Local Development Framework Consultation

Cartmel

ON26, including RN15 and R689

Oppose

Strongly oppose! The development is disproportionate to the size of the existing village, even in terms of the residential proposal alone. R689 would be visually intrusive, let alone the rest of ON26 - it is conspicuous from all major viewpoints and footpaths down into the valley from both west and east and along the main road into the village itself (Aynsome Road). The local infrastructure could not accommodate this number of extra residents. The loss of prime agricultural land adjacent to its farm (Pitt Farm) would make it impossible for the farm to conduct its current dairy business effectively. This loss of farm land so close to the village would also fundamentally alter the village/countryside interface.
The rest of the proposal is a red herring and does the village no favours at all. The wish to move leisure facilities to this new location is almost certainly to free up the use of the racecourse for even greater commercial exploitation than at present (current use of the racecourse is about as much as the local community can bear). As for the coach park, coaches are not generally the major traffic issue in the village and in any case they will still want to unload (often elderly) passengers within the village before parking up here. If Holker are genuine in their desire to meet local affordable housing needs, they could offer smaller parcels of land locally for the benefit of the community rather than arguing they must be bound by the open market principle.

Support

Given all the current uncertainties of the economic climate and national planning context, the shorter timescale makes sense. However, I see no reason why SLDC wishes to move ahead with finalising its LDF ahead of many other local authorities up and down the country: surely the uncertainties referred to, along with the scrapping of the spatial strategy and urgency of revisiting local housing needs figures, offer a strong argument for SLDC's dragging its feet for as long as it can.

Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives

I am a bit concerned that inertia may naturally inhibit development proposals emerging for local hamlets, etc so that all of the onus for development will fall on the larger villages like Cartmel and Allithwaite. However, on balance I support Option B because it does allow for community proposals which can focus on affordable housing solutions rather than the wasteful open market approach.

Cartmel

RN14

Support in part

In principle agreement but it depends whether the relocated stables would be on a much larger scale, in which case the overall environmental impact would be negative. (See ON54 comments). The only other concern about RN14 is that I believe there may be some historically significant remains on this site (part of old monastic wall?), which would obviously need investigating and conserving.

Cartmel

ON54/55

Support in part

This seems a reasonable relocation for the stables but obviously on a far larger scale than the present ones. I would not expect anywhere near this amount of land to be utilised for this purpose - and any other purpose I would view as inappropriate for this part of the village, e.g. business new build or residential development.

Cartmel

RN35

Support

Strictly this clearly constitutes a small settlement separate from Cartmel. However, it represents quite a neat infill solution which would not have the same detrimental impact as infill closer into the village would do.

Cartmel

R690

Support

Clearly this would depend on a view of the future of the holiday park business there. However, it seems a suitable site in its proximity to the village and not being too conspicuous.

Cartmel

R691

Oppose

The ground probably rises rather too high for this site to be sufficiently inconspicuous.

Cartmel

RN306

Support

I understand some excavation might be needed to enable houses to be built along the roadside. However, despite its being ribbon development and technically an infill between Cartmel and the 'hamlet' of Headless Cross (depending on how Headless Cross is defined), I do not feel it would be as detrimental to the locality as many other locations proposed.

Cartmel

RN307

Oppose

Ground too elevated to be sufficiently unobtrusive.

Cartmel

RN147

Support

Though it does slightly extend the boundary of Headless Cross to the south, this can be seen as a more discreet solution than some other proposed locations in the area.

Cartmel

RN148

Support

Though the ground rises somewhat south of the existing settlement boundary, this seems a reasonable compromise as a modest contribution to required local development.

Cartmel

RN171

Support

Does not significantly intrude into the neighbouring countryside and the lie of the land ensures any development would not be too conspicuous.

Cartmel

RN308

Support

A sensible use of one of the less aesthetic corners of the village. It would not bar the important view of the priory from the south and it would also serve to screen the less than attractive secondary school from views out from the Causeway and Clogger Beck.

Cark & Holker

RN287

Support

A sensible answer to the need for affordable housing for employees of the Holker estate (and other local businesses). Holker's own developers would ensure a style of housing in keeping with the existing Holker village style.

Cark & Holker

RN309

Support

See comments relating to RN287

Cartmel

ON26#

Cartmel

Cartmel

ON26#