Local Development Framework Consultation

I have four site specific comments on the response of the SLDC council officers to the questions raised by the Inspector, and one general comment. My site specific comments relate to R129M + R143, R129M, R129 and R143.

Site related:

1. The response is incorrect in stating no hazard exists.

2. The response does not mention the significant traffic congestion which will result.

3. The response does not mention the further deterioration in air quality. NSCA " Development Control Planning for Air Quality" 2006 Paragraph 3.14 refers.

4. To say there is 'little community support' for the proposals is to understate the level of opposition.

General:

I would further comment that the options chosen do not represent the most appropriate strategy in the circumstances.


No Hazard exists:

The proposed developments will be in downhill proximity to a landfill, now known to contain hazardous waste. It is mentioned that 'these sites have known potential contamination constraints'. This may relate to the landfill. However, the health effects related to such landfill proximity are not mentioned in the assessment.

Traffic:

The CCC transport study dated January 2012 clearly sets out the negative impact on key junctions already at overcapacity in peak hours. Given the topography and distance, the new properties on R129 and R143 are most likely to be heavy users of car transport. The junction of Glebe Road and Milnthorpe road was not included in the CCC study. It is a junction that is already heavily overcrowded at peak hours ( 1/2 hr waits are experienced). It will be much more heavily used if R143 and R129 are developed. While this point applies to many sites it is particularly relevant to these sites and should have been mentioned.

Air Quality:

Kendal has several areas that are already over the EU limit. Air quality and traffic congestion are linked. The expected increase in congestion will worsen the situation. It is particularly important for these sites as they will feed considerably more traffic into Lowther Street, one of the affected areas. The guidance of NSCA is clear. ( As cited above.) Yet this is not mentioned as a factor in the assessment.

Support:

As an elected representative I have called on many of the residents in the ward I represent to discuss this issue. I have found almost no support for the development, and considerable opposition due to the traffic congestion, noise, concerns over flooding, air quality, and visual impact. The use of the phrase 'little community support' is a misleading representation of the reaction these proposals have provoked.

General:

Finally this is not the most appropriate strategy. The Taylor report - reflected in the submissions of the Kendal Town Council - has clearly set out an optimal approach to future planning in the area.

Giles Archibald KTC and SLDC councillor for the Fell ward. October 14 2012

LAND ALLOCATION: MATTER 10 HOLME

1 Purpose

1.1This paper seeks to draw attention to the Inspector of the inclusion of established residential gardens in the area R653M-mod (Map16).

1.2 The gardens relate to the properties on Milnthorpe Road known as Laurel Bank and Rosecroft (LA6 1PX). The gardens occupy approximately 1250 sq metres of an area that is proposed for the development of 72 houses by Russell Armer and as such are insignificant to the viability of the development or for reasons of access to the larger site.

1.3 The Inspector’s attention is drawn to the NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) published in March 2012 and in particular to paras 48 and 53 which wholly preclude development in gardens.

1.4 My interest in the matter relates to the ownership of the property known as Greystone, which forms a southern boundary with Rosecroft. My concern is that any housing developments in the two gardens (which sit higher than Greystone) will have a significant detrimental impact on my day-to-day enjoyment of my property and may blight the property in terms of a future disposal.

2 Background

2.1 In 2011 SLDC published for consultation their suggested land allocations. Greystone for some reason (error?) was included in Map 9 of the Village as an allocated site. I attended the public presentation of proposals in July 2011 and the Principal Development Plans Officer agreed that my property should be taken out.

2.2 In 2012 the revised Map 16 was issued which had Greystone removed but no change to the inclusion of Laurel Bank and Rosecroft. In April 2012 I completed and emailed the consultation document pointing out that the Land Allocation still included the two houses despite the newly published NPPF, making the DPD legally non compliant.

2.3 In September 2012 SLDC responded to the Inspector’s document on `Matters and Issues Matter 10`
In Matter 10.2.1 the Council states:
`The Council believes the detailed requirements for each of the allocations in Holme are clear`
In Matter 10.2.6 the Council states:
`It is considered the extent of each allocated site boundary is clear and correctly identified`

2.4 Having regard to the NPPF and the policy on garden developments, then it is submitted that the site boundaries have not been properly identified in the Council’s representations.

3 Dialogue with the Council

3.1 On12 October 2012, I met on site with Alastair McNeill,Principal Development Plans Officer. Mr Bruce Nicholson, owner of the adjacent Silvercroft also attended and he has submitted a separate representation.

3.2 Mr McNeill viewed the two gardens and can confirm that these are well established, maintained and integral to the properties of Laurel Bank and Rosecroft.

3.3 No explanation was given by Mr McNeill as to why the gardens were included in the Land Allocation other than the fact that the owners were written to after his attention to the issue was drawn to by me and the owners did not withdraw their consent. On examination, however of the Holme boundary map attached to the 2006 Local Plan, it is evident that the boundary dissected the gardens and we agreed it is reasonable to assume that the new boundary line was simply copied from this earlier map. There are historic reasons why this line may have been drawn. The houses today have been significantly redeveloped from very modest properties in the sixties whose gardens may have been deemed disproportionate at that time. The new properties now sit well within their gardens.

4 Change that is being sought

4.1 I understand that the Council cannot now make any further changes to the DPD although I note from para 10 of the Guidance Notes for Participants that minor modifications can be made provided they do not affect the substance of the document. The garden issue may not seem material in respect of the overall SLDC recommendations, but from my own perspective it could be extremely damaging. It is not sufficient to wait possibly years for the development briefs and planning applications and I therefore request the following action:

4.1.1 The Council to make the minor modification by excluding the gardens at Laurel Bank and Rosecroft from the proposed land allocation and/or

4.1.2 The Inspector to make this recommendation in his report in order to ensure the DPD is legally compliant.


Attachments:
2006 Local Plan Boundaries
2011 Land Allocations
2012 Land Allocations (Revised)

Re: Public examiniation consultation on
(i) Schedule od Proposed Main Modifications to the DPD and
(ii) SLDC's rsponse to Matter 1.6 In Inspectors Matters and Issues

Following Dan Hudson's letter of the 19th September, we object to any development west of Brigsteer Road Levens (suggested 70 houses) for reasons previously given namely, the village road system is only 1 car wide in many places and the addition of up to 100+ more cars is not sustainable.
Also this site slopes west and there is no access to suitable drainage in that direction and existing drainage will not cope with extra houses

Dear Sir

Response to consultation on proposed SLDC modifications to Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD)

I make my response with particular reference to Kendal North East site R121M (section 3.20 in the DPD). Both the SLDC proposed 'Main Matters' and its schedule of 'responses to issues raised in 1.6' reveal incoherences and inconsistencies in regard to site R121M remaining in the allocation. I have limited these to three main headings of Flooding, Landscape Impact and Access, as I believe that there is enough evidence to show SLDC's assessment of the site under these areas alone is flawed or lacks sufficient data to allow the site to remain in the allocation. This does not preclude the modifications showing flaws in SLDC's assessments of the site under other areas such as biodiversity and community approval.

Flooding:
Other sites in the '1.6 matrix' which have been recognised as being in both flood zones 1 and 3a and which impact on the Stock Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme have been removed from the Allocation Plan (I refer to sites R663, RN137, R124, RN96 and RN96M). The 1.6 matrix in regard to site R121M and the Main modification 07 both refer to R121M having part in Flood Risk Zone 3a and being at moderately/high risk of surface flooding. However site R121M DOES impact on the Stock Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme and this has been omitted from the 1.6 matrix. R121M has a well proven track record of a HIGH risk of surface flooding and water from the site flows onto Castle Green Road into the Stock Beck Scheme (or in flood simply into the rear of houses on Oak Tree Road). Yet the flood risk is only marked as 'orange' rather than 'red' – such is SLDC's desperation to get this site allocated.

Landscape Impact:
How is it in the 1.6 Matrix that R121M and R56 have been rated 'orange' for Landscape Impact, yet R676KE and R141 have been rated 'red'? How can R121M and R56 be realistically separated from R676KE and R141 in terms of the impact of development on these sites. Even worse, the fact that these sites are all rated 'green' under the Gillespie EHLSS shows how useless the latter was as an evidence base. In fact all previous assessments of the entire site whether by SLDC in 1997 or under the Cumbria County Council Landscape designation in 1999 recognised no differentiation of the site – it was all landscape of high character where development would have high impact. The differentiation of landscape impact in the 1.6 Matrix again simply demonstrates SLDC's consistently flawed landscape assessment and evidence base for this site, and its desperation to have development on whatever part of the site it thinks it can manage.

Site Access:
This is marked 'green' in the 1.6 Matrix for site R121M but it has never been made explicit how this is to be achieved. If access is to be by Oak Tree Road then there are all manner of problems with this due to traffic flow, width of road, nature of junction etc. There is simply no evidence base for the 'green' rating so allocated as we do not know upon what assessment this has been given.

Under the circumstances, R121M should be removed from allocation within the DPD.

Yours sincerely

D R Baxter

Matter 1.6 – Arnside 17 September 2012

Matter 1 - Basis for the overall approach - 1.6
With particular reference to Site R81 Redhills Road, Arnside

“Has the site selection process been ….based on appropriate criteria?”
There are several misleading or inaccurate statements in the Summary of Assessment for R81:
-The site is not strictly on the edge of Arnside as stated – it is an enclosed space (see below) close to the centre of the village and overlooked by existing housing.
-In 1989, the Inspector refused a development application on this site on the basis that development would be “unneighbourly” on account of the noise nuisance caused by its enclosed position below a steep wooded hill (topped by housing, including a nursing home) which runs along the entire southern boundary. (The nuisance factor caused by a large development will have considerable impact on all neighbouring and closeby properties, but has been totally overlooked by SLDC.)
-The statement that the site is developed on 75% of its boundary is misleading – all the long southern boundary is protected woodland, including a public footpath, and the short eastern boundary is open to Redhills Road, offering extensive views west towards the National Trust Knott and protected Woodland Trust area.
-Hence, the site has more than “moderate landscape character impact”, as SLDC states.
-The site has significant problems of access (on a very busy cul-de-sac serving the entire western end of the village), plus has extremely adverse highway-safety implications (detailed elsewhere) for the centre of the village. These access problems are not “surmountable” as SLDC states; in fact, further development will significantly worsen the inherent dangers.
• Request reappraisal of appropriateness of suitability criteria in site selection (R81) taking the above important factors into account.


“Has the site selection process been objective?”
SLDC’s selection process is heavily weighted in favour of development because this site (R81) is owned by a former builder, who is very keen to sell on for building.
-No changes were made to the criteria or weighting during the process, even though there is significant local opposition to further development of this site, and this opposition has been maintained for a considerable number of years. The site is designated as an “important open space” within the village and there have been numerous development refusals over the years (since 1986: Parish Council; SLDC; Inspectors; DoE) before the site was formally protected.

SLDC’s site selection process is not objective and this site option is not the most appropriate in the circumstances; not least as the village is historically dead against its continued development, and SLDC themselves recognized its importance when they listed it in their Policy extract document ‘Important Open Spaces for Amenity’ in South Lakeland, the “Land to North of Dobbs Hall, Arnside (The Common)” as land which will not be built on; this policy re-stated in October 2010.

Plus, if the site selection process has been objective, why does the Conclusion of Assessment recommend R81 (The Common) for development, even though the Summary of Assessment notes that “there was significant objection to this site” while for Site RN183 and Site R395 (not recommended for development) the Conclusion of Assessment notes that both sites are “designated as open space”? Why the different conclusions - the respective Summaries are virtually identical for all three sites, with the exception that R81 has “significant objection” to development?
• Request review of criteria for R81, to demonstrate complete objectivity in the selection process, in line with RN183 and R395.


“Is the DPD based on a sound process of ... testing of reasonable alternatives?”
SLDC have failed to test or even consider reasonable alternatives (as put forward by Arnside Parish Plan Trust/Arnside Parish Council) as they are bound to do by the Localism Act and the NPPF.
• Request urgent review of site selection process to take account of Arnside Neighbourhood Plan.

LAND IN FRONT OF HYNING COURT LEVEVS

WE OBJECT TO ANY BUILDING ON THIS LAND .BUILDING ON THIS LAND WOULD ABSOLUTELY RUIN THIS PART OF THE VILLAGE .THE ROADS IN LEVENS ARE NOT BUILT FOR THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC .NOBODY ON THE COUNCIL SEEMS TO CARE ANYMORE ABOUT KEEPING VILLAGES TO A SENSIBLE SIZE.WHO IS GOING TO BUY ALL THESE HOUSES WHEN THE MARKET IS SO FLAT.

General comment on 1.6.19 - The exclusion of sites because they are not available constrains the plan. Compulsory purchase could be used to make a more balanced plan opening up areas which might be more suitable for development.
Site specific comments- E33
1) The sequential location assessment lists it as green W, ie it is described as being within the service centre. However, in the site summary it is described as being on the edge of Kendal and should therefore be recategorised as amber E.
2) Access to the site has been assessed as green P, which I find difficult to understand as it will require either a bridge over the quarry entrance from Boundary Bank or a new exit the Underbarrow Road via EN13. The access assessment should therefore be recategorised to at least amber o and possibly red n.
3) The adjacent field EN 13 was assessed and not allocated because of exceptional circumstances. Up to a few years ago E33 was part of the same field, consequently, it should not be allocated for the same reasons and removed from the plan.

Re: Proposed Oxenholme Development, Land West of Oxenholme Road, outline planning application SL/2012/0566

Dear Planning Officer,

Thank you for the opportunity to feedback on your proposed development on the Oxenholme/Kendal separation green belt land.

We as a family, as do many of our neighbours and local Kendal people (as evidenced by the recent petition results showing unanimous opposition) oppose any suggested development on green belt land in and around Kendal. My families reasons are below:-

1. Local school capacity-local school places are at a capacity and further pressure on the system would lead to a poorer standard of education for Kendal children. The standard of education we have in Kendal at the moment with the small community schools is something we can be proud of. Over populate Kendal and the schools won’t cope, and quick short term expansion of the schools clearly is not the answer. Has any study been done on the proposed number of new families coming to the area and the pressure on the local school systems and impact on standards of education?
2. Road infrastructure. Oxenholme road already struggles coping with the capacity of the traffic and pedestrian safety, with it being a small rural road. Adding more pressure on the traffic congestion will inevitably put pedestrian, cyclists and other road user’s safety at risk. This is not a dual carriage way that can support the added traffic. Only this week end I was on my bike with my 2 year old son on the back, the road surface going towards Kendal is so bad I had to keep veering out into the middle of the road, add anymore traffic and this could have been fatal. Please be warned. As a regular cyclist on the road it cannot cope with anymore added traffic without the risk to childrens, pedestrians and cyclists safety.
3. This is green belt area and serves as important true separation between Oxenholme and Kendal. The land currently serves as important farm land including a diverse spectrum of wildlife, including field nesting birds. You state that the proposed development will “improve the diversity”; by all means landscape the area without the houses as this will even further diversify the wildlife in the area.
4. General infrastructure of Kendal such as water treatment, drainage, policing, quality of life, added pollution, litter etc...Kendal is at capacity both in terms of local services and road infrastructures. In Kendal there is sufficient brown belt land and existing vacant properties that can be developed for affordable housing without encroaching on very environmentally and community valuable green belt land. This urban spread does not have to happen...please learn in other areas where communities have been lost and have suffered as a result of urban sprawl, there are other better alternatives. Could the council give me the answers to the following if these new developments are built, what will be the increase numbers of police, GP’s, nurses, litter pickers, grounds men etc....?

This honestly is not a case of “not in my back yard”, but a genuine concern of over populating Kendal to overtake the population that it can support. This is not Manchester or Salford with the infrastructure in place to support more and more development. And most people who chose to live in Kendal and stay in Kendal chose to stay due to the semi rural feel that it still has, the small local community schools, the small less congested relatively traffic free roads, the community spirit etc.... If this development goes ahead you really do run the risk of many families who work out of the boundaries of Kendal, however support the Kendal economy by substantially spending there salaries in Kendal moving away to other communities where overdevelopment is less of a concern, which will take away a substantial spending support and investment away from Kendal.

As for the very vague plans I witnessed, they didn’t give a lot away to specifically comment on. However one very real concern that I and once again my neighbours have is the “emergency access” from Hardknott Gardens. You should be aware there is a children’s park opposite Hardknott Gardens and many children cycle to and from the park. I have witnessed with the traffic that already uses Whinlatter/Hardknott Road some “close calls” with children on bikes with cars. Any further usage of this route either by any amount of traffic or heavy vehicles concerned with the development would inevitably lead to an accident and I would have to hold the planners responsible for any such accident would arise if any further traffic was allowed to use these roads in relation to the development, either during building works or post development.
Within the plans the “emergency access” if it were to be there, would mean covering over the beck, and going against the 10m exclusion zone around the beck, this is totally unacceptable as I am sure you would agree, with your strategy of diversifying wildlife, as this would put at threat species that habitat that part of the beck. I would also have to and will pass on these concerns to the environmental groups with an interest in protecting these environmentally valuable areas.

We enjoy living in Kendal and bringing up our family in Kendal, however we know that capacity of this town is at a high. You may think it two faced for a resident of the Oaks to oppose any further development as the Oaks would not have been built on that premise, however South Kendal can just about support the added population of the Oaks, but has pushed services to almost capacity and any further development would indeed add to much pressure on the infrastructure and tip it over, which would negatively impact on local services and quality of living of people who already live here. Affordable housing, yes, may pose an issue, however I go back to my point that many properties lay vacant in Kendal and more suitable brown belt area that could be redeveloped which would improve the locality and not impact negatively upon it. Please do not turn Kendal into inner city Salford!

I hope you understand our real life concerns.

SLDC LDF 2nd October, 2012.

SUBMISSION TO THE INSPECTOR
OVERARCHING MATTERS
Matter 1 – Basis for the overall approach.

Issue 1.6

Submission by E.W.Craker.

The inspector has asked SLDC to respond to the questions he raises in paragraph 1.6, and by email dated 18th September, SLDC have invited submissions on their response.

Referring to SLDC’s response:-

Para 1.6.14 lists the criteria against which each site is addressed.
That list of some 21 points does not include practicability of highway access.
I submit that it is a fundamental requirement of any development that it is able to be accessed in a proper, safe and sustainable way.

Para 1.6.31 under the heading of “Approach to Site Selection for Emerging Options” it is stated that “----a thorough assessment of all sites on a settlement by settlement basis was carried out”.
I submit that this was not done.
For example, sites M683sMod and EN40-Mod have not had a realistic assessment of highway access requirements but have been included, yet R111 and R115 have been ruled out without a thorough assessment – they certainly did not have any kind of highway access assessment.

Diagram 2 Site Assessment Process, in box 7 ASSESSMENT AGAINST SUITABILITY CRITERIA (fourth bullet point) lists Access as a criteria.
Again, I make the point that for the examples I quote above (and I suspect others also) access has not been assessed, or not thoroughly assessed.

Para 1.6.33 states that “All sites were assessed through this approach on a consistent basis----“.
As I have demonstrated above, this has not been done.


I submit that in spite of what SLDC have stated in their response to the Inspectors comments, the DPD is not based on a sound process of sustainability appraisal and testing of reasonable alternatives.

Indeed, in an enclosure to an email to me of 21st February, 2012, SLDC admit as much.
In a paragraph dealing with access to M683sMod and EN40-Mod they say that
“---an assessment would have to be undertaken to assess financial feasibility---“
They also say:-“Ideally we’d have done it well before now but I imagine that could be said about many sites for one issue or another. The sooner the better I would think though as if it is unfeasible, then it shouldn’t really be in.”
By subsequent correspondence with SLDC I believe that by as late as 12th September, no such appraisal had been carried out.

Conclusion.

I therefore submit:-

The DPD has not been based on a sound process of sustainability appraisal and testing of reasonable alternatives, and thus it cannot be said that the options chosen represent the most appropriate strategy in the circumstances.

The site selection process has not been objective, nor has it been based on appropriate criteria.

There is not a clear audit trail.

If site selection criteria was used, it was not complete, and possibly was biased.

Response emailed to Gillian Dobson 15/10/12 @ 10.43.
[see attached response]

I gather that at the hearing into land allocation in Levens a representation will be made to re-introduce R682LV and R682LVM into the plan.

I would like to express my opposition to this on several grounds :

1) It would have a detrimental visual impact as you drive down the hill into the village.
2) The road is too narrow to safely accommodate more housing.
3) Local opinion should counts for something and it was the site most objected to by local residents in Local Residents Group survey.
4) On a procedural note, because having followed due process it has already been ruled out of consideration.

Land allocations in levens


Sent from my iPad. I have just learned that a new application for planning permission to build houses west of Brigsteer R oad has been made .Opposition to this scheme is high throughout the village & I would like to add our names to the list of peopl still opposing it.I thought that it had been rejected & now seems to have been added as a last minute adjustment , hoping nobody would notice. These houses are really not wanted in Levens and you need to take this into consideration. This land is agricultural , serving a vital role in food production and should remain so. This is an example of a landowner & a builder trying to force their wishes on a whole village , not very democratic is it?
All the objections made previously still apply , eg drainage issues , extra traffic on wholly inadequate roads , erratic bus service .

I make yet another submission, although I fear it will be ignored like all the others.
Can someone please explain how R156 is classified Flood zone 2,and flood every time it rains, but if we apply the principles of your ''The exception test'' should be Rated Zone 3a at least, (not recomended for developement) yet R126 floods worse and R242 and R690Ulv can flood even worse still and neither of these are Flood Zone classified, so why do you keep ignoring the fact. UU were not even aware that these other fields flooded until they were shown some Photos, these photos have been forwarded to yourselves many times with no response, please tell me why?
Mr Hudson stated Attenuation systems will be needed, bur no amount of Grey water systems, Attenuation or Hydrobreak systems can cope especially when the majority of the Developement will be hard surfaces that collect water which will still end up down North Lonsdale Road and that already floods, ask the residents that had to be re housed whilst their homes were flooded.
Can you also explain the Brown field / Versatile agricultural Land principle to me, all the land referenced above come into the ''Versatile Agricultural Land'' which according to your stategy should be the last grade of land to be considered (a last resort), and according to your proposals it is mostly Versatile agricultural Land that you are proposing for Developement, surely this is land needed to sustain our future's, Where is this large % of Brown field developement Land that you need to maintain your percentages. It started life that you needed 50% Brownfield developement, this quickly changed to 28% (I
believe) but you are still way short of the mark and you still push for the Versatile agricultural Land to be Developed, it is so wrong.
The NPPF appears to support Large Scale Developement, but the areas referenced above do not have the Infrastructure, Drains nor services to cope with this Mass Developement.
The question of sustainable seems to be a topic Developers mention regularily, which is presently one of the modern ''buzz'' words people use to try and impress Planners, but that can not be determined now and will only be determined by the proposals of the developer at any future planning application, at this moment any talk of sustainability is merely a Red herring.
I also point out again that the meeting minutes from the Coronation Hall Public Meeting are NOT a true reflection of the meeting, a lot more was said and not by Mr Hudson.
There has been much discussion , meetings, paperwork and further consultations, but you still havent listned to the public and have seriously deviated from your own core stratergy. I suggest the Basics of the Proposals are seriously flawed and need a complete re think.

Further to my response of yesterday, please find attached photos taken this morning of some of your areas not referenced as likely to flood, not recognised on your Flood Zone Scale, these photos are taken some time after any rain had fallen. The photos are referenced with their Field nos, I have not included any photos of R 690 due to time restraints. (I had to get to work)
This furter rienforces the Fact that you people have not done enough productive reserch.
[See attached photographs]

The council response completely ignores serious resident concerns not just about flooding on the proposed sites but the additional knock-on effects to existing flood-relief schemes. Notably, StockBeck. The council response does not reflect either other issues that have been highlighted in previous responses and is therefore grossly inaccurate.

R121M will increase the water run-off rate to a scheme which can already reach capacity quite quickly.

No flood assessment risk has been undertaken in this regard.

In addition, R121M still holds an environment habitat for Great Crested Newts. These are a protected species. The council have ignored this in their spreadsheet assessments of the site.

The site access is proposed on a main road A684. No traffic assessment PRIOR to submission of the site was undertaken, none has been properly undertaken since.

In view of just these problems, it would be wise for SLDC to reassess all the previous responses from residents and actually report the truth to the inspector. As the spreadsheet content exists at present that is clearly not the case.

My family and I will maintain our objection to R121M's inclusion within the plans. It is in both resident and council interests for the content of the submissions to properly include detail about each site not just a "cut and paste" exercise from previous documentation.

Planning consultation for land west of Brigsteer Road and East of Hutton Lane.Levens

We have received notification from the Levens Residence Group that SLDC Land Allocation
review on Levens has been scheduled for 7th November 20012. I understood that all development for this parcel of land had been dropped due to local opposition. We are greatly concerned that this matter is now up for renegotiation long after the deadline for applications.

This site offers a superb view of the Lythe Valley and Lakeland fells and should be preserved at all cost. Any development on this land would be highly visible from the National Park and It has already been established that Levens Village does not need nor can sustain development over and above that, that has already been agreed. Why have dead lines for all representations to be received then just move the goal posts. Not only is it highly unlikely that any development (sympathetic and suitable) for this site would be truly affordable for local families in Levens but to destroy a view equal to Ruskin's View in Kirkby Lonsdale would be a gross travesty and highly irresponsible of the custodians of South Lakeland and the National Park.

I shall be grateful if you will take this as a further representation from myself to be considered by the Inspector.

I, no doubt like many other “lay” members of the public, am totally overwhelmed by the vast quantities of documents you are publishing, some of which appear to be creeping out without any notification e.g. Cumbria County Council’s Transport Improvements Report dated September 2012.

I believe that my comments comply with your latest instructions and only refer to the recently published documents to which the latest consultation process applies, although it has been necessary to refer back to my previous responses.

Of necessity, I have to restrict myself to considering only two documents:-
Document Ex 023 Matter 03 Kendal; and
Cumbria County Council’s Transport Improvements Report dated September 2012 (which may or may not fall within the documents to which this consultation applies).

Document Ex 023 Matter 03 Kendal

Paragraph 3.1.3 states that the CCC Kendal Transport Study and LDF Transport Improvements Study show that the allocated sites can be serviced by the necessary provision of highway infrastructure through a programme of junction improvements and sustainable transport measures. It goes on that these are considered small scale in cost and will be funded through S106 agreements until the Community Infrastructure Levy is adopted.

This is clearly a gross misrepresentation, as neither Study document contain clear and indisputable evidence that the consequences of the proposed additional developments could be accommodated satisfactorily by the Kendal infrastructure as amended by such a limited scale of improvements, as I will demonstrate below .

Additionally, the “mythical” Canal Head development appears to have such weight with the District Council that, despite no formal application having been lodged, it can be treated as a given when making a decision in respect of an existing planning application. In which case, I draw your attention to para 6.1.4 of the CCC Transport Study which states that “Scheme 5 is required if the Canal Head is included (Scheme 5 being defined in para 5.1.1 of that document as Scheme 1 – the junction improvements; plus Scheme 2 - the sustainable transport package; plus Scheme 3 - the Park and Ride site; plus Scheme 4 – the link between Dowker’s Land and Lowther Street; plus the Kendal Northern Relief Road).
Even then the Transport Study concludes in para 6.1.6 - “Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”

I will comment further on the CCC Improvements Study below.

This paper goes on to state “These measures will also help to offset any adverse impacts for air quality within the current Kendal Air Quality Management Area. The junction capacity improvements when combined with an effective package of sustainable transport measures will mitigate the proposed allocations by ensuring congestion would be at a level equal to that which would be generated without the allocations (taking into account natural growth).” Again this assertion is disputable and not supported by evidence. Neither does it go far enough in addressing the fundamental issue that air quality in Kendal, before or after any improvement breaches nationally recommended levels.

Turning briefly away from traffic and highway infrastructure, para.3.1.7 states “ In terms of access to necessary provision of schools, as evidenced in the Infrastructure Report (EvTO5 page 17), additional school capacity will need to be provided to support the delivery of allocated sites in Kendal. Cumbria County Council has assessed the potential impact of the proposed Kendal housing in terms of effect on school capacity in Kendal (Ex027A). Any additional provision established within Kendal to cope with the projected rise in pupil numbers would be subject to a full consultation and political approval. Developer contributions will be essential in delivering this necessary infrastructure.”
I (as I am sure others have) have challenged the impact of the development proposals on the educational sector. However it is only now that the full scale of shortfall has been established by the CCC report contained in Ex 027A. This demonstrates that SLDC have not ensured the deliverability of the infrastructure needed to support their proposals as they have been developed but, as with traffic impacts, have had to scurry around after the event in an attempt to prove the soundness of their case.

Ex027A does not do that however as it:-
confirms the need for extensive schooling provision;
at sites which have yet to be determined, despite this being a comprehensive District wide Development Plan;
would require developer funding (along with all other financial demands on the developers - highway, sewer, affordable housing percentage etc); and
by referring to the need for political approval, it confirms that there is not a clear commitment to deliver this extra capacity by the County Council – a prerequisite of a sound Plan.


CCC Transport Improvements Report - September 2012

This document is extremely detailed, which is perhaps designed to support the assertion that it is a definite assessment of the improvements needed to accommodate the developments proposed in Kendal. It is informed by the Transport Study produced in January 2012. However it ignores several projects assessed within the January Study. I can find no reference within the Improvements Report to the Park and Ride site or to the three large capital projects considered, including northern and southern relief roads.

It is therefore disingenuous to claim that this latest Improvements Report details the entirety of the highway infrastructure changes required to accommodate the impact of large development growth in Kendal. I have raised several concerns about the original report, which I will not repeat here. This latest report contains even further major issues that need to be discussed.

I am very surprised (perhaps I should not be at this stage in the process) to note the comments made in paras 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 about two further housing developments which could accommodate about 600 dwellings. Para 2.15 includes the following – “An additional 600 dwellings would result in an additional 360 trips in each peak period, or two percent of all trips across the network, so it is therefore considered that the effects of this difference would not be significant”. Bearing in mind the conclusions within both reports that much of the network will remain under considerable stress and working well over capacity, it is simply not acceptable to consider a figure (on the low side anyway) of 360 trips to be “not significant”. To relate the increased figure to the overall number of trips in the town is also unacceptable as it fails to address the impact these additional trip would have on particular junctions, many of which cannot be adequately improved, as acknowledged within the report.

For simplicity, I will look only at the comments made in respect of three junctions – Sandes Avenue/ Blackhall Road, Windermere Road/Burneside Road and Lowther Street/Highgate. No doubt there would be similar comments in respect of the others included within the report.

Windermere Road/ Burneside Road Junction.
The report states that nothing is needed at this junction. It ignores entirely that fact that this junction is often totally prejudiced by congestion from the Sandes Avenue/Blackhall Road junction . Even when that is not the case, para 3.8.4 cannot be correct in stating that the impact of LDF development traffic on this junction is minimal.
Site R170M itself would generate about 160 peak hour vehicular movements, many of which would use this junction; as would a high proportion of traffic generated from the developments proposed in Burneside and the Hallgarth area.

Sandes Avenue/Blackhall Road Junction
This is the major junction in north Kendal. All traffic entering the town from the north has to pass through it, as does all traffic from the southern part of Kendal destined for the industrial/commercial areas to the north. There are a relatively high percentage of HGV movements through this junction.
The junction is the cause of major peak hour congestion for southbound traffic with peak hour (and random inter peak) queues stretching into Stricklandgate, and through the Windermere Road/Burneside Road signalised junction. Congestion also occurs on Sandes Avenue from the east (i.e. from Station Road direction).

Para 3.2.3 of the report states “Although the junction currently utilises UTC to coordinate with nearby signal controlled crossings, improvements to capacity are likely to be minor”.

The only improvement considered and detailed for this junction is to increase queuing/stacking space within Blackhall Road. Somewhat worryingly the Report makes no reference to the effect this improvement could have on the access to the “prestigious” Canal Head development which, if ever formally proposed, would cross the river and form a major new junction at the existing New Road/Blackhall Road junction.

No improvements appear to have been assessed for the approaches from Windermere Road or on Sandes Avenue from the East. None are proposed.

The improvement proposed for this junction will make no difference whatsoever to the congestion on this major access to the town and to the industrial areas. Yet in Table 3.43 the report claims this improvement “mitigates LDF traffic”. In this regard a look at the impact of traffic from site R170M (only) demonstrates the inadequacy and unsoundness of the conclusion of this report. As stated above, Site R170M would generate about 160 peak hour traffic movements, a high proportion of which would have to travel though the Windermere Road approach to this Sandes Avenue junction adding further to the already unacceptable congestion in this part of the town.

This cursory consideration demonstrates that to be an unsound position.

Section 7 of the Report deals with Air Quality and the extent of the Air Quality Management Area can be seen from the map at Para 7.1.1. The Management Area includes the Sandes Avenue approach to this junction from Windermere Road and part of Stricklandgate – links where traffic numbers would increase but which would gain no benefit whatsoever from the improvement proposed. However the report misleadingly states in Table 7.3 that the improvement will have a beneficial effect on air quality.

Lowther Street/ Highgate Junction.

The section of the Report on this junction is almost sufficient within itself to confirm the complete inadequacy and unsoundness of the entire LDF process. It states that this is the most congested junction in town, that congestion will get worse with LDF traffic and nothing can be done to improve the situation.
MOVA is recommended. But with high pedestrian and heavy traffic demands from all arms that will not have any beneficial effect in the peak hours.
It must be remembered here that air quality is poor in Lowther Street and Highgate in the vicinity of the junction and the LDF traffic can only exacerbate the problem, despite the experiment currently underway with revolutionary paving blocks.

Major Infrastructure Projects

The January Traffic study considered three large infrastructure projects, mentioned briefly above. It would seem that projects such as these may be the only way to provide some mitigation of the air quality and congestion impacts within the town. The Dowker’s Lane/ Lowther Street Link is one possibility to secure some improvement at the Lowther Street junction, although how deliverable and effective it would be must be open to question.
Similarly some more realistic congestion relief could possibly be achieved at this and other major junctions if the Relief Roads were pursued, although the Traffic Study concluded in para 6.1.5 that they would only offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal and their cost effectiveness (i.e. deliverability) was open to question.

But these projects have no formal status with the delivery organisation and would have to pass through many development, planning and budgetary processes before they could be delivered and make a contribution to “accommodating the LDF generated traffic”
I stated in my previous submissions that the planning and development processes large schemes such as these have to follow mean that they are not deliverable within the timeframe of the LDF.

Conclusion

These two documents again demonstrate the unsoundness of the process undertaken by SLDC and the non deliverability of acceptable infrastructure to support the LDF development proposals within the timeframe of the Plan. On that basis, I contend, again, that the LDF is unsound.

As I said in my first paragraph I hope this email is passed to the Inspector for his consideration. I realise that much of the above is detailed; and that the Inspector has considerable pressure on his time. However it would seem that much is being asked of him by the production and publication of reports such as these which contain such erroneous assertions.

The proposed building land south of Parkhead Road, Ulverston is flooded again, due to the geological factors outlined at http://assorted-subjects.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/south-lakeland-district-council-to.html

This time there's also evidence of the sewage overflow we've suspected during previous floods, please see attached movie clip.

SOUTH LAKELAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT (DPD)
Public Examination

Comments on the Council’s response to the Planning Inspector’s ‘Schedule of Matters and Issues for the Examination’.

Site reference R642M – land adjacent to Binfold Croft, Kirkby Lonsdale

In the Council’s response to Matter 1.6, the Summary of Assessment asserts that the site is “considered to have low to moderate landscape impact” and “low impact on built heritage”. Both of these statements seem at odds with what was written in the original Fact File where the term “prominent” was used to describe the location, and reference was made to “the popular Devil’s Bridge and River Lune riverside recreation areas”. Devil’s Bridge is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade 1 listed structure. Reference was also made in the Fact File to “the sensitivity of views of the site from the east”, followed by the suggestion that development should be limited to the western part of the site; this is clearly a recognition that the landscape impact would be significant, rather than “low to moderate”. These inconsistencies serve to undermine the integrity of the statements being made, leading to a questioning of the soundness of the documents.

No doubt there is seen to be a ‘convenience factor’ in that the site is owned by the Council and therefore its development likely to be more straightforward than instances where the land is in other ownership. However, the original Consultation Document does assert the importance of “maintaining and enhancing parks and open spaces” and during previous attempts to secure planning permission to build on this site, these and other arguments have prevailed. Indeed, following the publication of the South Westmorland Local Plan in 1986 there was a Public Inquiry leading to a decision in 1988 to delete this site from the plan (for building) on the Inspector’s recommendation “that there should be no further development of any kind south of Binfold Croft”.

As mentioned above, the Council’s response to Matter 1.6 says, in its Conclusion of Assessment, that “Part of the site is recommended for residential allocation”. It is assumed that this refers to the suggestion, in the original Consultation Documents, that development would be limited to the western part of the field – indeed this is what has been represented in the published site plans during the land allocations process, and is therefore what the community has been led to believe is the intention. Should the Inspector decide, despite the strong objections raised by local residents and organisations, that it is appropriate to proceed with developing this site, adherence to this criterion (i.e. development of the western part only) is paramount, in order to preserve at least some element of the natural green space that is such an important component of one of the town’s main visitor attractions.


13.10.12

Ref: land allocation
as detailed below
Levens Residents Group, especially amongst people not living next to it . Remember the Story Homes proposal to build 70 houses there? This is essentially another go at the same thing. Public opposition resulted in SLDC withdrawing their original allocation of part of the site (RV682LVM) for housing after the 'preferred options' consultation. If you still don't want development of this site, express your opposition to it being re-introduced at this stage in the process,

I am very much against any move to build houses in this location. The view is rewarding and is for all - you will totally blight the area . Its preposterous.

1. Major resident opposition.
2. Major impact on current houses due to increased transport.
3. poor public transport.
4.It is a greenfield site. It has significant biodiversity value, which may require extensive mitigation measures.
5. drainage for current greengate properties is not as stated on title plans which may have significant impact on current houses.
6. it has visual impact.
7. owner of land is very unsure if they would sell as they have other offers from local residents to purchase some of the land to provide a bigger buffer zone.

Thank you for your explanatory visit to my neighbour Mr N. Ballentyne's property on the morning of 12th. October which I too attended.
Arising from that visit, and prior to the revised submission deadline of noon 15th. October 2012, I would like to make the following observations in respect of the proposed submission to the Inspector:
• Contrary to our earlier correspondence in April this year I note that the plan as currently displayed on-line (Map 16 refers) in respect of that submission does NOT reflect the non-availability of the land adjacent to the eastern boundary of 'Laurel Bank'.
• Further to the provisions of the "National Planning Policy Framework", dated March 2012, with particular reference to para 212 in "Appendix 1 : Implementation" and to "Appendix 2 : Glossary" referring to "Previously developed land" which specifically addresses the exclusion of "private residential gardens", I confirm your attention was drawn to the fact that part of the subject Site immediately adjacent to the northern and western boundaries of my property comprise parts of such well established "private residential gardens" (namely those of "Laurel Bank" and "Rosecroft" and totalling only about 1250 sq.M). Consequently in this context I would suggest that this present Proposal does NOT therefore comply with the requirements of the "NPPF" in respect of such "material considerations".
• I also note that the "NPPF", in paras 99 and 100, requires that any Local Plan / development must take into account any present or future flooding risks. In this context I would draw your attention to the substantial recent (essentially post- Pear Tree Farm development) correspondence with SLDC in respect of flooding on my land arising from the sole drainage pipe for the subject Site which passes through my property. Although this matter has been pragmatically resolved with relatively minor current impacts, the surface water run-off from the subject Site passes through that pipe which presently only copes with about 90% of the flow from a "1year storm" leading to localised flooding (obviously if the "30year storm" condition is considered such percentage would be considerably lower). However the inevitable reduction in the 'time of concentration' caused by the development of the catchment area, which comprises the subject Site, will considerably increase such peak flow causing a substantial flood risk. Taking into account the location of this pipe through already fully developed private properties "downstream" of the Site it is unlikely that the riparian owners, including the Highway Authority, could accommodate any upgrading of that watercourse that would be necessary to handle such future storm flows.

In the light of the above I trust that these points will be passed to the Inspector, unless of course you see fit to amend/update your proposals accordingly prior to your submission..

Ii know you are considering building on Rinkfield.
I live in a flat owened by Two Castles who are not the best of Landlords.
Thw Castles signed up with a company to protect green spaces.
Rinkfield is a large expance of greenery whwere children play .
Even so Burland Grove has to put up with anti-social behaviour from children from Rinkfield who prefer to play in Burland Grove.
Should you allow Some one to build on Rinkfield you would not only shut out our views of open sky you would increase the amount of noise we have to put up with.
You should concider the quality of life for those who have to live in a less than perfect envirament is important.
Some of us cannot life in a perfect World.
We have to make do with the generosity of Local Councils to give us a possibility of living acomfotrable life.
Please , to not give in to the easy obtion.

site rv682lvm levens

Ref. The above site.

It has been brought to my attention that inspite of the village of Levens and SLDC deciding what were their preferences were for the future development of the Levens .This democratic decision is coming under attack by a buider who thinks because he can buy a professional to represent his financial interests.

This is our VILLAGE not the builders. The GOV said we would have a say in what what devepment should take place. The VILLAGE has had it say. The SLDC has supported the Villagers proposal. That should be enough

TO DEVELOP THE ABOVE SITE IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE MAJORITY WISHES OF
VILLAGE

Response from Allan Steward (on behalf or Levens Residents Group Committee) - As a lack of response might be deemed to signify agreement with the "SLDC response to Matter 1.6", we refrain from comment other than to state that issues such as the evidence base have already been addressed by our submissions regarding earlier rounds of consultation.

Land Allocations in Levens

I understand that representations are to be made at the forthcoming Development Allocation hearing that site RV682LVM is reintroduced into the plan. I would like to refer the Inspector to the overwhelming opposition to development on this and the adjoining site by Levens parishioners. To allow the reintroduction of these sites into the plan would fly in the face of the consultation process and make a nonsense of the Governments commitment to 'localism' in the decision making.
I hope the clear wishes of villagers are given due regard in the inspector's considerations.

Representation at Land Allocations in Levens Hearing

I wish to strongly comment and object to SLDC's proposed hearing of Land Allocations in Levens Village and in particular the fact that there is to be a representation to the Inspector by a planning consultant representing the owner of land to the West of Brigsteer Road and East of Hutton Lane, originally designated RN291# (SLDC correspondence 28 July 2011)

Your Mr. Dan Hudson in a letter to Mr. Tim Farron MP 13 September 2011 states,

"Consultation on alternative sites has just ended and the next stage will be to publish a final Land Allocations Development Plan Document in the autumn for formal consultation and submission for independent examination.
Because of the advanced stage we are at ,we can not accept any additional new site suggestions at this stage to go into the land allocation process."

In February 2012 SLDC identified their final choice of two sites to be allocated for development (R51M and RN121M-mod)

There was no reference to site RN291# being included in this choice, the fact is, this site has been removed from SLDC proposals.

Both my wife and I, and I suspect all residents bordering the land now removed (ex RN291#) strongly oppose SLDC allowing a planning consultant to make a representation to the Inspector concerning land no longer included in the SLDC Land Allocation
for Levens.

This land has been withdrawn from the proposals and can not be reintroduced at this stage in the process, long after SLDC ceased to accept nominations of new/alternative sites.

LAND ALLOCATIONS EXAMINATION

Submission to SLDC regarding SLDC’s Response to Matter 1.6

From Arnside Parish Council and Arnside Parish Plan Trust

13 October, 2012


This response to SLDC’s reply to the Inspectors questions under Matter 1.6 is presented below on behalf on both Arnside Parish Council and Arnside Parish Plan Trust.

Process Overview.

We note the comments by SLDC on the consultation process and in the “Process Overview” (1.6.4). We also note that an amended schedule of Arnside sites (ref EX020A) was presented as part of the Council’s response.

We are concerned, however, that the new schedule gives inadequate recognition to the strong objections of both APC and APPT to the inclusion of sites R81 (Redhills Road) and RN225 (Hollins Lane). In addition, a petition of 550 signatures from a residents’ group was presented to the Council in December, 2011, objecting, inter alia, to the inclusion of these sites. Nor are the objections of the AONB to R81 recorded.

We are also concerned that no mention is made of the considerable efforts made by APPT/APC to engage the Council in discussion concerning alternative sites; so far SLDC have not been able meet us to review our suggested alternatives, despite repeated requests.

Response 1.6.17; Site size thresholds

SLDC’s response effectively confirms that the minimum threshold of 0.3ha is merely an arbitrary local policy decision. SLDC admit that there is “no national standard”. The Council’s assessment of the size needed is at odds with those of the neighbouring Lake District National Park and Lancaster City Council.

The LDNPA appears to be taking the duty to protect its countryside from inappropriate development seriously.

Lancaster share responsibility for the AONB and also appear to have robustly adopted more sensitive policies to protect the principal purpose of the AONB. So far as the inclusion of small sites in their Land Allocations they say “Small infill development can help to meet the housing needs of rural settlements without harming the character of the area.”

SLDC seems however to be paying general “lip service” to its duty in its core strategy, but does not take sufficiently seriously the additional steps needed to distinguish policies for the AONB from the rest of the District in the way it approaches this issue.

APPT have identified a number of small sites which can fulfill the essential affordable housing needs within Arnside with minimum effect on the character and environment of the village within the AONB, but these are still not recognised in the Land Allocations documents by SLDC.

Until this is corrected SLDC cannot claim to have met the high duty of care required of them within an AONB.





General Policy

Although not mentioned in SLDC’s response we understand that there is the possibility that a new joint body might be formed to manage planning policies within the Arnside & Silverdale AONB.

SLDC should ensure that no irreversible Allocations are made within the AONB until this is settled, unless the principal stakeholders - including APC/APPT - agree in the meantime on a site-by-site basis.

I wish to address the matter of SLDC's policy of excluding from consideration in its Land Allocation process of sites of less then .3 hectare and the consequences of that rule for Arnside.

In an email dated 3rd April 2012 the Development Strategy Manager offered a number of reasons in defence of that policy including:-

1. Such a rule was necessary "to keep the exercise manageable- the land allocation process is unsuited to the consideration of very large numbers of very small sites."

2. It was also noted that, "there is a risk that, if small sites with local impacts are pursued through the LDF process, it will slow down delivery of otherwise acceptable sites which could be brought forward much more quickly through the Development Management process".

3. The 0.3 ha rule was also necessary “to meet the strategic objective of affordable housing delivery, [and] be workable in administrative terms…..”

4. “The 0.3 ha threshold was clearly set out in the Emerging Options consultation document earlier this year and did not give rise to objections”.

To take reason 4 first those of us who are lay persons in planning matters did not initially understand the significance of this requirement, nor did we appreciate that it was a locally imposed rule rather than national policy. If we had been aware of these considerations earlier we certainly would have voiced our opposition.

Reasons 1 and 2 appear to be purely pragmatic concerns rather than matters of principle. We haven't the time or the resources to be dealing with a lot of small sites, appears to be the argument. It simplifies and speeds up the process if we set aside small sites and concentrate our attention on those that are larger. However this is to ignore the severely detrimental consequences of the .3 hectare rule which SLDC has seen fit to impose on the process. It acts as an obstacle to sensitive planning and leads inevitably to large developments of housing at the expense of precious open green space.

There may be a case for the application of such a rule in South Lakeland at large, but Arnside is part of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where there is an especial need for sensitive planning. According to government policy, AONBs are bracketed with national parks as areas where the landscape is in special need of protection. Thus Part 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework emphasizes in paragraph 115 “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and beauty”.

In the Lake District National Park the threshold is set at 0.1 ha which makes possible the inclusion of small sites. It is surely the case that Arnside, given its AONB status, should be treated similarly. Housing development in this village needs to be, above all else, sensitive, dispersed around the village in small units rather than taking the form of large blocs of housing.

With regard to the important matter of affordable housing referred to in paragraph 3 above Arnside Parish Council and Arnside Parish Plan Trust have worked hard in cooperation with South Lakes Housing to identify no less than 10 small sites around the village where such housing could be accommodated without damaging the landscape with large housing developments. ( See Appendix 1 of Arnside Village Plan-http://arnsideparishplantrust.org/Site/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/arnside-looking-forward-v4.PDF)

Saturday, 13 October 2012

Subject: Areas, R97M, MN34 and a third, undefined area marked with a dotted red circle on South Lakeland District Council’s latest Framework map, lying immediately to the South of Helme Lodge. (We understand this indicates a broad location for future housing development in 2022-2027.)
This 'addendum' to our submission (dated 17/5/12) relates to Mr. Berkeley's schedule, page 6, "Kendal, matters 3.1/ 3.2 / and 3.3."
As requested, it is in response to the submission made by SLDC's submission dated 18/9/12 entitled:
"LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT (DPD)
(ii) South Lakeland District Council’s response to Matter 1.6 of the Inspector’s ‘Matters and Issues’"
Questions /Comments From HLHG Ltd, in response to SLDC, in the order listed by the SLDC submission are:
Reference R97M-mod &part of MN34# mod:
a) SA value: SLDCM say: "the site performs reasonably well … on the edge of Kendal and has good access to a range of services and facilities." Whilst we cannot deny this, so too has Kendal Castle, also being so close to the main town. However, is that a reason for building all over it? Placed, as it is, in the middle band of SA value, (marked "moderate/neutral ... Compared to other sites in the settlement"), does this judgement take sufficient account of the loss of amenity, the wonderful views from the canal footpath, and what will be the canal when it is restored? These paths are used by many walkers and cyclists -- and hopefully by canal boats. How has such loss of amenity been taken into account, especially when SDLC 's comments say "it is greenfield and has moderate/high landscape, moderate heritage impact and moderate /high bio-diversity value." Such comments seem contradictory to the recommendation to allocated the Parkland for 73 houses.
b) SHLAA, measuring the "deliverability" of the site, places it in the lowest category "least developable sites". Elsewhere in the documents, SLDC acknowledges that the highways department has effectively ruled out Natland Mill Beck Lane as a suitable access point for traffic. It also admits that the entrance from Natland Road would be difficult to engineer (expensive?) given the line of the proposed canal. Yet the SLDC comments read: "it can be satisfactorily accessed." How can these two viewpoints be aligned? Although an engineering possibility – nearly anything can be engineered these days – is economically viable so to do (have there been any costings for canal bridges etc?); and is safe and it desirable so to do, to allow traffic from 73 houses to exit onto Natland road in the same area as a canal / road crossing and a probable Marina entrance, allowed for in E31M#?
c) Landscape Impact: again SLDC has categorised R97M as being the middle band as "moderate/neutral… (which) can be moderated through landscape mitigation measures." Could this be explained given the very high risk there would be to avenues of mature beech trees lining the canal area; as well as to other mature oaks / beeches dotted around the parkland. Any houses built in between would totally change the character, the landscape impact by any criteria, surely, in the environs of the grade 2 listed building, Helme Lodge? And as 'mature trees' there would also be safety implications, with falling branches and trees -- unless they were felled, which would both devastate the 'landscape impact' and contravene environmental safeguards.
d) Site Access: again the site is placed in the middle category, access "with constraints which are considered can be overcome… moderate/neutral". We have already questioned this in b) above, and further ask what traffic impact assessments have been made since the recent expansion of Natland village and further proposed developments there, as well as a possible Marina or light industry at E31M#?
e) Heritage: again the site is classified in the "moderate/neutral ..." category, accepting "potential impact on built heritage designations". We understand this to mean Helme Lodge itself, which, if so, we would argue, is to substantially undervalue the 200-year-old 'rural aspect' of Helme Lodge. To build on the old parkland is to change the nature of the estate forever.

Conclusion
In their submission, with the exception of 'Flooding', SDLC places R97M-mod &part of MN34# mod in the middle or bottom (least suitable) of their development bands, most crucially rating the deliverability of this site in the lowest band. We hope the above objections stand in their own right. Our case rests, not only on the environmental vandalism entailed in the proposal for so many houses on such a beautiful (Grade 2 listed) area of Parkland amenity , but on the fact that R97M is considered so difficult (expensive?) to engineer. We submit that it is neither realistic, economic, nor viable for access and safety and in consequence should not be included in the SLDC Land Allocation Plan.

[see attached document]

Local Development Framework
DPD Hearings
South Lakeland House
Kendal
SUBMISSION BY LEVENS PARISH COUNCIL
OCTOBER 2012

Levens Parish Council fully support comments made by the Levens Residents Group on Matter 11 site R682LV & R682LVM. The Levens Residents Group sent a survey to EVERY household in Levens and what emerged from the 73% of respondents is significant opposition to the development of this site among residents of Levens, even those who do not live near to the site. This information was provided in the Emerging Options consultation. The site is so important to parishioners and visitors in a range of rural landscape terms and is situated around 200yards from the new boundary of the Lake District National Park and will be clearly visible from within the National Park.

Of special significance is the fact that SLDC had already accepted the findings of these earlier consultations and withdrawn the site. As the true position is clearly against any development we feel there should be no compromise and that development should not take place on this site.
Levens Parish Council also makes a response in support of the SLDC Proposed Main Modification concerning site RN121M-mod, residents opinion this site is suitable for agricultural/employment land.

Matter 15 – Flookburgh/Cark

Lower Holker Parish Council have considered the responses from South Lakeland District Council and would respond as follows:

To the Question
“15.4 Is third party land needed to access the land east of Winder Lane (R321M)? Is this site deliverable?
15.4.1 The County Council, in their representations, have expressed concern that there may be a strip of third party land that could prevent the development of this site (see Consultation Statement Appendices (SLA06) Flookburgh and Cark Appendix 8 page 5).
15.4.2 The site is made up of several gardens and all landowners have collectively confirmed the availability of their land and the fact that they believe the site has “good access” through a single agent. The Council have contacted the agent who has now checked with his clients and owners of adjacent land and has confirmed that there is no third party land that would prevent the development of the site.”

Lower Holker Parish Council have local knowledge on the matter and do not consider that 15.4.2 is correct as all the landowners are not now in agreement with the development of this site.

To the Question
"15.3 If there is a need to identify additional land, are there alternative sites which are appropriate and deliverable? Have they been subject to appropriate Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment compatible with that for the DPD, and to public consultation?
15.3.1 It is considered there is no need to identify any additional land. As evidenced in response to matter 1.6, it is considered that the proposed allocations are the most appropriate, deliverable sites and there are no alternative sites considered more appropriate or deliverable."

A number of alternative deliverable sites were put forward and Lower Holker Parish Council held 3 Public meetings on 8 February 2011 (97 members of public attended), 22 February 2011 and 24 August 2011 (36 members of the public attended). The views from these meetings were collated by the Parish Council and presented to South Lakeland District Council (Lower Holker Parish Council Letters to South Lakeland District Council of 10 March 2011 and 2 September 2011).

South Lakeland District Council did not consider any of the alternative sites suggested suitable but chose R321M (for which there was a majority opposition at the Public Meetings) and sites R685 and R687 where there were concerns regarding safe access and the need for a footbridge over the railway to be put in place before either of these sites be developed.

In the final document, the views presented by the Parish Council on behalf of all the attendees at the public meetings were weighted the same as a single letter from a single correspondent. The Parish Council do not consider that there was sufficient recognition of the findings of the public consultation undertaken by the Parish Council.

Milnthorpe Parish Council would like to make the following comments on two proposed development sites in Milnthorpe village:

- site RN140 - We understand the inspector's reservations. However, although it appears from the map as though its adoption for housing would have a significant effect on the Green Gap, in reality a site visit will show that, because of its position and land contours, this would not be the case. Using it for housing would be a good use of an untidy and derelict site that is frequently used for fly-tipping.

- site R462M - We are concerned that, following withdrawal of site M9M2 and the possible exclusion of site RN140, virtually all site allocations are now in the south-east of the village, resulting in village imbalance and raising questions about the ability of the proposed new junction with the A6 to handle the (extra) traffic.

Thank you for notifying National Trust of the above consultation.

Having reviewed the relevant documents I can inform you that there are no particular comments that the National Trust wishes to make on this occasion. However, the Trust does of course remain interested in the Council’s LDF work and would wish to continue to be notified of such consultations.

NATS HAS NO COMMENTS TO MAKE.

Thank you for consulting North Yorkshire County Council about proposed modifications to the South Lakeland Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and your Council's response to Matter 1.6 of the Inspectors 'Matters and Issues'. Carl Bunnage has asked me to reply.

The proposed modifications and response would not seem to present any strategic issues for North Yorkshire, and as such I have no comments to raise from a strategic planning perspective.

Many thanks for consulting the County Council on this matter. I hope you find this response helpful.

This response has been approved by the TOG Committee.

CONSULTATION ON MATTER 1.6: RESPONSE FROM TRIANGLE OPPOSITION GROUP (TOG)

This is largely a technical consultation on methodology. While TOG does not contest the site selection framework we object most strongly to the way in which subjective judgements and bias have been brought to bear in populating the framework in order to justify selection of favoured sites. We would quote the following examples:

* For sites RN133M and M2M on the Oxenholme Triangle, officers have assessed the potential to compromise separation or green gap as moderate/neutral (AMBER). This definition ignores the fact that both sites fall in a currently designated green gap and omits mention of the previous history of public inquiries which prevented exploitation of this area in the recent past
* For sites RN133M and M2M it is indicated that they have “received very little community support”. This does not do justice to the outright hostility of local people. In the council’s consultation for site M2M, 246 out of 248 responses were opposed, for site RN133M, 230 out of 231 were opposed. It is believed that only the landowner supported development
* For site RN133M, traffic access has been assessed as accessible, with no obvious constraints (GREEN). This is an obvious nonsense, as shown by planning officers querying the current planning application for this site in terms of access. Access to the site would either be from the narrow Oxenholme Road with a roundabout at a dangerous point on the road and/or through the private close of Hard Knott Gardens across a sensitive tributary of the River Kent

Encouraged by both councillors and officers to suggest alternatives, TOG proposed alternative nearby sites of M40 and R140, opposite ASDA superstore. We believe that these two sites have many advantages over the Triangle sites, including minimal impact on coalescence and other houses, access on to the main A65 and lower flooding risk. The land is apparently available for development. Despite this community support, the treatment of these sites in the framework is biased in the opposition direction ie towards rejection:

* Under community views, for both sites it is indicated that there is limited community support. This despite the fact that SLDC were given 198 signed statements from local residents giving TOG authority to represent their views. For site R140 the assessment is RED, significant level of objections(negative)
* Under traffic access, unlike RN133M, access is defined as AMBER, even though this site already has access onto an existing roundabout on the A65

It is our contention that these and other biased judgements have been made to ensure favoured sites score appropriately. It is our belief that sites RN133M and M2M were earmarked for development at a very early stage, following discussions with the landowner, and the whole consultation process for these sites has been a sham. This is evidenced in TOG’s representations on the Land Allocations DPD in a written response to TOG from a senior councillor, before the consultation exercises had even been concluded. Furthermore at no stage has the Council been prepared to discuss with us their reasoning in terms of site selection or to explain to us why our alternative site suggestions were rejected out of hand.

The Council’s response to the Inspector still lacks information on weightings and the judgement process that would enable us to understand why RN133M and M2M have been selected objectively above R140 and M40.


DENNIS REED

CHAIR TOG