4 responses from Mr Richard. Evans (Individual)
1. Mr Richard. Evans (Individual) : 11 Mar 2011 10:17:00
Settlement
Kendal
Map Number
1 (5 of 6) Kendal South East
Site reference number (e.g. R62) - If your comment is about a specific site you must indicate the correct site reference.
R121M
Other designation - if you want to comment on something that doesn't have a site reference e.g., development boundary, town centre boundary, green gap, please select it here
Development Boundary
Housing
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
1. The task of the Development Strategy is to find brownfield sites where possible. However these are few in Kendal. Failing that, greenfield sites within the Town Development Area are acceptable. However here you have opted for green fields outside the Development Area Boundary.
2. R121M is not in Kendal, but in New Hutton Parish. R141 is also in New Hutton. Two thirds of R56 are also in New Hutton. The only part of the proposal within Kendal Development Boundary is one third of R56 which amounts to about half a Hectare.
3. There are many greenfield sites which lie within the Development Boundary. This proposal does not serve your purpose. All is does in extend the Urban Area into the surrounding Rural Parish of New Hutton. I object to this proposal.
2. Mr Richard. Evans (Individual) : 12 Mar 2011 09:19:00
Settlement
Kendal
Map Number
1 (5 of 6) Kendal South East
Site reference number (e.g. R62) - If your comment is about a specific site you must indicate the correct site reference.
R121M
Other designation - if you want to comment on something that doesn't have a site reference e.g., development boundary, town centre boundary, green gap, please select it here
Development Boundary
Housing
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
4. Further to my earlier response,I note that the land is question is outside the Development Area but within the Parish of Kendal. Do we really want the whole of Kendal Parish to be subsumed into the Town Development and covered with houses? Of course not. Build if you must within the Development Area but don't cover the whole Parish with bricks and tarmac.
3. Mr Richard. Evans (Individual) : 17 Mar 2011 16:14:00
Settlement
Kendal
Map Number
1 (5 of 6) Kendal South East
Site reference number (e.g. R62) - If your comment is about a specific site you must indicate the correct site reference.
R121M
If none of the above then please state here what your comment is about
Mitigation of unwelcome effects
Housing
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
5. These proposals are unpopular because of their implications for drainage, access, biodiversity and landscape. It is possible to mitigate for the first three but impossible for the last.
6. You could eventually eliminate the possibility of flooding. that would require massive excavations, disruption to traffic and gardens and would cost a huge sum over an above the cost of building on a less vulnerable site. Let us say about £500,000.
7. You could eventually minimise access and congestion by covering ever larger areas with tarmacadam. Perhaps another half million?
8. The only way you could minimise damage to biodiversity would be to plant trees and restrict access, but this site is too small for that.
9. However it is impossible to mitigate against damage to landscape. R121M and adjacent fields are visible from all over Town. Millions on the railway line see Kendal through the green gap. Visitors at Castle Green Hotel see the green space. People on A684 from Junction 37 see the green fields. Residents on Queens Road see the countryside approach the town at R121M. Visitors on the Windermere Road, walkers on Scout Scar, tourists on Kendal Castle, all may percieve a patch of green.
10. Would you have these people gain a different view of Kendal? Would you have them see grey instead of green?
4. Mr Richard. Evans (Individual) : 7 Apr 2011 08:58:00
Settlement
Kendal
Map Number
1 (5 of 6) Kendal South East
Site reference number (e.g. R62) - If your comment is about a specific site you must indicate the correct site reference.
R121M
Other designation - if you want to comment on something that doesn't have a site reference e.g., development boundary, town centre boundary, green gap, please select it here
Green Gap
Housing
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
Kendal Town Council have now established a working group to study the landscape implications of the development proposals. This group has classified each of the sites according to capacity and landscape value, and has concluded that R121M has low capacity and high value. The balance between housing need and landscape quality is therefore heavily weighed against development of R121M. The benefit of using the site is minimal compared to the permanent disfigurement of the landscape of Kendal. I assume that SLDC will respect this opinion from knowledgeable people and remove the site R121M from the development proposals.
