narrow and in places no pavement as well as narrow collision black spots. More RIBBON development such as proposed would exacerbate the congestion and the frequent stationary traffic we already suffer on a daily basis. It is accepted that ribbon development increases congestion, so couple that with continuous superstore traffic at both ends of Ulverston will surely result in more traffic misery with a narrow urban corridor that will be like a 'bypass' of the town centre.
3.The green gap at M11M# provides valuable drainage to both the A590 & the B roads whose run off water is carried onto it and then courses down lower to our fields. Any loss of greenfield to concrete would have an adverse affect on the A590 which despite efforts to rectify has standing water at Hillfoot/Pennington Lane Ends every time it rains and is flooded long after the rest of the carriagway is dry.
4. The proposed retail (superstore)use of this site would for residents have a huge impact on an already difficult blind 'pull out'whether by car or cycle due to the increase in traffic. Presently we have known quiet traffic times but with retail there would be a 24/7 element and increase in traffic, disturbance and noise that at present is predictable and we do get some respite from. Also residents would have loss of privacy and increased smells/pollution.
5. M11M# is home to many species of wildlife you expect to find in farmland including bats,small mammals, foxes, owls and recently we have been seeing the red kites here too. It is designated Green Gap and should not be sacrificed so that an individual can profit at the expense of the town. It would be unheard of to reinstate fields - when its gone that's it!!
We feel there is no justification for the release of MIIM#, in part or as a whole, from its current Green Gap allocation consistent with the LDF and Government current and future planning policy,the development of a large supermarket would be completely contrary to that policy as well as undermining the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Local communities are best placed to make their own suggestions, rather than having imposed upon them which does not work and strangles the local economy.
1190. Mrs Wendy Thomas (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 16:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
1191. Mrs Lorraine Thompson (Individual) : 3 Sep 2011 17:43:00
Swarthmoor and Cross a Moor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN315# RN328# RN105# RN106# RN242# (in addition to RN109M)
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The areas of land identified by individuals and business groups form the green belt from Ulverston Road to Urswick Road and is made up of fields of prime agricultural land which has, in past years under previous ownership, been used for beef and dairy cattle grazing, sheep grazing and silage and hay production. We are entering a period of time when we are going to be more dependant on on our agriculture for meat and vegetable production. We cannot afford to lose such prime land to an expansion of housing in the area and should be supporting the continual use of this land for food production.
The proposed land corridor will join Cross a Moor (a hamlet) further to Swarthmoor (Village) to Ulverston (Town). How can these communities be differentiated should further house building be approved? Members of the community have proposed more appropriate areas in the Swarthmoor area (R686SW#, R685w#) which appears to expand the village more in keeping with the current boundary and within the current community and not meld all of the communities into one. I also believe that these areas will offer a better opportunity for the SLDC to support the building of affordable housing for local people, families and young people with better access to the remaining facilities in Swarthmoor (i.e. playground, football club, village hall, Church). Any new build should enhance the community for the better of the community - a concept I do not believe would be accomplished through building homes on a belt of land on the opposite side of the village amenities. I would urge planners to consider - 1. support the building of truly affordable housing for local people, families and young people and not just a cusory number of houses because it's a requirement of the building regulations, 2. oppose the loss of prime agricultural land - when its gone, its gone, and very rarely do we see housing destroyed to make way for good land, and 3. be mindful that any new build will bring an increase in pressure on the existing infrastructure as outlined in previous responses. The local school is already operating at maximum capacity, we will very quickly reach a point where families will have to look further afield for school and nursery places. The local authority is under immense financial pressure and is not able to just create additional school places on demand.
I am a local person who had to leave the area for a period of time as I could not (and still cannot) afford to buy a house in my home community (Cross a Moor/Pennington) and so understand the need for an increase in local housing and will support the building of homes which offer real affordability and which will enhance the local community.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support a reduction in the time span of the land allocations document as there are changing priorities within the current government which are yet to be clarified. The extension to the consultation period has been very much appreciated and indicates that community concerns are being listened to and being taken seriously. I am not convinced that the government is listening and is on the brink of changing legislation which could lead to rash decisions which may potentially benefit the few to make great proft without considering the long term effects on the community. A shorter lifespan of the Land Allocations document could lead to further consultations in 2020 which has the potential to include the community further and to ensure that decisions are made by the community for the benefit of the community which has also been raised as a priority of the current government. I am not interested in supporting those with self serving ideas, but those developments which will support a vibrant community.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I would like to see greater reference made to locality based groups i.e. Parish councils, neighbourhood forums etc in order to have direct input from the community on the future development proposals from the outset, rather than towards the end of a consultation process when panic has set in. There has been a gap in information sharing which had led to a last minute response from the Swarthmoor and Cross a Moor communities, along with other communities from across the county which has led to the appreciated extension to the consultation period. However grateful I am for the extension I am also mindful that this extension is costing more money to the council tax payer - money which could be used to keep toilets open or support a local charitable group. These additional costs could be greatly reduced were well-structured, operational neighbourhood groups more actively involved. I also believe that we have a responsibility be part of a forum to contribute to decisions based on the needs of the community as a whole, rather than to the benefit of the few, and this could be achieved through a neighbourhood group made up a cross section of representatives of the community as a term of reference. There are individuals who tried to raise community awareness of development plans, we need to find a better way of communicating within the communities to ensure that plans are raised, discussed and fedback on in a much SMART-er way which could be best developed through option B - decisions made by local people for local people rather than decisions made by those who may not even live in the area and understand the needs and opinions of the community.
1192. Mrs Lorraine Thompson (Individual) : 3 Sep 2011 17:59:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
East Lindal in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R209
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is an area of land which offers very little scope for agricultural use - either for grazing stock or growing fruit, vegetable, grain etc, and would seem ideal for the development of affordable housing with minimal impact on the surrounding environment and neighbours. The locality could offer improved employment opportunities with the planned expansion of the local candle factory. The use of this piece of land could provide housing which could lessen the need for an increase in housing in nearby Swarthmoor. We could see a smaller scale expansion of both villages rather than a huge increase in the size of one village. A shared expansion across both villages will then share the pressure of impact the local area i.e. access to the highway, demand for school places, impact on sewerage systems etc, rather than to place a greater impact on one locality, and will lead to an increased proportion of affordable housing in both localities.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1193. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1194. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN224
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1195. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN265
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1196. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R347
1197. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN32
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1198. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN79
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1199. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN82
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1200. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN86
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1201. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 08:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN195
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1202. Mr C W Thompson (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R72#, RN290#, R33#
1203. T Thompson (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1204. Mrs Mandy Thomson (Individual) : 28 Aug 2011 12:40:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston East
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN246
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site is used extensively by the public as a recreational resource given that it is crossed by several public footpaths. It is close to Morecambe Bay and land owned by the National Trust, incorporating an important bird nesting site. There is also a SSSI on part of the site. It is a huge site and would considerably alter the character of Ulverston. It is close to Ulverston Canal which is a much used recreational site.
It is not suitable for housing because:
Road access is very poor – the area is currently accessed by a single track lane.
It is a very marshy area prone to flooding at high tide.
It incorporates a quarry which is filled with water.
There is a former waste disposal site nearby. There has in the past been seepage from this site.
There are no utilities on site.
I understand that there are ancient iron mine workings on the site which may be prone to collapse.
It is outside the Ulverston Development Boundary.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Major planning decisions such as these, should not be rushed. They should be made over the longer term to allow all environmental considerations and views from all sections of the community to be heard.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option A is the best option as it allows time for planning discussions and lessens the chances of neighbourly and personal disputes and those with differing agendas to influence decisions.
1205. Mr and Mrs Frederick and Marion Thornton (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
1206. Mr/s B Tierney (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1207. Mr/s S Tiribocchi (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 10:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN130#
1208. Mrs Katharine Toft (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
1209. Mr & Mrs David & Margaret Tomlinson (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 10:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
1210. Mrs V.A Toomey (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 16:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689ULV
1211. Mrs June Tower (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 11:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON51#, RN256#
1212. Mr Gary Tubbs (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 09:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1213. Mr & Mrs John and Janis Turner (Individual) : 21 Aug 2011 14:58:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R686SW#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Any development on this site will completely ruin Swarthmoor, in particular housing.
We came to Swarthmoor because it was a nice small village some 38 years ago. Now we find that more and more houses are being 'tagged' onto our lovely village, in so doing we are now almost 'part of Ulverston' We have open views accross the green fields at present, although we live directly behind Park Road. It is totally unsuitable to build yet more houses as and quite frankly the infrastructure would be totally inadequate. We already have Quaker Fold a community of (executive housing)and then we got Trinkeld, which again took away beautiful green field sites. Also since these housing developments came to our village we now have no Post Office, no shops, and only one Pub. Much busier roads, and increased traffic both out of the village and through it. We oppose these proposals in the strongest of terms.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
1214. Mr & Mrs John and Janis Turner (Individual) : 21 Aug 2011 15:12:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN243# also RN242# also R685SW
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
All of the above are not suitable for any sort of planning ie; Housing developments. Swarthmoor is a village NOT a TOWN !!!!!
In particular R685SW along Park Road, Swarthmoor. We already have great difficulty in getting out of the village from this Road, which comes directly onto the extremely busy main road the A590 with very heavy traffic constantly passing the end of Park Road. Park Road at this juncture is very narrow with nice village cottages, and is certainly not able to contain any further traffic etc. Also we already have a Garage at the same junction which is heavily used .
We oppose these plans in the strongest of terms.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
1215. Mr John Turner (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:52:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We at Irvings butchers are strongly opposed to the any attempt to change the designation of this land to retail. We fundamentally believe that this should be kept under Green Gap protection, and no development should be allowed at all. If any development is to occur, it should be for high-value industry, bringing high-value jobs, not the low-value offered by retail. But our objections are also that an out-of-town retail development would sound the death knell to the small traders in Ulverston, renowned for its local and independent retailers, and turn this town into any other.
It would also bring traffic chaos, promote ribbon development along the A590, and fundamentally no need for a supermarket has been demonstrated.
We oppose the change of land use to retail, in the interests of Ulverston as a vital and viable market town.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Consult residents, not developers, on what land use should be
1216. Mr & Mrs D & K Turner (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
1217. Mr Andy Turner (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 10:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1218. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 21:49:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN330#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Access to this land would only be possible if R189M was also developed and then all vehicles would be using Askewgate which is a narrow lane without pavement, not suitable for additional traffic and has a poorly sighted junction with the A595. This land is highly visible from the estuary and so housing here would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
If the Land Allocation document is to be used then it should be reviewed regularly to keep up with changing circumstances. A shorter period is therefore more appropriate.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Such planning issues should be under the control of local parish groups.
1219. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 21:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Road access to this site is poor via Beckside Lane which is very poorly sighted for traffic returning to the A595. This lane had no pavement but is extensively used by pedestrians accessing the Church and Village Community centres/playing fields. Vehicles associated with deliveries to employment premises would put these pedestrians at risk.
1220. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 21:55:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This land is far too difficult to access safely. Beckside Lane is very narrow and cannot support additional vehicles.
1221. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 22:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R211#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This land would have good, safe access via the cul-de-sac end of Burlington Close. The Close has good sighting for vehicles joining the A595 in both directions.
There would be safe pedestrian access to the school, shops and community centre without the need to cross the A595. Visual impact of housing here would be low since the land is not significantly elevated compared to existing housing.
1222. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 22:08:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN11#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This land would provide good, direct access for vehicles to the A595 and would allow children to access the school without crossing the main road. However, the boundary shown on the consultation map shows this area actually bounded by the existing pylon lines. I would expect that development of housing is not permitted directly under this line, especially as there would seem to be proposals to upgrade the capacity of the line, possibly on the existing route.
1223. Mr Gary Ullock (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 09:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1224. Mr/s J Unsworth (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1225. Mr & Mrs Percy & Lesley Unsworth (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 15:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN306#, RN307#, RN689#, RN15#, ON26#, RN148#, RN171# RN308
1226. Mr & Mrs Percy & Lesley Unsworth (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 15:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN306#, RN307#
1227. Mr/s B Usherwood (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 12:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
1228. Mr/s K Wade (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1229. Mr George Wadsworth (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 13:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316# RN326#
1230. I Waine (Individual) : 31 Oct 2011 13:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M38M
1231. Mr & Mrs J F Waiting (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 08:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
1232. Mr Chris Walduck (Individual) : 7 Oct 2011 13:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#
1233. Mr William Walker (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 12:14:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN273 & RN272, RN198
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It would be nonsense to built right next to the motorway. These sites in total are too large for a small village to cope with. There is no provision available for water,sewage,and any other services.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As long as it takes within reason.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Anyone putting a site forward is doing so from monetary reasons for themselves.....the views of the village and the good of the community don't figure. At least the Council will make their allocations based on the good of the community as a whole and not in the interests of individual profit or aggrandisement.
1234. Mr William Walker (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 11:30:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN273 & RN272, RN198
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It would be nonsense to built right next to the motorway. These sites in total are too large for a small village to cope with. There is no provision available for water,sewage,and any other services.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As long as it takes within reason.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Anyone putting a site forward is doing so from monetary reasons for themselves.....the views of the village and the good of the community don't figure. At least the Council will make their allocations based on the good of the community as a whole and not in the interests of individual profit or aggrandisement.
1235. Mr William Walker (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 12:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN274, M35M, RN275
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It would be nonsense to built right next to the railway and in isolation from the village. These sites in total are too large for a small village to cope with. There is no provision available for water,sewage,and any other services.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
reasonable time frame
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Anyone putting a site forward is doing so from monetary reasons or for their own agenda for themselves.....the views of the village and the good of the community don't figure. At least the Council will make their allocations based on the good of the community as a whole and not in the interests of individual profit or aggrandisement.
1236. Mr William Walker (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 15:01:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN197, RN272, RN271
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Outwith the village proper and intruding into greenbelt and amenity land. No main services, water, sewage. Western reference RN271 below canal and suceptible to flooding.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Time span in reasonable time.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Anyone putting a site forward is doing so from monetary reasons or for their own agenda for themselves.....the views of the village and the good of the community don't figure. At least the Council will make their allocations based on the good of the community as a whole and not in the interests of individual profit or aggrandisement
1237. Mr William Walker (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 15:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN283
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Outwith the village proper. Blight entrance to village on a dangerous approach road with blind-spots. Worst of all below the canal and hence flooding problems. Too near to the motorway noise.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In reasonable time
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Anyone putting a site forward is doing so from monetary reasons or for their own agenda for themselves.....the views of the village and the good of the community don't figure. At least the Council will make their allocations based on the good of the community as a whole and not in the interests of individual profit or aggrandisement
1238. Mr William Walker (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 15:40:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN30M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Wrong side of the main road outwith the village boundary, therefore no water,sewage, power etc. Too near the noise of the railway. Too near the main road which has a poor sightline. Too small for village needs.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Within reasonable time limits.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Anyone putting a site forward is doing so from monetary reasons or for their own agenda for themselves.....the views of the village and the good of the community don't figure. At least the Council will make their allocations based on the good of the community as a whole and not in the interests of individual profit or aggrandisement.
1239. Mr William Walker (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 15:48:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN294, MN33 & RN293
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
These sites are reasonable from the point of view that they are concentrated in the village proper and not such as other hopeless suggestions which "ring" the village perimeters intruding near to noisy motorways or railways.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
in reasonable time
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option A for the simple reason it will be based on what is in everyone's interests. Anyone putting a site forward is doing so from monetary reasons or for their own agenda for themselves.....the views of the village and the good of the community don't figure. At least the Council will make their allocations based on the good of the community as a whole and not in the interests of individual profit or aggrandisement.
1240. Mr William Walker (Individual) : 8 Aug 2011 16:09:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme & Holme Mills
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN44 & RN151
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Both sites suitable for industrial use only. Housing no as they are outwith the village, creating new satellite accommodation detached from the village proper.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
within reasonable time
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option A for the simple reason it will be based on what is in everyone's interests. Anyone putting a site forward is doing so from monetary reasons or for their own agenda for themselves.....the views of the village and the good of the community don't figure. At least the Council will make their allocations based on the good of the community as a whole and not in the interests of individual profit or aggrandisement.
1241. Mr Paul Walker (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 17:39:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN 257#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
During consulation in a meeting in our village hall earlier this year regarding a proposed site on the opposite side of the A685 in Grayrigg, I voted in favour of consideration of that land for development, as it was for affordable housing.No such consulation has taken place regarding site refs RN257# and RN258#. Site ref RN257# is overlooked from the rear of my property.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I believe local community involvement is a pre-requisite for making decisions on greenfield site developments.
1242. David & T Wallace (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1243. Mr/s E Wallace (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1244. David & T Wallace (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 16:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1245. Mrs Judith Wallen (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 10:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN56# M40# M2# R140# M5# R120# RN301#
1246. Ms Amanda Wallis (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1247. Mr John Walmsley (Individual) : 30 Aug 2011 17:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The view across the valley from Brigsteer Road to Whitbarrow Scar is spectacluar as is the view up to the Lakeland hills and down to Morecambe Bay. Development on this site would destoy one of the finest vistas in the area and change the whole character of the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Given the present economic turmoil shorter period advisable with further review towards end.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Would provide an overall strategy for development both business and domestic in the area rather than piecemeal.This would lead to better infrastructure planning to meet those development needs.
1248. M Walton (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 10:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1249. Mr Brian Ward (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 17:26:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M34
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I am opposed in principle to all the proposals that simply in-fill the edges of Kendal. We will end up with a concrete jungle - totally spoiling our town. I believe that the majority of Kendal residents support this view. By all means, recover brown field sites, but we do not wish to see Kendal as a sprawling town with every bit of land up to a green belt developed... I suggest that Kendal is at an optimum size now for its infrastructure & the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I believe that planning time frames should be at least 25 years. However, wise men keep their proposals under review & change them when they no longer fit the circumstances. Most large businesses run a 3 time-fence plan, with the first period being fixed & the last period indicating a general intent... The middle is fixed unless circumstances dictate otherwise...
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I believe that if a case can be made (which I suggest is not the case so far) for further housing on the large scale suggested then Option A is best. This would allow an integrated plan to suit the overall area - rather than small ad hoc schemes for very local interests. Moreover, I suggest that many of the smaller hamlets & villages would benefit from an injection of new blood. Many of these smaller habitations have aging populations, which could benefit from sympathetic development. Properties built in outlying areas could also benefit lower income potential house owners by way of lower property costs - provided transport links are adequate... However, there should be the facility for Option B - the 2 options need not be mutually exclusive.
1250. Mrs Julie Ward (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 08:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1251. Mr/s S Warner (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1252. Mr and Mrs W.G. Warrender (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142#
1253. Mr Alan Waterfield (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 09:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1254. Mrs Caroline Waterton (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#
1255. Mr Michael Waterton (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1256. Mrs Caroline Waterton (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1257. Mr Nick Waterton (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1258. Mr Roger Watkinson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#
1259. Mr Roger Watkinson (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
1260. Ms Anita Watson (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 10:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#, RN243#, RN242#, RN234#, RN105#
1261. Mr Douglas Wayman (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 20:13:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
en49 extension to EN42(station yard)
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN49
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Effect on total infrastructure of the area;
The existing road structure is already overburdened with heavy delivery traffic with the number of narrow acute bends causing significant holdups and hazhards on all approach roads.
Is there a real need for more industrial units on a site whos current facilities are already under-utilised.
Will this new development be in competition with the significant development in Flookburgh The landowner will be the only winner in the end.
Can the local drainage and power supply systems stand the extra strain.
Will there be suitable restrictions placed on tenants to control the effects on local residents of noise(shift working) early morning commercial traffic and atmospheric pollution.(existing tenants already frequently burn significant amounts of plastic on an open fire)
1262. Ms Sarah Weather (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1263. Mr and Mrs AJ Webster (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
1264. Mr and Mrs AJ Webster (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
1265. Mrs Liz Wells (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 09:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1266. Mr/s M Wells (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1267. Ms Susan West (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 12:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
1268. Ms Susan West (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 12:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick & Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON56#
1269. Mr Sam Westworth (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN293#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I agree with the response made by Julie Henderson (re site reference RN293#) as follows:
I am very concerned that the development of this site could cause damage to the Holme Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary of this site. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal. How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during the building project and after any development of the site?
With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?
There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?
As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?
There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?
In summary, I oppose against the inclusion of this site in the Land Allocations document because of the above!
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
no view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
no view
1270. Mr & Mrs D & K Wharram (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 16:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN281#, R656#, RN43, R98#, RN42#, RN318#
1271. L Whetton (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 10:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN42# RN43# R98# RN305# R138#
1272. L Whetton (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe & Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN42#, RN43#, R98#, RN305#, R138#
1273. W & J Whineray (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1274. W & J Whineray (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1275. A D White (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 12:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316#, RN326#, RN118M#
1276. Mr D J White (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 13:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN35#
1277. Mr D J White (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON54#
1278. Mr and Mrs John Whitehead (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 14:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN326 RN316 RN118M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1279. Mr/s J Whitehead (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 11:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1280. Mr & Ms William & Deborah Whiteside & Gwilliam (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 10:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Slackhead
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN233#
1281. Mrs Vivienne Whitfield (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 09:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1282. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 12:13:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
A590 Corridor and M6 Junction 36
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E56#, E57#, E58#, E61#, E62#, EN18#, EN56# & M7#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support mixed development on land either side of A590 between Brettargh Holt Roundabout and Junction 36 of the M6. Note these are areas for consideration and parts of them may not be suitable for development.
This area is the best and most logical area for expansion of South Lakeland because of its ease of access to the M6 motorway. This will keep the amount of SLDC roads covered by delivery vehicles to a minimum.
It is acknowledged that one of the main causes of air pollution is large lorries. This area was praised as an ideal spot when the New Auction Mart was relocated.
The best sites, like the ones mentioned above, are those which are best for the health and well-being of the people in the district as a whole and this must be given top priority. Junction Congestion and Air Pollution must be evenly shared throughout the entire SLDC district.
Any developments to be screened from the road with trees in a similar manner to roads close to Brettargh Holt Roundabout.
When all Brownfield land has been used then Greenfields (not Green Gaps because they have higher protection) will have to be used for any extra housing/employment in the future and people will have to accept this. In the recent SLDC LA consultation constituents (who vote in the councillors) have given a resounding NO (oppose) to building close to existing settlements.
Compulsory purchase must not be excluded when choosing the best sites. Infrastructure costs will apply no matter where the development is built but keeping development close to a dual carriageway should not make them unreasonable.
While SLDC are breaking EU law on Air Quality developers have no chance in their appeal against their refused planning applications. This must always be the case for Kendal until SLDC obey this law on Air Quality and also meet SLDC “Amber” requirements for Junction Congestion (i.e. No “Red” junctions).
Money would be better spent on providing infrastructure to develop the areas mentioned above rather than knocking down buildings in Kendal to fix the Junction Congestion problem. This will not be accepted by the constituents anyway. Kendal does need "change" but not expansion until existing problems have been fixed.
A good idea is one proposed by Kendal Town Council and that is to have a “Hub & Spoke” system rather than the currently proposed “Doughnut” system (see KTC report “Sustainable Development for Kendal”). This area would make an ideal “satellite” on a Kendal “spoke”.
There is a document which can be obtained from site -http://www.cumbriaobservatory.org.uk/Population/populationforecasts.asp and that is link:
http://www.cumbriaobservatory.org.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/536/673/39898142941.xls
If you look at the South Lakeland worksheet it shows the population peaking at 104,850 in 2005 and projected to decrease to 100,800 in 2025. So there is no need to plan housing for a rising population, just current needs without encouraging inward migration.
If this amount of expansion proposed for South Lakeland in the LA DPD is required (and I doubt this, see KTC report) then the Government must provide the money for compulsory purchase, infrastructure and any similar costs. They must provide the necessary funding for houses & employment before spending money on foreign wars and aid. One’s own citizens come before any other responsibilities. That's what most other countries do, we should do the same.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It is obvious from the SLDC Consultation that the vast majority of constituents do not want development in their neighbourhood, in particular in Kendal. The elected representatives must follow the wishes of the people and not their own agenda.
It would cause less upset if the LA DPD was updated every 5 years, 5 years in advance of the build starting e.g. for build up to 2020 initial LA DPD now; for build 2021-2025 update LA DPD in 2016; for build 2026 – 2030 update LA DPD in 2021 and so on. When Core Strategy targets are not met (they are at the moment aspirational) then little land will need to be added to the LA DPD during an update. Planning any further into the future than this is a waste of time, no one knows what will happen and it only upsets more people than is necessary.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Land should be allocated in the LA DPD every 5 years in line with statement in section 2 above. This is the only way to ensure all settlements take their fair share of traffic and air pollution. This is how the sites should be allocated to even up the health and well-being of local people.
1283. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 12:18:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON46# & ON53#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Unsafe access onto existing roads.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
No view
1284. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 12:20:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN304#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
For the same reasons given for the previous consultation for site R489 (which RN304# is part of).
These are sewage problems (raw sewage on roads during/after heavy rain); this field floods after heavy rain; The extra traffic through Burneside would increase the danger to pedestrians, in particuler children. Also add to the already unacceptable junction congestion in Kendal which is not currently meeting EU law.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
No view
1285. D J & S M Whittaker (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1286. D J & S M Whittaker (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1287. Mr & Mrs L & K Whittaker (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1288. Mr & Mrs L & K Whittaker (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1289. Mr & Mrs C & C Wickham (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1290. Mr & Mrs C & C Wickham (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1291. Mr Richard Wiejak (Individual) : 27 Aug 2011 17:35:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I do not see a requirement for additional Industrial Development within the village. Access from the minor road out of the development onto the A595 is already hazardous without creating extra traffic.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B would appear to better address the needs of the community.
1292. Mr Richard Wiejak (Individual) : 27 Aug 2011 17:44:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN11# and RN63#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Access to and from the site is directly onto the A595 and therefore does not create the extra traffic problems associated with other areas identified.
Access to the local amenities eg school, shop, playing fields is possible for children without having to cross the A595.
The area would appear to have a very limited detrimental visual impact on existing housing.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1293. Mr & Mrs T & W Wightman (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 13:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN316# RN326#
1294. Mr Keith Wightman (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 09:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279#
1295. Mr & Mrs Robert & Winifred Wilcock (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 13:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN293#
1296. Mr & Mrs Robert & Winifred Wilcock (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 13:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN293#
1297. Mr M Wild (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN303#, RN298#
1298. Mr Robert Peter Wilding (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1299. Mr Robert Peter Wilding (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1300. Mrs K Wilkins (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 11:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
1301. Mrs Mary Wilkinson (Individual) : 30 Sep 2011 14:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1302. Mr and Mrs Colin & Elaine Wilkinson (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 09:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302# ON50#
1303. Dr M J Wilkinson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
1304. Mr & Mrs Kenneth & Mary Wilkinson (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
1305. Mr Derek Wilkinson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 13:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON45#
1306. Mr and Mrs Colin & Elaine Wilkinson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1307. Mr/s T Wilkinson (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1308. Cllr Colin Williams (Individual) : 12 Aug 2011 13:01:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This land is allocated as high tech engineering and should not be changed to retail. It would be detrimental to the town centre of Ulverston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
1309. Cllr Colin Williams (Individual) : 12 Aug 2011 14:57:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN 178
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The members and trustees of Ford Park are passionate about saving Ford Park for future generations of Ulverston. Over the last 12 years they have made major improvements to this facility. This has been achieved with major grants from central government as well as many other charitable organisations and funding bodies.
By including RN 178 into the local development plan would enable to group to pay its outstanding loans and have a sustainable and viable future.
RN178 is a very small part of the park which has houses either side of it. A small development here would in no way be detrimental to the park as a whole.
I urge you to include this plot of land in the final land allocations plan and in doing so help to save Ford Park for Ulverston
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
1310. Mrs Joan Williams (Individual) : 24 Aug 2011 16:12:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R17#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I have previously made comments about the site, under the reference at the time of PS206(R17), supporting its maintenance as an open space, and for allotment use. I wish to make the following observations on the alternative scheme suggested for housing.
This proposal would result in an unsatisfactory form of backland development with very narrow and inappropriate access.
The land slopes steeply and its development would cause detriment to the privacy of dwellings on Castle Green Close.
Development of this land could also intrude into the view across open fields from the A684 road from Sedbergh, particularly if, as seems likely, trees had to be removed to accommodate the development. The green fields and more distant views over the town and the countryside from the Sedbergh road form a vitally important setting for the town.
To my knowledge the whole of this site has been used for allotments and garden land since 1974 and was in use prior to that. None of the land has been left to lie fallow and it has been consistently cultivated and used. There is a shortage of allotment land in Kendal, with a waiting list, and the loss of this area would contribute to that shortage.
Housing development on R17 would put at risk the colony of rooks in the adjoining fields and would interfere with the important wildlife corridor which has built up through the cultivation of this land.
The final stretch of Castle Green Close approaching the access to the site is very narrow and already has problems with parking and access for residents and utility vehicles. The increased use of the road and the loss of the garages and their use for parking would add to these difficulties.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A shorter time span will allow the Council greater flexibility to respond to changes in circumstances and government policy.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The Land Allocations document gives an opportunity for housing and employment sites to be put forward and also for those sites obviously unsuitable to be identified and if necessary protected. If local communities and local initiatives bring forward schemes which are in line with Core Strategy policies there would seem to be no reason why the Council should not consider them.
1311. Mrs Joan Williams (Individual) : 24 Aug 2011 16:23:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R100#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I have previously given my support to the Council’s proposal to designate this land as Amenity Space. I wish to reiterate my opposition to any proposal to put housing on this site and would ask for my previous responses to be taken into account.
1312. Mrs Joan Williams (Individual) : 24 Aug 2011 16:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R154#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I wish to oppose this alternative proposal RN154# for housing. I have previously given my support to the Council’s proposal to designate this site and the adjoining site R100 as Amenity Space. I shall be grateful if the views I have previously expressed with regard to the importance of this land in the setting of Kendal and views to the Kendal Castle and the wider countryside, can be taken into account in the consideration of this matter.
1313. Mrs Joan Williams (Individual) : 24 Aug 2011 17:36:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M40#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site to the west of Burton Road, together with the adjoining site R140#, forms part of an important protected landscape which has always been regarded either as an Area of Great Landscape Value or latterly as County Landscape in planning policy documents. The mixed development proposed would be inappropriate, contrary to policy, intrusive in the landscape and detrimental to visual amenity . It is part of a landscape which forms the beautiful setting of Kendal when viewed from the A65 on approaching Kendal and when leaving.
In contrast, the area between Oxenholme Road and Burton Road has not been so designated.
The creation of additional accesses from Burton Road would be detrimental to highway safety.
The land is steeply sloping and any development would be prominent and inappropriate. It would be detrimental to the character of the setting of Helme Lodge and The Lodge cottage and would be injurious to the amenities of the residents of those properties.
1314. Mrs Joan Williams (Individual) : 24 Aug 2011 17:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R140#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site to the west of Burton Road, together with the adjoining site M40#, forms part of an important protected landscape which has always been regarded either as an Area of Great Landscape Value or latterly as County Landscape in planning policy documents. In contrast, the area between Oxenholme Road and Burton Road has not been so designated.
The mixed development proposed would be inappropriate, contrary to policy, intrusive in the landscape and detrimental to visual amenity . It is part of a landscape which forms the beautiful setting of Kendal when viewed from the A65 on approaching Kendal and when leaving. Any development on this site, with its open character of agricultural fields, sloping down to the Burton Road, would be prominent and inappropriate. It would be detrimental to the character of the setting of Helme Lodge and The Lodge cottage and would be injurious to the amenities of the residents of those properties .
The creation of additional accesses from Burton Road would be detrimental to highway safety.
1315. Mrs Sarah Williams (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 19:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kendal south east
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M40
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The above area between Burton road and natland road, according to the south lakeland local Plan is in the area 'Designation of County Landscape'; previously areas of great landscape value.
Structure of Plan Policy 12 reads " development and other land use changes detremental to the distinctive character of County Landscape Areas will not normally be permitted...' On the approach to kendal and from kendal this area provides a welcome break from the industrial and commercial buildings of the Superstores and the hospital. it is vital that this area be kept as County Landscape as to offset the commercial developments opposite.
Any development would require access from the Burton Road on the A65 which is already heavily congested with entrances to the rear of the hospital, the front of the hospital, ASDA and B&Q delivery bays in addition to the large roundabout. A recent police survey noted over 11,000 cars psased on a daily basis. The pollution and negative environmental impact of further traffic would be significant.
Furthermore the development proposal would be inappropriate , contrary to policy, and detrimental to the visual amenities of this important entry route into Kendal, where it forms and important part of the landscape. Any development work would require this inappropriate development site to be cut away- changing the layout and aesthetic appearance of, not only the immediate landscape and its elavated position, but the entrance and exit of the town itself.
there are also in existence 2 tree preservation orders on the site, deeming both trees to be of a nature that requires protection from deliberate damage and destruction.
Any development would be highly detrimental to the amenities of the residents of Helme Lodge and The Lodge.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1316. Mrs Sarah Williams (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 19:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kendal south east
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R140#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The above area between Burton road and natland road, according to the south lakeland local Plan is in the area 'Designation of County Landscape'; previously areas of great landscape value.
Structure of Plan Policy 12 reads " development and other land use changes detremental to the distinctive character of County Landscape Areas will not normally be permitted...' On the approach to kendal and from kendal this area provides a welcome break from the industrial and commercial buildings of the Superstores and the hospital. it is vital that this area be kept as County Landscape as to offset the commercial developments opposite.
Any development would require access from the Burton Road on the A65 which is already heavily congested with entrances to the rear of the hospital, the front of the hospital, ASDA and B&Q delivery bays in addition to the large roundabout. A recent police survey noted over 11,000 cars psased on a daily basis. The pollution and negative environmental impact of further traffic would be significant.
Furthermore the development proposal would be inappropriate , contrary to policy, and detrimental to the visual amenities of this important entry route into Kendal, where it forms and important part of the landscape. Any development work would require this inappropriate development site to be cut away- changing the layout and aesthetic appearance of, not only the immediate landscape and its elavated position, but the entrance and exit of the town itself.
Any development would be highly detrimental to the amenities of the residents of Helme Lodge and The Lodge.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1317. Mrs Sarah Williams (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 19:25:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kendal south east
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M40#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The above area between Burton road and natland road, according to the south lakeland local Plan is in the area 'Designation of County Landscape'; previously areas of great landscape value.
Structure of Plan Policy 12 reads " development and other land use changes detremental to the distinctive character of County Landscape Areas will not normally be permitted...' On the approach to kendal and from kendal this area provides a welcome break from the industrial and commercial buildings of the Superstores and the hospital. it is vital that this area be kept as County Landscape as to offset the commercial developments opposite.
Any development would require access from the Burton Road on the A65 which is already heavily congested with entrances to the rear of the hospital, the front of the hospital, ASDA and B&Q delivery bays in addition to the large roundabout. A recent police survey noted over 11,000 cars psased on a daily basis. The pollution and negative environmental impact of further traffic would be significant.
Furthermore the development proposal would be inappropriate , contrary to policy, and detrimental to the visual amenities of this important entry route into Kendal, where it forms and important part of the landscape. Any development work would require this inappropriate development site to be cut away- changing the layout and aesthetic appearance of, not only the immediate landscape and its elavated position, but the entrance and exit of the town itself.
there are also in existence 2 tree preservation orders on the site, deeming both trees to be of a nature that requires protection from deliberate damage and destruction.
Any development would be highly detrimental to the amenities of the residents of Helme Lodge and The Lodge.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1318. Mrs Joan Williams (Individual) : 13 Sep 2011 15:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1319. Mrs Margaret Williams (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 09:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
1320. Ms Moira Williams (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 11:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121
1321. Mrs Margaret Williams (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 14:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R211#
1322. Ms Moira Williams (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1323. Mr/s P Williams (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 15:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1324. Mrs Joan Williams (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 12:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1325. Mr and Mrs Wills (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1326. Mr and Mrs Wills (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1327. Mr and Mrs Bruce and Nancy Wilson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 09:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#, ON50#
1328. Mr Maurice Wilson (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 13:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
1329. Mrs D. Wilson (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 09:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
1330. Mr & Mrs J S & K M Wilson (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN298#, RN303#
1331. Mr and Mrs Bruce and Nancy Wilson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1332. Mr and Mrs Bruce and Nancy Wilson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1333. Mr/s N Wilson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 14:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1334. Mrs Jean Wilson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 16:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1335. Mrs Jean Wilson (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 16:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1336. Mr Trevor Wilson (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 10:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN84#, RN230#
1337. Ms Mary Wilson (Individual) : 5 Dec 2011 15:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R675M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1338. Mr Stephen Winkley (Individual) : 5 Oct 2011 13:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R141 R121M RN302 ON50
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1339. Mr Stephen Winkley (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1340. Mr Stephen Winkley (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 13:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1341. Mr/s P Winston (Individual) : 17 Oct 2011 13:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
1342. Mr Arthur Wood (Individual) : 13 Oct 2011 15:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R685SW#
1343. Mr & Mrs John & Elizabeth Irene Woodburn (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1344. Mr & Mrs John & Elizabeth Irene Woodburn (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1345. Mrs Diane Woodhouse (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 12:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6 M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I STRONGLY OPPOSE any development on this site. It has been suggested that employment and food retail could be put on this site.
I wish to object on the following points
1. This is an important Green Gap area after leaving Ulverston, before entering Swarthmoor, the area is also outside the Development Boundary of Ulverston.
2. The A590 is already incredibly dangerous and is congested, frequently stationary with accidents and roadworks. Any further development especially a superstore would be untenable and this road runs through villages and residential areas.
3. We are saturated with supermarkets. In Barrow 1 in 4 town centre shops have closed since the arrival of Tesco etc. Ulverston would be decimated and jobs would be lost in the town centre.It would lose its appeal as a market and tourist town.Any low paid retail jobs would be of low added value.Ulverston needs to concentrate on providing hi tech employment zones.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
1346. Ms Barbara Woodruff (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 10:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R690# R691#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1347. Mr Bob Woodruff (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 10:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R690# R691#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1348. Mr R Woods (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 13:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON43#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1349. Mr and Mrs R & S Woodward (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 15:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689ULV
1350. Mr and Mrs R & S Woodward (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 15:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689ULV
1351. Mr and Mrs R & S Woodward (Individual) : 12 Oct 2011 15:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN243#
1352. Mr/Mrs/s M Woodward (Individual) : 15 Dec 2011 09:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
1353. Mrs Frances Woolgrove (Individual) : 26 Oct 2011 12:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN299#
1354. Mr Gordon W Woolley (Individual) : 27 Oct 2011 09:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN15#, R689#, ON26#, EN51#, EN53#, EN52#, EN50#
1355. Mr & Mrs Wootton (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 11:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1356. Mr Stephen Wray (Individual) : 22 Aug 2011 06:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
NATLAND
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The development of site RN256 for housing would damage the attractive green belt area that surrounds Natland. Approaching from Natland Road it would look like a modern development and a suburb of Kendal. The scale of the proposed site is disproportionally too large for the size of the village and would ruin the character of a traditional village.
The proposed use for housing would lead to the loss of important agricultural land which form part of the village setting.
Traffic from the proposed development would still travel through the village centre to access the A65 to avoid the traffic at Romney roundabout and bridge. Helme Lane and Oxenholme Lane are both single track used by residents of the village, walkers, horse riders, farm vehicles and is a bus route. They could not cope with the inevitable increase in the volume of traffic from the proposed development RN256.
The development would blight and spoil the quality of life, privacy for the many surrounding properties.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I believe the current view on planning will change in the next 10 years and we may regret building on our green belt land as is the present thinking. More use should be made of brown field sites and limited the number of 2nd/holiday homes that are empty for most of the year. We should protect farming land, we may need it in the future.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B, but depends on who is making the decisions.
1357. Ms Judith Wray (Individual) : 6 Oct 2011 10:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
1358. Rev & Mrs G Wright (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 14:49:00
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN 445 & RN296
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
RN 445 is at the end of the village, access is good and a small number of modest houses would be an improvement on the present car park. A couple houses continuing the line at RN296 would not detract from the linear nature of the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1359. Mrs Leanne Wright (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 22:37:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Excellent site for houses being close to A590 with routes to Barrow and Ulverston and close to schools and shops. No busy road to cross to get to Barrow just go with line of traffic. Countryside views and an excellent location also convienent as near a small village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A need for housing in that area.
1360. Mr and Mrs GH and S Wright (Individual) : 19 Sep 2011 10:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R81
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1361. P & M Wright (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
1362. P & M Wright (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 11:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton in Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270#
1363. Mrs G P Wright (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 09:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
1364. S & M Wright (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1365. S & M Wright (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 11:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1366. Mr Alan Wynne (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 08:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R445#, R14#, RN325#, RN310#, RN109#, RN324#, RN316#, RN326#, RN252#, RN221#, RN167#, RN296#, RN39#,
1367. Mr Peter Yare (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 22:02:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
At least 19 + Properties visual amenity would immediately be impacted on by any potential development and would impact on residents satisfaction of the surrounding area. The owner of the view is not necessarily the legal owner of the land.
There would be an adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II listed building in the village “The Church” from where the proposed development would be visible from.
The planned areas are an inappropriate extension of the village limit into the surrounding countryside serving no benefit to the existing community.
Increased traffic volumes to and from the village on roads that are currently notorious for accidents could increase the risk to existing and any new residents.
Increased traffic volumes passing existing properties and the School is a potential problem/risk for residents and their properties with many properties being near any potential access roads. Also dependent on where access is granted to any development site the increase in traffic volume could pose a safety risk to residents.
Grayrigg village has very little artificial light during the night time with limited street lighting creating a countryside setting, ideal for night time wildlife such as bats and owls that are regularly heard and seen in the fields referred to as RN257#. Any proposed development could generate an increased level of artificial lighting thus again impacting on the visual amenity and privacy of existing residents as well as having an impact on the local wildlife.
Increased noise levels during any construction period and increased noise levels due to an increase in traffic using the roads to access any development would and could cause unnecessary suffering to existing residents removing their right and reasons for living in a quiet rural location.
The existing infrastructure of the village is in my opinion insufficient to support additional housing, with no services such as shops a limited size school, or major local employer and an increase in population would threaten the existing balance between residents and the countryside and spoil the rural feel of the village. The rural feel of the village is one of the many reasons existing residents moved here and have remained here.
The settlement of Grayrigg`s character would be adversely impacted on through any excessive development removing all the reasons why many existing residents have chosen to live here.
The proposed sites if developed would erode the rural character of the village.
Any development could have an impact on local wildlife and upset any existing natural habitat balance.
Having lived in the village for over 10 years there has never been to my knowledge any demand from residents for an increase in housing within the villages boundaries. The number of current residents who would be looking to take up any local occupancy housing in the village is limited and the clause would eventually be opened up potentially to the wider South Lakes Area thus the development may serve little or no use to the existing residents and their offspring.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
22 Years is too long a period for control of applications and decisions to be led by central decision makers to provide a quick fix to any housing needs that could be regretted when it is too late.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I believe that any decision on the needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside are best made with neighbourhood plans and locals involvement as opposed to central/local government decisions being made with no regard to local residents. Every individual surely has a right to have their say and be heard on matters that impact on them and their property. In the current climate we must retain our rights to voice our opinion or else we run the risk of becoming led by beurocrats who make little or no consideration to the wellbeing of existing residents but are more concerned about increasing development of rural areas just to increase housing when there may be no need for more housing for the existing residents.
1368. Mr Peter Yare (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 22:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN258#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
At least 19 + Properties visual amenity would immediately be impacted on by any potential development and would impact on residents satisfaction of the surrounding area. The owner of the view is not necessarily the legal owner of the land.
There would be an adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II listed building in the village “The Church” from where the proposed development would be visible from.
The planned areas are an inappropriate extension of the village limit into the surrounding countryside serving no benefit to the existing community.
Increased traffic volumes to and from the village on roads that are currently notorious for accidents could increase the risk to existing and any new residents.
Increased traffic volumes passing existing properties and the School is a potential problem/risk for residents and their properties with many properties being near any potential access roads. Also dependent on where access is granted to any development site the increase in traffic volume could pose a safety risk to residents.
Grayrigg village has very little artificial light during the night time with limited street lighting creating a countryside setting, ideal for night time wildlife such as bats and owls that are regularly heard and seen in the fields referred to as RN257#. Any proposed development could generate an increased level of artificial lighting thus again impacting on the visual amenity and privacy of existing residents as well as having an impact on the local wildlife.
Increased noise levels during any construction period and increased noise levels due to an increase in traffic using the roads to access any development would and could cause unnecessary suffering to existing residents removing their right and reasons for living in a quiet rural location.
The existing infrastructure of the village is in my opinion insufficient to support additional housing, with no services such as shops a limited size school, or major local employer and an increase in population would threaten the existing balance between residents and the countryside and spoil the rural feel of the village. The rural feel of the village is one of the many reasons existing residents moved here and have remained here.
The settlement of Grayrigg`s character would be adversely impacted on through any excessive development removing all the reasons why many existing residents have chosen to live here.
The proposed sites if developed would erode the rural character of the village.
Any development could have an impact on local wildlife and upset any existing natural habitat balance.
Having lived in the village for over 10 years there has never been to my knowledge any demand from residents for an increase in housing within the villages boundaries. The number of current residents who would be looking to take up any local occupancy housing in the village is limited and the clause would eventually be opened up potentially to the wider South Lakes Area thus the development may serve little or no use to the existing residents and their offspring.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
22 Years is too long a period for control of applications and decisions to be led by central decision makers to provide a quick fix to any housing needs that could be regretted when it is too late.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I believe that any decision on the needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside are best made with neighbourhood plans and locals involvement as opposed to central/local government decisions being made with no regard to local residents. Every individual surely has a right to have their say and be heard on matters that impact on them and their property. In the current climate we must retain our rights to voice our opinion or else we run the risk of becoming led by beurocrats who make little or no consideration to the wellbeing of existing residents but are more concerned about increasing development of rural areas just to increase housing when there may be no need for more housing for the existing residents.
1369. Mrs Bernadette Yare (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 21:58:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257# and RN258#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The village of Grayrigg has a small population with single depth houses running down either side of the main road (with the exception of half a dozen houses situated on a side lane). Below, are my outlined objections regarding any proposal for development within the surrounding countryside, as depicted in RN257# and RN258#.
* The infrastucture of Grayrigg is insufficient to deal with an influx in population.
* The local community will not benefit by an increase in housing. infact, existing resources would
be stretched.
* An increase in housing/population is insustainable. There is no local employment other than
farming (which in itself is suffering a financial decline). Public transport is limited. Combine
these facts and it leads to the necessity for home-owners to own a vehicle. This increases the
cost of living in the village of Grayrigg and in turn makes a nonsense of the Governments'
proposals to ease housing development plans in green-belt areas.
* The school (the ONLY amenity in the village), has limited capacity, is situated on the main road
and has only road-side parking. Any increase in volumes of traffic and attendance would bring
with it, an increased risk to the Health and Safety of pedestrians.
* The countryside, it's flora, fauna and wildlife spill into many of the gardens which back onto
the 'proposed alternative areas for development'. Some households have actively encouraged this
and have helped increase numbers and varieties of a range of wildlife inhabiting the local area.
Some of the visiting birds use this 'proposed area' as a 'corridor' to feeding sites in gardens.
One particular household, who's garden backs onto the 'proposed area', houses bats (a protected
species) which feed in the fields proposed for development.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As it stands, the period is too long and does not cater for changes which could occur.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Local communities are the experts regarding the life and workings of their particular environment. To decide any land allocation via a paper exercise and disregard local knowledge would be fool-hardy.
1370. Miss Susan Young (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 09:42:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is probably the most ridiculous option going. The impact to LDNP and the A590 are huge. Not to mention the impact on the residents of Levens. The view of the Lythe Valley from this elevated position is one of the most outstanding features of the village. It is also single track access already carrying and large amount of traffic. The route out of the village on the north side is steep, twisty, many blind corners and nothing much more than a country lane. The impact of many more vehicles using this (especially at peak times) i.e. people travelling to work, most likely in Kendal or surrounding area as there is no employment in Levens ?????????? (Why the houses to create more carbon footprint when they need to travel back to towns like Kendal to work) is only going to create a dangerous situation. School children walk to the very top of this hill to visit the woods for outdoor lessons (Forest Schools,Woodland Wonder) on a regular basis. I will not be permitting my child (however well supervised), to go if this road becomes a busy thoroughfare. Also what is a child to learn about the environment when currently they are appreciating living in a rural community with a real knowledge of space, wildlife and countryside, oops, with in excess of probably another 140 vehicles to dodge. I certaintly do not want any more vehicles using the southern access from the A590 along Levens Lane either for the very same reason as above. This is also single track access opening up at the very school gates.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Moving the goalposts now raises suspicion.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It feels like a free for all now. At least keep it all under the same umberella
1371. Miss Susan Young (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 10:19:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN123# & RN127#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
RN123# This building has been an eyesore for the community for far too long. There is sufficient scope here to create several dwellings and with sympethetic construction to neighbouring properties this would actually be a great improvement for the village.
RN127# This would be an ideal location for small discreet development. The main bonus for here would be the direct access to the A590 without creating more traffic through the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
1372. Miss Susan Young (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 10:47:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R105#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This may appear to some as a logical site, however, the impact on the existing Greengate estate would be huge. The existing junction from Greengate onto the main road is already very busy at peak times especially as it is virtually opposite the school gates. Tacking an estate onto the back of an existing estate with the same vehicular access is quite unacceptable. Greegate is predominantly elderly and one would like to think that these people have chosen to live here because it is quiet and safe. Is NO consideration given to the distress this proposed development would cause, an estate at the bottom of their back garden and a rat run outside their front door. The access to this site is a bottleneck and those currently living on the edge of the access road would be severely compromised. The current infasructure of mains services is antiquated now. I can positively confirm that United Utilities do NOT know themselves where the main sewerage pipe serving the north west side of Greengate actually is!? We have constant problems with water pressure, sewerage and intermitent electrical interuption.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
1373. Mr & Mrs James and Dorothy Young (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 10:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN326#, RN316#, RN118
1374. Mr and Mrs R and C Zimbeva (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1375. Mr and Mrs R and C Zimbeva (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 12:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1376. Mr Simon Barton (Individual) : 14 Oct 2011 15:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
General
1377. Mr David Bullas (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 10:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1378. Mr David Cordwell (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 22:55:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham & Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R445#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Although I support the proposition that in Small Villages, Hamlets & Open Countryside, no sites should be allocated for houses & employment in the Land allocations document, I do think that small scale development on R445 to meet a demonstrable local need would be acceptable.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In the current economic climate, a shorter timescale has to be sensible since it gives an earlier opportunity for a change in policy.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Small vilages & hamlets need to stay small and open countryside needs to stay open. These are valuable resources which, once built on, are lost for all time. Development should only be considered where there is a demonstrable local need.
1379. Mr Christopher Dodd (Individual) : 15 Sep 2011 08:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
1380. Chairman HLMC, Helsington Laithes Management Company Ltd (Individual) : 24 Oct 2011 09:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1381. Mr & Mrs James Hamilton & Jill Longden-Thurgood (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1382. Mr & Mrs James Hamilton & Jill Longden-Thurgood (Individual) : 8 Dec 2011 10:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105#
1383. Mr Geoffrey & Hilary Seed (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN290#, RN230#
1384. Mr Geoffrey & Hilary Seed (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 11:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN290#, RN230#, M32#, RN224#, RN195#, RN86#, RN84#, R339#, RN73#
1385. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:13:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN339#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I oppose the inclusion of R339# in the Land Allocation Plan for the following reasons.
(i) R339# provides an open aspect near the centre of the northern part of the village of Allithwaite; this is particularly welcoming when one approaches the village along Boarbank Lane from Cark. If R339# was built up to maximum capacity, then there would be a really 'solid' lump of housing at the north end of the village.
(ii) R339# in its present agricultural state allows good views to the south and west from Meadow Bank (in Green Lane) and to the south from upper windows in some of the terraced houses in Green Lane; it also allows views of Wart Barrow and Fell End from upper windows in Heather Bank and Fairfield (in Vicarage Lane). (The views across R339# from some bungalows in Green Lane are currently obstructed by some tall trees that have been allowed to grow up in the hedge between R339# and Green Lane.)
(iii) Green Lane and Vicarage Lane are narrow: it seems to me to be essential that, if R339# (with or without R73#) is used for housing, then part of those areas should be used for widening Green Lane and Vicarage Lane, and for providing pedestrian footways. Even so, it seems difficult to widen Green Lane between Meadow Bank and Church Road, and difficult to widen the lower part of Vicarage Lane. It should also be borne in mind that at least one person living in a terraced house in Green Lane currently 'garages' a car on Green Lane, and this would add an extra complication if building were allowed on R339#.
(iv) R339# appears to be viable agricultural land where food crops are grown. As the effects of Peak Oil become clearer, and transport and distribution costs escalate, it will, I believe, become (before 2025) more important for food crops to be grown locally where possible. For this reason, I think R339# should be kept as agricultural land.
I have heard that United Utilities might only upgrade the sewerage system in Allithwaite for developments of c.40 (or more) houses. If that really is the case, then I think only larger sites should be included in the Land Allocation Plan for Allithwaite. However, 40 houses on R339# would be rather cramped together, and would not allow the occupants much in the way of gardens: I think new houses should have reasonable gardens (or access to allotments) so that the occupants can grow some of their own food. I therefore support the inclusion of R69M between Wart Barrow Lane and Cartmel Road and R343M behind Church Road, as originally proposed by SLDC in the first consultation, or (perhaps part of) RN230#, and not R339#.
If it is thought essential to include RN339# in the Land Allocation Plan, then perhaps a partial housing development of just bungalows could be planned, with a village green in the corner where Vicarage Lane and Green Lane meet, RN73# used as allotments until it is needed for extension of the graveyard, and a footway provided through the middle of R339# from the Vicarage Lane/Green Lane corner to the Church/School, so that the views mentioned under (ii) above would be preserved and children could walk more safely to school.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I oppose the suggestion that the Land Allocations document should cover a shorter period to an earlier end date. The main reasons for my opposition are (i) my unease about the changes proposed by the coalition government to the UK's planning regime, (ii) my feeling that the hard work already undertaken by my local Parish Council should be rewarded by a long period of validity for the resulting plan, and (iii) my concerns about difficult circumstances that might face the UK in the 2020s.
(i) Apparently, the coalition government's new legislation about planning will introduce a presumption of 'yes' as a response to most planning applications, and I therefore feel that formal adoption of the Land Allocation document for the period from 2011 until 2025 could provide South Lakeland with some measure of protection against vigorous development. The sentence 'Planning permission should be granted where relevant policies are out of date, for example where a local authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.' in paragraph 110 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework document aggravates my concerns.
(ii) Conversations with a member of the local Parish Council indicate that a great deal of work has gone into consideration of the Land Allocation Plan for Allithwaite.
(iii) By 2020, there could be more manifestations in the UK of the effects of climate change. For example, there might be substantial, and quite legal, immigration to the UK by climate change refugees from hot countries in the south of the EU. This could put increased strain on the UK's housing resources, and SLDC's Land Allocation document would mean that South Lakeland, while able to welcome some such refugees, would not be overrun during that document's period of validity.
1386. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:23:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN72#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I think the character of the village of Allithwaite would be best preserved if additional housing were restricted to small 'infill' sites, rather than concentrated in large groupings, provided that the combined developments in Allithwaite under the Land Allocation Plan are accompanied by commensurate improvements in the village's infrastructure (sewerage, water, electricity and gas supplies, road widening, provision of pedestrian footways) appropriate for a 10% increase in the village's population. RN72# is a possible small 'infill' site, and I would support its inclusion in the Land Allocation Plan provided that
(i) only one row of new houses is permitted on it, and those houses follow the building lines of the neighbouring Greystones, Heather Bank and Fairfield;
(ii) the sea-side boundary of the new houses' back gardens (is as on the plan and) continues the corresponding boundary for Heather Bank;
(iii) part of RN72# is used to widen Vicarage Lane and provide a pedestrian footway where RN72# fronts onto the lane;
(iv) the new houses are allocated reasonable-sized gardens, so that the occupants can grow some of their own food;
(v) the new houses are provided with garages and/or parking space, so that overnight parking does not occur on Vicarage Lane;
(vi) the present access (for the farmer) from Vicarage Lane to some fields on the sea side of RN72# is maintained; and
(vii) (as stated above) the combined developments in Allithwaite under the Land Allocation Plan are accompanied by commensurate improvements in the village's infrastructure (sewerage, water, electricity and gas supplies, road widening, provision of pedestrian footways) appropriate for a 10% increase in the village's population.
However, I have heard that United Utilities might only upgrade the sewerage system in Allithwaite for developments of c.40 (or more) houses; if that really is the case, then I would not after all support the idea of providing c.80 new homes by using several small 'infill' sites, and instead I would support the inclusion of one or two larger sites only, such as R69M between Wart Barrow Lane and Cartmel Road and R343M behind Church Road, as originally proposed by SLDC in the first consultation. There is no point in having a pretty village if its sewers don't work properly!
1387. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN290#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I oppose the inclusion of RN290# in the Land Allocation Plan because building thereon would obstruct views to the north from houses on the north side of Templand Park.
1388. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:30:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN262#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I oppose the inclusion of RN262# in the Land Allocation Plan beacuse the site could become more susceptible to flooding as the effects of climate change become more pronounced in the 2020s.
1389. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:33:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN261#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I oppose the inclusion of RN261# in the Land Allocation Plan because the site could become more susceptible to flooding as the effects of climate change become more pronounced in the 2020s.
1390. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:36:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support the idea of a small 'ribbon development' of new housing at the south end of RN230#, provided that it is accompanied by a new pedestrian footway from the end of the footway in Holme Lane, along the western edge of RN230#, and leading to Quarry Lane.
1391. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:39:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN84#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support the inclusion of RN84# in the Land Allocation Plan provided the new houses follow the building lines of the existing houses in Holme Lane and there is a new roundabout at the junction of Kirkhead Road, Jack Hill and the B5277.
1392. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:41:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN79#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Given that the views northwards from the existing houses in the upper part of Jack Hill are obscured by a high hedge, I support the inclusion of RN79# in the Land Allocation Plan provided there is a new roundabout at the junction of Kirkhead Road, Jack Hill and the B5277.
1393. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:43:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN82#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support the inclusion of RN82# in the Land Allocation Plan provided there is a new roundabout at the junction of Kirkhead Road, Jack Hill and the B5277.
1394. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:46:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN86#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support the inclusion of RN86# in the Land Allocation Plan provided there are new traffic lights to control 'the Narrows' and there is a new pedestrian footway from houses behind 'the Narrows', via M32#, to somewhere near the centre of the village, with a branch to the 'Pheasant'.
1395. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:48:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN224#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support the inclusion of RN224# in the Land Allocation Plan provided there are new traffic lights to control 'the Narrows' and there is a new pedestrian footway from houses behind 'the Narrows' , via M32#, to somewhere near the centre of the village, with a branch to the 'Pheasant'.
1396. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:51:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN195#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support the inclusion of RN195# in the Land Allocation Plan provided there are new traffic lights to control 'the Narrows' and there is a new pedestrian footway from houses behind 'the Narrows' , via M32#, to somewhere near the centre of the village, with a branch to the 'Pheasant'.
1397. Mr Rodney Sharp (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 12:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M32#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I support the idea of some housing development on M32# provided there is a new pedestrian footway from houses behind 'the Narrows' , via M32#, to somewhere near the centre of the village, with a branch to the 'Pheasant'.
1398. Mr and Mrs T Taylforth (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 21:28:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We fully support the representations previously submitted by HOW Planning on behalf of Rawdon Property seeking an amendment to the proposed allocation of site M11M at West Lodge, Ulverston for employment development. The site is readily available and deliverable for development, and for the reasons set out in previous representations we fully support the release of this site from the Green Gap and we consider the Councils reasons for doing so are appropriate. We agree with the representations submitted by Rawdon Property which state that whilst the site is an entirely appropriate location for new development, without a change to the proposed use for this site it is unlikely to come forward for development in the short to medium term. We agree and fully support the proposal that a mix of uses including employment and a retail foodstore would be best suited to this location given the need for additional food retailing in Ulverston and the absence of a suitable, deliverable site within Ulverston town centre. This would open up the site allowing employment development to be delivered in the short term which would bring new jobs to the local area which are needed and the foodstore itself would provide additional valuable new jobs for Ulverston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We consider that the previously stated timeframe for the DPO (till 2025) is appropriate and should be maintained.
1399. Mr Michael Waterton (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 14:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal East
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I refer to my previous submissions objecting to the proposed change of use of site R121M and wish to confirm those objections in this response.
RN302 appears to be equally inappropriate for all of the reasons previously stated – the significant increase in flood risk, destruction of a valuable and highly visible area of the local landscape, an inappropriate extension of the Kendal town boundary, destruction of a valuable habitat for protected wildlife, to name but a few. RN302 would extend even further up the hill and so would increase the size and prominence of this development further, thereby compounding the problems relating to R121M, and I oppose this proposal.
Designation of ON50 as a public open space has also been proposed, subject to RN302 and R121M being approved. The land covered by ON50 is a delightful area populated by protected wildlife and it would be criminal if a change of use of this land was ever contemplated. ON50 therefore appears to be a cynical ploy by potential developers designed to encourage acceptance of R121M and RN302 without actually giving anything away. It would be a much more appropriate and far-sighted decision by SLDC if they were to designate all of these areas (ON50, RN302, R121M and R56) as a public open space, for the benefit of residents and visitors alike.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1400. Mr Michael Waterton (Individual) : 20 Oct 2011 09:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1401. Mr & Mrs D Wright (Individual) : 19 Oct 2011 10:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange over Sands
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN260#
1402. Mr. David Ratcliffe , (acting on behalf of residents of Natland and visitors) : 6 Sep 2011 11:21:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Better to have the new development all in one place rather than spread over the whole of the village. Natland does need a car park BUT it should be followed by :-
*double yellow lines around the village green and outside the school to ensure it is used and also
*a well lit pedestrian way to the Village Hall.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The further development of villages like Natland should be avoided for as long as possible and SLDC should be fighting to keep them, not destroy them as they seem bent on doing.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Communities should be responsible for putting forward sites when the majority view of the community can be taken in to account and not just the views of the Parish Council.
1403. C/O Mrs Barbara Copeland, Allithwaite Steering Group : 17 Oct 2011 13:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
15+ sites
1404. Ms Lucy Barron, Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership : 5 Oct 2011 08:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside Slackhead Milnthorpe
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN32# RN233# RN337# RN318#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1405. Mr Chris Ashton, Ashton Planning : 5 Oct 2011 10:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22
1406. Mr Mike Kingsbury, Barbon Parish Council : 6 Sep 2011 15:12:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Barbon
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN279
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Barbon Parish Councillors considered site RN279 between Barnrigg and Watery Lane which has been put forward by the landowner of the site for potential development as housing at a Council Meeting held on 22nd August 2011. Councillors also noted the 8 responses that had been received from residents in connection with this matter, all of which oppose this possible development. It was noted that this site had originally been designated for housing in 1970 but that a Planning Inspector’s Report from 1986 had suggested a development boundary be drawn behind the final 3 properties on Barnrigg which have all since been built and that this area of land (RN279) was currently designated as agricultural land. The lack of suitable access to the site was also regarded as an issue.
A questionnaire was sent to all households in September 2010 which included a section asking for residents views about possible future housing developments. Responses were received from 84% of households in the village and whilst 64% of responses agreed or strongly agreed that a number of low cost houses to accomodate local young people and families should be built only 22% were in favour of these being built outside the village (site RN279 is regarded as being such an "outside the village" site). There are a number of more suitable infill sites in the gaps between houses for development elsewhere in the village. Note that this questionnaire resulted in a Parish Plan that was published in March 2011.
In addition, the Housing Needs Survey carried out in Autumn 2010 by Cumbria Rural Housing Trust and published in May 2011 only identified a need for 2 affordable houses during the next 5 years.
At the end of the discussion, four Councillors voted to oppose this possible development with none in favour - one Councillor, having declared an interest, abstained from the vote (NB Barbon Parish Council has five Councillors so all were present at the Council meeting).
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A longer term view needs to be taken with a plan of this type - a plan that covers the period up to 2025 is therefore to be preferred over a plan that only covers the period to 2020
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
For a small community like Barbon with only 126 houses and around 250 residents new housing development is required to meet local needs rather than be imposed through a Land Allocations process. The latter is only suitable for much larger existing communities.
1407. Mr & Ms Terry & Gillian Varley, Bardsea Leisure Park : 14 Oct 2011 10:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN284#, RN321#, RN141#
1408. Mr John Scargill, Beetham Parish Council : 14 Sep 2011 08:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Storth / Carr Bank
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN28#
1409. Rev. Kevin M. Price, Burneside Parish Council : 5 Oct 2011 14:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E32#, RN304#, ON53#, ON46#, ON47#, RN28#
1410. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton-in-Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN14M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council supports this site which would allow the development of affordable housing within the the natural boundary of the village
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which pressage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1411. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton-in-Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN26
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council is adamantly opposed to this proposal. A deveopment on such a scale would swamp facilities within the village. there is no known demand for so much property. Employment land is available elsewhere in the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which pressage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1412. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:07:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton-in-Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R605
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The Parish Council supports development on this small site if it becomes available.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which pressage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1413. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:10:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton-in-Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN144
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council continues to believe that this land should be retained for future recreational and/or community use.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which presage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1414. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:18:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton-in-Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN270
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Opposd by the Parish Council due to the visual impact of the site on the approach to the village and the large size of the site outside the natural boundary of the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which presage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1415. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:20:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton-in-Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN277
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Opposed by the Parish Council due to the poor access.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which presage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1416. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton-in-Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN278
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Opposed by the Parish Council due to the development being outside and separate from the natural boundary of the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which presage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1417. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton-in-Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN319
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The Parish Council has no objection to this site.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which presage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1418. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:29:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burton-in-Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN327
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The Parish Council supports housing development on this small site.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which presage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1419. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:34:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme Mills (Burton-in-Kendal)
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN151
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Opposed by Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council due to the extension of the existing community beyond its natural boundary.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which presage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1420. Ms Jane Johnson, Burton in Kendal Parish Council : 30 Aug 2011 12:36:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme Mills (Burton-in-Kendal)
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN44
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has no objection to this site.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton in Kendal Parish Council considers that a shorter time period would reduce the total number of housing plots needed to be identified and thus reduce the need for the large sites which presage a major growth in the village for which there is no known local demand. A shorter time would also allow an assessment of the validity of the assumptions to be judged against actual outcomes.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council has identified several small scale housing development sites which would allow for the development affordable or rental property and be consistent with the core strategy. The large scale sites considered in the land allocations process conflict with the core strategy for villages and would exceed the local demand indicated by the amount of property for sale and undeveloped plots with planning permission.
1421. Russell Armer , c/o Steven Abbott Associates LLP : 19 Oct 2011 09:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
General
1422. Ellis Family , c/o Walker Morris : 13 Oct 2011 14:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R169M, RN299#
1423. Mr A W Coles, Cartmel Old Grammar School Foundation : 5 Oct 2011 13:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN51 EN52 EN53
1424. Mr A W Coles, Cartmel Old Grammar School Foundation : 5 Oct 2011 13:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN268 R383 RN332
1425. Mr Chris Bugler, Chris Bugler Architects Ltd : 30 Sep 2011 14:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN105 RN106
1426. Mrs Alison Earnshaw, Copeland Borough Council : 19 Sep 2011 08:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Broughton in Furness Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN288# RN289# R685SW R686SW RN105# RN106# RN242# RN243# RN315# RN328#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1427. Ms Francesca McEnaney, Cumbria County Council : 2 Nov 2011 11:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
General
1428. Mr David Willacy, D H Willacy & Son Ltd : 7 Oct 2011 12:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN322#
1429. Mr David Willacy, D H Willacy & Son Ltd : 7 Oct 2011 12:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280#
1430. Mr David Willacy, D H Willacy & Son Ltd : 7 Oct 2011 12:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON56#
1431. Mr David Ross, D&M Ross Buiilders : 5 Oct 2011 11:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
1432. Mrs Joanne Hannigan, Egton-with-Newland, Mansriggs & Osmotherley Parish Council : 5 Oct 2011 10:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Greenodd
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN336# RN312# RN236# RN152#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
1433. Mrs Joanne Hannigan, Egton-with-Newland, Mansriggs & Osmotherley Parish Council : 17 Oct 2011 11:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Greenodd & Penny Bridge
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN312#, RN236#, RN152#
1434. Mrs Judith Nelson, English Heritage North West Region : 6 Oct 2011 10:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
1435. Eyre & Wilson : 5 Oct 2011 11:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN84 RN224 RN86 RN72 M32 RN37 RN79
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1436. Eyre & Wilson : 5 Oct 2011 11:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN230
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1437. Ms Jill Salmon, Ford Park Community Group : 12 Aug 2011 14:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston North
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Please see my previous response regarding a small enabling development on this site which is less than 7% of the total area of Ford Park. Ford Park Community Group are committed to retaining the main area of the park as a community amenity. They have nominated the main field of Ford Park to become a Queen Elizabeth II Playing Field which, if elected, would secure it as an open space in perpetuity. The development of RN178 would enable the group to become financially sustainable and continue to manage and develop the park for the enjoyment of the whole community. Ford Park Community Group are currently installing a Natural Play Scheme and restoring and extending the old coach house as a new community centre with cafe and visitor centre. Further plans are being drawn up to restore the walled Kitchen Garden. Ford Park Community Group has received national acclaim for its work in developing Ford Park and the contribution it makes to community benefit. Trustees of the group have developed a sound strategy to create a secure future for Ford Park which includes sacrificing this small area of land to secure the remainder in perpetuity.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See previous response to M11M
1438. Ms Jill Salmon, Ford Park Community Group : 12 Aug 2011 15:06:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly object to the proposal to allocate M11M for retail. Allocating this land for retail would open the door to an 'out-of-town' superstore development which would have a serious impact on Ulverston Town Centre shops and on Ulverston's economy generally. Let people who want to shop in these kind of stores/supermarkets go to Barrow or Kendal and leave Ulverston as a characterful market town with small individual shops.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
2025 seems a long way off and there could be many changes meaning decisions made now could be inappropriate or irrelevant that far down the line.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Not sure either options is quite right. I can understand the need to plan infrastructure for larger developments but public consultation on land allocations seems to stir up local people who, quite understandably, get upset about any proposed changes on their doorstep. Perhaps a mixture of the two with smaller developments coming under Option B and larger developments only offered for consultation once the proposals are more fully formed.
1439. Mr Harry Knowles, Furness Enterprise : 1 Sep 2011 09:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MIIM (and parts of the site as appropriate).
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Furness Enterprise strongly opposes the suggestions by Rawdon Property to designate E19, part of MIIM, and D.Jaynes to designate the whole of MIIM for mixed use i.e. food retail/employment. Likewise we oppose the suggestion by R.Hodgson for mixed use of MN6 for employment/housing. Our strong opposition is based on economic/regeneration grounds.
1. The only justification for removing this valuable accessible greenfield site i.e. MIIM from Green Gap protection is if it makes a significant high added value contribution to the economic development of the area. Food retail is a low added value activity and there is ample food retail provision within the Barrow TTWA, the logical self contained economic area. There are also sufficient housing sites identified without realising this valuable site.
2. Any significant retail development on the MIIM site such as a large supermarket (as proposed by Sainsburys); as an out-of-town site would have a severe negative impact on the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre. This would hence be contrary not only to the South Lakeland Local Development Framework which seeks to improve the vitality and viability of Ulverston town centre, but current and proposed Government planning policy. The new Draft National Planning Policy Framework specifically states "Local planning authorities should: ...recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support the viability and vitality of town centres".
3. Any redesignation of MIIM or any part of it from its current designation in the LDF as a Business/Science Park to a mixed use one i.e. employment/food retail or employment/housing would be contrary to the LDF policies of reducing dependency on lower paid sector jobs (e.g. food retailing) and nurturing Ulverston's unique cluster of high added value, knowledge-intensive engineering jobs through the provision of high quality inward investment and expansion land. Any redesignation of MIIM to a mixed use category is also contrary to the Draft National Planning Policy Framework which specifically states that authorities should "positively plan for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries".
4. We reject the comments made by How Planning on behalf of Rawdon Property that an alternative and preferable use of MIIM is for the site to be released for a mix of uses comprising a retail foodstore and employment development. How Planning argue that this will be the only likely development in the short/medium term. The LDF is looking at land allocations up to at least 2020. The only justification for releasing MIIM from Green Gap protection is that it allows a significant higher added value activity assisting the development of Ulverston’s cluster of high technology industries to take place on the site. Within the time period contemplated given the developments in solid state lighting and subsea engineering, two of Ulverston's unique clusters, this type of development is very likely. A good example of the SLDC's foresight in this regard was the development of the Old Tannery site in Ulverston which was then fought over by two subsea engineering companies, Tronic and Gyrodata with Tronic winning and Gyrodata narrowly prevented from going to Houston. Also within the time frame encompassed by the LDF, there will be a general election which could completely transform public sector funding as regards regeneration particularly for high technology, high added value, knowledge intensive industries.
In summary the only justification for the release of MIIM, in part of as a whole, from its current Green Gap allocation is if, consistent with the LDF and Government current and future planning policy, it was needed for the nurturing of Ulverston's unique cluster of high added value knowledge intensive engineering jobs. Releasing part of MIIM for the development of a large supermarket would be completely contrary to that intention as well as undermining the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We think that the LDF Land Allocations does need to take a long term view re land allocations so that as opportunities arise to, for instance, nurture Ulverston's cluster of high added value knowledge intensive industries these can be taken advantage of.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We would be very concerned if 'B' was adopted given the Government's current presumption in favour of development. Adopting 'B' could be used by developers to bully/cajole local authorities/local communities through legal pressure to release sites which had significant negative impact on local communities/residents. The Land Allocations' process goes through a democratic, consultative process which residents have a better chance of influencing.
1440. Mr Harry Knowles, Furness Enterprise : 1 Sep 2011 09:59:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M28
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Furness Enterprise oppose the designation of M28 to include food retail as proposed by NPL Estates. We are concnerened that any such redesignation could allow the development of a large supermarket in an out-of-town location. This would impact negatively on the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre contrary to the LDF, current and proposed Government policy. For instance the Draft National Planning Policy Framework syas "Local planing authorities should recognised town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support the viability and vitality of town centres".
1441. Mr Christopher Garner, Garner Planning Associates : 9 Sep 2011 11:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
KENDAL
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R124
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Case fully explained in submissions made in relation to the previous consultation exercise.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Land East of Ullswater Road, Kendal (R124)
Representation on behalf of Mrs McCallum and Mr Downham
Consultation Issue 2: Time Span of the Land Allocations Document
The proposal to shorten the time span of the Allocations document to 2020 is not supported.
The Further Allocations document highlights the planning authority’s commitment to meeting Core Strategy housing targets and the pressing need to increase the supply of land for new housing in the short term. Indeed the current housing land supply is marginally over a two year supply, so it is agreed by the objectors that there is an urgent need to deliver housing completions.
GOVERNMENT POLICY
Government policy is misinterpreted in the Further Allocations document.
PPS12: Local Spatial Planning indicates:-
“4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.”
“4.6 Core strategies may allocate strategic sites for development. These should be those sites considered central to achievement of the strategy...”
“5.3 In order to aid delivery of sustainable development, the local planning authority may prepare other development plan documents to provide additional detail which would not be suitable in a core strategy and which requires the status of a development plan...Core strategies can allocate strategic sites, as explained in paragraph 4.6. If it is necessary to allocate sites which have not been allocated in the core strategy, a DPD must be used to allocate these sites.”
The South Lakeland Core Strategy did not seek to allocate any strategic sites and therefore the Allocations document is now the only relevant DPD where all sites can and should be identified.
The Further Allocations document refers to the need to identify sites for 5 years, deliverable sites for 6-10 years and broad locations for future growth for the 11-15 year time period. It is submitted that this is a misinterpretation of Government Policy.
PPS3: Housing states:-
“Delivering a flexible supply of land for housing
52. The Government’s objective is to ensure that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land. Reflecting the principles of ‘Plan, Monitor, Manage’, Local Planning Authorities and Regional Planning Bodies should develop policies and implementation strategies to ensure that sufficient, suitable land is available to achieve their housing and previously-developed land delivery objectives.
“53. At the local level, Local Planning Authorities should set out in Local Development Documents their policies and strategies for delivering the level of housing provision, including identifying broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption...”
“54. Drawing on information from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and or other relevant evidence, Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. ...
55. Local Planning Authorities should also:
– Identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, (my emphasis) for years 11-15. Where it is not possible to identify specific sites for years 11-15, broad locations for future growth should be indicated.
– Linked to above, identify those strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period.
– Show broad locations on a key diagram and locations of specific sites on a proposals map.
– Illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period.
Several significant points emerge from the above guidance:-
1. The requirement is to identify housing sites for a 15 year period either by identifying specific sites or by identifying broad locations on a key diagram. The opportunity for identifying broad locations on a key diagram in the context of the Core Strategy has passed, so the Allocations document must run for a 15 year period and identify specific housing sites in the 0-5 and 6-10 year periods and identify specific sites or broad locations on a key diagram in the 11-15 year period or specific allocations for a 15 year period. Either way there is no scope for the Allocations document to run for less than a 15 year period.
2. The most appropriate place for a key diagram would have been the Core Strategy. Now that the Core Strategy has been adopted the Allocations document should identify specific sites.
3. By identifying specific allocations the Allocations document should assist in meeting the key objective to “enable a continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption.”
4. The planning authority has invested resources in completing a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and identifying specific sites in earlier draft Allocations documentation. The planning authority has demonstrated that it is possible to identify specific developable sites for the 11-15 year period and therefore there is no need to rely on a key diagram at this stage.
CABINET REPORT
The proposal to prepare an Allocations document for the period to 2020 is explained in the Cabinet Report dated 13th July as follows:-
The time horizon of the allocations process
“Although the allocations document must be in conformity with the Core Strategy, there is no compelling planning reason for allocating sites for the period until 2025 in a single allocations document. Were the timescale of the land allocations to be amended to 2003-2020, it would allow for a greater degree of certainty about deliverability, the early release of priority sites, soundness
in relation to the proper phasing of development and infrastructure provision and the timely updating of the strategic basis of the LDF. Any revised time frame would need to be taken into account in revisions to the Local Development Scheme.”
IMPLICATIONS FOR HOUSING LAND SUPPLY
It is difficult to see how shortening the timescale of the plan by five years assists in delivering a flexible and responsive supply of land envisaged by PPS3 or the greater degree of certainty about deliverability suggested in the Cabinet Report. Indeed from the table enclosed within the Further Consultation document it is clear that altering the time span of the plan alone reduces the net housing requirement that needs to be accommodated from 5911 dwellings to 3843 dwellings.
The suggestion of removing any allocations in the small villages and hamlets further reduces the amount of housing to be identified in the Allocations document by 308 dwellings, so only 3535 dwellings will be identified in the Allocations document.
Reducing the number of houses to be identified in the Allocations document by 40% simply reduces flexibility and increases uncertainty.
The housing figures set out in the table within the Further Consultation document are not agreed net requirements. From the information made available, there is an underestimate of net requirements. This exacerbates an issue already raised in previous submissions that the Allocations document intends to allocate land on the basis that each and every site will deliver the required number of completions within the relevant time periods with no allowance for slippage.
COMPELLING REASONS FOR ALLOCATIONS TO 2025
We offer several compelling planning reasons for allocating sites for the period to 2025.
1. A 15 year time horizon meets Government Policy requirements regarding housing provision.
2. Identifying specific sites would ensure the flexible and responsive supply of housing land that Government policy envisages.
3. Rather than provide a greater degree of certainty, a shorter plan period will require the commencement of a review within five years of adoption providing no long term certainty or confidence for local communities.
4. One can envisage another significant five year housing land supply shortfall soon after a 2020 plan is adopted in 2012/2013, particularly bearing in mind the intention to phase the release of many sites post 2014/15. In such a circumstance, and assuming a more favourable economic climate, sites will be promoted by the application and appeal process rather than through a development plan lead process.
5. The purpose of phasing within the adopted Core Strategy and in the previous Allocations Consultation document was to identify priorities. Presumably the higher priority sites were identified in the first and second phases. This is the more appropriate mechanism for delivering priority sites than abandoning a 15 year plan.
6. A plan for 15 years provides certainty to residents and the business community.
It is submitted that the planning authority offer no compelling or sound planning reasons for not progressing a plan to 2025.
MAJOR CHANGES TO THE PLANNING SYSTEM
The Allocations document indicates that “in view of the major changes to the planning system introduced by the Coalition Government, opportunity exists to reduce the time of the Land Allocations document to 10 years.” The document then goes on to refer to three changes, but only one has been implemented at this stage and none suggest the 15 year time horizon for identifying housing sites as specific sites or broad locations on a key diagram has been abandoned.
Each of the “three changes” are discussed are discussed below.
1. Localism Bill
There is nothing in the Localism Bill that refers to reducing the timescale of development plans.
Should the authority decide not to provide for allocations in small villages and hamlets, where 11% of housing and employment requirements are to be met, and instead rely upon local neighbourhood plans to come forward to deliver that 11% requirement, then it is even more important to plan for a 15 year period.
Local neighbourhood plans, is a new and untried concept. Such plans may not come forward in the numbers envisaged and in all probability will not deliver the housing requirements in the timescale that the authority perhaps envisages. If that proves to be the case there will be further difficulty in identifying a five year land supply and an increased likelihood of schemes being progressed through the application and appeal process rather than through a plan led approach.
2. Presumption in favour of sustainable development where plans are absent, silent or out of date.
This is related to a point made above. A plan to 2020 will require early plan review if the authority are to avoid a five year land supply shortfall. It will quickly become out of date and development will necessarily progress by application and appeal rather than a proper plan led approach.
It is unclear how a presumption in favour of sustainable development leads the authority to the conclusion that a shorter plan period would be appropriate.
3. New National Framework
The Draft National Planning Policy Framework was issued for consultation on 25th July after the proposal to shorten the time horizon was considered by members on 7th and 15th July, so it would appear this is a retrospective justification for shortening the plan period. However, there is nothing in the draft framework to suggest shorter development plans are appropriate but rather suggests longer term development plans are required.
Draft NPPF states:-
“19...planning should be genuinely plan-led, with succinct Local Plans setting out a positive long-term vision for an area.”
“24. Crucially Local Plans should:-
• Be drawn up over an appropriate time scale, preferably a 15 year time horizon, take account of longer term requirements and be kept up to date.”
Whilst the guidance does not prescribe that a 15 year time horizon is a policy requirement, it clear the intention is for plans to be long term and that development requirements beyond the 15 year period should be taken into account. The guidance is suggesting plans should be for longer than 15 years, not shorter.
There is nothing in the Draft NPPF to suggest Government Policy is to abandon long term development plans.
The Allocations Consultation document refers to “major uncertainties...about the long term national picture” but there is nothing in any of the documents referred to that suggests an uncertain Central Government policy regarding a long term development plan lead system.
CONCLUDING COMMENT
The planning authority has not justified the reduced timescale of the Allocations document and there are very sound planning reasons as to why it would be inappropriate to do so.
1442. Mr Christopher Garner, Garner Planning Associates : 9 Sep 2011 12:05:00
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Land North of Grange Fell Road, Grange over Sands (RN34)
Representation on behalf of Mr Brocklebank
Consultation Issue 2: Time Span of the Land Allocations Document
The proposal to shorten the time span of the Allocations document to 2020 is not supported.
The Further Allocations document highlights the planning authority’s commitment to meeting Core Strategy housing targets and the pressing need to increase the supply of land for new housing in the short term. Indeed the current housing land supply is marginally over a two year supply, so it is agreed by the objectors that there is an urgent need to deliver housing completions.
GOVERNMENT POLICY
Government policy is misinterpreted in the Further Allocations document.
PPS12: Local Spatial Planning indicates:-
“4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.”
“4.6 Core strategies may allocate strategic sites for development. These should be those sites considered central to achievement of the strategy...”
“5.3 In order to aid delivery of sustainable development, the local planning authority may prepare other development plan documents to provide additional detail which would not be suitable in a core strategy and which requires the status of a development plan...Core strategies can allocate strategic sites, as explained in paragraph 4.6. If it is necessary to allocate sites which have not been allocated in the core strategy, a DPD must be used to allocate these sites.”
The South Lakeland Core Strategy did not seek to allocate any strategic sites and therefore the Allocations document is now the only relevant DPD where all sites can and should be identified.
The Further Allocations document refers to the need to identify sites for 5 years, deliverable sites for 6-10 years and broad locations for future growth for the 11-15 year time period. It is submitted that this is a misinterpretation of Government Policy.
PPS3: Housing states:-
“Delivering a flexible supply of land for housing
52. The Government’s objective is to ensure that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land. Reflecting the principles of ‘Plan, Monitor, Manage’, Local Planning Authorities and Regional Planning Bodies should develop policies and implementation strategies to ensure that sufficient, suitable land is available to achieve their housing and previously-developed land delivery objectives.
“53. At the local level, Local Planning Authorities should set out in Local Development Documents their policies and strategies for delivering the level of housing provision, including identifying broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption...”
“54. Drawing on information from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and or other relevant evidence, Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. ...
55. Local Planning Authorities should also:
– Identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, (my emphasis) for years 11-15. Where it is not possible to identify specific sites for years 11-15, broad locations for future growth should be indicated.
– Linked to above, identify those strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period.
– Show broad locations on a key diagram and locations of specific sites on a proposals map.
– Illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period.
Several significant points emerge from the above guidance:-
1. The requirement is to identify housing sites for a 15 year period either by identifying specific sites or by identifying broad locations on a key diagram. The opportunity for identifying broad locations on a key diagram in the context of the Core Strategy has passed, so the Allocations document must run for a 15 year period and identify specific housing sites in the 0-5 and 6-10 year periods and identify specific sites or broad locations on a key diagram in the 11-15 year period or specific allocations for a 15 year period. Either way there is no scope for the Allocations document to run for less than a 15 year period.
2. The most appropriate place for a key diagram would have been the Core Strategy. Now that the Core Strategy has been adopted the Allocations document should identify specific sites.
3. By identifying specific allocations the Allocations document should assist in meeting the key objective to “enable a continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption.”
4. The planning authority has invested resources in completing a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and identifying specific sites in earlier draft Allocations documentation. The planning authority has demonstrated that it is possible to identify specific developable sites for the 11-15 year period and therefore there is no need to rely on a key diagram at this stage.
CABINET REPORT
The proposal to prepare an Allocations document for the period to 2020 is explained in the Cabinet Report dated 13th July as follows:-
The time horizon of the allocations process
“Although the allocations document must be in conformity with the Core Strategy, there is no compelling planning reason for allocating sites for the period until 2025 in a single allocations document. Were the timescale of the land allocations to be amended to 2003-2020, it would allow for a greater degree of certainty about deliverability, the early release of priority sites, soundness
in relation to the proper phasing of development and infrastructure provision and the timely updating of the strategic basis of the LDF. Any revised time frame would need to be taken into account in revisions to the Local Development Scheme.”
IMPLICATIONS FOR HOUSING LAND SUPPLY
It is difficult to see how shortening the timescale of the plan by five years assists in delivering a flexible and responsive supply of land envisaged by PPS3 or the greater degree of certainty about deliverability suggested in the Cabinet Report. Indeed from the table enclosed within the Further Consultation document it is clear that altering the time span of the plan alone reduces the net housing requirement that needs to be accommodated from 5911 dwellings to 3843 dwellings.
The suggestion of removing any allocations in the small villages and hamlets further reduces the amount of housing to be identified in the Allocations document by 308 dwellings, so only 3535 dwellings will be identified in the Allocations document.
Reducing the number of houses to be identified in the Allocations document by 40% simply reduces flexibility and increases uncertainty.
The housing figures set out in the table within the Further Consultation document are not agreed net requirements. From the information made available, there is an underestimate of net requirements. This exacerbates an issue already raised in previous submissions that the Allocations document intends to allocate land on the basis that each and every site will deliver the required number of completions within the relevant time periods with no allowance for slippage.
COMPELLING REASONS FOR ALLOCATIONS TO 2025
We offer several compelling planning reasons for allocating sites for the period to 2025.
1. A 15 year time horizon meets Government Policy requirements regarding housing provision.
2. Identifying specific sites would ensure the flexible and responsive supply of housing land that Government policy envisages.
3. Rather than provide a greater degree of certainty, a shorter plan period will require the commencement of a review within five years of adoption providing no long term certainty or confidence for local communities.
4. One can envisage another significant five year housing land supply shortfall soon after a 2020 plan is adopted in 2012/2013, particularly bearing in mind the intention to phase the release of many sites post 2014/15. In such a circumstance, and assuming a more favourable economic climate, sites will be promoted by the application and appeal process rather than through a development plan lead process.
5. The purpose of phasing within the adopted Core Strategy and in the previous Allocations Consultation document was to identify priorities. Presumably the higher priority sites were identified in the first and second phases. This is the more appropriate mechanism for delivering priority sites than abandoning a 15 year plan.
6. A plan for 15 years provides certainty to residents and the business community.
It is submitted that the planning authority offer no compelling or sound planning reasons for not progressing a plan to 2025.
MAJOR CHANGES TO THE PLANNING SYSTEM
The Allocations document indicates that “in view of the major changes to the planning system introduced by the Coalition Government, opportunity exists to reduce the time of the Land Allocations document to 10 years.” The document then goes on to refer to three changes, but only one has been implemented at this stage and none suggest the 15 year time horizon for identifying housing sites as specific sites or broad locations on a key diagram has been abandoned.
Each of the “three changes” are discussed are discussed below.
1. Localism Bill
There is nothing in the Localism Bill that refers to reducing the timescale of development plans.
Should the authority decide not to provide for allocations in small villages and hamlets, where 11% of housing and employment requirements are to be met, and instead rely upon local neighbourhood plans to come forward to deliver that 11% requirement, then it is even more important to plan for a 15 year period.
Local neighbourhood plans, is a new and untried concept. Such plans may not come forward in the numbers envisaged and in all probability will not deliver the housing requirements in the timescale that the authority perhaps envisages. If that proves to be the case there will be further difficulty in identifying a five year land supply and an increased likelihood of schemes being progressed through the application and appeal process rather than through a plan led approach.
2. Presumption in favour of sustainable development where plans are absent, silent or out of date.
This is related to a point made above. A plan to 2020 will require early plan review if the authority are to avoid a five year land supply shortfall. It will quickly become out of date and development will necessarily progress by application and appeal rather than a proper plan led approach.
It is unclear how a presumption in favour of sustainable development leads the authority to the conclusion that a shorter plan period would be appropriate.
3. New National Framework
The Draft National Planning Policy Framework was issued for consultation on 25th July after the proposal to shorten the time horizon was considered by members on 7th and 15th July, so it would appear this is a retrospective justification for shortening the plan period. However, there is nothing in the draft framework to suggest shorter development plans are appropriate but rather suggests longer term development plans are required.
Draft NPPF states:-
“19...planning should be genuinely plan-led, with succinct Local Plans setting out a positive long-term vision for an area.”
“24. Crucially Local Plans should:-
• Be drawn up over an appropriate time scale, preferably a 15 year time horizon, take account of longer term requirements and be kept up to date.”
Whilst the guidance does not prescribe that a 15 year time horizon is a policy requirement, it clear the intention is for plans to be long term and that development requirements beyond the 15 year period should be taken into account. The guidance is suggesting plans should be for longer than 15 years, not shorter.
There is nothing in the Draft NPPF to suggest Government Policy is to abandon long term development plans.
The Allocations Consultation document refers to “major uncertainties...about the long term national picture” but there is nothing in any of the documents referred to that suggests an uncertain Central Government policy regarding a long term development plan lead system.
CONCLUDING COMMENT
The planning authority has not justified the reduced timescale of the Allocations document and there are very sound planning reasons as to why it would be inappropriate to do so.
1443. Mr Christopher Garner, Garner Planning Associates : 9 Sep 2011 12:13:00
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Land at Greenside Farm, Hincaster (RN128 and EN43)
Representation on behalf of WA McHardy & Son Ltd
Consultation Issue 2: Time Span of the Land Allocations Document
The proposal to shorten the time span of the Allocations document to 2020 is not supported.
The Further Allocations document highlights the planning authority’s commitment to meeting Core Strategy housing targets and the pressing need to increase the supply of land for new housing in the short term. Indeed the current housing land supply is marginally over a two year supply, so it is agreed by the objectors that there is an urgent need to deliver housing completions.
GOVERNMENT POLICY
Government policy is misinterpreted in the Further Allocations document.
PPS12: Local Spatial Planning indicates:-
“4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.”
“4.6 Core strategies may allocate strategic sites for development. These should be those sites considered central to achievement of the strategy...”
“5.3 In order to aid delivery of sustainable development, the local planning authority may prepare other development plan documents to provide additional detail which would not be suitable in a core strategy and which requires the status of a development plan...Core strategies can allocate strategic sites, as explained in paragraph 4.6. If it is necessary to allocate sites which have not been allocated in the core strategy, a DPD must be used to allocate these sites.”
The South Lakeland Core Strategy did not seek to allocate any strategic sites and therefore the Allocations document is now the only relevant DPD where all sites can and should be identified.
The Further Allocations document refers to the need to identify sites for 5 years, deliverable sites for 6-10 years and broad locations for future growth for the 11-15 year time period. It is submitted that this is a misinterpretation of Government Policy.
PPS3: Housing states:-
“Delivering a flexible supply of land for housing
52. The Government’s objective is to ensure that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land. Reflecting the principles of ‘Plan, Monitor, Manage’, Local Planning Authorities and Regional Planning Bodies should develop policies and implementation strategies to ensure that sufficient, suitable land is available to achieve their housing and previously-developed land delivery objectives.
“53. At the local level, Local Planning Authorities should set out in Local Development Documents their policies and strategies for delivering the level of housing provision, including identifying broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption...”
“54. Drawing on information from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and or other relevant evidence, Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. ...
55. Local Planning Authorities should also:
– Identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, (my emphasis) for years 11-15. Where it is not possible to identify specific sites for years 11-15, broad locations for future growth should be indicated.
– Linked to above, identify those strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period.
– Show broad locations on a key diagram and locations of specific sites on a proposals map.
– Illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period.
Several significant points emerge from the above guidance:-
1. The requirement is to identify housing sites for a 15 year period either by identifying specific sites or by identifying broad locations on a key diagram. The opportunity for identifying broad locations on a key diagram in the context of the Core Strategy has passed, so the Allocations document must run for a 15 year period and identify specific housing sites in the 0-5 and 6-10 year periods and identify specific sites or broad locations on a key diagram in the 11-15 year period or specific allocations for a 15 year period. Either way there is no scope for the Allocations document to run for less than a 15 year period.
2. The most appropriate place for a key diagram would have been the Core Strategy. Now that the Core Strategy has been adopted the Allocations document should identify specific sites.
3. By identifying specific allocations the Allocations document should assist in meeting the key objective to “enable a continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption.”
4. The planning authority has invested resources in completing a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and identifying specific sites in earlier draft Allocations documentation. The planning authority has demonstrated that it is possible to identify specific developable sites for the 11-15 year period and therefore there is no need to rely on a key diagram at this stage.
CABINET REPORT
The proposal to prepare an Allocations document for the period to 2020 is explained in the Cabinet Report dated 13th July as follows:-
The time horizon of the allocations process
“Although the allocations document must be in conformity with the Core Strategy, there is no compelling planning reason for allocating sites for the period until 2025 in a single allocations document. Were the timescale of the land allocations to be amended to 2003-2020, it would allow for a greater degree of certainty about deliverability, the early release of priority sites, soundness
in relation to the proper phasing of development and infrastructure provision and the timely updating of the strategic basis of the LDF. Any revised time frame would need to be taken into account in revisions to the Local Development Scheme.”
IMPLICATIONS FOR HOUSING LAND SUPPLY
It is difficult to see how shortening the timescale of the plan by five years assists in delivering a flexible and responsive supply of land envisaged by PPS3 or the greater degree of certainty about deliverability suggested in the Cabinet Report. Indeed from the table enclosed within the Further Consultation document it is clear that altering the time span of the plan alone reduces the net housing requirement that needs to be accommodated from 5911 dwellings to 3843 dwellings.
The suggestion of removing any allocations in the small villages and hamlets further reduces the amount of housing to be identified in the Allocations document by 308 dwellings, so only 3535 dwellings will be identified in the Allocations document.
Reducing the number of houses to be identified in the Allocations document by 40% simply reduces flexibility and increases uncertainty.
The housing figures set out in the table within the Further Consultation document are not agreed net requirements. From the information made available, there is an underestimate of net requirements. This exacerbates an issue already raised in previous submissions that the Allocations document intends to allocate land on the basis that each and every site will deliver the required number of completions within the relevant time periods with no allowance for slippage.
COMPELLING REASONS FOR ALLOCATIONS TO 2025
We offer several compelling planning reasons for allocating sites for the period to 2025.
1. A 15 year time horizon meets Government Policy requirements regarding housing provision.
2. Identifying specific sites would ensure the flexible and responsive supply of housing land that Government policy envisages.
3. Rather than provide a greater degree of certainty, a shorter plan period will require the commencement of a review within five years of adoption providing no long term certainty or confidence for local communities.
4. One can envisage another significant five year housing land supply shortfall soon after a 2020 plan is adopted in 2012/2013, particularly bearing in mind the intention to phase the release of many sites post 2014/15. In such a circumstance, and assuming a more favourable economic climate, sites will be promoted by the application and appeal process rather than through a development plan lead process.
5. The purpose of phasing within the adopted Core Strategy and in the previous Allocations Consultation document was to identify priorities. Presumably the higher priority sites were identified in the first and second phases. This is the more appropriate mechanism for delivering priority sites than abandoning a 15 year plan.
6. A plan for 15 years provides certainty to residents and the business community.
It is submitted that the planning authority offer no compelling or sound planning reasons for not progressing a plan to 2025.
MAJOR CHANGES TO THE PLANNING SYSTEM
The Allocations document indicates that “in view of the major changes to the planning system introduced by the Coalition Government, opportunity exists to reduce the time of the Land Allocations document to 10 years.” The document then goes on to refer to three changes, but only one has been implemented at this stage and none suggest the 15 year time horizon for identifying housing sites as specific sites or broad locations on a key diagram has been abandoned.
Each of the “three changes” are discussed are discussed below.
1. Localism Bill
There is nothing in the Localism Bill that refers to reducing the timescale of development plans.
Should the authority decide not to provide for allocations in small villages and hamlets, where 11% of housing and employment requirements are to be met, and instead rely upon local neighbourhood plans to come forward to deliver that 11% requirement, then it is even more important to plan for a 15 year period.
Local neighbourhood plans, is a new and untried concept. Such plans may not come forward in the numbers envisaged and in all probability will not deliver the housing requirements in the timescale that the authority perhaps envisages. If that proves to be the case there will be further difficulty in identifying a five year land supply and an increased likelihood of schemes being progressed through the application and appeal process rather than through a plan led approach.
2. Presumption in favour of sustainable development where plans are absent, silent or out of date.
This is related to a point made above. A plan to 2020 will require early plan review if the authority are to avoid a five year land supply shortfall. It will quickly become out of date and development will necessarily progress by application and appeal rather than a proper plan led approach.
It is unclear how a presumption in favour of sustainable development leads the authority to the conclusion that a shorter plan period would be appropriate.
3. New National Framework
The Draft National Planning Policy Framework was issued for consultation on 25th July after the proposal to shorten the time horizon was considered by members on 7th and 15th July, so it would appear this is a retrospective justification for shortening the plan period. However, there is nothing in the draft framework to suggest shorter development plans are appropriate but rather suggests longer term development plans are required.
Draft NPPF states:-
“19...planning should be genuinely plan-led, with succinct Local Plans setting out a positive long-term vision for an area.”
“24. Crucially Local Plans should:-
• Be drawn up over an appropriate time scale, preferably a 15 year time horizon, take account of longer term requirements and be kept up to date.”
Whilst the guidance does not prescribe that a 15 year time horizon is a policy requirement, it clear the intention is for plans to be long term and that development requirements beyond the 15 year period should be taken into account. The guidance is suggesting plans should be for longer than 15 years, not shorter.
There is nothing in the Draft NPPF to suggest Government Policy is to abandon long term development plans.
The Allocations Consultation document refers to “major uncertainties...about the long term national picture” but there is nothing in any of the documents referred to that suggests an uncertain Central Government policy regarding a long term development plan lead system.
CONCLUDING COMMENT
The planning authority has not justified the reduced timescale of the Allocations document and there are very sound planning reasons as to why it would be inappropriate to do so.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It is considered that the most appropriate means of meeting housing and employment needs in the District is by providing sufficient housing and employment sites to meet development requirements in the context of the Allocations document.
The Core Strategy indicates that 11% of development needs are to be met in the small villages and hamlets. Removing 11% of the requirement from the Allocations document jeopardises the ability of the District as a whole to meet established development needs. The implications go beyond the small villages and hamlets.
The Core Strategy went through a lengthy consultation process to establish that areas outside the defined Principal, Key and Local Service Centres should accommodate an appropriate proportion of development requirements. The evolving Allocations document has to date similarly been through an exhaustive consultation process.
All parties will have been given appropriate opportunity to put forward and object to proposed sites in a considered process.
It is inappropriate at this stage in the preparation of the plan, to decide that the Allocations document is not the appropriate document in which to identify larger allocations in the smaller settlements and open countryside.
It is considered that the Allocations document should identify all sites over 0.4ha but leave the opportunity for local initiatives and planning applications to bring forward infilling and rounding off opportunities.
The “exceptional allocation” (3.108) suggested for Greenside Farm, near Hincaster which the Allocations document indicates “would benefit the local environment” should certainly remain in the Allocations document. To enable such a development to proceed in the context of S38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), it is difficult to identify a development plan policy one could rely on to give certainty in drawing up detailed proposals, without having to rely on undefined material considerations.
1444. Ms Louise Armstrong, Gerald Eve LLP : 6 Oct 2011 10:24:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN254 RN279 R143 RN129M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1445. Ms V Tunnadine, Grange Town Council : 5 Oct 2011 11:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange
1446. Mr Shaun Laidler, Grayrigg Parish Meeting : 5 Oct 2011 11:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN258#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1447. Mr Shaun Laidler, Grayrigg Parish Meeting : 5 Oct 2011 11:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1448. Ms Kerry Davies, Hallgarth Action Group : 17 Oct 2011 13:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E4M#
1449. Mr. Thomas Felix, Harling Bank Residents : 16 Sep 2011 15:51:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN331#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1450. Mr Philip Campbell, Helme Lodge Homes & Gardens Ltd : 19 Sep 2011 10:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
Mn34# E31# E31M# M40# R140#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1451. Mr Philip Campbell, Helme Lodge Homes & Gardens Ltd : 15 Dec 2011 09:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
1452. Mr Philip Campbell, Helme Lodge Homes & Gardens Ltd : 15 Dec 2011 09:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#, E31#, M40#, R140#
1453. Ms Jacqueline Davidson, Helsington Parish Council : 6 Oct 2011 09:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
E53 E54 E55 ON56
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1454. Mrs Jacqueline Davidson, Heversham Parish Council : 6 Oct 2011 09:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham Leasgill
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1455. The Holker Estate, Higham & Co : 6 Oct 2011 10:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN25M
1456. The Holker Estate, Higham & Co : 6 Oct 2011 10:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1457. The Holker Estate, Higham & Co : 6 Oct 2011 10:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN11#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1458. The Holker Estate, Higham & Co : 6 Oct 2011 10:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN14#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1459. The Holker Estate, Higham & Co : 6 Oct 2011 10:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN49#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1460. The Holker Estate, Higham & Co : 6 Oct 2011 10:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark Flookburgh
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN41#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1461. The Holker Estate, Higham & Co : 6 Oct 2011 11:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R689#
1462. Mr F Phillipson, Higham & Co. : 6 Oct 2011 10:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN250#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1463. Mr F Phillipson, Higham & Co. : 6 Oct 2011 10:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN243# RN244#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1464. Mr F Phillipson, Higham & Co. : 6 Oct 2011 10:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN311#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1465. Mr F Phillipson, Higham & Co. : 6 Oct 2011 10:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN246#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1466. Mr F Phillipson, Higham & Co. : 6 Oct 2011 10:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN141# RN321# RN284#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1467. Mr F Phillipson, Higham & Co. : 6 Oct 2011 10:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN234#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
1468. Mrs Lindsay Alder, Highways England : 19 Sep 2011 09:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
1469. Mrs Carol Hayton, Holme Parish Council : 19 Oct 2011 09:59:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Holme
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
FCLE446
1470. Mr Ian Gibson, Ian Gibson Architecture Ltd : 19 Oct 2011 13:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R17#
1471. Mr. Brian Fereday, Individual : 22 Aug 2011 22:31:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
If there has to be development I feel that the western or lower part of this area would be the only suitable part of this site. This would save the amazing views of the valley and mountains so distinctive of the village.
To add to this, if the development did take place I feel that there should be an agreement with the landowner selling the land so that the eastern or higher part of the site should be turned into allotment land for the use of the community.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See previous responses.
1472. Mr. Brian Fereday, Individual : 23 Aug 2011 09:56:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN282
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Historically Levens Village was divided into three parts,Causeway End,Cotes and Beathwaite Green. If this development took place it would strongly link up the area of Cotes to the rest of the village as has happened in the case of Causeway End through infill over the years. This open historic landscape with buildings and areas of woodland and agricultural land is distinctive along the edges of the other paarts of the Lyth Valley.Many of these undeveloped, still natural, yet linked areas are important as wildife corridors.This site has a direct link to good wildlife areas to the north.
To build on all these limited areas creating a "solid" landscape, as has begun to happen in other parts of the village, would be a mistake in visual,cultural and conservation terms.
Also any additional regular road traffic in this area to the north end of the village would create problems.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It seems looking at this in an overall way is fairer and more effective.
1473. Mr. Brian Fereday, Individual : 23 Aug 2011 10:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R105
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This would seem an alternative if development has to spread beyond the village.
I feel that density of housing should be kept low and that there is an opportunity to create some natural areas within the site, both grassland and woodland.Also could there be some agreement made with the seller of the land to give up some land for allotment, community use eg orchard, not necessarily part of this site.
I also feel that links to public footpaths should be established at the outset. This would avoid pedestrians having to negotiate increased amounts of traffic volume. Already this is an issue.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Response as before.
1474. Mr. Brian Fereday, Individual : 23 Aug 2011 10:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R142
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose the development of this site and that it would be detrimental in several ways.As with the other sites, producing a "solid" block of housing, on the most visible part of the village from many directions, would take away the essential nature of this village on the limestone ridge. The north-western part of the area which lies alongsie the present playing fields was once an important recreational and social area of the village. Village sports were conducted here and the village football taem had a full size pitch there. This is the only level large area in the village for such activities. As the village grows, which it surely will,the need for such a site will become more important.
There is also an issue if development were to take place with increased traffic. Levens Lane is already an overwhelmed stretch of road being the main route into the village. It carries people in and out often in a rush to get to work etc. There are roadsde parking issues for school and playing fields and the road is dangerously narrow for pedestrians and traffic travelling often too fast for the conditions. Indeed this situation affects all other sites.
Historically this field, until the last development of the A590 was said to be the largest field in Westmorland and possibly still is? Another historicaland cultural landscape detail.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As in previous response.
1475. Mr. Brian Fereday, Individual : 23 Aug 2011 10:39:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN45
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
At present this facility on the "Old Road" appears to have low usage. The "Old Road" is already suffering damage from increased traffic, being used as an alternative route to the busy A590 and also by the heavier nature of farm and trade traffic. This route is a well used recreational route used by walkers and is also part of a designated cycle route. It is also a very pleasant, uplifting place to be but even at present traffic levels there can be disruption to this situation,between vehicles meeting as well as other combinations of users of the road.
If usage of the proposed site increased and more vehicles, possibly larger, began to use this narrow,outdated from a load bearing point of view route,then an important social and cultural feature would lose it's identity.
Already there are large farm buildings linked to the old farmstead sites on the moss. I feel that visually any increased construction in an open area unrelated to the farmstaeds would be very intrusive.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As in previous response
1476. Mr Peter Hensman, Kendal Futures Board : 6 Oct 2011 09:49:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN48 E23K EN46 MN27 RN46 & RN47 E31 E5 & E64 & E8 MN22 M40 R120 R140 E56 & E57 & E58 & EN18 EN56 EN62 E31
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
1477. Ms Elizabeth Richardson, Kendal Town Council : 15 Sep 2011 09:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
1478. Mr Derek Whitmore, Kentrigg West Action Group : 9 Sep 2011 10:05:00
Kendal NW
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN228# Acre Moss Garage Site
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Former garages and therefore brownfield site, well screened on two sides with good access. Ideal site for 100% affordable dwellings.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In our view the shorter timescale would be desirable (2003-2020). This would enable the council to:
i) review the position of land allocation; ii) review the demand fluctuations for housing; and iii) react to changing government edicts and in general create a ‘fit for purpose’ system to meet ever changing needs, both of the public and government.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
No comments by KWAG in this section.
1479. Mr Derek Whitmore, Kentrigg West Action Group : 9 Sep 2011 10:11:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal NW
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN46# Land between River Kent and Westmorland Business Park
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
i) This land is on a flood plain and should not be built upon. It is also an attractive area as viewed from the heavily used footpaths across the river Kent
ii) The proposal would bring industrialisation to the door-step of the river Kent which is acknowledged through Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) to protect the white-clawed Crayfish. The area is abundant with wild life, with otters known to be in the reaches and Kingfishers are regularly seen.
iii) Screening of the site would be difficult and the building would be prominent from the Kentrigg housing area, which is within the KWAG representation area.
iv) The development of this area would further increase traffic on Shap Road and lead to further Junction Congestion in the Longpool area adding to an already over air polluted street scene.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In our view the shorter timescale would be desirable (2003-2020). This would enable the council to:
i) review the position of land allocation; ii) review the demand fluctuations for housing; and iii) react to changing government edicts and in general create a ‘fit for purpose’ system to meet ever changing needs, both of the public and government.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
No comments by KWAG in this section.
1480. Mr Derek Whitmore, Kentrigg West Action Group : 9 Sep 2011 10:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON46# & ON53#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Both these sites have unsafe access onto the existing roads.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
No view
1481. Mr Derek Whitmore, Kentrigg West Action Group : 9 Sep 2011 10:34:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN304#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
For the same reasons given for the previous consultation for site R489 (which RN304# is part of).
These are sewage problems (raw sewage on roads during/after heavy rain); this field floods after heavy rain; The extra traffic through Burneside would increase the danger to pedestrians, in particuler children. Also add to the already unacceptable junction congestion in Kendal which is not currently meeting EU law.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
No view
1482. Mr Kenneth Wilkinson, Kirkby in Furness Action Group : 29 Aug 2011 15:09:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kirkby in furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
site unsutiable for development, (1) access of norrow road (beckside lane) road junction with beckside lane and main road dangerouse due to bad vision along main road, (2) shop and post office on junction. (3) children use beckside lane to go to park and sports field. (4) the junction flood when it rains heavy this will be made worse when natural drainage is removed and replaced with a road (5) totally spoil the look of kirkby when you enter the village.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
no need for mass developement in kirkby only infill on a small acceptable scale
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
shouldn not even consider it kirkby needs to be left alone
1483. Mr Kenneth Wilkinson, Kirkby in Furness Action Group : 29 Aug 2011 15:16:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R211
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
totally unsuitabe for building no good access to site from beckside lane ie. narrow road dangorouse acsses to main road by shop and post office, children use beckside lane to go and from playing and sports field
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
only infill development needed in kirkby 30 houses plus for sale at the moment the village needs no further devlopment
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Local residents can oppse any devlopment or vote the parish council out if they don't follow what the residents want
1484. Mr Kenneth Wilkinson, Kirkby in Furness Action Group : 29 Aug 2011 15:22:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kirkby in furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN329
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
this site takes valuble grazing land when it is poular to talk about carbon footprints why take green fields this takes in all the sites in Kirkby not just this one. remove a feild it as gone for good along with the farmers
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Keep the fields green no to to build on good farm land
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
let local people say what they want and not CC/sldc or anyone else
1485. Mr Kenneth Wilkinson, Kirkby in Furness Action Group : 29 Aug 2011 15:26:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kirkby in furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN11
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
taking a good field for building this enlarges the carbon footprint
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
no need for a time scale kirkby only needes infill housing
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
local resident get there say
1486. Mr Kenneth Wilkinson, Kirkby in Furness Action Group : 29 Aug 2011 15:40:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
kirkby in furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
plenty of units empty around the area no need for more empty buildings. Site dangerouse acsess to site of beckside lane, dangerouse acsess from beckside lane to main road. shop and post office on junction vison bad to main road. Children going to and fron the playing and sports field. junction floods now will flood even more unless work is carried out on the surface water removal. Main road would have to be upgraded fron grizebeck to paradise at least to allow for increase in volume of traffic!the site is allready used for farming keep it that way!
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
no need to plan for future of village plenty of houses for sale now. Kirkby is becoming a second home and dormetry village
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
let locals decide not cc or sldc
1487. Mr Mike Kingsbury, Kirkby Lonsdale & District Civic Society : 14 Sep 2011 08:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN317# RN334# R640# RN205# RN331# RN292# R146# RN238# RN279# R3#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
1488. Mr M J Neal, Kirkby Lonsdale Parking Group : 13 Sep 2011 15:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R146#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1489. Rev. Kevin M. Price, Kirkby Lonsdale Town Council : 30 Sep 2011 14:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN205 RN146
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1490. Mr Chris Warren, Lake District National Park Authority : 5 Oct 2011 11:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN48#
1491. Mr Christopher Balderstone, Lane Foot Farm Management Company Ltd. : 13 Oct 2011 09:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN169
1492. Mr Hal Bagot, Levens Hall Estate : 12 Aug 2011 16:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
A590 corridor and M6 Junction 36
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN56#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1. This proposal would totally desecrate the approach to the Lake District from the M6.
2. It is wholly out of scale with the landscape, and takes no account whatever of natural features or existing infrastructure and homes.
3. In particular, the area shown takes in a part of Levens Park. This is Grade 1 Listed historic parkland on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens, originally planted in the 1690's where many ancient trees survive. Development of any kind, including the A590 itself when it was built in the early 1970's, has been successfully kept out of this land for many years, and should not be considered now.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We are now in 2011 and doubtless the process will not provide housing until after Public Enquiries, and only then will sites be developed and cannot happen all at once. I favour keeping the existing 2025 scale - its only 14 years away now.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
SLDC should not change horses in mid exercise.
1493. Mr Hal Bagot, Levens Hall Estate : 12 Aug 2011 17:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Sedgwick and Brettargh Holt
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E50#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
1.This land is open farmland interspersed with small groups of dwellings. It is not connected to any large scale development such as a village in the area, and for this reason should be opposed.
2.The site is very close to Levens Park, a Grade 1 Listed parkland on English Heritage's Register of Parks and Gardens. Any development close to such a beautiful area should be resisted.
3. Access to such a site from the A591 would be very difficult, and Force Lane could not take the enormous increase in traffic which would be generated.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Given previously.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Given previously.
1494. Mr Peter Davidson, Levens Parish Council : 6 Oct 2011 10:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Levens
1495. Mr Allan Steward, Levens Residents Group : 16 Dec 2011 08:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Levens
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN291# EN45# R105# R142# RN282#
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Full response available on request from Development Strategy team on 01539-717490 or developmentplans@southlakeland.gov.uk
1496. Lindows Jewellers : 5 Oct 2011 10:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1497. Mrs R.A. Ballance, Lower Allithwaite Parish Council : 17 Oct 2011 11:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Allithwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
39 sites
1498. Mr Geoff .T. Critchley, Lower Holker Parish Council : 6 Oct 2011 10:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cark Flookburgh Holker
1499. Mrs Penny Taylor-Mills, Mealbank Residents Group : 8 Sep 2011 21:18:00
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In principle, my answer to the above question should be (B), however I am reluctant to submit this as my response as there are a number of related issues that are of great concern. My actual preference would be for an additional option of (C) which would allow for control to be put into the hands of the residents of small communities and for the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to be heavily amended to take power away from landowners and developers, and to protect our countryside against over-development, and against inappropriate/unwanted development in small settlement and hamlets. The protection of the rural landscape and the need for any development to be in keeping with, and proportionate to, existing settlements is also of immense importance to the majority of us who have chosen to live in small communities – and the future development of any such community should be in the hands of that community – not in the hands of landowners, developers and local authorities.
The consultation question is posed within the context of the South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) Local Development Framework (LDF) and Core Strategy document. The SLDC LDF's Core Strategy has the considerable advantage that it is a strategy, and a well-reasoned one at that, which carefully protects small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside and thereby the character of South Lakeland. For that reason, I would be minded to favour option (A), although as we have not yet seen the outcome of our initial responses to this consultation this feels like a dangerous path to tread.
Additionally, the whole situation must now be interpreted in terms of the current government's Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or whatever version of this becomes law, and in that context option (B) may well have unforeseen and perhaps undesirable consequences.
My understanding of the implications of option (B) for development in small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside, based on reading of the NPPF in conjunction with the Core Strategy document in the SLDC LDF and the online documentation associated with the present Further Consultation, is as follows.
1. In line with the NPPF's localism agenda, which aims to devolve as much control as possible as locally as possible consistent with the general central government guidelines which it articulates, development provision for small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside in South Lakeland would be taken out of the planning regime proposed in the Core Strategy component of the LDF and given instead to these communities to manage for themselves.
2. Management of development in small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside is based on neighbourhood plans drawn up by parish councils and/or 'neighourhood forums' which 'give communities direct power to plan the areas in which they live. Parishes and neighbourhood forums can use neighbourhood plans to:
* Develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood.
* Set planning policies for the development and use of land, and
* Give planning permission through Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders' (NPPF:13).
Once a neighbourhood plan is formulated and approved by an independent examiner (NPPF:13-14) and ratified by a local referendum (NPPF:14), 'the policies it contains take precedence over existing policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood (in the present case the SLDC LDF) where they are in conflict (NPPF:13). These provisions are taken to constitute 'a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community' (NPPF:13).
3. The caveat to the 'powerful set of tools' is that 'the ambition of the neighbourhood should be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider area. Neighbourhood plans, therefore, must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan' (NPPF:13). The Local Plans are, moreover, subject to the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking' (NPPF:4). As a consequence, 'the application of the presumption will have implications for how communities engage in neighbourhood planning. Critically, it will mean that neighbourhoods should:
* Develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in Local Plans, including policies for housing and economic development.
* Plan positively to support local development, with the power to promote more development than is set out in the Local Plan, and
* Identify opportunities to use neighbourhood development orders to grant planning permission for developments that are consistent with an adopted neighbourhood plan' (NPPF:4).
The 'powerful tools' which the NPPF proposals give to neighbourhoods to 'develop a shared vision of their neighbourhood...to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community' are in fact highly constrained in that they entail a strong convergence of NPPF proposals, Local Plans, and neighbourhood plans.
This criteria and the associated guidelines lean heavily towards a requirement on neighbourhoods to plan for development – this is a worrying presumption that could easily create a situation in which landowners and property developers are given more power than the communities that the localism legislation should be serving.
Given good faith on all sides, this is not a problem. It is, however, not difficult to see how self-interested parties might exploit this to the detriment of small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside. The last-quoted excerpt from NPPF:4 to the effect that neighbourhoods 'plan positively to support local development, with the power to promote more development than is set out in the Local Plan', together with the reference to 'neighbourhood development orders' in the same excerpt, looks on the face of it like an attempt to circumvent Local Authority control over planning.
A neighbourhood landowner might, for example, propose a development for personal gain rather than in the best interests of the community, and the NPPF provides absolutely no criteria on which the community could base an objection; as the NPPF currently stands, and given in particular 'presumption in favour', there is nothing obvious in the NPPF to prevent the development going ahead against the wishes of the community. It is difficult to see how this gives 'communities direct power to plan the areas in which they live', as the NPPF claims -just the opposite, in fact. If such a scenario were replicated across South Lakeland, the result would be random development to the detriment of the area as a whole. Anyone who has spent time in countries such as Spain, Ireland and North America, where development planning has been much less stringent than the current UK planning arrangements, will have seen the unattractive effects of the consequent suburban sprawl at first hand.
As mentioned above, the SLDC LDF's Core Strategy, if followed, currently protects small settlements, hamlets, and open countryside and thereby the character of South Lakeland. I am therefore minded to say that my preference is therefore to stick with parts of Option (A) but to combine it with aspects of Option (B) as well as my option (C) i.e. keep the protection that the Core Strategy document gives to small settlements and hamlets, but also base decisions (whether in the LDF or outside of it) on the views and the local needs of the residents of those communities.
1500. Mr David J Emmett, Milnemoser Solicitors : 15 Dec 2011 08:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN22#
1501. Mrs Denise Cummins, Milnthorpe Parish Council : 6 Oct 2011 09:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Milnthorpe
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1502. Bourne Leisure Ltd , Nathaniel Lichfield : 5 Oct 2011 08:45:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Flookburgh / Cark
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN263
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1503. Mr Ray Richardson, Natland & Oxenholme Village Hall Management Committee : 7 Oct 2011 12:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN256# ON51#
1504. Rev. Kevin M. Price, Natland Parish Council : 5 Oct 2011 11:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Natland
1505. Mr Stephen Hedley, Natural England, North West Region : 19 Sep 2011 10:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
1506. Diane Clarke, Network Rail : 19 Sep 2011 09:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Lindal in Furness Arnside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R209# MN32#
1507. Diane Clarke, Network Rail : 19 Sep 2011 09:54:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grange over Sands Cark
1508. Mr David Grime, Parr St Evangelical Church : 24 Oct 2011 08:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1509. Mrs. Christine Braithwaite, Pennington Parish Council : 8 Sep 2011 11:30:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R684SWM
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This proposed development would require access onto the extremely busy A590 which dissects the village of Swarthmoor. Village residents on the opposite side of the road have alternative route options to the A590 but this proposed development would not. The junction proposed for use is already treacherous as there is a constant stream of traffic travelling at 40mph. Making a turn across the traffic is almost impossible as is crossing the road on foot. The proposed development would obviously increase the traffic flow at this junction and increase the risk of accidents. Any stoppage on this road causes massive tailbacks and has previously caused further accidents.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
THIS RESPONSE TRANSFERRED TO 'LAND ALLOCATIONS - comments about suggeted site allocations'
1510. Mrs. Christine Braithwaite, Pennington Parish Council : 8 Sep 2011 11:42:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN109M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This proposed development would have access onto Pennington Lane where Pennington Church of England School and Pennington Nursery are also situated. At school times parking stretches along the entire length of the road making access extremely difficult with heavy volumes of traffic. In addition, the main route from the proposed site would be the Cross-a-Moor junction onto the extremely busy A590. This road carries a constant stream of traffic at 40mph making a right turn across the traffic almost impossible. Further vehicles would make a bad situation even worst.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
THIS RESPONSE TRANSFERRED TO 'LAND ALLOCATIONS - comments about suggeted site allocations'
1511. Mrs. Christine Braithwaite, Pennington Parish Council : 8 Sep 2011 11:47:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
SWarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R225
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This site currently contains garages for rent by individuals which is a valuable amenity as there is a shortage of these facilities in the village. The loss of this amenity would be unthinkable.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
THIS RESPONSE TRANSFERRED TO 'LAND ALLOCATIONS - comments about suggeted site allocations'
1512. Mrs. Christine Braithwaite, Pennington Parish Council : 8 Sep 2011 11:51:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R228
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This proposed site currently contains two garages which would mean the loss of a valuable amenity in Swarthmoor as there is a shortage of such facilities.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
THIS RESPONSE TRANSFERRED TO 'LAND ALLOCATIONS - comments about suggeted site allocations'
1513. Mrs Christine Braithwaite, Pennington Parish Council : 13 Oct 2011 10:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Pennington
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328#, RN105#, RN106#, RN315#, RN243#, R6858W, R6868W
1514. Planning Branch Ltd : 19 Sep 2011 10:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
1515. Mrs Lesley Winter, Preston Patrick Parish Council : 6 Sep 2011 07:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
A590 corridor and M6 Junction 36
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN56#; E56#; E57#; EN18#; E58#; M7#.
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Preston Patrick Parish Council has consistently over many years opposed large scale development in the vicinity of Junction 36, a visually important area considered to be "The Gateway to the Lakes". The sites referred to above are variations of sites put forward at the earlier stage of the Land Allocations process and the Parish Council maintains its total opposition to any of them being developed.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
In view of the current economic situation and the changes proposed by Government to the current planning system, the reduction in the time span proposed would appear appropriate.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B will better allow for the identified needs of a particular settlement to be met and will ensure that development is of an appropriate scale.
1516. Mr J D and M P Gibson, Richard Turner and Son : 5 Oct 2011 14:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Burneside
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN304# ON53# E32#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1517. Ms Susan Fishwick, Riley Fishwick Consultants : 15 Sep 2011 08:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN35# ON54#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
1518. Mr Richard Robinson, Robinsons : 8 Sep 2011 18:02:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN11,RN329,RN211,RN13,RN63
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Having considered the identified alternative sites for housing at Kirkby in Furness these locations serve only to re-enforce my opinion that the well qualified professional planning team got it right first time, backed up by thorough and well thought through reasoning as to why housing should be located on R189M.
How creating a new access onto a busy A road, adjacent to an existing school entrance with all the ensuing vehicle manoeuvres and movements can be construed as a safer option is very difficult to see, as would be the case if RN11 were to be considered, even worse if RN329 were to be included.
Becksides narrow roads around existing house corners that jut out in to the road way preclude any large quantity of additional house holds being able to rely on this access safely, but will safely provide for the area identified in the emerging option plan.
RN63 is really a step out in to the open countryside, following the line of the A595
R211 along with RN11 if taken for development will affect the income of the present farmer who has already voiced his objection to development here in a previous consultation.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The local plan should continue in the same vein as when it started, do it once do it right. If in 2018 it is decided to change things then make a fresh start then.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
These sites should be identified and brought forward by the present planning team not expensive planning advisers paid for by well heeled incomers, these sites should then be restricted to people working in that particular locality similar to a new farm house that is attached to a quantity of land, this would hope fully keep the end use for these new homes under control and ensure that they were providing homes for genuine local residents who live and work within the locality.
1519. Mr Richard Robinson, Robinsons : 8 Sep 2011 18:06:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
It is comforting to note that the council have now included an employment provision EN58 if this allocation is approved then the farmer may lose a little, compared with some one within the village who having started and made a success of running their own business, would benefit from having a designated area in which to establish their own premises, and operate along side Mooreland Stores and Mooreland Service station
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The local plan should continue in the same vein as when it started, do it once do it right. If in 2018 it is decided to change things then make a fresh start then.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
These sites should be identified and brought forward by the present planning team not expensive planning advisers paid for by well heeled incomers, these sites should then be restricted to people working in that particular locality similar to a new farm house that is attached to a quantity of land, this would hope fully keep the end use for these new homes under control and ensure that they were providing homes for genuine local residents who live and work within the locality.
1520. Mr Duncan Hartley, Rural Solutions Consulting Ltd : 5 Oct 2011 11:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
1521. Mrs Viv Tunnadine, Sedgwick Parish Council : 6 Oct 2011 10:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Sedgwick
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN280# RN322# ON56# E50# E51# E52# E53# E54# E55# E56#
1522. Mr. Roger Cartwright, Silverdale Green Discussion Group : 6 Aug 2011 17:05:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Land adjacent to A6, South of Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E4M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly object to this proposal.
I am sure that development has been proposed on this site before, considered in some detail and found to be unsuitable?
It is an attractive relatively unspoilt rural gateway to the town.
Any development at all on this site would seriously diminish the landscape setting of Kendal.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1523. Mr. Roger Cartwright, Silverdale Green Discussion Group : 6 Aug 2011 17:23:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Land at end of Highcote Lane and Leighton Drive, Slackhead
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN 233
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly oppose this additional development on top of the hill at Slackhead. It adjoins the seminatural woodland on the limestone escarpment of Beetham fell.
The existing development at Slackhead is a well known example of bad 1960's planning - an isolated conspicuous development of suburban housing, consisting of large expensive houses totally unrelated to the local, traditional dispersed village settlement, built in previously unspoilt and well loved countryside. It has taken over 40 years for this development to tone down and become partly obscured by woodland. It was one of the developments that hastened the designation of the Arnside Silverdaale AONB to try and prevent further desecration!
1524. Mr. Roger Cartwright, Silverdale Green Discussion Group : 11 Aug 2011 17:37:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside, Station Yard
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN 32
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The derelict station yard between the old railway and the B578 road is suitable for well designed carparking (mainly for railway users), small scale housing (possibly a small terrace)and workshops for local use.
The coastal frontage on the old railway line alongside the Old Station (AONB office)should remain as green public open space - any development would be extremely damaging to the landscape and environment of the AONB.
South Lakeland District Council should protect all remaining undeveloped/unspoilt coastal land and support the National trust's Enterprise Neptune.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Future uncertainty due to: climate change, peak oil, resource depletion and finacial turmoil.
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
There should be a presumption against development (particularly speculative development) unless a strong case can be made that this is essential for local use and widely supported.
1525. Mr. Roger Cartwright, Silverdale Green Discussion Group : 19 Sep 2011 11:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Arnside
1526. Mr David Salisbury, SOLEK - Save our Landscapes East Kendal : 14 Oct 2011 08:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN302#, ON50#
1527. Mr David Salisbury, SOLEK - Save our Landscapes East Kendal : 19 Oct 2011 13:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1528. Mr Michael Hyde, SOLEK Save our landscapes east kendal : 5 Oct 2011 14:32:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M RN302
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1529. Cllr Mary Wilson, South Lakeland District Council (Cartmel and Grange West) : 6 Oct 2011 10:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Cartmel Allithwaite Grange
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN260
1530. Cllr Norman Bishop-Rowe, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston Central) : 19 Sep 2011 12:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1531. Cllr Norman Bishop-Rowe, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston Central) : 5 Oct 2011 13:36:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
1532. Cllr Mark Wilson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston East) : 19 Oct 2011 11:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN246#
1533. Cllr Mark Wilson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston East) : 19 Oct 2011 11:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON43#
1534. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 14 Aug 2011 19:14:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN315~
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
To place any development on this side of Swarthmoor and just off the A590 would be disastrous for the village and the community. Its open countryside, with the original suggestions for the surrounding fields it would more than double the size of the village putting hugh pressure on roads, schools, drainage etc.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1535. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 14 Aug 2011 19:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R686SW# and RN243#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This is valuable Green Belt Land between Ulverston and Swarthmoor. The Government are keen to see Green Gaps between settlements remain.
1536. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 14 Aug 2011 19:24:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN242#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This area of land is actually in the boundries of Ulverston West Ward. This area of land will have an effect on the Green Gap between Ulverston and Swarthmoor. At the junction of two very busy roads. It would also look very out of place if developed in isolation,
1537. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 14 Aug 2011 19:30:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN328#, RN105# and RN106#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Totally ridiculous. If developed this would double the size of Swarthmoor. Swarthmoor is a pleasent village and to develop these three areas would put huge pressure on all facilities and infrastructure.
1538. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 14 Aug 2011 19:38:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This area is very close to the Historic Swarthmoor Hall, it is a valuable green area for the residents of Ulverston and Swarthmoor. When Quaker Fold was developed some time ago, it was stressed by Ulverston Town Council and the Planning Committee that no further development would take place in this area. Ulverston does not have many historic buildings and to have this Hall surrounded by homes would be a disaster.
1539. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 14 Aug 2011 19:41:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R130#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This land is undevelopable.
1540. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 6 Sep 2011 14:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M# (E19# and MN6#)
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
(E19#) As Ward Councillor for this area, I STRONGLY OPPOSE any development on this site. It has been suggested that employment and food retail could be put on this site.
I wish to object on the following points (1) This is an important Green Gap area after leaving Ulverston, before entering Swarthmoor, the area is also outside the Development Boundary of Ulverston. (2) The site has no access from the A590 one of the busiest roads in the County. The A590 at this area of the site comes off a busy duel carriageway after coming through the Urban area of Ulverston, at the other end of the site the road narrows because of a row of terrace cottages on one side (known as The Bee Hive Cottages) and a United Utilities Pumping Station on the other side.
Residents of the Furness Peninsular get very frustrated with hold ups on the A590 and often because of this take risks in other areas of the very, very busy road resulting in many accidents and incidents. (3) Setting up food retail (Superstore) on this site will do nothing to promote or support the many unique and individual shops Ulverston has promoted and encouraged over the years. It would be a disaster for the viability and vitality of the Town Centre. I Totally OPPOSE any development of this site.
MN6# I STRONGLY OPPOSE with the same points as in (1) and (2)
No Development what so ever should take place on M11M# a very important part of the Green Gap which allows communities to have their own identity.
1541. Cllr. Janette Jenkinson, South Lakeland District Council (Ulverston West) : 6 Sep 2011 14:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN250#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
As Ward Councillor I made my comments in the first consultation regarding this site and my views have not changed. Stonecross Mansions is a Grade 2 listed building and the area of land surrounding the mansions is an area of important open space and they should remain as such. Oppose any new development without good reason.
1542. Mr Richard Fordham, Sport England : 5 Oct 2011 11:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
1543. Mr Richard Fordham, Sport England : 13 Oct 2011 15:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
General
1544. Ellergreen Estates , Steven Abbott Associates LLP : 5 Oct 2011 11:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Bowston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R664#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
1545. Mr Brian Barden, Steven Abbott Associates LLP : 17 Oct 2011 09:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
General
1546. Mr and Mrs D E & S Bowen, Stockbeck Action Group : 13 Oct 2011 09:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
1547. Mr and Mrs D E & S Bowen, Stockbeck Action Group : 20 Oct 2011 12:17:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1548. Mr and Mrs D E & S Bowen, Stockbeck Action Group : 20 Oct 2011 12:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R121M, RN302#, ON50#
1549. Mr. Daniel Barton, Story Homes : 5 Oct 2011 08:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
1550. Ms Penelope Lowden, Swarthmoor Local Quaker Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends : 12 Oct 2011 11:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN244#
1551. Miss Rachael A Bust, The Coal Authority : 19 Sep 2011 10:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
1552. Mr Stephen Hughes, The Co-operative Estates/ The Co-operative Group Ltd : 5 Oct 2011 10:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN31# M28# E19# M11M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
1553. Mr Paul Foster, The Federation of Small Businesses : 9 Sep 2011 13:27:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We do not believe this site should be used for food retail, housing or lower value employment as it should be used to attract higher value jobs that will provide better salaries for local people.
It is also necessary to consider the impact of a food retail and employment offer on the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre. There is no doubt that using site M11 for retail, especially food retail, will damage the town centre and its independent traders.
This site, if necessary, should be held back until the correct development opportunity presents itself. Job creation on this site through a retail and lower value employment offer would be offset by job losses elsewhere in the immediate area in and around Ulverston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
We are concerned that developers will naturally want to target where they can get a return, but this doesnt guarantee that a development would be in the interests of the community in question. Option A allows for some clarity and the ability to plan ahead for both residents and local businesses.
1554. Mr Nigel Dexter, The London Planning Practice Ltd : 5 Oct 2011 11:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham Leasgill
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN310# RN325#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1555. Mr Alan Hubbard, The National Trust : 15 Sep 2011 08:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E56# E50# R51# E52# E53# E54# E55# RN280# ON56 E5# E8# RN299# MN32# RN269# RN267# RN282# RN295# RN291#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1556. Ms Rose Freeman, The Theatres Trust : 19 Sep 2011 13:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
1557. Ms Erica Wright, The Wright Design Partnership : 5 Oct 2011 13:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
High Biggins
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN335
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1558. Ms Erica Wright, The Wright Design Partnership : 14 Oct 2011 09:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby Lonsdale & High Biggins
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN335#
1559. Mr Daniel Jackson, Time & Tide Group c/o Indigo planning : 19 Sep 2011 09:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
M6 Junction 36
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
1560. Mr Daniel Jackson, Time & Tide Group c/o Indigo planning : 5 Oct 2011 13:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E57 M7
1561. Mr Colin Pickthall, Ulverston Labour Party : 17 Oct 2011 11:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178#
1562. Mr Colin Pickthall, Ulverston Labour Party : 17 Oct 2011 12:13:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M#
1563. Mr & Mrs Kenneth Day, Ulverston Rotary Club : 12 Oct 2011 10:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Broughton in Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN289#
1564. Mr David Parratt, Ulverston Town Council : 19 Sep 2011 13:42:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M MN6 M11 E19 E30 M26 EN35M R283M E22 M28 R270M R268 R90M RN3 R689ULVM R692ULVM RN131M RN184 R690ULV R691ULV R126M R242 R697M
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
1565. Cllr Amanda Rigg, Ulverston Town Council : 19 Sep 2011 09:07:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON43#
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
1566. Cllr Amanda Rigg, Ulverston Town Council : 6 Oct 2011 09:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
ON43 (existing site includes EN35, EN36, ON24, ON25 & part of M27)
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
1567. Mr Ralph Spours, Ulverston Traders Association : 30 Sep 2011 14:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
1568. Mr Andrew Leyssens, United Utilities Property Solutions Ltd : 6 Oct 2011 10:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
1569. Ms Katherine Barnes, Woodland Trust : 5 Oct 2011 07:55:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Greenodd & Penny Bridge Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN236# MN22#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
1570. Mr Dennis Reed, zINACTIVE - Triangle Opposition Group : 15 Sep 2011 08:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M40# R140# R120# RN301# M2# M5#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
