Local Development Framework Consultation

Holme

9 Holme

R674HM

Oppose

Development on the scale proposed cannot be justified in the short term, given the significant scale of recent development on Pear Tree. Developmnet of this site, even in part, would create an undesirable precedent for the development of lands to the south (R674h)which would contribute to a substantial expansion of Holme not considered desirable during the timescale of the LDF.

Holme

9 Holme

R675M

Support in part

Development on the scale proposed cannot be justified in the short term, given the significant scale of recent development on Pear Tree. Development of this site requires substantial development if access constraints are to be overcome. Additional substantial traffic movements via Station Rd and Duke Street will be detrimental to the character and quality of the village. However, there is potential for limited housing SPECIFICALLY for low-cost, shared equity and rented accommodation in close proximity to village services.

I am concerned that this site, once allocated, would be purchased by a developer to provide a land bank for developmnent over the plan period, resulting in the repeat of Pear Tree, and loss of a valuable open space east of the linear development on Station Road. The role of Holme is not as an expanded settlement making up the numbers within the overall LDF allocation. Such development is more appropriate within settlements which can offer a full range of public and community services (public transport, medical services; community facilities) This is also key to reducing carbon emmissions, and recognises the considerable cost of living in rural areas and having to travel by car to main towns.

Yes - there a 4 key points - the Village Hall ( in urgent need of funds for its renovation), the new sports area/club ( unlikely to provide a full range of facilities without substantial grant-aided funding), the pub ( a key social facility) and the Holme Mills club. The present disused Methodist Chapel on north Rd alsohas potenital though its future use may be determined before the adoption of the LDF.

Holme

9 Holme

Land at N end of North Rd on East side abutting Chestnut Close and bounded by road and canal

Support

An opportunity for a small scale development specifically to meet local needs ( rented/ housing association), with exisiting access in space.

Would also round-off the settlement to the north without prejudicing the amenity of adjacent properties.

Holme

9 Holme

R653M

Support

The intent here is clear and welcome. In view of the scale of development on Pear Tree Park, provision of specific P.O.S is important, also providing a clear break betweem Pear tree Park and proposed allocation R653M. I support this proposal, with access to Milnthorpe Road ( NOT via Mayfield). It wuld also confirm the NW limit of Holmes development.

Holme

9 Holme

Support in part

Provision of sites for employment are an important aspect of LDF proposals. However, I am hesitant to encourage substantial new provision outside of a roads of appropriate grade ( generally A roads). Commercial vehicle access is restricted in Holme and traffic congestion and access are issues for Holme Mills where I do NOT support the proposal ( Map 27 : RN151M). My firm preference is for the development of the Clawthorpe Hall site, including the proposed extension ( Map 7 - MN14M). Regretably, my same concerns apply to E18M as they do to M35M. This latter site, not withstanding its proximity to the rail line, and the 11kv power line, offer more potential to residential use ( with access to Milnthorpe Road) than it ever does for employment. It is also easier to develop in relation to the sewerage plant.

Burton in Kendal

7 Burton in Kendal (with Clawthorpe)

Support in part

Support in part

Support in part

General
Burton has a strong physical identity, retaining much of its historical character, despite developments over the last 30 years. The LDF proposal confirms the desire to retain and enhance this. Further large scale development on visually prominent sites should not be considered, nor should allocations which remove valuable open corridors.

Residential
R76 - opposed - loss of open character into village
R681M - opposed - viually prominent and issues relating to capacity of access roads, traffic congesiton to A6070 and capacity of storm water sewers
RN226 - support - particularly to provide much needed additional 'local needs' housing
RN145 - opposed - undesirable extension into park land which is part of the character and setting of the village.

Not proposed but should be considered for inclusion
Part MN26 and EN14M - there would seem to be considerable potential for the use of the southern part of MN26 though this might be incompatible with the employment use proposed. My strong preference is for the concentration of 'employment' use at Clawthorpe ( MN14M), and I would support the reallocation of EN14M for residential use, incorporating conversion of the existing farm buildings in a way that has been so succesful in other villages e.g Lindale. As ever, the development should be strictly for local needs, with an appropriate proportion being social housing for rent/equity share. The location has good public transport links to Carnforth, and, with care, pedestrian links could be developed through to Burton village, possibly easing the congestion caused by on-stret parking to Main Street ( though new parking provison) .

EMPLOYMENT
RN151M - opposed - access to the site is severly constrained with congestion issues to Station Road and Holme village centre.

Crooklands

20 Crooklands

RN16M

Oppose

I believe there is far more potential for the extension of existing units at Moss End Farm, perhaps in association with the road improvements and development of the new auction mart. As such, I am opposed to proposal RN16M on grounds of addtional traffic generation and the problems associated with the canal bridge crossing on the main Crooklands to Milnthorpe road.