Local Development Framework Consultation

Kendal

1 (5 of 6) Kendal South East

R121M

Oppose

Oppose

Oppose

Support in part

Support

My objections to the proposed development on site R121M are stated in my letters of the 6th of February 2009 and 8th December 2010, and publication of your Kendal Fact File in relation to R121M has only reinforced my belief that this site is wholly inappropriate for inclusion as an emerging option for development. The wholly negative assessment of suitability portrayed in the Fact File leads me to conclude that the only reasons for its inclusion is that you have a willing landowner and keen developer which may give you the housing numbers you seek, but adoption would surely be for the wrong reasons, against public wishes and outside current development boundaries.

OBJECTIONS FOR OPPOSING HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT/RETAIL ON SITE R121M ARE:-

a) FLOOD ZONE AREA OF CONCERN - Flooding issues will always be acute on this substantially sloping hillside land which over the last 20 years I have witnessed soaks up substantial rainfall like a sponge in its various hollows, limiting the eventual water levels reaching the lower levels of the Town. Development on the land could well lead to a recurrence of the flooding issues which affected these lower reaches in 1999 and necessitated the construction of the Stock Beck flood storage reservoir to provide reduced flood risk to some 170 houses. The risk is still there and must not be enhanced by allowing development on the R121M site.

b) VISUAL IMPACT - "New development should avoid or minimise negative impact upon landscape character" (your words) but little heed appears to have been taken of these words to the point of ignoring previous sound planning refusals on the land together with S.L.D.C.'s own past comments on the visual importance of R121M's local landscape and that "any development of higher hill sites further east of R56 (i.e. R121, R141 & R676) would be unduly prominent, the visual impact of these fields to be considered worthy of County Landscape Designation.

c) EXISTING DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES - Why are sites like R121M being considered when to do so would mean extending development boundaries when clearly sites exist within present development boundaries but are excluded - as is the case with site RN154?

d) FACILITIES / AMENITIES - Site R121M is not ideally placed to reach shops, schools and other services without reliance on motor vehicle and it is difficult to believe development would accommodate much needed low cost housing when the site requires significant infrastructure, flooding issues to be addressed and National Grid confirmation that the site is unfeasible for gas network (July 2010).

CONCLUSIONS:
The Kendal Fact File on site R121M in suggesting the site to be considered as an emerging option for development appears completely inconsistent in its 'weighting' of the considerable opposition/negative assessment as to suitability recorded, casting some doubt as to how meaningful this consultation process is perceived by the public. I trust that you will reconsider your proposal to include R121M within the land allocations process in the belief that there are numerous more suitable sites available for consideration before the outstanding landscape quality of R121M is lost for ever to future generations of Kendalians. If you continue to believe housing stock levels should be substantially increased and are prepared to widen development boundaries then I consider development of the more low lying southern sites are appropriate which could accommodate much needed park and ride facilities for the benefit of locals, tourists and daily commuting workforce accessing the town from the Kendal By-Pass route. This would mitigate the otherwise significant highway infrastructure improvement that would be required together with lower traffic generation required to support the level of housing and employment development proposed for Kendal in your core strategy. Alternatively existing sites within Development Town Boundaries including RN154, the abandoned site at Riverside Gardens (Burneside Road) and the many brownfield site opportunities available such as redevelopment of the Cock and Dolphin, Kendal Bowman, D.S.G. garage site (Kirkland), 'K' Village flats development etc. should be built into your proposed numbers equation before the unnecessary inclusion of site R121M.

Kendal

1 (1 of 6) Kendal Main Proposals

R121M R100 RN154

Oppose

Kendal

R121M