Local Development Framework Consultation

A590 Corridor and M6 Junction 36

E56#, E57#, E58#, E61#, E62#, EN18#, EN56# & M7#

Support

I support mixed development on land either side of A590 between Brettargh Holt Roundabout and Junction 36 of the M6. Note these are areas for consideration and parts of them may not be suitable for development.

This area is the best and most logical area for expansion of South Lakeland because of its ease of access to the M6 motorway. This will keep the amount of SLDC roads covered by delivery vehicles to a minimum.
It is acknowledged that one of the main causes of air pollution is large lorries. This area was praised as an ideal spot when the New Auction Mart was relocated.

The best sites, like the ones mentioned above, are those which are best for the health and well-being of the people in the district as a whole and this must be given top priority. Junction Congestion and Air Pollution must be evenly shared throughout the entire SLDC district.

Any developments to be screened from the road with trees in a similar manner to roads close to Brettargh Holt Roundabout.

When all Brownfield land has been used then Greenfields (not Green Gaps because they have higher protection) will have to be used for any extra housing/employment in the future and people will have to accept this. In the recent SLDC LA consultation constituents (who vote in the councillors) have given a resounding NO (oppose) to building close to existing settlements.

Compulsory purchase must not be excluded when choosing the best sites. Infrastructure costs will apply no matter where the development is built but keeping development close to a dual carriageway should not make them unreasonable.

While SLDC are breaking EU law on Air Quality developers have no chance in their appeal against their refused planning applications. This must always be the case for Kendal until SLDC obey this law on Air Quality and also meet SLDC “Amber” requirements for Junction Congestion (i.e. No “Red” junctions).

Money would be better spent on providing infrastructure to develop the areas mentioned above rather than knocking down buildings in Kendal to fix the Junction Congestion problem. This will not be accepted by the constituents anyway. Kendal does need "change" but not expansion until existing problems have been fixed.

A good idea is one proposed by Kendal Town Council and that is to have a “Hub & Spoke” system rather than the currently proposed “Doughnut” system (see KTC report “Sustainable Development for Kendal”). This area would make an ideal “satellite” on a Kendal “spoke”.

There is a document which can be obtained from site -http://www.cumbriaobservatory.org.uk/Population/populationforecasts.asp and that is link:
http://www.cumbriaobservatory.org.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/536/673/39898142941.xls
If you look at the South Lakeland worksheet it shows the population peaking at 104,850 in 2005 and projected to decrease to 100,800 in 2025. So there is no need to plan housing for a rising population, just current needs without encouraging inward migration.

If this amount of expansion proposed for South Lakeland in the LA DPD is required (and I doubt this, see KTC report) then the Government must provide the money for compulsory purchase, infrastructure and any similar costs. They must provide the necessary funding for houses & employment before spending money on foreign wars and aid. One’s own citizens come before any other responsibilities. That's what most other countries do, we should do the same.

Support

It is obvious from the SLDC Consultation that the vast majority of constituents do not want development in their neighbourhood, in particular in Kendal. The elected representatives must follow the wishes of the people and not their own agenda.

It would cause less upset if the LA DPD was updated every 5 years, 5 years in advance of the build starting e.g. for build up to 2020 initial LA DPD now; for build 2021-2025 update LA DPD in 2016; for build 2026 – 2030 update LA DPD in 2021 and so on. When Core Strategy targets are not met (they are at the moment aspirational) then little land will need to be added to the LA DPD during an update. Planning any further into the future than this is a waste of time, no one knows what will happen and it only upsets more people than is necessary.

Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document

Land should be allocated in the LA DPD every 5 years in line with statement in section 2 above. This is the only way to ensure all settlements take their fair share of traffic and air pollution. This is how the sites should be allocated to even up the health and well-being of local people.

Burneside

ON46# & ON53#

Oppose

Unsafe access onto existing roads.

No view

No view

Burneside

RN304#

Oppose

For the same reasons given for the previous consultation for site R489 (which RN304# is part of).
These are sewage problems (raw sewage on roads during/after heavy rain); this field floods after heavy rain; The extra traffic through Burneside would increase the danger to pedestrians, in particuler children. Also add to the already unacceptable junction congestion in Kendal which is not currently meeting EU law.

No view

No view