Response from Mr John Terence Johnson (Individual)
1. Mr John Terence Johnson (Individual) : 22 Feb 2011 12:15:00
Which document do you wish to comment on?
Settlement Factfile: Kendal
Page
Document as a whole
Do you support, oppose or support in part this section of the document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
The Kendal Fact File is difficult to reconcile in so far as inconsistency prevails between reasons given for inclusion/exclusion of sites chosen as emerging preferred site options. The Fact File in respect of R121M highlights a predominantly negative assessment of the suitability of the site for development from all parties, and yet somehow you conclude that "In view of the above it is suggested this site be considered as an emerging site option for development." - How/Why and on what basis has this conclusion possibly been drawn?
If the public had been invited to attend your site visits (as is often the case with planning issues) then we would have had an opportunity to show and explain our areas of concern in more detail on site. As it is I attended one of your Consultation 'drop-in' days and tried to question why the inconsistencies could have arisen, only to be told S.L.D.C. needed the numbers proposed in the Land Allocation Document - not a sound planning reason for inclusion of site R121M. How site RN154, which is located within the existing L.D.P. boundary can be suggested as a site to be retained as Open Space and the same suggestion is not afforded to site R121M which is outside the L.D.P. boundary just cannot be reconciled or justified, and I would hope that these issues can be revisited by yourselves.
