Local Development Framework Consultation

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Ref: RN193
Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to object to the proposed development of the Gill Banks area of Ulverston, due mainly to environment impact it would cause and the increased risk of flooding.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Arnold-Bennett.

Ulverston Resident

SLDC LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN – FURTHER MAIN MODIFICATION MM072U
SITE REF: RN193 LAND OFF UNION LANE, ULVERSTON, CUMBRIA

In response to the proposal I wish to object strongly to both the proposed change and to the consultation process.

1.The proposal to build 44 houses on high ground above a steep valley is worthy of scorn. There is a real chance of land slippage and flooding in low-lying parts of Ulverston. The beck is channelled under the Town centre and then flows down to areas already at great risk of flooding.

2.The proposal will increase the traffic flow along narrow roads (Union Lane, Stanley Street, Mill Street, etc.) and also cause busy junctions (Mill Street to King Street, Garden Terrace to Soutergate, Union Lane to Stanley Street) to become very dangerous:

• The Mill Street to King Street junction, at present a mini-roundabout, is a blind junction for traffic leaving Mill Street. Many vehicles approaching the junction from Soutergate fail to negotiate the mini roundabout safely and cause a hazard to other road users.

• The Garden Terrace to Soutergate junction is narrow and some drivers have to wait for another to clear the junction.

• Union Lane to Stanley Street is already being adjusted to accommodate an increase in vehicles from the 26 houses being constructed, it will not be wide enough for vehicles from a further 44 houses (an increase from 10 to 60 and then to an estimated 140 cars with all the additional large vehicles for deliveries and services)

• The Highways Department should visit the area and consider the security of the people living in the surrounding streets and the visitors to the Health Centre.

People on mobility scooters,
older residents using walking aids,
children running to the Mill Dam playground,
parents with two or three young children and a pushchair.

How long before we see a headline “This accident was waiting to happen!”

3.The consultation period was too short and brought to the attention of residents during the holiday period.

Christine Atkinson

Fwd: Traffic at mowings lane

Dear Sir,

We are writing to inform you of our TOTAL REJECTION of the plans to increase the traffic flow through Mowings Lane as part of the Union Lane development plan.
Our objections are
* The additional 100 plus vehicles that will pass by our home destroying the tranquil setting in which the property was built.
* The Safety of residents as they travel along this already narrow road
* The impact on the Safety of Residents during winter when the road is covered in snow or ice which union lane traffic will have to use and expect to be cleared by us, this road is already blocked and dangerous at this time.
* The additional delivery vehicles and visitor traffic at all times of the day and night.
* The impact on the road surface and on house prices.
* The apparent disregard the council has for its residents by lack of time given to consultation which gives the impression of paying us lip service for an already decided plan.
The Union Lane development should be kept at union lane the council are overdeveloping Ulverston which cannot support what we have and impacting misery on residents far removed from the issue which has only brought unnecessary stress to what was and should remain a quite culdesac.

The Council should be sued at the first opportunity when and it is a case of when the increased traffic causes an incident which would not have occured in the current status quo.
As the council have suggested a one way system would this mean an alternate route for us to get to our own houses again because of a thoughtless plan disrupting our way of life, we should not have to have the added worry of writing letters of this nature when the original plan was contained to union lane.
Having both been born and bred in Ulverston and having both used Gill Banks all our lives the possible destruction of habitat for wildlife and the owl and bat population is one which we also find appalling, these creatures unlike ourselves do not get to voice an oppinion they just get displaced, we hope the council see sense and do not displace either the wildlife or the trust of the residents of this community.

Yours Sincerely
Mr & Mrs Atkinson

Re proposed change of use to land between Union Lane and Mowings Lane, Ulverston (MMO72U)

Traffic access to and from this area is limited and unsafe, being via either
1. Mowings Lane to dangerous junction with Old Hall Drive and blind exits to main road, or via Garden Terrace with unrestricted parking on both sides and past a children's playground
2. Union Lane which is still too narrow even after widening to current development, leading to a dangerous junction at the busy Stanley Street end

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Ulverston Development RN193 modification MM072U

Dear sir/madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed development at Gillbanks. The walk along the Gill is one of the only walks in town that is available to people with prams/wheelchairs or other mobility issues, where they can enjoy the greenery around them and get out into a semblance of countryside.
I often go there myself and I would hate to see it spoilt by housing developments nearby.
That walk was a lifesaver when I had young children and could not easily get out of town.
I know that housing is important, but so are spaces where people can get away from concrete and bricks and be surrounded by trees and green nature. Please don't spoil this lovely spot!

Rita Baugh

Dear Sir

Response to consultation on further proposed SLDC main modifications to Local Plan Land Allocations

I make my response by email given that your web link to respond online at www.southlakeland.gov.uk/ldf/consultation/login.aspx is broken. This is poor practice on your part, considering this is an active consultation and the technical means exist to ensure that such links should be working.

I make my response with particular reference to site R121M land east of Castle Green Road.

This is at MM072U page 23 in the Schedule of Further Proposed Main Modifications (Ex061UU) and page 6 of the Highway Clarifications Technical Note by AECOM, July 2013 (Ex104)

1. The Schedule states that some land has been deleted from allocation but gives inadequate details on any implications. SLDC should be require to provide answers to the following:
• What is the status of the land deleted (ownership and any impact on other landowners of the site)?
• What impact does its deletion have on the viability of the site?
• What impact does its deletion have on access to the site?

2. The Technical Note states that the use of Oak Tree Road as an access point is not a requirement for development, however it is desirable to provide, as a minimum, a pedestrian connection from the main site access road to Oak Tree Road.
• Can SLDC confirm that Oak Tree Road is still being considered for vehicular access to R121M, despite the serious concerns previously raised by others corresponding in previous consultations?
• If vehicular access via Oak Tree Road is not being considered, can SLDC still confirm that pedestrian access from Oak Tree Road to R121M is still available?
• If pedestrian access via Oak Tree Road to R121M is not permitted then what impact does this have on the viability on R121M if this was stated as a minimum requirement?

This restriction of this further consultation to (in the case of this site) only two document updates which have any relevance to this site is at the least regrettable and, in truth I feel, insulting. I say this with regret, as I should like the Inspector Mr Berkeley to know that those including myself who have raised serious objections to this site covering a number of subjects (of which I do not propose to reiterate here) have received responses from SLDC which can only be categorised as either negligible or derisory. It raises the most profound questions on SLDC's own assessments of this site, its continued refusal to engage with the objections or the evidence base gathered by us against this development and the nature of the relationship between major developers and SLDC.

Yours sincerely

D R Baxter

proposed land allocatins for new homes

I am unsure if this is the correct address to submit this e mail - if not please forward.

There seems to be confusion to whom to write to oppose future building development

Four Lane Ends, Kirkby in Funress

We wish to oppose any future development on this site.

Totally unnecessary for more homes in the village. The site has been neglected and SLDC has be unsuccessful in getting the land owner to keep this centre village plot tidy over many years - an easy option !

Local news reports quote there are many 'shovel ready sites' that still remain undeveloped - why ruin our village?

Please submit this objection to the correct department and think these develpopment sites again - are they required - or is this just a 'tick box' situation?

Re: further proposed main modification MM072U, Amend development plan boundary to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston.

The reason given for the change is "Confirmation site can be suitably accessed and could have some development potential."

I'm concerned that the site cannot be safely accessed.

Access via Union Lane would add considerably to the volume of traffic on this road and at the junction with Stanley Street. Given the poor visibility at this junction this seems unwise. Stanley Street is a very busy route for pedestrians, including elderly and infirm people making their way to or from the Health Centre. More traffic would surely increase the accident risk.

Access via Mowings Lane would also be potentially dangerous. The top of Mowings Lane is very steep. In snow and ice vehicles get stuck or slide here. The road is currently very narrow and the corner at the top around which vehicles would need to turn (going south) is very sharp and has poor visibility.

I'm also concerned that development on this piece of land would increase the flood risk for lower areas of town, by raising the peak flow of water into the Gill.

Lastly, I believe that development on the site would lessen the value of Gill Banks as a public amenity and green space. Currently from the foothpath one can only see trees and sky, with no buildings on the horizon; it's very peaceful and there is a proper sense of being in the countryside. With the skyline blocked by buildings, this sense of tranquility would be diminished.

Reference MM072U - Amend Development Plan Boundary to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston

Dear Sir/Madam ,

I object strongly to the incorporation of this site in any future development. To build houses on these two fields would:

a) Substantially increase the risk of flood to other areas of Ulverston already struggling to cope with drainage

b) Ruin Gill Banks, a rare area of greenspace in Ulverston (SLDC currently state that this is at a premium in the centre of ULverston)

c) Introduce noise, air and light pollution into what is currently a recreational area used by large numbers of people in the town.

d) Ruin wildlife habitat - currently bats, tawny owls and a wide variety of other wildlife use this unique area and their habitat would be destroyed.

e) Introduce a substantial volume of traffic down narrow streets with a dangerous turning right by the busy health centre. At present this lane manages to cope with few properties but people have already experienced problems with existing building traffic. Any volume of traffic will cross important and busy routes and Union Lane, Mowings Lane, Stanley Street, Garden Terrace and Old Hall Road will all experience much higher volume of traffic and significant safety risks as a result.
Regards

Ben Brady

[See attached document]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please register my extremely strong objections to any development of Union Lane Fields.

You will be aware that the South Lakeland Local Development Framework Land Allocations Development Plan of 2012 described the fields as “poor in relation to air quality and flood risk”. Building on the fields would therefore, of course, increase the risk of flooding in more low-lying areas of the town, which - not coincidentally – house families in homes worth a great deal less than any which might be built on Union Lane Fields!

The deleterious effects of any building overlooking such a beautiful green space as Gill Banks can not be overstated. This is an essential place for people to jog, play, walk dogs or just recharge their batteries. The sights, sounds and smells of nature here are what makes Ulverston such a pleasant place to live. More houses near Gill Banks would spoil the town - for newcomers as well as those already living here.

Any further disruption to wildlife in the immediate area of Union Lane Fields would be disastrous. They have suffered enough already, for instance from the desertification of the former Stanley Street Hospital - which once was home to several species of owls, among other wildlife, and where only a few exotic grasses now grow - from gravelling over the lane from Stanley Street to the back of the Old Friends – which, of course, can now support no wildlife at all - from the new flats built on the former overgrown and wildlife-rich yard at Harrison's in Stanley Street – flats, incidentally, which have still not been sold and seem to be used only intermittently as holiday or other short-term lets - from the increasing destruction of gardens to create car ports – including, again, on the lane to the Friends back yard - all of which is steadily destroying the few islands of wildlife habitat left. Building on the fields would mean “loss of amenity” not just for me, but for everyone else, including future generations.

The traffic situation is already appalling on Stanley Street, especially at the junction with Union Lane, which is dangerous and will continue to be so after the minimal “widening” is completed.
Since the Stanley Street medical centre was opened, traffic has increased dramatically. The centre's car park is usually almost full, presumable mostly with centre staff cars, as it is virtually empty at night, when it is sometimes possible to park on Stanley Street itself. During the day, it seems patients find it easier to park on the street than on the crowded car park, so no spaces are usually available. The restriction limiting parking to an hour if not a resident has not helped a great deal either, as patients' appointments usually do not last that long.

My house is directly opposite Union Lane. The 25 houses now being built at Hoad View will inevitably mean extra traffic slowing then accelerating away at that junction (with or without a mini roundabout). This will increase both noise and atmospheric pollution – right outside my windows. Cars from an extra 44 homes would make the situation dangerous and unhealthy for all nearby residents. It would be completely unacceptable.

Finally, I must strongly object that the inclusion in the plan of these fields has been suggested at such short notice and with no publicity. This hardly amounts to consultation.

Yours faithfully,


Harry Brunskill

Re : Further Development of Union Lane Fields, Ulverston – OBJECTION

We are contacting South Lakeland District Council to raise our strong objections to the suggestion that two fields currently classed as agricultural land be re-classified as 'land included within the development boundary'. The reasons for our objections we list below;

Twenty Five homes are currently under construction on Union Lane and my understanding is that Persimmon homes are now seeking the alteration of the classification of the above fields with a view to later submitting application for a further Forty Four homes. Alterations to Union lane have already been made to allow for additional traffic for twenty five homes but we assume not to cater for a further Forty Four homes. With the average household currently owning two vehicles, instead of an additional fifty vehicles we would be looking at something in the region of one hundred and forty vehicles using Union Lane. This in our minds would be an unacceptable increase in traffic.

One suggestion we have heard is to allow traffic access onto Mowings Lane. Again this raises serious concerns.....
Mowings Lane is very steep and a danger in bad weather (the lamppost outside 12/14 has recently been repaired after being struck numerous times by vehicles losing control). The lane beyond 14 Mowings Lane and the top lane leading to the agricultural fields under discussion are single track unadopted highway with no street lighting, pavements, drainage or highway maintenance (no gritters in bad weather) and classed as a public footpath which is widely used by walkers (with another footpath from Star Street crossing it). The left turn onto the top lane is blind and very restricted with a mature ash tree at its junction (which has been there for generations). Tractors also use Mowings Lane for access to the agricultural fields along the full length of the top track. To increase the amount of vehicles on this lane would be ludicrous and incredibly dangerous to all users including emergency vehicles.

Any increase in traffic to the west of Soutergate has safety and traffic flow implications in relation to the Health Centre (emergency vehicles), Mill Dam Old Peoples Home and Mill Dam Play Park. All traffic using this area are forced into a one way system out of town which has to be accessed via a number of blind junctions onto Soutergate at Mowings Lane, Old Hall Road, Mill Dam and Mill Street.

Additional housing in this area would have a visual negative impact on Gill Banks (the start of the Cumbria Way). Wildlife would also be affected.

We feel that the application by Persimmons (an amendment to a previous application) is deceitful and that a lack of consultation by the council to those that may be affected is appalling. The secretive nature in which this issue is being conducted leads to mistrust all round.

Roz & Bob Butcher

mowings lane Reference MM072U - Amend Development Plan Boundary to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston

I wish to express my objections to the above proposals to include land off Gillbanks and Mowings lane for housing development. The initial decision to allow additional houses to be built off Union Lane was a mistake. To further increase the number of houses in this area would be a disaster. The access to this area is very poor. Stanley Street and the narrow road near to the Mill pub are already struggling with the number of cars using this route to the health centre. The access along union lane is still very narrow and the removal of the old workhouse wall has not helped the situation. This land is unsuitable for an intensive housing development and allowing it to take place would be a tragedy, with Ulverston losing another green space, especially one so key in regard to its location on the Cumbria Way. The safety of Ulverston residents should be a priority and allowing more housing in such a constrained space with very poor access would place lives at risk.
Jackie Cahalin

I refer to site RN 213 (Land opposite the Wheatsheaf, Brigsteer), which is dealt with as MM050 in the previous issue of the Main Modifications.The latest issue of the DPD leaves its comments unchanged as follows:

3.150 As noted above, no development land allocations are proposed in small villages and hamlets and or in the open countryside. Key existing employment sites are safeguarded as are a number of recreational open spaces, amenity greenspaces and outdoor sports facilities.

Brigsteer
3.151 An exceptional allocation is made at land opposite the Wheatsheaf in Brigsteer where the local Community Land Trust is bringing forward proposals to develop the site for 7 dwellings. Although this proposal was developed ahead of neighbourhood planning powers, it is considered that the degree of community involvement and support for it and the intention to seek a high proportion of
affordable dwellings, justify its inclusion as a land allocation. Key issues include mitigating impacts on biodiversity - the site includes areas of seminatural woodland,- and the achievement of suitable highway design arrangements.

As explained in my previous responses, and those of numerous other respondents, the reference to the Community Land Trust in the DPD overlooks the opposition to the development by the local Parish Council. Voting by community members at a Parish Council meeting led to a clear majority vote against the proposals of the Community Land Trust. Its unclear why the DPD continues to prioritize the position of a private sub-sector of the community over the Parish Council, and the voting process led by the Council.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to voice my concern at the reclassification of land off Union Lane Fields from agricultural to land included within the development plan boundary. As a current resident of Old Hall Road (and formerly of Hoad Terrace and Star Street) I strongly object to the reclassification of this site for several reasons.

1. I am led to believe that additional traffic (from upto 44 homes) may be via mowings lane and inevitably Old Hall Road or onto Town Bank Road. Both these junctions are already exceptionally dangerous. I am aware of 3 major accidents at the junction of Mowings lane and Old Hall Road in the past 2 years including a tractor crashing into the rear of No 6 Hoad Terrace, A lady that had to be cut free from her vehicle at the crossroads, and a further accident involving 2 vehicles which caused damage to number 12 Hoad Terrace. A young pedestrian was also clipped by a car at this junction. Plans to increase traffic via this junction is not acceptable and it is only a matter of time before there will be a fatality. The police are aware of current problems and a local petition has been collected and submitted for traffic calming measures. There has also been an accident at the junction of Mowings lane and Town Bank Road due to the junction being sited on a poor visibility bend. I believe residents in this area have also voiced concerns about traffic to the authorities.

2. I am also concerned about the visual effects and noise pollution that any development will have on Gill Banks, which is a beautiful walk used daily by our family and friends.

3. Finally I am extremely concerned that this development will affect local wildlife especially the Tawny Owls. The majority of evenings these owls can be heard calling in the trees behind Star Street and Gill Banks. At at time when may species are struggling for appropriate habitat it concerns me that yet more greenfields are being earmarked for development.

Surely there are more appropriate areas for development including disused and waste ground, with better vehicular access and less impact on greenspace and habitat.
yours sincerely

Mrs jackie chapman

I refer to site RN 213 (Land opposite the Wheatsheaf, Brigsteer), which is dealt with as MM050 in the previous issue of the Main Modifications.

The latest issue of the DPD leaves its comments unchanged as follows:

3.150 As noted above, no development land allocations are proposed in small
villages and hamlets and or in the open countryside. Key existing
employment sites are safeguarded as are a number of recreational open
spaces, amenity greenspaces and outdoor sports facilities.

Brigsteer
3.151 An exceptional allocation is made at land opposite the Wheatsheaf in
Brigsteer where the local Community Land Trust is bringing forward proposals to develop the site for 7 dwellings. Although this proposal was developed ahead of neighbourhood
planning powers, it is considered that the degree of community involvement
and support for it and the intention to seek a high proportion of
affordable dwellings, justify its inclusion as a land allocation. Key issues
include mitigating impacts on biodiversity – the site includes areas of seminatural woodland,– and the achievement of suitable highway design
arrangements.

As pointed out in my previous submission (and those of a number of other respondents), the claimed "degree of community involvement and support" is based on a willful misinterpretation of the survey results, as evidenced by the outcome of the Parish Council election last year. To ignore this, as the revised DPD seems to have done, seems perverse to say the least. This is a pristine greenfield site, and there are other brownfield sites within the parish which could be developed more appropriately for affordable housing if necessary.

MM032 page 66 3.29 Stainbank Green. There is a need for a wide connecting green corridor between the top of the 'green wedge' at the top of Vicarge drive and the open countryside to protect and encourage wildlife, biodiversity etc..

The written proposal makes reference to the need for 'integration with the Vicarage Road green wedge'. Does this in fact refer to the land between the Vicarage Drive/Stainbank Road estate and the Collinfield estate?. If this is the case, then no green 'buffer zone' is marked on the modified map (LA1.3/LA2.7). This integrated green zone must be safeguarded in the plans for this area

MM035 page 68 3.35 Scroggs Wood.
The buffer zone of 10 metres is insufficient to protect Scroggs wood and the wildlife it currently contains.
The development of the land to the most southerly extent marked on the map with have an extremely detrimental impact on the aproach to Kendal, it should have at least a landscaping zone between it and the dual carriageway.
The modifications to the plan to 'allievate' flood risk are still insufficient.
Instead of a 'standard' business park a sensitive development of the mill and its surrounding would both provide employment and enhance the area.

SLDC LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN – FURTHER MAIN MODIFICATION MM072U
SITE REF: RN193 LAND OFF UNION LANE, ULVERSTON, CUMBRIA


Whilst if must be agreed that new housing in Ulversteon for people who already live here. This area is not the place to put them. An arial view may suggest to the naive that it could be used but there is a very big BUT

The proposed area of land is isolated from good quality roads with safe clearances, freedom of steep slopes and good visibility in all directions.

Road Slopes
All approaches are fraught with problems arising from the site being high up and is situated amongst narrow old roads built at a time when few people moved along them at speeds of a walking horse. In fact only a horse could walk up a slopes that are impossible in compacted snow to all but the most modern motor car. I live near the steepest section of Union Lane and at every suggestion of snow I make a point of shovelling and sweeping the snow from the surface before any vehicles get a chance to compact it and form ice that can not be driven up over. With the increase severity of winters and the unlikelihood of efficient gritters being available because of county cut backs any road with a steep slope off the main routes of the town has a major problem.
old roads with steep gradients only kept open by removing snow before it becomes compacted

Congested road junctions with limited visibility and a steep descent have an unacceptably high probability of serious accidents.

The Union Lane, Stanley street junction is such a junction with little to no visibility at very short notice when approaching from the Gill , up Stanley street and turning into Union lane: only to be faced with a car descending at speed (30 mph) and children from the proposed new houses on the way to Mill Dam park ( note the children's play area for the new houses will be at Mill Dam if recent conditions for Hoad view are followed )or elderly adults from the Mill Dam sheltered housing coming into town.

Another is the cluster of roads surrounding the Kings Arms that are and will become increasingly dangerous with the increased traffic use from a further 70 houses up Union Lane. Starting at Mill Street the road can carry only one car in either direction. Added to this, the route to be taken on foot is hazardous with narrow footpaths, having to switch from one side of the road to another. As cars try to emerge onto Kings St cars frequently narrowly avoid accidents from traffic descending Soutergate at speed on the wrong side of the road cutting the corner when no traffic approaches from fountain street but unaware that emerging cars confront them round the corner at Mill Street.
This old collection of streets can never be seen as suitable for a substantial increase of some 120 cars from what will be a total of 70 new homes on the proposed Union Lane development. Far in excess of the 80 cars accessing the Health Centre and the potential for even more cars when The Buildings of Gill Rise come back into use.


Gill Banks is precious to the town for its trees, stream, wildlife and escape from the built up area. Loss of tranquility and affect on wild life along Gill Banks caused by the proximity of the new houses. This will cause visual impact of houses and reflective windows, the sound from people with sound equipment, the shout of arguing families and noisy children, the light pollution in the evening. This is to a very highly valued walk used many thousands times a year by Ulverston people seeking a stroll to recharge flat emotional batteries in an increasingly fractious world.

Removal of adsorbent land and replacement with asphalt will increase the chances of flooding in other parts of town already prone to flooding at a time when the country is experiencing an increased number of flash rain storms carrying unprecedented amounts of rain in a shot time. This will not be dealt with even by the tanks provided my Persimmons for this eventuality.

It is my opinion that the further proposed development needs extremely careful consideration. The increased volume of traffic around areas such as the Health Centre and the area where Mill Street meets Soutergate, and King St, which is also joined by Fountain St and Church Walk would be unsafe.
As a Headteacher I feel the danger to children from increased traffic around this area to be unacceptable.

From recent visits to the Health Centre I am aware that the current volume of traffic up Stanley Street is already high. I would be concerned about the health and safety of our elderly residents too; those living on Stanley Street and Union Lane.

I also think the Mowings(Moigns) area of Ulverston may need to be protected as a conservation area as there are archeological questions that need throughly investigating. I am aware that this could be a very ancient site of habitation in Ulverston and would require a professional archeological survey before further building work is considered.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Dear Mr. Berkeley,

Examination of the South Lakeland Land Allocations DPD: Land East of Castle Green Road (Ref R121M)

Thank you for your reply to my letter dated 20th June 2013.

I am grateful for your reassurances in your letter that the matter concerning the land referenced above and in particular, the Great Crested Newts on the site, is being treated with full seriousness.

However, I do note your reply does accept that some of your comments did cause amusement to some in the Council Chamber. I was also a little bemused by our response to the "I won't be looking for any newts" query from my letter. To suggest that some people in the Council Chamber would assume that you would undertake a "professional survey of the wildlife present" on a site visit has got to be a spurious supposition. Many, if not all in the Chamber and public galleries at these hearings are very au fait with planning law and legislation concerning protected wildlife and subsequently I do find this response an excuse for a blithe comment.

Notwithstanding, I am encouraged and convinced that you have reviewed the evidence put forward to you as you have stated. It is my opinion that the acting participants on the opposing side to the Council have acted with probity and have presented the most cogent case to you.

If I may say so the Council have operated shabbily and with obfuscation making it very difficult for the public to garner the necessary information and evidence. A case in point, many relevant links to papers and documents are down or unavailable on the Council's website. When data can be accessed online such as their Biodiversity Data of Assesses Site (Jan 2012) the information for site R121M has no mention of the presence of Great Crested Newts or even the potential for Great Crested Newts. I feel strongly that the evidence from the Council presented to you in some cases is insubstantial evidence and I refer you as an example to my letter sent to you dated 9th June 2013 "Flooding and Hydrology R121M". In conclusion, I proposed the development at site R121M (mod) does not comply with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. I am still of that opinion and I asked respectfully that the site be removed from the development plan.

Yours sincerely,




Michael Fennell

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Proposed development MM072U

Re: 27 to 71 properties at Hoad View

We are dismayed to learn of the proposal to extend the number of properties at Hoad View from 27 to 71. Such consideration almost defies belief. Is no one concerned with our safely?

To accommodate the much increased traffic flow along Union Lane to serve the 27 properties presently being constructed, the road width opposite our property has been increased by a miserable sixteen inches, at very substantial cost, when we asked during pre-build consultation for at least another six feet, on safety grounds, which could have been easily accomplished at negligible additional expense.

Mr Dellow is correct regarding the junction dangers but, additionally, the road width for traffic generated by a further forty-four properties is totally unsatisfactory.

We fully expect to be ignored once again but live in hope that common sense may still prevail.

Joan & Alwyn Gee.

Dear Sirs,

Local Plan Land Allocations - Public Examination
Consultation on the Schedule of Further Proposed Main Modifications to the Local Plan - Land Allocations

Re. BRIGSTEER - 3.151 RN 213

As I mentioned in my previous email on this subject, the community involvement and support is not based on fact in the survey results which was shown in the Parish Council election last year. Why has this been totally ignored by the revised DPD? The area involved is a very attractive site, and it appears to many of us in Brigsteer that the DPD has made up its mind regardless of the residents' views. Building development in my opinion would completely ruin this area and create even more traffic and parking problems on this site, especially as the refurbished Wheatsheaf Inn will not have anything like the right amount of parking space if the pub is going to make any profit, and will certainly cause serious traffic problems around this area and beyond.

Yours faithfully,


J. E. Graves

Dear Sir,
We would like to put forward our objection to the proposal to change the classification of the agricultural land at Union Lane Fields to “Land included within the development plan boundary” with possibility then of the building of housing, and the possible consequence of rerouting of traffic in the area.
Although we aware of, and understand the housing needs, we are of the opinion that there are already more than enough houses in this part of Ulverston, not taking into account the new Persimmon Development off Union Lane, which in itself will make the situation worse. We feel that releasing even more land for housing, in this area can only cause problems, on a number of levels, access, and parking being just two.
As we understand the proposals as they stand with regard to access, traffic would presumably go one way, either via Union lane, then follow a newly laid section of road, to join the top of Mowings Lane, and then go down Mowings Lane to the junction of either Garden Terrace, or Old Hall Road, where it could then be routed to join Soutergate in the usual way, or vice versa.
We currently reside on Mowings Lane, and are acutely aware of the problems that already exist in the area. It is obvious to any local resident that there is already far too much traffic using both Garden terrace and Mowings Lane. As you are no doubt aware, a problem already exists, with regard to parking, which takes up most of the space on both sides of both roads. These roads were not designed for, and are not wide enough to cope with the extra volume of traffic, both through, and for access, which would ensue, if this proposal were to be granted. The extra traffic would however have no other option than to use them, causing even greater problems.
There is also a potential hazard in winter, when it is icy as both Mowings Lane and Garden Terrace, to name but 2 roads have a very steep incline and need very regular gritting. They were actually impassable by the gritter itself on a couple of occasions last winter. It is quite dangerous, and there have been a few close shaves, over the years. How will the large volume of cars alone, never mind delivery vans etc cope under these winter conditions?
Where would everyone Park? Most households have at the minimum one car, and indeed around this area, it appears to be two, and sometimes three. They cannot all be parked on driveways, and as you will appreciate some of the houses on Garden Terrace do not have driveways, being terraced. There are already problems with access when cars are parked on both sides of this road, which is a good amount of the time. Couple this with the winter conditions pointed out above, which have been experienced by many local residents, plus a number who are not aware of the problems and the dangers become only too obvious.
We object extremely strongly to this Proposal for extra housing, We do appreciate that there is a requirement for extra housing throughout Ulverston, but believe this proposal, in this place, is a step too far, and it will only cause more problems than it could ever conceivably solve. We would hope that you can understand our concerns, and are able to reject this planned development.

Dave & Jacquie Grisedale

Copy To Simon Berkeley , Planning Inspector

Dear Sirs

R121 M Local Development Framework

I am writing to ask that R121M be removed from the framework at this final stage on the following grounds :

Landscape
Development on R121M will have a detrimental impact on the town landscape that will be irreversible. This wooded and walled sloping landscape has hitherto been protected by inspectors and should remain so. This valuable beautiful rural landscape view, particularly on exiting Kendal in an easterly direction, will be destroyed. This development would close the necessary gap to keep the Castle Green Lane Rural Hamlet community distinct. The view across from the Castle Green Hotel to the fells will be marred by a road , new junction and pollutant street lighting. It will be impossible to mitigate the loss of this landscape. This additional street lighting will also impact on the protected wildlife adjacent to the site and light pollute the rural woodland and breeding ground for falcons and hawks. R121M must be removed. If building goes ahead there will be no view of Kendal Castle from the West Coast Line.

West Coast Line Building Buffer Zone
It will be difficult and costly to landscape and mitigate noise to any newbuild houses on R121M which lies completely within the prescribed West Coast Line Building Buffer Zone. Yet again SLDC and Russell Armer have failed to take into account a serious impediment when planning to build on this site. Costs appear to be stacking up against building on this site, and certainly making it less and less cost effective to build what is really needed in the area, affordable homes.

Flooding
The area has yet again encountered flash flooding in the last two weeks causing flooding at both bridges restricting traffic flow around East Kendal. SLDC have not provided sufficient detail or costings to prove that any proposed new housing and faster run off will not make the flooding situation even worse. Remove R121M or guarantee in writing to all residents within a square mile of R121M that no future flooding will occur in the area. This site will prove too costly to address the flooding issues and still build what is really needed in Kendal, affordable homes.

Environmental Impact
An Environmental Impact Assessment should have been completed before R121M was added and as a highly sensitive site this again and mitigation of the results will be another expensive cost. Any change in drainage for buildings or roads will impact on the stable wildlife and protected sites adjacent to R121M. These adjacent sites contain many species not found closer to Kendal including, in the words of Bowland Conservation Researchers and Railtrack assessors we spoke to, “a high quality colony of Great Crested Newts”. With only 2 ponds of this nature within Kendal, SLDC should not risk destroying the stability of one of them. Any changes to the drainage of the land below the site will impact on the wildlife in the area and their ability to feed from and pass through the wildlife corridors currently protected and funded by SLDC. The population of voles, moles, frogs, toads, chicks and smaller creatures and insects on which the Kestrels, Buzzards and Herons, Moor Hens and birds feed will be reduced as their habitat is destroyed by virtue of the wet land being reduced to urban housing. This is a Kestrel breeding ground and any urbanisation will impact on future breeding. If numbers of dwellings are a criteria and affordable housing crucial this valuable environmentally sensitive site does not justify being destroyed.

Great Crested Newts
These creatures deserve an objection on their own behalf. With national recognition that their population is endangered, any movement or damage to this colony would be devastating to Kendal. To move or damage the colony is an insult to Kendal residents as well as to the newts who have obviously found a home in Kendal in which they thrive. SLDC as a “green” council should be proud of its natural assets, and be fighting to retain them and protect them, not displace them for the profit of a developer or land owner, when there are other less sensitive sites available. The passage of the newts between the pond and other wetlands locally and to overwintering sites will be barred by walls, barriers, tarmac roads and house construction. I was saddened to witness ridicule at my expense when referring to these matters at the enquiry. The representatives from Russell Armer and SLDC seemed to find it amusing that the Great Crested Newt colonies have to be considered seriously. That does not bode well for their conduct in the future. Barriers , roads , junctions and alteration to the water content around these colonies can not help but damage the colonies. Damaging the colonies is illegal. SLDC and Russell Armer need to take their legal obligation more seriously than was evident at Kendal Town Hall and show how they will protect these colonies not laugh. SLDC regularly maintains in its literature and on its signage that it is protecting its wildlife and environment and should therefore do its utmost to protect these remaining special species within the town boundary. If SLDC is truly a “green” council it must remove R121M in its entirety.


Traffic
Any additional dwellings on R121M are a ridiculous proposal on this steeply sloping with existing landscape and drainage issues including ice and snow. It is already difficult to exit properties and the hotel on Castle Green Lane and from properties on the western side of the A684, especially during rush hour and in bad weather. The screeches, accidents and near misses outside the Castle Green Hotel bear testament to this as traffic fails to observe the 40mph limit in either direction which commences near any proposed new junction. The prospect of more cars, and 2 per family is the norm so this is a reasonable figure even with “affordable” housing, having to wait at junctions to exit and enter, and therefore polluting the adjacent nature sites is unacceptable. To put traffic lights in place or introduce yet another junction would alter the nature of this rural landscaped route into Kendal and create an urban area in what has hitherto been the rural edge of town. I had a near miss in the snow while driving up the A684 as a car from Oak Tree failed to stop due to slipping on the steep icy slope. The nature of the land in R121 M is even steeper and with serious drainage issues the potential for ice and snow related accidents doesn’t bear thinking about entering an exiting a busy main road. R121M would provide a traffic hazard if built on. Please remove it.

Tourism and Economic Impact and loss of well being due to loss of Public Amenity
At a time when SLDC are spending money on signage around the town to indicate to visitors and locals alike the amenities within the town, this proposal would destroy a town amenity valuable to both tourists and residents, and which encourages external economy into the town. This open patch of green is a vital lung and mental boost to the Kendal residents, dog walkers, joggers and walkers from all the surrounding areas and international visitors to the Castle Green Hotel who photograph the view across to the fells and up to the woodland. Well being and civic pride will be reduced as a result and I ask therefore that R121M should be removed in its entirety.

Not Affordable Housing
The plans are supposedly being considered in order to help the local housing affordability situation. Only the minimum 35% affordable housing has been quoted on this site. It is more likely that there may only be around 20 affordable homes or less. The nature of the site, flood precautions and drainage work, landscaping, house design, cost of experts, consultants and assessments , so as not to impact on the landscape and surrounding dwellings and trees, will all have a cost impact which will have to be passed on to the buyers, probably reducing the percentage of truly “affordable” housing even further, and probably the size of those dwellings too, to ensure that the larger homes subsidise the smallest. This is a sad development for the town that those who can only afford the least valuablle properties are being forced into smaller sized homes which do not provide decent rooms to live in. Kendal is losing valuable land to benefit the few, not the majority. Developing R121M will not truly deal with the real local housing issue of “affordable” housing but will risk the visual heritage, environment and attraction of Kendal. In the interim R121M must be taken out of the proposals in order to protect the area until more effective local solutions are found.

Localism
SLDC has continued to push this site forward despite considerable local opposition. Localism was supposed to allow for discussion and consultation at a local level but this has not happened. SLDC has ignored its own Town Council’s report and opinion on this sensitive site, along with Cumbria Wildlife Trust, Friends of The Earth and the local RSPB. There is still vociferous opposition and will continue to be at the planning stages should this site be left in. This will cause delays and increase costs. Remove it now and concentrate on more deliverable, less costly sites.

Conclusion
Each of these individual issues has significant weight:-
• The loss of previously designated county landscape special to Kendal, both visual and historical
• The environmental impact on trees, wildlife and specifically Great Crested Newts and the Kestrel breeding ground through loss of habitat and breeding and sheltering and feeding ground
• The potential for worse and significant local run off flooding of roads and houses already suffering
• The potential for changing water levels in the GCN breeding site and damaging the colony
• The site is within the West Coast Line Buffer Zone which will require costly solutions to address visual and audible effects on any homes and gardens built from this increasingly busy freight and passenger line
• The impact on tourists and local well being through loss of a public amenity and attractive urban farmland
• The impact on traffic congestion, light pollution and potential accidents of any new junction on this busy road
• The lack of addressing the real local need for affordable housing through spiralling costs in order to address the local site issues
• This site has had massive objections and will continue to have objections throughout any future planning processes which will further inhibit development and make the site not cost effective. Localism should be taken into account.




Kendal Town Council’s report and previous Inspections acknowledged the difficulties of developing this site and recognised the highly sensitive nature of this site. It was deemed to be the least cost effective and most sensitive site proposed.

We trust that SLDC and the inspector too will finally recognise that each of these is a valid reason on its own merits for not developing R121M. As a combined force these issues provide the strongest argument that R121M is not appropriate for inclusion within the Local Development Framework, now or in the future. Please now finally remove R121M and save this small special piece of Kendal for the future generations of Kendal inhabitants and visitors to enjoy too.

I would also ask in addition that if there was a way possible R121M and the adjacent fields should now be preserved as local community green space by the inspector to save any future arguments.




Fiona Hanlon

Dear Sir,

I wish to register my concerns and opposition to the proposed further development of Union Lane fields.
Having lived on Mowings Lane for 50 years I have seen a considerable increase in the volume of traffic on the road.
Due to the carriageway being very narrow, when reversing out of their drives, residents cars are invariably right across the road making it impossible for traffic to pass. This will undoubtedly cause hold-ups to oncoming traffic and increase the possibility of accidents. If, as suggested, a one way system is implemented then this would increase the flow of traffic even more as every vehicle (residents vehicles alone, potentially 69) would have to use Mowings Lane to either access or egress the development. I consider this to be not only detrimental to a quiet residential area but also a very hazardous and dangerous situation for road users.

Over the years along with many other local people I have enjoyed the peace and tranquillity of Gill Banks. It is a rare piece of land for people to walk, exercise, see wild life, listen to birds sing in a peaceful and safe environment. This proposed increase in housing will undoubtedly ruin this gem of a green haven for ever for both the animals and people that have enjoyed it for years.

One final, but non the less crucial concern is drainage. Surveys across the country have shown that when large grassed areas are covered by housing and the necessary infrastructure of roads, pavements and drives ( non absorbent material) then there is a considerable risk of overwhelming the existing drainage system and creating flooding in lower areas of the town where, in Ulverston, there are already problems of this nature.

I wish my concerns to be considered when a judgement is made and I sincerely hope that the council will, as previously agreed, totally reject this application.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs. M. I.High

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

We wish to make the following comments on the land allocations proposed in the South Lakeland Local Plan referred to in your email dated 26 July.

Para 5.10, page 148, specifies that 7 dwellings are allocated for housing in an area south of Stockbridge Lane. Para 5.14 states that "this 0.72 hectare is in a sensitive location....between Stonecross Mansion and Stockbridge House....the key issues are the impact on the settings of adjoining listed buildings and the [Ulverston] Conservation Area."

Two key points need to be made:

a. The site proposed for development is currently dedicated to agricultural use and, in our view, should remain that way to preserve consistency with the fields on the opposite side of Stockbridge Lane which provide grazing for cattle and sheep and to avoid town centre "creep".

b. Traffic along Stockbridge Lane is already not inconsiderable and the building of 7 more houses would add to it. The road is narrow, especially so at this point, and already poses a danger to pedestrians since some passing vehicles exceed the speed limit of 30 mph (incidentally, this is way too high for such an awkward spot). There is also no pavement along Stockbridge Lane and more traffic would expose pedestrians to greater risk.

In the light of these factors we firmly believe that the proposed development should not proceed.

The Plan also proposes that there should be up to 50 houses built in the grounds of Stonecross Mansion. We consider that this figure is grossly excessive and that the development would undermine - indeed, it would make a mockery of - the declared intention of the Plan to preserve the heritage value of the Mansion. It would also cause significant traffic problems in the relatively narrow thoroughfare of Daltongate.

May we please ask you to pass these comments on the Local Plan to the Planning Inspector, Mr Berkeley.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

John and Joyce Hughes

Dear Alistair,

Thank you for your swift response to my telephone conversation with you. I cannot, after one hour of looking at the SLDC site, find either MMO72U or RN193 and must therefore rely on what you are saying, that there is no immediate intention to build houses on the two fields at the top of Union Lane. I presume that this will be discussed when a planning application is entered.

However, I am asking that you forward my response to the relevant department, which is, that I am concerned about the extra traffic generated down Union Lane, if such a planning application is successful. I note that Gill Banks is a designated preservation area but feel that it would be affected negatively by all the extra building work, traffic and general mayhem caused by having a large number of houses built on these two fields. I wonder also if it has been taken into consideration the extra potential for flooding in south Ulverston. The problem of flooding has not yet been sorted out and having more dwellings and subsequent drainage will just add to the concern that south Ulverston residents feel. This constitutes my response to the consultation period.

Gill Hughes

Reference MM072U - Amend Development Plan Boundary to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston

Dear Sir,

I am writing to object strongly to the inclusion of this site in the Development Plan Boundary. To do so would be a disaster.

The existing development up on Gill Banks is already causing untold havoc with traffic and loss of residential amenity for those living nearby. Problems with the development are already experienced, and a high volume of traffic is causing danger to those living near the site and noise and disruption to people on Gill Banks.

I object strongly to the inclusion of this land in the development plan because:


a) The risk of flooding by building on this land would be huge. There are already significant problems in Ulverston with flooding. Residents on the Ellers, for example, regularly experience flooded cellars, overflowing street gutters and drainage problems as a result of inadequate drainage caused by increased building. These are not outlying areas - they are central, and problems are getting worse. You cannot concrete over a large area of soak away without the water going somewhere, which is what is being suggested by concreting over these two green fields into which water currently disappears. The water will then join the already flooded drains and guttering, exacerbating flood risk still further. To build here would be irresponsible madness.

b) Traffic and transport problems associated with access would be great, introducing significant traffic onto narrow streets which are not designed to cope with this volume. tT present six houses - only six - use Mowings Lane. Union Lane is a narrow, twisting road which has a particularly dangerous access point on Stanley Street, right by the health centre. Already residents are finding the building vehicles disruptive and dangerous as they swing round blind corners. Increase the cars to include those serving up to 69 houses and there will be accidents waiting to happen. It will be a disaster, on narrow, resident-filled streets which jostle round the health centre complex.

c) Building significant housing development by Gill Banks will mean that wildlife habitat is lost. Bats and Tawny owls use Gill Banks and need quiet to thrive (as do Ulverston residents). By building right across this site light, noise and air pollution will occur and they will lose what is left of where they live.

d) Gill Banks is a highly prized, rare green space which SLDC observes itself is rare in the middle of Ulverston. As such, it performs a key function as a shared and peaceful area where Ulverston residents, including many children and people walking dogs, can go and walk, play and relax. Many houses in the centre of Ulverston lack gardens, and the Gill Banks area is effectively their outdoor space - providing welcome communal space to breathe and relax. Planning could and should be taking account of the needs of the town as a whole, and green spaces should be protected where these are a) unique and b) rare and c) needed as they are in this case.


Please ensure that these comments are taken into account in considering this, and do not approve this utterly disastrous inclusion which would cause flooding, traffic chaos, ruin the high townscape, deprive Ulverston residents of a significant green space and destroy wildlife habitat.

Yours faithfully

Ceri Hutton

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

SLDC LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN – FURTHER MAIN MODIFICATION MM072U
SITE REF: RN193 LAND OFF UNION LANE, ULVERSTON, CUMBRIA

I object to the above changes to the land involved in this proposed modification in a number of grounds, personally I see the loss of a unique corner of the town which is used by many as a peaceful and safe space to both exercise and reflect as a massive failure on behalf of our council to see the worth of such an area. Once gone it can never be regained.

I have read the comments of every respondent on this list and wholeheartedly agree with everything said. Road access is dreadful and will cause nothing but degradation of an already difficult traffic situation. The building currently in process at the top of Union Lane is probably as much expansion as the area can support. The impact on the wildlife in the area, bats, owls, rookery, dippers along the beck and the old and established woodland will be serious and destructive to the whole town's well being. Drainage is a massive issue for the whole town and any addition to the already precarious situation needs to be very carefully considered. Further I have seen no mention of archaeology except for a desk based review. This area needs to be seen and experienced before these changes are taken further. Has the council surveyed how many people walk the footpaths and asked their views? Has the council taken an evidence based view of the whole usage of this area?

I look forward to the outcome of this consultation and trust that the many views expressed are taken carefully into consideration by councillors entrusted with the well-being of the town and it's residents.

Gordon Jones

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Reference MM072U - Amend Development Plan Boundary to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston

Dear SLDC,

Reference MM072U - Amend Development Plan Boundary to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston

I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the inclusion of this site in the Development Plan Boundary. To do so would be a disaster.
I am a resident of The Gill. I walk the Gill Banks footpath every day, as do countless other Ulverstonians. This area is a precious green space in the heart of our town, and this development would fatally compromise its character.
I object to the inclusion of this land in the development plan because:
a) Gill Banks is a special, rare green space. I note that SLDC observes how rare this is in the middle of Ulverston. My children play there almost daily and I have spent much time walking the stream edge, picnicking on the grass with my family, spotting flowers, picking blackberries and enjoying its distinctive character. New housing would wreck much of this and would be one more nail in the special character of our town.

b) The risk of flooding by building on this land would be significant. There are already serious problems in Ulverston with flooding - as I know, as a Gill resident myself. You cannot concrete over a large area of green space like this without the water going somewhere, which is what is being suggested by building on these two green fields into which water currently disappears. The water will then join the already flooded drains and guttering, exacerbating flood risk still further. To build here would be irresponsible madness.
c) Traffic and transport problems associated with access would be great, introducing significant traffic onto narrow streets which are not designed to cope with this volume. Mowings Lane is only used at present by six households. Union Lane is a narrow, twisting road which has a particularly dangerous access point on Stanley Street, right by the health centre. It will be a disaster, on narrow, resident-filled streets which jostle round the health centre complex.
d) Building significant housing development by Gill Banks will mean that wildlife habitat is lost. Bats and Tawny owls use Gill Banks. I have seen numerous butterfly species there and many varieties of insect life. All of this will be impacted by these developments.

A family from America, friends of ours, recently visited us in Ulverston. They stayed in a B&B on Old Hall Road and walked down the Gill Banks footpath to reach our house. After another four days spent exploring the mountains of the central Lake District, they contacted me to say thank you - and to explain that, in all their time in Cumbria, it was Gill Banks - not Helvellyn or Grasmere - which they remembered. I quote from their email:

In our four days touring about, walking the footpath to the Gill and back for dinner at your place remains a highlight! We have mountainous splendor galore in the US, but nary an old mossy path through the woods in the center of town...

I hope that SLDC will take note, and show as much appreciation for this special place as visitors from the other side of the world do.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Kingsnorth

Reference MM072U - Amend Development Plan Boundary to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston

To my district council,

I write to make my objection known regarding this proposed amendment to the development plan boundary. For me, like many people in Ulverston, Gill banks is a site for relaxing, an out-of-town picnic site situated within easy reach. I believe our remaining open watercourses should be kept open and untouched for the benefit of wildlife and for the associated human mental health benefits. This includes not having peoples windows and gardens overlooking the site. A quiet place like that is worth much more to the people of Ulverston than any developer's pockets.
Perhaps if the proposed development was earmarked as low-impact, and driven by people who want to enhance the natural surroundings with new trees, wildflower gardens etc, rather than concrete over it, with the serenity of gill banks protected, I would change my mind.
Thankyou for your time and public service, and best wishes,
Simon Kirkwood

OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT OF THESE FIELDS

We are very concerned that the council is considering allowing development of these green belt fields.
This is currently a very quiet and peaceful area of Ulverston bordering as it does on GIll Banks..very pleasant walking etc..so why the need for intense development??


Another 60 plus houses will cause unbelievable traffic chaos in the surrounding area which is already congested due to the health centre and 44 new homes in the lower fields

If this went ahead it would mean that Stanley st ,already entered by narrow road past the Mill pub would become the most conjested st in the area by far.

Let us just remember that Stanley st is a road with terraced houses on both sides with residents parking allowed on both sides restricting traffic flow...already we see pavements being extended near health centre giving only single lane for traffic

So why oh why turn this area of Ulverston into a gigantic rat run for cars and people!

We have other areas nominated in the town for large housing developments..so why are we not concentrating there

please take these concerns into account when any decision is taken

I am responding to the latest round of consultations and shall be grateful if you will pass my response to the Inspector, please.

In my experience it is accepted practice not to undertake consultations during main holiday periods when people are away or preoccupied with other issues. However I assume that all involved with this prolonged process are keen to draw it to a conclusion.

I have three comments on the documents published on 26th July:-

Ex104 Highway Clarifications Technical Note AECOM July 2013

This note purports to clarify for the Inspector recommendations which fall into categories of “requirement”, “desirable” or “requiring consideration”.

The Introduction again repeats the consultant’s incorrect application of highway design standards in respect of access to/new junctions with the existing highway network. Again they are relying on the standards included within the Manual for Streets published by the Department for Transport. Whilst a passing reference is made to “other appropriate design standards”, these are not being called upon in respect of sites to which they should apply. I refer to Design Manual for Roads and Bridges which is relevant for roads with 30 mph speed limits. Cumbria County Council acknowledged (in the hearing in November 2012) that the standards in this Manual are used by the Council.

I again repeat that the use of Manual for Streets is inappropriate in respect of site R170M – land to the north of Laurel Gardens – as Burnside Road does not have the characteristics of a street – on either approach to the proposed access or at the site of the access itself.
It is simply inadequate to propose extension of the 30 mph speed limit (presumably as a requirement); and to comment as follows “additional traffic calming measures, such as gateway treatments will likely be necessary” (presumably as requiring consideration). Such action would not sufficiently change the characteristics of Burneside Road – and thus driving perceptions/behaviour – for the safe adoption of the lower standards permitted within Manual for Streets.

EX061UU Schedule of Further Proposed Main Modifications

MM0128 Updated.

The modification proposed here is an extension of the 30 mph speed limit on Burneside Road as a minimum adjacent to the northern extent of the site.

I fully accept that the 30 mph speed limit has to be extended IF this site is developed. However, as explained above, and in several other representations, this will not adequately change Burneside Road – and particularly the way it is driven – to mean that the lower standards applicable to streets can be safely adopted.

It is clear, and has been adequately demonstrated, that the visibility standard which should be used in connection with any access here cannot be achieved on site (i.e. those within DMRB).

On that basis, yet again, I argue that inclusion of this site is unsound, because safe access cannot be achieved, and it should therefore be withdrawn from the Land Allocations.

Other issues.

I am disappointed that the Council has not taken the opportunity, in these latest publications, to address various concerns over the impact of the Land Allocation proposal on Kendal’s Infrastructure. For example, to my knowledge, there is still nothing in the public domain which acknowledges and addresses the current congestion, and the additional congestion from development traffic, on Windermere Road and Sandes Avenue, the primary access into Kendal from the north and the major access to the large industrial areas off Shap Road. The Council has stated that Kendal’s economy is suffering from traffic congestion but has, yet again, ignored this fundamental omission within the Land Allocations.

Conclusion

I believe that enough evidence has been given to the Inspector to demonstrate the site R170M cannot be safely accessed. On that basis its inclusion within the Land Allocation is unsound.

I also believe that enough evidence has been put before the Inspector to confirm the inadequacies of the Council’s proposals to deal with the traffic congestion and other infrastructure deficiencies within Kendal. The fact that these latest main modifications make no attempt to address those deficiencies is further evidence that the proposals in respect of Kendal as a whole are also unsound.

I trust the Inspector will find accordingly within his report.


Many thanks

Kevin Lasbury

proposed change to land allocation plan ref:MM072U
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Regarding the proposed development of 44 houses at the top of Union Lane. I would consider it ill judged and prompted entirely by greed.

I have lived in Stanley St for nearly 20 years. The building of the health centre increased traffic dramatically. The unfortunate Persimmon development will pretty much saturate the street’s ability to cope. This is in some part a consequence of the severely limited access to Soutergate/King St off The Gill/Stanley St. I do not foresee the demolition of The Town Mill or (more) houses in the conservation area to allow improved access. At present the council is widening the pavement on the west side of Stanley St. This will increase congestion considerably as it will prevent two cars passing each other. More traffic will be untenable and plain dangerous.

I have for twenty years taken great pleasure in the Rookery at the top of Union Lane. Together with Gill Banks, Union Lane Fields and their mature trees remain as richly diverse environments providing a wildlife corridor to the outskirts of town.

I am afraid to that I do have little faith in SLDC’s planning dept and its relationship with the environment or Ulverston’s heritage.

Prior to its demolition the old workhouse which was cynically excluded from the conservation area was a major bat roost. Some 20 or so bats would emerge each evening. No survey was undertaken, probably due to cost implications, and the bats vanished. With friends I counted 32 species of birds, including nesting Barn Owls, now long gone in the sterile environment that remains. No provision was made for wildlife by SLDC or the Bay Trust, not even a bat box. As a retired academic Historian I was also aware of important archaeological features being destroyed. There was not even a watching brief. Dressed red sandstone walls outside the footprint of the workhouse were ripped out. A substantial well, probably early mediaeval, was filled in and its massive head stone sold to an antique dealer. It was only some two years after the HC opened and under pressure from myself and other residents that you enforced the conditions of the Health Centre’s planning requirement to shield the lighting and to plant trees.

I am aware of the requirement for more housing but this MUST take account of environmental and amenity issues and do all that is required of you. You MUST be wise in this matter, honour the people and not be bowed by self interest, commercial greed or central government.

Thus I suggest that the impact of 44 more houses would be unacceptable and would merely allow a fortune to be made by the landowner at the expense of north Ulverston’s residents, large and small.

Ian Harcourt Lewis
18 Stanley St
LA12 7BS
01229580437

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Union Lane fields

To the Development Plans Manager,
I would like to object to the re classification and possible subsequent development of two fields near Union Lane and Gill Banks , Ulverston.
I live near these fields and have many concerns about any further development in this area. Since the development on Union Lane has begun the volume of traffic in this area has increased changing what was a quiet safe place to a collection of busy and dangerous roads. This is a great concern as there is a childrens park and sheltered housing complex nearby making it more difficult for these vulnerable groups to negotiate the roads any further development would lead to an unacceptably dangerous situation. Acess to this area is limited the small roads not designed for large volumes of traffic creating significant safety issues and a huge disruption witin this small quiet area of the community. I also have concerns about the habitas in the area I hear many Tawny owls calling in an evening and watch the bats that roost in the area flying around any further disruption would be severley detrimental to the wildlife living here that depend on not only on the security and seclusion of the woodland habitat but need the green belt fields to feed and support their communities.Greenspace locally is limited and the destruction of this is worrying. I understand that a development of this nature also increases the flood risk .

I hope you will take time to review these concerns.

Jayne O'Neill, Ulverston.

development of union lane fields ref. MM072U

Ammend development plan boundry to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston

Hello, I'm writing to register an objection to the development plans for the Union Lane fields area of Ulverston. The area in question is close to where I live and feel it would have a detrimental effect on our quiet area of this town, not only the increase in road traffic in an already congested part of town, but the loss of wildlife habitat. I know of many protected and endangered species that live in and around the area including Tawney owls, Barn owls, Sparrows and Kestrels. I have found Slow worms nearby, and various species of bats hunt and roost in the woodlands surrounding this green space. I feel someone more knowledgeable than myself could find many more scarce animals living and relying on this area

We are writing with great concern to express our dismay at the plans to further develop Union Lane with no fewer than another 44 houses!
This raises a number of serious issues, not just for the immediate residents but also to those of the surrounding area too.
These serious issues are;

With the loss of the permeable surface to make way for the development, the increase in flood risk to the immediate area and significant impact further down the drainage network too.

The additional traffic to Union Lane, Mowings Lane, Garden Terrace, Stanley Street and Old Hall Road. It is noticeably much busier on these roads since the arrival of the health centre on Stanley Street. To add to that extra traffic from a possible 69 properties is terribly worrying, from a safety point of view. These streets/roads are very narrow and we are very concerned for the safety of the children and the elderly residents in the area.

The suggestion of a one-way system, involving the afore mentioned streets, is absolutely ludicrous. The impact from the noise and traffic pollution on the environment of the surrounding areas, the wildlife and residents well being will be devastating. Not to mention the installation of such a road to accommodate the high volume of traffic on the top of Mowings Lane and the impact that will have on the residents in the surrounding area.

The visual disturbance and its effect on Gill Banks.

The noise and light pollution and the effects on Gill Banks.

The loss of valuable wildlife habitat and the impact on the bats and Tawny owls that depend on the woodland edge in the surrounding area.

Please let common sense prevail and turn this devastating and ridiculous plan down.
Please listen to the people that will be affected, rather than the developers.
As, after all, we are the ones that put you in the position that you hold, to make decisions on our behalf. Please make sure it is the right decision; for the residents, the wildlife, the environment and Ulverston as a whole.

Mr.P.N.Porter, Ms.S.Milligan, Miss.H.J.Porter & Miss.E.R.Porter.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I have become aware only in the past few days of a parcel of land above Oaklands field off Union Lane Ulverston which is being reviewed for land included within the Development Plan Boundary.This parcel of land was rejected for housing only last year by SLDC.In the intervening period a development is already underway in Union lane in the adjoining field for 25 homes by Persimmon Homes.This has already had a dramatic effect on the surrounding area,in particular due to the construction traffic and as the houses become occupied more traffic in Union Lane, Stanley St and Garden Terrace, and in particular the entrance to Stanley Street Health Centre.
These fields have always been agricultural land with access off Mowings Lane which is a narrow unadopted road and the thought that this could be used for vehicular access is ludicrous.Likewise any thought that access to this site could be from Union Lane is a non-starter due to the narrowness of the road and the volume of traffic which would come from the new housing development currently under construction.Also the risk from flooding on these sites are considerable due to the steepness of the sites and the amount of land which would be built on,I understand that last year when this land was rejected the proposal was for 44 homes.This would pose a serious threat of flooding to Ulverston Health Centre and Gill Rise.
This parcel of land is one of the few now left in the North of Ulverston as we have lost many in recent years to development,i would urge that this land should not be included in the Land Allocation Development Plan and that if necessary a site visit is made to examine the proposed area of development.
Yours faithfully
Mr Andrew Robinson

Reference MM072U - Amend Development Plan Boundary to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston

Dear Sir,

I am writing to object strongly to the inclusion of this site in the Development Plan Boundary. To do so would be a disaster.

The existing development up on Gill Banks is already causing havoc with traffic and loss of residential amenity for those living nearby. Problems with the development are already experienced, and a high volume of traffic is causing danger to those living near the site and noise and disruption to people on Gill Banks.

I object strongly to the inclusion of this land in the development plan because:


a) The risk of flooding by building on this land would be huge. There are already significant problems in Ulverston with flooding. Residents on the Ellers, for example, regularly experience flooded cellars, overflowing street gutters and drainage problems as a result of inadequate drainage caused by increased building. These are not outlying areas - they are central, and problems are getting worse. You cannot concrete over a large area of soak away without the water going somewhere, which is what is being suggested by concreting over these two green fields into which water currently disappears. The water will then join the already flooded drains and guttering, exacerbating flood risk still further. To build here would be irresponsible madness.

b) Traffic and transport problems associated with access would be great, introducing significant traffic onto narrow streets which are not designed to cope with this volume. tT present six houses - only six - use Mowings Lane. Union Lane is a narrow, twisting road which has a particularly dangerous access point on Stanley Street, right by the health centre. Already residents are finding the building vehicles disruptive and dangerous as they swing round blind corners. Increase the cars to include those serving up to 69 houses and there will be accidents waiting to happen. It will be a disaster, on narrow, resident-filled streets which jostle round the health centre complex.

c) Building significant housing development by Gill Banks will mean that wildlife habitat is lost. Bats and Tawny owls use Gill Banks and need quiet to thrive (as do Ulverston residents). By building right across this site light, noise and air pollution will occur and they will lose what is left of where they live.

d) Gill Banks is a highly prized, rare green space which SLDC observes itself is rare in the middle of Ulverston. As such, it performs a key function as a shared and peaceful area where Ulverston residents, including many children and people walking dogs, can go and walk, play and relax. Many houses in the centre of Ulverston lack gardens, and the Gill Banks area is effectively their outdoor space - providing welcome communal space to breathe and relax. Planning could and should be taking account of the needs of the town as a whole, and green spaces should be protected where these are a) unique and b) rare and c) needed as they are in this case.


Please ensure that these comments are taken into account in considering this, and do not approve this utterly disastrous inclusion which would cause flooding, traffic chaos, ruin the high townscape, deprive Ulverston residents of a significant green space and destroy wildlife habitat.

Yours faithfully

Deborah & Steve Robinson

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Reference MM072U - Amend Development Plan Boundary to incorporate site RN193 in Ulverston

I am writing to object to the above amendment to the development plan boundary.

My objections are based on the following

Traffic to and from the current development is already hitting the area badly with increased disruption to those that live in this densely populated residential area. The increase in traffic is having significant impact on an area which is surrounded older residents and is a danger to those younger members of the community using the park at Mill Dam.

Access in this part of town is not easy at the best of times. Ulverston suffers from narrow streets already suffering for problems with the amount of traffic it has to cope with. Additional loading on these already congested streets will put pedestrian traffic at a significantly greater risk of a fatal accident. The traffic has already increased several fold connected to the Stanley Street health centre

Additional development will result in a higher risk of flooding throughout the town. The increased surface run off from an increased development will cause havoc all the way though the becks and streams that run through the town and out to the estuary. Significant flooding has already been experienced in the low lying areas of Ulverston and to increase the run off further upstream is simply madness of the highest order.

This area of town is a much prized green oasis in the townscape of Ulverston. It is a haven for both people and wildlife and its loss would be a severe loss to the community.

So on the grounds of severe traffic chaos, flood risk, wildlife habitat loss and green space destruction the amendment must be rejected.

Yours Faithfully

Steve Robinson

furthe development of Union Lane fields

PLEASE don't spoil one of the few places where it is safe and quiet to walk. "HOAD VIEW" is enough disruption in this otherwise quiet part of Ulverston.

Hazel and peter Ross

Further development of Union Lane Fields

Development Plans Manager

I'm appalled at the proposal to add another 44 homes to the Union Lane Fields site. I cant believe it is thought that the surrounding roads are suitable for the extra traffic that will be generated. Garden terrace already faces problems with traffic as it is so narrow and I personally have had a problem with my wing mirror on my car being ripped off by a large vehicle trying to squeeze past parked cars.

The flood risk is also a major concern as already the beck that runs behind garden terrace floods when there is heavy rainfall.

Last but certainly not least is the impact this development will have on the wildlife in the area.
Gill Banks is very special, an asset to the town, a place where I have observed bats, many lovely birds including nuthatches and treecreepers. It is a space for quiet contemplation, a gentle walk to melt away the stresses of modern life. We dont need this development that could have so many negative impacts.

Annette Saunders

Further development of Union Lane fields

Dear Sir/Madam,

We strongly oppose any more development on this area. We live on Garden Terrace which is already treated as a 'Rat Run'. The road surface is in a bad state of repair, and parking a major problem, introducing more traffic can only increase the risks to pedestrians and property, serveral vehicles suffer damage each year, wing mirrors, scratches etc.

The suggestion of a one way system is not a solution, this would probably mean the increased traffic flow travelling even faster as it would not need to negotiate oncoming vehicles.

Flooding is a major area of concern, during the winter of 2012 we had a problem with the beck at the rear of the Terrace overflowing, endangering several properties. In that instance the use of Sandbags and some emergency diversions to the flow averted a crisis, if more water was to be allowed into the table due to removal of trees and general foliage this may not be the case in future.

Finally, the introduction of more traffic is also going to bring more noise pollution to the area, the 'green' area around Gill Banks will no longer be an area to be enjoyed and the wildlife will also be affected.

Please do not allow the greed of one person to spoil the life of many, the houses being built at Hoad View should never have been allowed another 44 is unthinkable.


Regards

Mr & Mrs D Seeley

I refer to Site MM087 - Land East of Hutton Close. I refer to the comments of Mr Peter Smith and in particular the issue of access.
There is no suggestion that the footpath to the south be removed. Mr Smith has misunderstood the concern raised which was not the road entrance but the width of the road on the first bend where it narrows slightly. It has been established that the road can easily be widened at this point without sacrificing any footpaths if Highways deem it necessary.

Further Mr Smith fails to point out that there are in fact two footpaths ( one already approved by SLDC ) serving this site and other properties to the north directly into the village and the need for a third footpath onto the Bridleway would be superfluous since as pointed out by Mr Smith the pedestrian would have to climb a hill only to walk down again to get to a similar point already accessible using the existing level footpaths.

Union Lane fields

Dear Sir

I am writing with regard to the plans for more housing on the

UNION LANE FIELDS

As a resident of Sun Street.

We do not want anymore development of the green space round Ulverston
There is little green space that is not farm land that can be walked.I use the Gill Banks daily and it would be a shame if we lost the use of this due to more housing and it is a valuable wildlife habitat that should be protected.
Traffic on Stanley Street and Soutegate is bad enough as it is, without more from the additional houses and there are children that play in the street in the area that would be at risk.
We need the green spaces for the locals to use and for the tourists we are only four miles from the National Park

NO MORE HOUSING ON UNION LANE FIELDS please


Yours faithfully
Christine Sourbutts

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

I wish to object to the Change of allocation for the land on Gill Banks, Ulverston

My main objection is that if this land was developed for housing it would lead to increased traffic flow in the area. This would be an absolute nightmare as traffic is already a problem at the Mill Street/Kings Street junction, at the pinch point in Mill Street and the blind spot at Union Lane/Stanley St due to increases caused by the health centre and due to be further increased by the Hoad View development. I believe it is totally unsustainable and potentially lethal.

Furthermore this area is a very popular walk, easily accesible by all members of the community, it is an increasingly rare green lung and would be devastated by this development with knock on effects on wildlife (bats and owls) and real fears over increased flooding risk, as your own preliminary report pointed out.

This land is not suitable for development and should not be reassigned.

Karen Stack



It is completely inappropriate and I urge you to remove it from

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to object to any proposal to include two fields beyond the head of Union Lane, Ulverston within the development plan boundary. My concerns are as follows;

- any additional housing ( above and beyond that already agreed ) would create safety issues given the increased volume of traffic that would inevitably result. Union Lane is relatively narrow ( even after the latest widening ) and exiting on to Stanley Street and then to Soutergate via the already busy Garden Terrace / Soutergate junction in order to access the town and beyond is fraught with potential difficulties.

- Gillbanks is a green space within close proximity to the Town Centre. It should be cherished and preserved and I feel that development of the two fields for housing would adversely affect this valuable resource.

- building more houses in this area, especially in the two fields, might well result in drainage issues further down the water course as the rain water falls upon the tarmac etc and drops down towards Gillbanks and underneath the town. Better to let the rainwater naturally seep through the fields as nature intended.

Any subsequent proposal to exit the land via Mowings Lane ( not currently in writing but widely rumoured as a possibility ) would be vehemently opposed by me for the following reasons;
* the single track top of Mowings Lane and the track that leads off it are currently designated as Public Footpaths. As such they are well used by the public and dog walkers alike;
* the junction of the public footpaths adjoins my land. It is a blind right angled junction which in itself creates safety issues. Within my land but overhanging this junction is an ash tree of considerable antiquity. It is registered with the Woodland Trust and must be protected and preserved for the future;
* the track and lane are too narrow to cater for additional traffic;
* I have safety concerns given the extent of the use of these public footpaths and any additional vehicular traffic that might ensue;
* traffic exiting via Mowings Lane would need to access Soutergate either via the junction of Mowings Lane with Soutergate ( a blind pullout onto a busy road, having already crossed Old Hall Road, another blind pullout. These present very real safety concerns. Alternatively access to Soutergate would be via the Garden Terrace junction with Soutergate - an already very busy junction given the recent building of the Health Centre on Stanley Street.
* mature hedges border these public footpaths and they are a haven for a great diversity of wildlife.

.
I would be grateful if you were to keep me informed of developments.

Yours sincerely.

Patrick Thomas

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Dear Sirs,

We would like to register our concern about the suggestion that Union Lane Fields be re-classified by the SLDC to “Land included within the development plan boundary”. SLDC rejected this last year and now, with no publicity whatsoever, you are suggesting these fields are included.

We have lived on Garden Terrace in Ulverston for the past 26 years and have noticed over recent years the increasing problems with parking and the amount of traffic in this area, this has been exacerbated greatly with the Health Centre being moved to Stanley Street, thus making the Garden Terrace/Soutergate junction, also the Stanley Street/Mill Street routes extremely busy. With cars parking both sides on Garden Terrace it is sometimes extremely difficult for vans or wagons to get through. Our drive is on the steep part of Garden Terrace and it is very awkward sometimes to get in and out due to the way people park. The proposed Mowings Lane route from this estate would make this an even bigger problem as due to the Mowings Lane/Old Hall Road junction being such a bad one due to lack of visibility the majority of people would use the Garden Terrace route. During the day Garden Terrace is often used for parking by people attending the Health Centre as the car park isn’t big enough and in the evening cars are parked both sides by residents and people from Sun Street and Soutergate due to the double yellow lines there. Parking restrictions would have to be looked at seriously if Garden Terrace became the main route.

Secondly the flooding issues in Ulverston should be re-visited. We are getting more and more houses needing sewerage and drainage. We lived in North Lonsdale Road during the floods of early 1980 and there have not been any significant improvements to the drains that we are aware of since then. All the flood plain fields down South Ulverston have now been built on which was not supposed to be allowed. The becks have been dug out and flood defences improved but its the capacity of the drains and the access to the sea that must be enlarged. We just seem to get more and more houses built but no improvements to an outdated drainage system that doesn’t have the capacity to deal with all the rain we get and obviously at high tide this water can’t get out to sea as the tidal flaps are closed. The loss of 2 more permeable surface areas on Union Fields will help create localised flooding and more problems for families down in South Ulverston.

Thirdly the loss of habitat for wildlife needs to be considered. If this estate is built right up to the boundary of Gill Banks it will affect the bats and tawny owls that inhabit this area and it would be a tragedy if they lost this habitat due to more development. We have little enough of greenspace within the town as it is.

Yours faithfully
Carole & Nigel Thurman

Gillbanks development

I am emailing you as I would like to dispute the proposed main modifications planned by South Lakeland District Council to the two fields referred to as land off Union Lane, Ulverston.

I have recently moved to the area, purchasing a house on Star Street. This relocation was very carefully selected for the peace and tranquility the area offers. The area at the back of our house is a wonderful green area full of wildlife and nature, and bringing new housing to the area would compromise this.

The area has already suffered with the new estate currently being build behind the health centre.

Please keep me informed of any future plans concerning this area.

Regards

Natalie Tyson

Further Development of Union Lane Fields

Ulverston
27 August 2013

Dear Sirs

Yesterday I received of a plain sheet of paper regarding the above development. It advises me that I have until the 5th September 2013 to submit comments/concerns/objections. If this information is correct I am appalled at the short length of time given.

I am also concerned that I have had no official communication about this development. Your comments would be appreciated.

My concerns are as follows :-

FLOOD RISK AND EXTRA BURDEN ON DOMESTIC SERVICES

The area described is immediately above the current development and any further development would create a flood risk if not in the immediate area then in other parts of Ulverston.
Development in the area is dense and any further development would make additional demands on the existing waste system. Have thing like Schools and Medical services been considered. ?

AREA OF LOCAL BEAUTY AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Gill Banks is a popular green space currently well used by many and is great wildlife habitat. If the proposed additional development goes ahead even more disruption would be caused. Not a good move in my opinion.

TRAFFIC

It seems that a one way system is proposed via Union Lane, Mowings Lane and Garden Terrace. The area is not designed for traffic there are already problems. Any additional traffic would cause chaos. The fact that you are considering a one way system tells me that you are already aware how congested the area is.

I hope you will give my comments due consideration . You only need to visit the area, and imagine living here to realise the negative effect your proposals would have.

There are other sites in Ulverston which are in need of development and could be enhanced by it.

Canal Head
Canal Side (North Lonsdale Road)
Large site at the A590 end of Dalton Gate

These site would cause far less permanent damage to the area.

Whilst writing I am also concerned about Traffic being directed down Sun Street as a result of the union lane project. I have been advised on two occasions that it is a temporary measure that it will last fir only two months. The last time was four months ago. The alterations to Union Lane seem to have come to a stand still.

Could you please give an update on the situation.

You comments on all the above would be appreciated.

Yours faithfully

David H Walton

From: Mike Waterton
Sent: 31 July 2013 10:19
To: Development Plans
Subject: Local Plan Land Allocations - Submission re MM072U


Dear Sir or Madam

I refer to the letter from the Development Plans Manager at SLDC dated 25 July 2013 inviting submissions relating to the updated Schedule of Further Proposed Main Modifications.

Our submission relates to modification MM072U, namely the proposed deletion of a small area of land comprising part of site R121M, on the grounds that 'Land confirmed not available for development'. This statement is incorrect. We are the owners of the small area of land in question and we would like this small area of land reinstating in the potential R121M site.

Whilst it is true to say that we have consistently opposed the proposed change in land
allocation of site R121M for various reasons, the question of what would we do with our land should R121M be approved is and has always been a separate matter. Our area of land is not large enough to remain as agricultural land in its own right, it has no direct access from a road and it would eventually become an island of untended land surrounded by housing. There has always been a clear distinction in our minds between opposing re-designation of R121M and what we would do should the change of use be approved. As you will see in the exchange of correspondence below between ourselves and Damian Law in the SLDC planning team, we believe that we made it clear to SLDC in August 2012 that we would reluctantly be forced to consider alternative uses for this land should R121M be approved. I have highlighted in red the key sections. We certainly did not say that the land was not available for development.

We are unclear why our land has been removed from the scope of R121M at this very late
stage, because our position hasn't changed since August 2012. We therefore request that our small area of land be re-incorporated into R121M.

We should be grateful if someone could confirm receipt of this email.

Thank you.

Michael and Caroline Waterton

Dear Development Plans Manager,

I am writing to voice my concern regarding the further developments of the Union Lane fields. I have just moved in to Mowings Lane a week ago and have been informed that considerations are being made for access to the new developments on Union Lane fields via the end of Mowings Lane. This is extremely worrying, we chose to buy this house because it is in a peaceful cul-de-sac and have a 2 and 4 year old who we hoped would be safe around the front of our house playing as we had not chosen to live on a busy through road. I also have huge concerns about the practicality of using Mowings Lane for access, have you seen how steep and narrow it is? The conditions in heavy rainfall or snow/ice will make it impassable.

The new developments will also increase the flood risk to other residents in Ulverston and require the removal of valuable wildlife habitats. Noise pollution will also increase in the surrounding areas.

Please consider my views,

Regards,

Ruth Wheeler

Re-SLDC Land Allocations Development Plan – Change of Use for Site Reference RN193 Land off Union Lane (MM072U)

Dear Sir or Madam
I have become aware that the SLDC Land Allocation Development Plan has been very recently changed (through MM072U) from the earlier plans that were made widely available during 2012 and 2013 for Public Comment. I wish to appeal that in order for Ulverston residents to be made aware of this change and be able to form constructive comment that an extension to the date is granted in respect of this particular change to the proposed date of 5th September 2013.
The change to the plan has been made very late in the consultation process with no previous indication of the change in use of the two fields in question (between the Union Lane -Persimmon Homes development and Mowings Lane) from current agricultural use to residential during the Plan’s development. In addition, given the timing of the change which has included the main UK School holiday period and a Bank Holiday, there has been limited ability to contact South Lakeland District Council or Ulverston Town Council for any clarification.
In addition, I would also appreciate being provided a copy of the relevant procedure (Standard Procedure) that identifies the steps to be followed in developing the SLDC Land Allocations Plan and the requirement for Public Consultation; this is in order to ascertain for myself that a fair and equable process has been followed in respect of this latest change to the plan and associated consultation period. My concern being that it appears that an unfairly timed change is being made affecting the residents of Ulverston to whom the SLDC has previously communicated its intention that fair consultation steps would be undertaken. Please be aware my councillor is not available due to their holidays to advise me regarding what process has already been conducted on this matter.

Yours sincerely
Brian White

Re-amendment MM072U to SLDC Land Allocations Development Plan – Referring to Change of Use for Site Ref RN193 (Land off Union Lane)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to object to the change in use identified in the SLDC Land Allocations Development Plan (Reference RN193) through MM072U associated with two fields between the current Union Lane, Persimmon Homes development and Mowings Lane, Ulverston.
I am aware that a previous application for inclusion to the development plan was made by the owner in 2012 which proposed 44 homes and which was rejected by SLDC. As identified in the South Lakeland Local Development Framework Land Allocations Development Plan 2012 regarding the site – the elevated position above the town and potential to increase flooding risk if developed. This could lead to subsequent flooding potential in other areas of the town; the hydrodynamics of the area would suggest either via The Gill, Union Lane, or through Mowings Lane properties down the steep drop to Star Street. In addition, given the recent flooding experiences of Ulverston, it is not just the local area around the development that needs to be considered but also the downstream areas of South Ulverston, including in particular Outcast and North Lonsdale Road. Furthermore, I wish to bring to your attention that GlaxoSmithKline is undertaking a significant new investment in high technology Biotechnology facilities in the short term and a the longer term potential of further development – increased flooding risk may put this £500M investment at risk; there has also been recent local development of the South Ulverston Industrial area next to Dragley Beck – the access to this development currently floods after heavy rain, additional flooding could impact this new development.
As a resident of Mowings Lane and a frequenter of The Gill I am aware of the diverse wildlife of the area and the importance of the field/woodland edge in maintaining this biodiversity. The area is used daily by bats, hedgehogs, rabbits, tawny owls and a variety of other birdlife including hawks. Barn owls, squirrels, roe deer and foxes are also visitors of interest to those who take the time to look for them; even an otter has been seen using The Gill in the past few years. The development proposal previously rejected by SLDC would clearly impact light and noise levels affecting the biodiversity of the area and the close natural environment that can be explored by children living in Ulverston.
The upper field is also part of the ridgeline extending along Mowings Lane and provides a natural visible wooded boundary to the west of Ulverston. Development of the area would therefore detract from this natural boundary should the dwellings rise above the boundary, and this would be further exacerbated if trees were removed from around the development site. Furthermore, if the development is undertaken to include south-facing solar panels as indicated in the previous proposal, the evening reflection from them would be visible to a large part of Ulverston.
As a property owner in Mowings Lane I am also aware through ‘word of mouth’ that a proposal has been made that a one-way system could be used to provide access to the additional development area as Union Lane would not be capable of handling the additional traffic; which presumably is estimated at approximately 80 cars based on 44 dwellings. The one-way system would presumably make use of the Mowings Lane track, Mowings Lane and either Garden Terrace or Old Hall Road – all of which are congested roads with poor visibility at junctions. In addition, I would like to bring to your attention that Upper Mowings Lane (sometimes known as The Mowings) is a very narrow track that turns a 90 degree corner which can only be currently negotiated by cars and Transit van/very small lorry sized vehicles; there is also a very steep hill at the 90 degree corner that is not negotiable in snow or ice as it cannot be gritted by Council vehicles. Furthermore, this proposal does not take into consideration the current legal ownership of the section of Mowings Lane track (and turning point) between the Footpath from Star Street to The Gill and the gate into the field (which runs infront of Bayview and Foxwood) is identified in our Deeds as shared (1/3rd) ownership and responsibility for maintenance. Therefore there is no direct access to the land from Mowings Lane without our consent – I certainly would not agree to this.
I am very concerned that the proposal for inclusion in the development plan has not considered these important factors and has been clearly added at the last moment without any consultation with Ulverston residents, which was previously accorded other residents for proposed changes that were clearly communicated during 2012 and 2013 and therefore raises concerns as to whether an equable process has been followed, this is furthermore exacerbated given the timing of the change in respect of the tight deadline and the Bank Holiday period when SLDC and Ulverston Town Councillors have been unavailable to comment. On a final note I observe that only other amendments around the same timing appear to be deletions from the Plan!
I hope that you will take these points into consideration and remove these these fields from the proposed Development Plan.
Yours sincerely
Brian White

Dear Sir or Madam

SLDC LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN – FURTHER MAIN MODIFICATION MM072U
SITE REF: RN193 LAND OFF UNION LANE, ULVERSTON, CUMBRIA

I would like to state that in my opinion the fields described above should remain as agricultural land and I would like the Development Plans Manager to consider the following comments in relation to the proposed reclassification of the above site from “agricultural land” to “land with some development potential” and its inclusion within the “development plan boundary” as shown in main modification MM072U being part of the SLDC Land Allocations Development Plan:

1. ACCESS TO UNION LANE FIELDS FROM MOWINGS LANE
The South Lakeland Local Development Framework Land Allocations Development plan document states under its “Site Visit” section that “there is potential access from the single track/lane adjoining the North East boundary. Though this is constrained and fairly narrow”.

a. This description is a complete underestimation of the difficulties involved in negotiating this track especially during wet conditions when rain pools in many parts of this track and during wintery conditions when this track is sometimes impassable for days. It is surprising how much difference the elevation makes. I have driven up Mowings Lane on many occasions with extreme care in snowy conditions only to find the top track completely impassable. The only way we manage to get out is with a huge team effort. The worst thing that happens is when non-resident owners of 4x4s decide they can negotiate it and their actions compact the snow. The owners of the properties in Mowings Lane know this and as a result they are out at first light clearing the road and no one ventures out until the lane is cleared. If the snow becomes compacted it can be almost impossible to remove and can take days to shift/thaw as it refreezes overnight

We have not been able to get our vehicles from Foxwood to High Mowhill on many occasions for over a week during the winter period. I cannot imagine if there were to be a significant number of extra residents trying to negotiate this track that safety would not be compromised for those trying to clear the lane of snow at these times. In addition it usually takes significant amounts of grit/rock salt and we take turns in purchasing this. Extreme care needs to be taken when applying this as the hedges on either side are close to the track and we have to be careful so that these do not suffer salt toxicity. If a significantly larger number of cars were to negotiate the lane then salt spray and lost hedgerows would result and the lane would lose a lot of its character and wildlife habitat. For your information the council grit wagon does not manage to get any further up the lane than where the cars park either side of the lane i.e. about 25 metres from the top of Mowings Lane and is the reason why we have a grit bin. In fact the gritter often does not even manage to come any further up Mowings Lane than the Garden Terrace junction. In addition, it is often not possible to get from the top of Mowings Lane (approx. 1 in 4 hill) down to the Garden Terrace junction due to the amount of snow and ice that adheres to this section and the fact that the residents along this section need to park many of their cars on either side of the street due to limited driveway space. As a result, if you lose control of your vehicle, even slightly, you can easily risk hitting one of these vehicles. I have seen many people on foot falling on the first section at the top of Mowings Lane (me included). Perhaps the Highways Agency should return after a -10 degree frost to fully appreciate the problem
b. The section of track past the footpath is private access as indicated by the sign in the lane. This section of track from the footpath to the field gate and the turning circle is owned jointly by the residents of Foxwood and Bayfield and the owners of the fields. Our deeds state that we must each bear one third of the cost of constructing and maintaining this section of roadway. I would like to state that the owners of Foxwood are not prepared to give up ownership of their third. I cannot speak for our neighbours but I would be surprised if they were not of the same opinion. Similarly if any access by foot was proposed then the current owners of Foxwood do not agree to this taking place within this section. Again, I do not believe that the Highways Agency have taken this into account when they suggest there is potential access from Mowings Lane
c. Currently there are small sections on each side of the track which are often used by pedestrians in order to get out of the way of vehicles negotiating the lane. These sections are privately owned and don’t form part of the track/ public right of way. If the owners of the lane decided that they would like to reclaim these sections then the width of the lane would be significantly reduced. I do not believe that the Highways Agency have taken this into account when they suggest there is potential access from Mowings Lane
d. I also do not think that the Highways Agency have considered that a very busy footpath crosses the end of Mowings Lane where visibility is extremely poor. I believe that if the volume of traffic was to be increased then the likelihood of accidents would certainly increase as excited children and dogs often run ahead of their guardians in this section as they enjoy their explorations

2. INCREASED FLOOD RISK FOR ULVERSTON RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS SITES ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTH OF ULVERSTON

a. The two fields, which are immediately above the area currently being developed by Persimmon Homes are elevated from the town and according to the South Lakeland Local Development Framework Land Allocations Development Plan 2012 they are “poor in relation to air quality and flood risk”. Due to the elevation of this site and where it drains any removal of permeable surface (i.e. grass) is likely to not only affect the immediate area but could significantly impact further down the drainage network and as such increase the flooding risk for residents in areas such as Outcast
b. The slope of the land down to our property (Foxwood) means that we already experience runoff from the lane. If the fields were developed this will obviously increase
c. The flooding that has taken place near Tronic/GlaxoSmithKline in recent years may well discourage some of Ulverston’s main employers from further investment if things do not improve. I believe that if flooding in South Ulverston only gets worse there will come a time when the costs/uncertainties will outweigh the benefits of remaining in such a flood prone area, so putting both existing and future jobs in jeopardy. For instance, I am aware that over the last few years there has been several days when workers have had difficulty getting to the GlaxoSmithKline site

3. VISUAL/NOISE DISTURBANCE AND ITS EFFECT ON THE ADJOINING CONSERVATION AND HIGHLY VALUED GREENSPACE AREA OF GILL BANKS

a. Gill Banks is a popular area of greenspace accessible to all. Research shows that safe accessible greenspace (i.e. accessible regardless of age or disability) within the Ulverston area is rare. In fact SLDC acknowledge in their plan that natural/semi-natural greenspace and green corridors only cover small parts of the town. Currently you can sit on the seats in Gill Banks and enjoy the sound of the beck and birdsong. Developing the adjacent land especially with the pruning back of the boundary trees, as suggested in the Coates Associates Land Allocations DPD Submission, will mean that a large section of Gill Banks is then overlooked, subjected to light and noise pollution and as a result it will be far less beneficial as an area for relaxation, recuperation and adventure. Any additional traffic on Mowings Lane could also make it less likely that parents will allow their children to explore this area unaccompanied. At present a large number of children make their way up the footpath from Star Street and play on the informal swings, make dens in the area of woodland near the north- west boundary of the two fields and, from the shrieks and screams they emit, seem to thoroughly enjoy themselves. Such activity levels should only be encouraged in our young residents as this will in turn aid their long term physical and mental wellbeing. It is a safe area where their homes are not far away (usually Sun/Star Street, The Gill and Garden Terrace) but they can play largely unsupervised and independently. The character of this area and sense of adventure will change if homes overlook it

4. LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

a. Most recently these two fields were home to two horses and in a way they acted as a mini community farm with many local children patting and offering them handfuls of grass. Many children delighted in seeing the horses and rabbits especially in the top field. If this change of use goes ahead there may never be any livestock on this land ever again. Agriculture is important for many reasons, one of them being that we all need to eat but contact with animals is equally important because they can be extremely therapeutic for both adults and children alike

5. ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IN UNION AND MOWINGS LANES

a. The reason why it is proposed that the development plan boundary be amended to include these fields is because the Highways Agency believes these two fields can be accessed from the current development called Hoad View. I do not believe that access from Stanley Street/Union Lane would be able to cope with any more traffic. The only way construction traffic is accessing the site at present is through the goodwill of the health services. Should this goodwill be removed in future then any further development of the site will be far trickier.
b. Furthermore, if the Union Lane access is so much improved, as the Highways Agency has implied, why are alternative and even worse routes still included in you Development Pla n Document. I would like to request that the reference to access from Mowings Lane should be removed from the Land Allocations Development Plan Document or the entry amended as there is no access unless the owners of Bayfield and Foxwood agree to it and even then it would be completely unsuitable. The mere suggestion of changing our unique and lovely lane with all its charm, wildlife habitat and community spirit into potentially a super highway has caused a significant level of stress for all residents of the lane

6. LOSS OF VALUABLE WILDLIFE HABITAT

a. The two Union Lane fields currently support a large population of tawny/barn owls and bats which are dependent on the woodland edge to the west and north-west of this site in order to swoop and feed. If change of use arises and the site is subsequently developed the loss of habitat, as well as the additional light, noise and activity levels within the adjoining area of Gill Banks, will impact significantly on their ability to feed and thrive

I would like to ask you to reconsider your proposals that these two fields be reclassified in light of the important considerations above

Yours faithfully

Lynda White (Mrs)

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Ref MM095 Para 5.7
Providing a footpath to the northern edge of the development will effectively direct pedestrians to cross the A595 adjacent to the Burlington Inn. Visibility from this junction is poor with limited views. What provision are the highways authority intending to make for the increased traffic from the Four Lane Ends development onto the A595, again at a junction with poor visibility and views?
What provision will there be in the 'essential access requirements' to ensure sufficient off road parking so that the already narrow road will not be further conjested by the inevitable increase in vehicles.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: SLDC Land Allocations Development Plan – Further main modification MM072U : Site Ref:RN193 : Land Off Union Lane Ulverston,Cumbria

I am writing to object to the planned change in the designation of the land mentioned above, from “agricultural” to “land with some development potential”, and then the likely consequential development of housing on this site.
While I appreciate there is a need for affordable housing in Ulverston, there appears to be plenty of houses that remain unoccupied in the town and it would seem to be more sensible to encourage ownership or rent of these properties.

The chief concern I have is regarding access to the site, if housing were to be developed on it. There have been confirmations that a one way system is being considered from Union Lane through to Mowings Lane. This road would have to cut across an existing well- used footpath, where visibility is already an issue, and this would further increase the risk of accidents to children and the elderly path users. If the lane became one way, then potentially this could increase traffic from around 8 cars, to 60-70, dependent on the total number of houses built on both sites. These cars would also affect the traffic flow on the lower part of Mowings Lane and Garden Terrace, both of which are very restricted already. If access has already been improved to the lower ‘Hoad View’ site, then surely any further housing on this additional land should be accessed that way. This would be a better alternative than trying to open a very narrow lane which would then increase the travel distance into the town.

The SLDC LA development plan document states that there is potential access from the single tack lane. However the last portion of this lane is owned jointly by the owners of Foxwood, Bayfield and the field owners, meaning that currently there is no access. I have no intention of changing this situation, and I know the current owners of Foxwood have the same view.

The land use as agricultural land has ensured that the wildlife can flourish on this site, and children on the footpath can see farm animals close at hand in a safe environment. The environment within the Gill Banks area has been protected, for the enjoyment of local people and visitors, particularly those on the Cumbria Way. The start of this long distance path gives an important first impression of Cumbria for many visitors, and we have a duty to protect this for future generations. The development of a road and housing would impact on this, and the Ulverston Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that these areas are worthy of protection.

I look forward to your confirmation that you have received this email, and an assurance that my comments will be fully considered.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: SLDC Land Allocations Development Plan –Further main modification MM072U : Site Ref:RN193 : Land Off Union Lane Ulverston,Cumbria

I am writing to put forward my views against the proposed change of use of the above land from “agricultural land” to “land with some development potential”.
The first reason for this is that this change will then mean that development of further housing will happen there, and this will be likely to have a large impact on the existing housing nearby, and below the development because of the water run off and likely flooding. Significant surface water run off from the fields already causes flooding to part of my property, and to the property next to us, and this would be likely to increase. It is also an issue for erosion off the edges here.

Secondly, any housing development would be right on top of the ridges, and yet the Cumbrian Landscape Character Appraisal Toolkit expressly recommends avoiding siting development on prominent edges. Erosion and subsidence are already present around this area on top of the edges, and this would be further accentuated by this potential development.

Thirdly the access arrangements are also extremely questionable. In the SLDC LA Development Plan, there is no mention of the legal ownership of the end of the lane by the owners of Bayfield (myself), Foxwood and the field owner. The Bayfield owners would not be in favour of opening up this lane to a one way system, as has been discussed. The lane itself is at the top of a steep hill, where currently no winter gritting is done by CCC. Instead a small group of homeowners on Mowings Lane work together to keep this lane open as much as possible in the winter. If there was to be open access via one way system here, potentially over 50 cars could be using this narrow lane, then the snow would very quickly become compacted and icy, meaning that access would be stopped for everyone. There has also been no consideration of the steepness of the approach to the lane from Mowings Lane itself. The impact of cars from a development of possibly 40 houses would be huge on the restricted access already present in Mowings Lane and Garden Terrace.

Finally in terms of the bigger picture, it does not seem sensible to increase the likelihood of flooding in the lower town by changing the use of this land. The houses in Outcast could be affected by this, if the level of rainfall remains as high as we have recently experienced.

I am very concerned that the consultation time for this action has been set during the summer, when it is far easier for local people not to notice it is happening. I would like to hear from you to be reassured that a proper hearing will be given to all the views expressed about the proposed change in designation of this land.

I look forward to hearing from you, and I would welcome a site visit from yourself or a colleague to consider the details behind my comments




Yours sincerely,


Linda Williams

To the Development Plans Manager, South Lakeland District Council -

I am writing to object to the reclassification of the Union Lane Fields from agricultural land to land included within the development plan boundary.

While the current ongoing development of the land immediately adjacent to Union Lane is devastating in terms of the further encroachment of developed land on to green areas enjoyed by both local people and animals and plants, the plan to change the classification of the other fields to land that can be developed is something that should be abandoned at this initial stage.

Such plans can only impact negatively on Ulverston, for many reasons. The area around Union Lane, Mowings Lane, Stanley Street, Garden Terrace and Old Hall Lane are even now very busy in terms of traffic from local residents, deliveries, and people passing through. When the Hoad View development is completed this will increase substantially, and any further developments in the area will have a massive impact on this once quiet area, causing significant safety issues for the many young families who live in this area as well as serious congestion.

Along with the huge increase in traffic, any further development plans could put local properties in jeopardy because of the increased flood risk that it could cause. The elevated ground of the area we are discussing and subsequent draining could cause major flooding problems similar to that which Ulverston has already seen last year, if the natural permeable surface was removed in place of concreted streets. The impact could potentially not only be local, but also effect areas further down the drainage network elsewhere in Ulverston.

Lastly but very importantly, there is the environmental impact on the Gill Banks areas that the development of the Union Lane Fields would have. As you will know, the accessibility of green space for a local populace is extremely important for recreation, adventure, the obvious visual assets, restoration to well-being and mental health. It raises property values and provides a refreshing contrast to the built-up areas nearby. Ecologically, greenspaces are extremely important, absorbing rainwater and airborne pollutants, as well as light and noise pollution. The fields in question house and feed many different animals, insects and plants, including tawny owls and various varieties of bats. Badgers, foxes and rodents can also be regularly seen here - development of this land would destroy their habitat, forcing them to relocate or perish. Development would impact on the currently peaceful and pleasant Gill Banks woodland, increasing the noise and light pollution there and thus impacting on the wildlife living there and the recreational value it currently holds to local people. We live in a world where nature is constantly being pushed back in place of concreted spaces that take everything and give nothing back to the natural world. Do not let Ulverston be a place where this destructive and sad trend is continued.

I would also like to express dismay that these plans have come with no publicity, effectively making redundant the democratic process of allowing residents to express their views to the Council before decisions are made.

I can only hope that you consider the points made by myself and other residents, and dismiss the application for reclassification of the land and thus potential development.

Yours faithfully,

John Williamson

Dear Sir,
It is with grave concern that I read of the proposed re-classification of land adjoining Gill Banks and the present building site at Union Lane.
My chief objection is that which I have voiced in the past regarding the volume of traffic already threatening Union Lane, plus the additional number of cars and service vehicles generated by another 22 houses. The 48 dwellings with 2 garages or parking spaces each, would pressurise this small lane with an increase of over 1,000% in traffic volume. It will be chaos regardless of the minimal widening that has been done. All this will create further blockage at the mini island at Soutergate and Mill St., the only outlets for the whole of N W Ulverston to the one-way system of the town.

The above will be grossly compounded if the suggested turning of Union Lane into one-way incorporating the 'new estate' and Mowings Ln. were adopted. This would mean a slower response time for emergency vehicles such as fire engines and ambulances. It may be thought that it is only minutes in difference and therefore negligible My experience of Union Lane is very different. Four years ago my wife had a stroke that nearly killed her. The ambulance men were there in six minutes A car was left sticking out in front of a garage, only a few inches more than it should have been. Was the time lost in carrying her in a chair that extra distance enough to cause the brain damage that afflicted her from then on/. The massive amount of money, man hours and dedicated training the NHS spends each year to save lives in such time critical emergencies suggests so. These great efforts can be offset in just such a confined space as we are dealing with here. Regardless of engineers and others with dubious reasoning, please, if SLDC have any power at all to do so, don't let anyone else suffer needless loss, as we as a family have. Please, please, scrap this evil scheme.

The environmental concerns for Gill Banks must also be considered.

The 22 house trauma that awaits the residents of Mowings Lane can, even now be avoided. Why should they suffer what we in our lane have endured, it's been like living on the Somme and is getting worse.

The risk of flooding the cottages in Union Lane regardless of the (underhanded) building of new holding tanks, is a reality.

Have we not suffered enough already./

PWWilliamson

PS.

For my wife who cannot now write or type, please accept this from her as a separate appeal from her feelings and frustration . /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////2!”!”!”!”£$%^&*()_)__/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.

JMWilliamson.

PPS. Sorry that my computer question mark is not working. It has been substituted by /// in each case.

MM050
The latest issue of the DPD leaves its comments unchanged.

e.g. Brigsteer
3.151 An exceptional allocation is made at land opposite the Wheatsheaf in
Brigsteer where the local Community Land Trust is bringing forward proposals to develop the site for 7 dwellings. Although this proposal was developed ahead of neighbourhood
planning powers, it is considered that the degree of community involvement
and support for it and the intention to seek a high proportion of
affordable dwellings, justify its inclusion as a land allocation. Key issues
include mitigating impacts on biodiversity - the site includes areas of seminatural woodland,- and the achievement of suitable highway design arrangements.



This seriously misrepresents opinion in Brigsteer as evidenced by Parish Council election last year.
It is a greenfield site.

I submit the following comments in respect of the modified proposal for the Land East of Hutton Close- Burton in Kendal.

The modification states;

“This 1.09 ha site is currently bounded by existing development on three sides. It could accommodate around 31 dwellings. It and is located on a slope at the northern entrance to the village. The south eastern corner of the site adjoins a public bridleway connecting to Vicarage Lane. There is also a very narrow alley running through to Main Street. Key issues for the development of this site include the need for good site layout, design and landscaping to minimize the impact on views from adjoining properties and the impact on longer distance views of development on the higher southern part of the site and the need for a pedestrian access to the village possibly via the bridleway. There is also scope to safeguard the biodiversity of the site by retaining hedgerows and trees and retaining woodland within the development. There is a need to widen the existing access road into Church Bank Gardens to ensure it is an acceptable width along its length”

I note the proposal states that the 1.09 ha site could accommodate 31 dwellings. However the submission also mentions safeguarding the biodiversity of the site by retaining hedgerows, trees and woodland as well as minimising the impact from adjoining properties and on longer distance views.

The latter 2 statements are completely at odds with the former. There is no way that the biodiversity of the area can possibly be maintained in any shape or form by building 31 properties on a 1.09 ha greenfield site and by widening existing roads. If SLDC has genuine concerns regarding “biodiversity” it should seek to exhaust development of brownfield sites before touching any greenfield sites such as this one. Furthermore, unless the proposed 31 dwellings are subterranean, the impact of views from adjoining areas will be devastating and the long distance views will be completely wiped out for the residents on the eastern side of Hutton Close as well as those living in the Vicarage Lane properties edging the south west corner of the proposed site.

I hope that SLDC will take note of the above comments and I await the outcome of the consultations.

To the Development plans manager,
I am writing to register my objection to the re-classification of fields near the current build going on at Hoad View. If these fields are re-classified as land to be developed within the development plan boundary it would have catastrophic implications on thee local area. The amount of traffic in the area is already at a dangerous level with the health centre and the amount of houses already compacted into the area. If the fields were to be included in the plan the extra 44 houses would make it a risk to human life for the residents of the sheltered housing, pedestrians crossing an already busy T-junction and to children accessing Mill Dam park.
The development of the fields could also result in the increased flooding risk to Gill banks and the rest of Ulverston as the water that is absorbed by these fields would run of into Gill banks and continue down under the town and if encountering any blockages in the river would increase the flooding risk in that area.
Gill banks is also a haven for wildlife such as bats and owls which use these fields to feed and nest, the building work would destroy this and endanger the survival of these already rare and beautiful birds. The development would also make Gill banks a less peaceful place to sit and enjoy the wildlife that thrives there as it would be overlooked and filled with fumes from development and car and boiler fumes when the build is complete.
I hope you will take these views into consideration and reject the proposed re-classification.


Paddy O'Neill

Dear Development Plans Manager,

I am writing to voice my concern regarding the further developments of the Union Lane fields. I have been informed that considerations are being made for access to the new developments on Union Lane fields via the end of Mowings Lane. This is extremely worrying as the steepness of the road is clearly not conducive to supporting an increase in the volume of traffic, and particularly not large and heavy goods vehicles. During the cold months the road regularly freezes, making it treacherous and often impassible to residents. Indeed, part of the road is single track, and is fit for purpose only to serve as access for the properties at the top of the road.

The new developments will also increase the flood risk to other residents in Ulverston and require the removal of valuable wildlife habitats. Noise pollution will also increase in the surrounding areas.

Please consider my views,

Regards,

Rob Wheeler

I refer to MM087, Land East of Hutton Close, and the supporting technical note.

Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council remains opposed to this site for the reasons previously stated. One of those objections is the poor access to the site. The technical note identifies the width of the access road into Church Bank Gardens as a problem and requires it to be widened. This is not understood by the Parish Council since the access road is wider than many housing estate roads and there seems no obvious reason to widen it. There is a problem with the slope of the road at the junction with the A6070 but this has not been considered.

Importantly the technical note identifies the need to retain the footway on the southern side and if possible add a northern side footway. These very important requirements are not carried forward into MM087 which does not even make it clear that the southern footway must be maintained. If MM087 goes forward as written there is a real danger that the road will be unnecessarily widened by removing the footway.

This poorly thought out modification adds to the evidence that insufficient attention has been paid to access at the site. For example, MM087 retains the suggestion that the bridal way would be the pedestrian access to the village. What is not mentioned is that the there is no access from the site to the bridal way; nor is it mentioned that the bridal way is at the top of the hill and pedestrians would have to climb a hill in order to descend into the village. There is a risk that pedestrians will be pushed down onto the narrow path which opens on to a narrow footway on a blind bend of the A6070.
The Parish Council believe that SLDC must do much more to solve the access problems if they insist on pressing forward with this site against the wish of the Parish Council and the local residents.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

MM094 Land North of Jack Hill

The wording "and the need for housing to be of a style that respects that of existing properties" should be deleted. The words are superfluous and unnecessary. For some this might be interpreted as simply mimicking the houses adjoining. Such an approach is not appropriate. The appropriateness of design should be considered in the context of a planning application.

The wording "The sites will each require a single access point" should be deleted as this is contrary to the written advice given by the highway authority to the planning authority dated 25th February 2013 to be sent under separate cover in relation to the land fronting Holme Lane. [See attached document for details]

Whilst the planning authority sought to lead the highway authority in agreeing a single access point is required the highway authority's response makes reference to the possibility of 2 courts of 4 houses rather than one access for 8 or frontage development.

MM090 Land west of Sedgwick Road, Natland

To avoid any misunderstandings, vehicular access will be from Sedgwick Road and across the existing footway and through the hedgerows. The second two sentences should therefore read:-

“It will be necessary to secure access through the existing hedgerows and remove at least some of the hedgerows to ensure appropriate visibility splays are provided. There will be a need to maintain the existing footway along Sedgwick Road either side of the vehicular access or accesses to the new residential development.”

FURTHER MAIN MODIFICATIONS
COMMENTS BY THE CUMBRIA HOUSE BUILDERS GROUP (CHBG)

MM075 SELF BUILD HOUSING

1. The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 50) encourages local planning authorities to plan to meet “the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes)...”

2. The CHBG does not object to the planning authority’s intention to be supportive of self build projects but objects to the reference – “Elsewhere development briefs for larger sites offer the opportunity to consider the incorporation of a self-build element.”

3. As is clear from the Revised Statement of Common Ground in relation to Housing Provision (EX044U), the authority already rely on the delivery of a significant number of housing completions from existing planning permissions, SHLAA small sites and unidentified windfalls. The CHBG consider there is considerable over reliance on unidentified sites, nevertheless the opportunity for self-build on small sites remains considerable.

4. Small self-contained sites are appropriate for self-build projects but seeking to incorporate a self-build element into a large housing development is impractical and could threaten housing delivery.

5. The CHBG has already objected to the requirement for the preparation for Development Briefs because of the inevitable delay that will result in bringing sites forward and delivering housing completions. That issue aside, the complexity of requiring parts of larger sites to be set aside introduces further complexity in the planning application and site purchase process and provides uncertainty in relation to the sale and take up of housing on the main part of a large site.

6. A few rhetorical questions are worth considering:-
a) Is the planning authority expecting the principle developer to secure planning permission for the self-build element of any site? If yes then the developer will be contractually bound to purchase the self-build element of the site and the authority will then no doubt seek to preclude completions on the main element of the site to force a sale to any potential self builders. Complex and introducing a significant element of risk to the developer. What if there are no self-builders interested in purchasing at a reasonable price? There is an additional risk to the developer impacting on land value and viability.
b) Which party is to bear the infrastructure costs associated with facilitating the self-build element, the main developer or the self-builders? If the principle developer must take on this additional financial burden then there is an impact on the land value and financial viability.
c) Is there to be an affordable housing element requirement associated with the self build element? If not then is the main developer going to be required to compensate with a higher number of affordable dwellings on the main part of the site? Again there would be an impact on land value and financial viability.
d) Who will be responsible for any other financial contributions, the developer of the self-builders?
e) Who will be responsible for bonds and road adoptions, the developer or the self-builders?

7. There are likely to be logistical issues relating to differing build programmes, the timing of the delivery of materials which may cause delays and costs to the principle developer and have health and safety implications.

8. The differences in design and build quality would be of concern for the principle developer and their potential purchasers, impacting upon the marketability of their own dwellings and the image of the site.

9. A developer of a large site requires control over the design and build quality of the scheme, on site health and safety, a construction programme and methodology that minimises inconvenience to purchasers and pricing at a level to secure sales at a reasonable rate per month. If these requirements are put at risk then the ability to attract purchasers becomes more difficult and the ability to deliver housing completions less likely.

10. The CHBG seek the deletion of the words:- “Elsewhere development briefs for larger sites offer the opportunity to consider the incorporation of a self-build element.”

MM076 EXTRA CARE HOUSING

11. It is difficult to provide a clear and definitive view in relation to the newly proposed extra care provision due to the limited available information relating to the proposed implementation and mechanics of the policy. There are also a number of issues which would need to be carefully explored prior to implementation of any requirement relating to potential complexities of land valuation, acquisition and impacts upon site viability.

12. Notwithstanding the above, the CHBG are willing to discuss with Cumbria County Council and South Lakeland District Council the provision of new extra care housing, where the need is fully justified and evidenced, within the context of larger schemes,as indicated in the suggested text:-

“...On planning applications of more than 60 dwellings, Cumbria County Council will consider the need for new extra care provision as part of the scheme and may request affordable provision, having regard to the existing level of provision in the area and the appropriateness of the site....”

13. The introductory text refers to the Older Persons Housing Strategy 2012-2017. Theme 1 of the Strategy is entitled “Encourage the development of a range of accommodation options which meet the needs and aspirations of older people.” Under this theme the Strategy states:-

“In terms of Planning, both districts have adopted Core Strategies which provide specific requirements for the delivery of affordable housing and state what will be the basis for accepting planning applications. Within this framework the Strategy encourages using the flexibility of the policy to seek homes of the types sought by older people in each locality which will meet their financial needs and future support needs.”

14. Under the Action Plan for Theme 1 the Strategy states:-

Task 4 b) “Work with private developers to encourage development of the right type. Use flexibilities of Core Strategy planning policy where appropriate to enable most suitable provision.”

15. Clearly the planning authority considers securing extra care housing requires the flexible application of Core Strategy planning policy. It is therefore appropriate to include this reference in the Proposed Main Modification and the following additional text is proposed as an amendment:-

“Core Strategy planning policies, including Policy CS6.3 relating to the provision of affordable housing, will be applied flexibly to encourage the provision of extra care homes. As envisaged by CS6.3 this may mean a lower requirement for affordable housing, to ensure developments remain viable and new housing is deliverable.”



N.B. As a result of holiday commitments of key personnel there has been no input into this representation from Applethwaite.

Garner Planning Associates 05/09/13

[see attached document]

LOCAL PLAN LAND ALLOCATIONS DPD


GREEN SPACES SUBMISSION ON FURTHER MAIN MODIFICATIONS AND OTHER CLARIFICATION DOCUMENTS



1 Introduction

The Green Spaces Committee considers this further consultation to be largely irrelevant as the minor technical matters covered do not address the major areas of unsoundness exposed in the Examination Hearings.

The Green Spaces Committee asks the Inspector to find the Land Allocations DPD unsound and to refer it back to South Lakeland District Council for fundamental revision. As it stands the Plan has neither the support of the local community nor the landowners/builders groupings.

2 Further Main Modifications (EX061UU)

The further main modifications proposed do not address the following areas of unsoundness identified in the Hearings:

- The Council’s viability evidence is weak. S106 contributions for housing developments are grossly deflated and zero contributions from developers are assumed in the calculations for employment sites. Despite this the Council’s own study admits that none of the employment/ business park sites in the DPD are viable in the current climate
- Both community groups and builders, from opposite ends of the spectrum, consider the housing targets to be unachievable and undeliverable
- The housing targets cannot be justified in the light of the recent lower household interim projections
- The infrastructure proposals do not represent an infrastructure delivery plan; they are instead vague and aspirational and have little financial foundation. There is no implementation timetable. Many costly infrastructure requirements are deemed as “candidates” for an as yet unadopted CIL Scheme
- The education ‘evidence’ given by the County Council at the Hearings was last minute, complacent, flawed and unconvincing. It was admitted that additional requirements for school places arising from windfall sites had not been taken into account at all (up to 1000 homes during the plan period). There can be no confidence that the additional school places arising from the Plan can be accommodated within existing schools and no sites have been identified for new provision (this is particularly relevant given the national pressures on schools places)
- The minor modifications to the road infrastructure proposed will not prevent a significant worsening of the traffic congestion problems already suffered in the Kendal and Grange areas (with the consequent impact on air quality). The impact of the Kendal Canal Head development is ignored, as are all the strategic schemes which were previously considered essential to cope with increased traffic movements (eg the Kendal Northern Development Route)
- Evidence given in respect of many specific sites illustrated the flawed and subjective selection criteria used by the Council in drawing up the DPD
- There is no community support for the DPD and opposition from a number of town and parish councils

In respect of main modification MM076 (Extra Care Housing), this is a further example of a vague and aspirational statement which does not show how the identified need can be met. The infrastructure draft delivery plan identifies a requirement of an extra 58 extra care units as a direct result of the allocated housing sites (on top of an existing projected requirement of 320 units). It is stated that “a typical new extra care housing scheme with around 40 flats costs around £5.5 million to build …” How will this requirement be financed and where are the allocated sites for such provision?

3 Highways Clarifications Technical Note (EX104)

As stated above these further technical ‘clarifications’ do not answer the major deficiencies exposed at the Hearings in terms of the overall road infrastructure in Kendal and Grange. In detail, the technical note is also flawed as shown in the separate evidence of Kevin Lasbury on site R107M (29 July), which Green Spaces supports. A further example is that on site RN133M (Land West of Oxenholme Road) AECOM has not corrected its error in endorsing an access to the site which is outside the development boundaries proposed in the DPD, despite this being drawn to their attention in the Examination Hearings. There is no evidence that a safe alternative access to RN133M can be found.

AECOM technical notes reveal a laissez-faire approach to safety issues, for example in respect of both Sites E4M and R121M it is stated that the extension of the 30mph limit is not a requirement, leaving it to developers to demonstrate safe access.



4 Additional Information on RPA (EX103)

The additional information in respect of the implications of ‘raising the participation age’ of young people is interesting. However, the net increase of secondary school pupils projected from this initiative must be added to the general increases arising from the DPD proposals (including windfalls) on a catchment area by catchment area basis to understand where the pinch points will be during the plan period. This has not been done. Furthermore it was obvious from the Hearings that no discussions had taken place with Secondary School Heads to plan for the projected increases in overall numbers.

The number of new secondary pupils arising from the RPA agenda seems seriously underestimated in this analysis as it assumes that only 30% of NEETs (16 to18 year olds not in education, training or employment) will choose to attend local authority education. The basis for this 30% figure is tenuous as the comparison is drawn with those currently in education or training who will have different aspirations and financial means.

Furthermore the analysis fails to take account of emerging Government policy to ensure that all pupils achieve C grades in English and Maths GCSEs before they leave school. This paper is yet another example of a ‘seat of the pants’ response, lacking a robust evidence-based approach.







DENNIS REED

Chair, Green Spaces Committee

September 2013

For the Attention of: Mr Simon Berkeley, Government Planning Inspector.
From: Philip Campbell, representing Helme Lodge Homes & Gardens Ltd.
Reference: R97M+MN34# Referred in latest documents as: MM079
Land south of Natland Mill Beck Farm

In response to your request for final submissions, we would like to make one last observation. Whilst we obviously continue all our original objections about allocating land for housing on the old Helme Lodge, greenfield, ‘Low Park’ area, and the proximity of over 70 houses between two Grade 2 listed Buildings, loss of amenity etc., we submit that the question of proper and safe access to the site has yet to be finally answered.
SLDC’s final proposal was for all vehicular traffic (except ‘Blue Light’ -- which would enter from Natland Mill Beck Lane) to access the site from the South Western tip of the land allocation proposed, from off Natland Road. SLDC also repeated it’s commitment to honour the re-watering of the Lancaster Canal, which would necessarily entail the canal crossing under Natland Road – presumably involving a road bridge -- at this exact access point i.e.: proposing that the traffic from 70+ houses, as well as traffic from the proposed commercial site / or canal basin / to be allocated for the other side of the road (M31N), should all be exiting at this very point which is also a national cycle track and major pedestrian walking route.
SLDC’s own Highways report from AEcom (March 2013) stated that access would therefore only be possible if it involved using land from outside the allocation to the south of the proposed access point.
We submit that, suddenly including that extra, as yet undefined, land (which could be several hundred metres in length) is both unfair and unsound procedure. The extra land had not been mentioned before during the 4 years of the planning process. Had we / or others / known, we could well have raised other objections, but we had no opportunity so to do. You surely cannot suddenly alter the goal posts in such a fundamental manner without prejudicing the "soundness" of the whole proposed allocation?
Secondly we believe, from discussions with the Canal Trust, that their engineering meetings with Story’s Homes (the developer who last week, August 29th. 2013, submitted an application to build 76 homes on the site, before your Hearing has even reported) are still to take place to devise a suitable road / canal crossing. When they do, we are advised that, given a bridge at that proposed location, the access road would have to be lengthened at least 200 metres on land outside the allocation, but that probably they would have to move the crossing site south by some 300 metres, therefore necessitating a huge extra driveway in and out of the site. Such a huge access road would be neither environmentally acceptable, with every car travelling over half a kilometre extra each time it wanted to get in and out onto Natland Road -- which is already narrow, busy and taking increased traffic from the other developments in Natland village itself.
Consequently we, Helme Lodge, remain fundamentally opposed to this area, R97M+MN34#, being allocated as suitable for housing in any form, and also submit that the access would be unsafe, impractical, over elaborate and certainly pouting with the extra meter-age each vehicle would have to take to use it.
I am, yours sincerely, Philip Campbell.
(Director, Helme Lodge Homes and Gardens Ltd.)

Subject: Local Plan Land Allocations Public Examination; Consultation on the schedule of Further proposed Main Modifications to the Local Plan- Land Allocations

Att of Alastair Mc Neill: Development Plans Manager

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above document. However the Agency has no further comments to make with regard to these changes. Please continue to consult the HA as these documents progress.

Regards Lindsay

Lindsay Alder, Assistant Asset Manager

[see attached document]

[see attached document]

Having reviewed the Schedule of Modifications relating to the above consultation I can advise you that National Trust has no comments to submit in response to those proposed changes.

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the above consultation. We have no comments to make on the proposed main modifications to the Local Plan.
Kind regards
Kate Wheeler
Lead Adviser
Land Use Operations Team

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the proposed policy.

Network Rail is the “not for dividend” owner and operator of Britain’s railway infrastructure, which includes the tracks, signals, tunnels, bridges, viaducts, level crossings and stations – the largest of which we also manage. All profits made by the company, including from commercial development, are reinvested directly back into the network.

We have no comments to make.

Dear Mr Hudson

Ref: MM049 Updated
Para 3.125
Employment Sites around Endmoor

Regarding access to the site, Patrick Parish Council would make the strongest representations that it should be recognised that the single track Gatebeck Bridge and the single track C5077 (Gatebeck to the A65, Crooklands) are totally unsuitable to cater for traffic, freight or otherwise, associated with the site and that measures should be taken to ensure that no such traffic uses this route should the allocation be confirmed.

Yours sincerely
Lesley Winter
Clerk, Preston Patrick Parish Council

[see attached document]

To Mr Simon Berkeley Inspector
Examination of South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD
Response to the SLDC Further Highways - Supporting Technical Note 12th July 13

This paper is submitted on behalf of the South Kendal Preservation Association (SKPA), which represents the interests of Helsington Laithes, Lumley Road, the Bellingham Estate and surrounding area residents. This is in response to the above referenced Technical note, with particular regard to E4M and M41KM. The soundness of the DPD is challenged by reference to the following extracts, with SKPA response in italics:

Westmorland MP Tim Farron has released proposals to refocus A&E Services for S Lakeland at Westmorland (Kendal) Hospital away from current provision at Barrow and Lancaster
This will be severely compromised by the congestion caused by these proposed developments, at the main A6 Kendal entrance. The same concerns have been expressed regarding the impact on Kendal tourism and high street businesses. Who will take responsibility for these consequences, SLDC, the Developer or both? SKPA will make it known who the perpetrators are, in response to the inevitable complaints.

AECOM Technical Note Ex104 12 July 13.
further comments – clarification essential and desirable
access requirements where necessary

“The extension of the 30mph speed limit is not a requirement at this stage, and a developer would be required to demonstrate that safe access can be achieved. It is likely that the site will require a major junction to accommodate safe access which will have a speed reducing effect and likely to trigger a change to the speed limit, removing the requirement for this to be included in the policy. “

This further demonstrates the lack of understanding on the impact such a junction and increased traffic flows will have on the entrance to Kendal. How can a “major junction” not have an major impact on the already congested main route into Kendal? “No further modelling done”. Surely this Laissez-faire approach further undermines the credibility of these proposed Developments?

The previous Main Modifications included the following:

Further Highway Evidence to Support Submission SLDC Land Allocations DPD AECOM March 13
Kendal – Land adjacent to Scroggs Wood site reference E4M

CCC and AECOM comments Page 71
Land at Scroggs Wood

Satisfactory access can be achieved from Milnthorpe Road. A signalised junction would be the most straightforward design for a single access into this area. Other designs for accesses may be appropriate. The site would be accessed directly from the A6 via a new signalised junction south of the existing access to Helsington Laithes . A study undertaken by Atkins in 2009 (Kendal Transport Assessment June 2009) suggests that this access should be signalised with a right turn pocket for vehicles turning into the site from the south. No further modelling work has been undertaken.
A secondary access point was considered from the south which would involve the reconfiguration of the roundabout on the A6, however this would be very costly and as a single access point would not help to integrate the site into the surrounding area and is therefore not recommended. Given the size of the site it may be beneficial in the long term to have a secondary access to prevent the site becoming an extended cul-de-sac. This potential access point could be via the roundabout. The road is 40mph along the site boundary, dropping to 30mph to the north of the site, close to the junction of Kent Park Avenue. It is recommended that the 30mph zone is extended further south to include the new junction.

The soundness of the above report is challenged, on the basis that the addition of a signalised junction and increased traffic will exacerbate the already overloaded A6 entrance to Kendal. This will cause substantial traffic congestion, pollution, dangerous back up onto the bypass and consequent damage to tourism and local business. This is clearly not a sustainable deliverable long term solution, with no regard for the essential Northern Relief Road.

The absence of further modelling is noteworthy in undermining the E4M viability and lack of a credible traffic solution. There is also disagreement between reports on the details of the junction required.

The SLDC rationale that Kendal residents will walk to an E4M business park is not accepted and it is also likely that users will travel from elsewhere. This was the central argument presented by SLDC at the hearing, which is challenged on this basis and the contradictory plan to develop the M6 corridor

The impact of vehicles (including heavy goods vehicles) travelling from the M6 into Kendal is surely more environmentally damaging , than employees travelling from Kendal out to J36. The lack of public transport links can easily be addressed by the provision of bus services

Whether the majority of employees is likely to come from the closer Kendal area will depend on the types of activity undertaken. There is no guarantee that people working on this site would live in Kendal – many might live in other South Lakeland communities, or further afield, accessing the E4M site via a variety of routes other than the A6 out of Kendal. Residents of villages and towns substantially distant from Kendal, in whatever direction, eg in the wider Lake District, the Furness Peninsula, or perhaps northern Lancashire, might be attracted to the employment opportunities provided. Many such employees will be obliged to drive to their place of work. In particular, B1(b) [Research and Development] activity is likely to attract people residing across a larger area.

Why is there no mention of the Northern Relief Road to link the northern end of the bypass from Plumgarth’s roundabout to Shap Road?– Cumbria’s top priority road scheme according to published reports. The following extract from a recent Town Council meeting raises this issue in the wider context of Kendal’s traffic problems.

Kendal Town Council Meeting 18th June 12

083/12/13 TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Councillor Giles Archibald had asked for this item to be placed on the agenda. Having studied the Cumbria County Council Transport Plan Document, he was concerned about the dire predictions for traffic congestion in Kendal by 2022.

Councillor Willshaw asked when the last proper traffic survey had been carried out in the town. When told it was 15 years ago, he suggested that it was time for a new one…… He felt that the talk of “relief roads” was misleading. What should be considered is a (northern) Development Route with links to the Local Development.

Extract from 06 Infrastructure Position Statement
Transport issues within settlements
Kendal
4.5 In the case of Kendal, there are significant constraints on the town highway network with a number of junctions already at capacity. Kendal suffers from traffic congestion which is resulting in air quality problems in its town centre. This is having a detrimental impact on the town’s economy and the quality of life of its residents.

The above statement supports the argument that further pressure at the main entrance to Kendal, created by E4M is not sustainable.

[see attached document]

Thank you for consulting The Coal Authority on the above.

Having reviewed your document, I confirm that we have no specific comments to make at this stage.

We look forward to receiving your emerging planning policy related documents; preferably in an electronic format. For your information, we can receive documents via our generic email address planningconsultation@coal.gov.uk, on a CD/DVD, or a simple hyperlink which is emailed to our generic email address and links to the document on your website.

Alternatively, please mark all paper consultation documents and correspondence for the attention of Planning and Local Authority Liaison.

Should you require any assistance please contact a member of Planning and Local Authority Liaison at The Coal Authority on our direct line (01623 637 119).

Dear Mr Hudson
Local Plan Allocations. Response to the Consultation on the schedule of Further Proposed Main Modifications to the Local Plan – Land Allocations.
I am writing on behalf of Ulverston Town Council with reference to aspects of the modified local plan and to make general observations.
Ulverston Town Council accepts the need for housing development and that the town will eventually expand especially with the welcome new investment by major manufacturing businesses in the town.
Members understand that the land allocation process has been through a number of consultations and modifications, most recently at the public examination and has been debated at length. It also recognises the pressure that SLDC Is under to allocate land for housing and other development. The council does not propose at this late stage to present a detailed review of the allocated sites in Ulverston but will wait until they come forward. It may also consider bringing in professional support at this time.
The Town Council’s great concern remains flooding. The council does not consider that SLDC or any other agency has taken the necessary co-ordinated view to mitigate the impact of flooding on both new and existing developments and all have consistently failed to find a medium and long term solution.
Whilst new developments may be more resilient to flooding there appears to have been little learned from the plight of existing properties in recent flood events. You will be aware that most of the becks running through Ulverston converge into the town beck in Ulverston east ward. In the last six years there have been numerous incidents of flooding in this area and throughout the town centre and elsewhere. This has arisen from a combination of surface water, tidal and foul water. Councillors are concerned that additional development will force more water into south Ulverston and that the becks and drains cannot accommodate this.
The council has been in correspondence with the Environment Agency over recent flood events although to little effect. It is felt that no agency or organisation has given sufficiently detailed thought to an overarching flood mitigation scheme for Ulverston and are content to work in silos or in a piecemeal manner.
The council needs all agencies to come together, led by SLDC and supported by Ulverston Town Council, while there is still sufficient time to resolve these issues and to co-ordinate an effective solution to what we recognise is a complex problem. We would include Cumbria County Council as the highways authority in this. The council feel that their response to the consultation on the local plan does not appear to have been as thorough and considered as it should have been, and in many cases there appears to have been a complete disregard to the additional impact of traffic in narrow streets or in areas that are the main arterial route for traffic, in the interest of expediency. This applies equally to the response of the Highways Agency.
Going forward the council will expect developers to be made to provide detailed and substantive submissions on how they will mitigate the environmental impact of any development for which planning may be requested and moreover to be held to account by the planning authority if they fail in this duty.
The council wishes to be involved from the start with the proposed development briefs for all of the sites in Ulverston.
Members feel that the plan so far has been led by developers and landowners and that if councillors had been consulted at the beginning of this process then the emerging plan would have been more acceptable and valuable historical and local knowledge could have been captured. This point is illustrated in the allocation of additional housing land at Lund Farm and the council will oppose this development should it come forward for planning. It has been well known by the community for many years that this land floods consistently.
More recently at the new development at Union Lane, where a large retention tank was installed, members of the community have noted that recent heavy rain has shown that even this measure has not been sufficient and drain covers have overflowed.
Turning to the modifications, the council would make the following points:
Amendment to MM072U
The town council opposes the amendment to the above which extends the plan to incorporate site RN192.
Once again the Highways Authority’s reason for changing its mind and approving this are questionable when it states that the site can be ‘suitably accessed’ by many more vehicles. Union Lane remains a narrow road, and existing homes front directly onto the traffic, despite the changes to the historic wall, which was opposed by many concerned and angry residents who attended the council meetings. Additional development in this area, accessed as it is by narrow road in a built up area, adjacent to a very busy Health Centre and in the centre of a densely populated area is inappropriate. We would request that SLDC insist that the Highways Authority explain in detail why it maintains that this extension to the development can proceed and why it has changed its mind on this site. We would welcome a site visit with SLDC and Cumbria County Council together with ward members from town, district and county to review this decision.
Morecambe Road Scrapyard. Whilst not a modification it is important to note that the low railway bridge across North Lonsdale Road means that Morecambe Road is the principle access road to South Ulverston employment area for Lorries and for passenger vehicles. Any development on this land will put additional pressure on what is considered by many to be a dangerous and congested road. Once again the council would have expected the highways authority to have made this observation.
To conclude, the town council wishes to see a consolidated approach by all agencies to the challenge of flooding in the town. It is recognised that it is a complex problem but not insurmountable if all agencies work together. The town council will itself be establishing a town wide flood action group to bring together members of the community with important historical knowledge which in turn could provide a forum for setting down a formal route map to resolve these challenging issues.

We look forward to hearing from you.


Jayne Kendall
Town Clerk.


CC John Woodcock MP.
Cllr Peter Thornton.

Latest consultation submission: Ex061U

Please find attached a comment from WKAG on the Schedule of further Main Modifications to the Local Plan based on the hearings in June 2013.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]