Local Development Framework Consultation

Kendal

1 (5 of 6) Kendal South East

R121M

Oppose

Oppose

Oppose

Support in part

Support

I object to the proposed development on site R121M for the following reasons:

1. Future development should be within the existing development boundary wherever possible, to avoid the Kendal boundaries ‘creeping’ unnecessarily. Whilst my specific objections regarding R121M are set out below, I believe that there are more suitable development sites within the existing town boundary. For example, R154, which is a privately owned site with no public access, with few features of note on the site and with its undulating landscape limiting its potential for formal recreational use. The justification for it being retained as an open space in the Kendal Fact File is weak to the point of being non-existent and it is hard to understand why this space is to be retained as a green area at the expense of similar landscapes which will require the development boundary to be extended.

2. An impartial reading of the various issues raised in the Kendal Fact File relating to R121M would suggest that it is not a suitable site for development. In particular:

a. The site floods regularly and significantly. You may not appreciate just how often this happens. To give a specific example, the bottom of our garden regularly floods after a typical heavy fall of rain. In places the ‘pond’ is 2 feet deep, and this has to run off through neighbours’ gardens before it eventually drains away. The Stock Beck flood relief scheme has made no noticeable improvement to the fields in question.

b. The site is a visible, valuable green space at the edge of Kendal. Kendal sits in a bowl and the effects of previous inappropriate development around other parts of the town boundary are all too visible. Please don’t make it worse by promoting an unsuitable site such as R121M for illogical reasons!

c. There is no car access to the site and so significant infrastructure would be required.

d. The comments from the National Grid in the Fact File that the site is unfeasible and that major infrastructure /service investment is needed to the gas network surely should carry more weight. The cost and disruption to rectify these aspects need to be taken into account in the final decision. Presumably there are other marginal sites where such investment is not required?

3. The proposal is for a significant number of houses to be built in 2 phases on this site. Other proposed sites of a similar size have been the subject of separate, more detailed evaluation. Please explain why this was not done for R121M, when the proposed density is such that the development would dominate the landscape, destroy a valuable green space, unnecessarily extend the town boundary and be highly visible from large parts of Kendal?

4. The Fact File paints an almost exclusively negative assessment of the suitability of this site for development from all parties, but the conclusion is ‘In view of the above it is suggested the site be considered as an emerging site option for housing development’. This is a perverse comment because there is nothing in ‘the above’ which suggests anything of the sort!

I would like you to reconsider your proposal to include R121M within the Land Allocation process and hope you will agree that there are several more appropriate sites for housing development within Kendal.

Kendal

R121M

Oppose