Local Development Framework Consultation

Kendal North East

R124

Oppose

I write with regard to the proposal to reconsider fields to the rear of Ullswater Road for residential development land, identified as R124, even though this parcel of land was removed as a potential site in the last round of consultations.
My areas of concern are with flooding, access, location, air quality and limited local amenities.
Past flooding in this area to exising houses has potentially been alleviated with the Stock Beck Flood Alleviation scheme; however I understand that issues remain outstanding relating to the success of this scheme, therefore firstly, until its success is proven with the intended adoption by the Environment Agency under no circumstances should additional development even be considered in this area. Any increase in flow to this system, which was not designed for in the alleviation scheme, could have devastating consequences and liabilities for the Council. Does the capacity of the storage reservoir meet its design criteria? I believe not, raising considerable concerns over any increase in additional loadings. Secondly, I understand that discharge from the recent development at Rydal Road (Jenkin Crag) currently discharges into the Stock Beck system, what is the likely impact of this flow if it is not diverted away from this system, as was intended in the planning decision for that site? The attenuation tanks at the Jenkin Crag development are regularly surcharged during rainfall with the property close to flooding on several occasions. Officers from Environmental Health have witnessed firsthand the impact here. Regarding the proposed fields R124, this area lies at the foot of a relatively steep embankment, and currently acts as a storage area in its own right with drainage installed during the Stock Beck scheme to alleviate flooding to properties in this area. What would be the impact if this storage was removed, perhaps flooding to both existing and proposed development. Considerable flow both above and below the surface of these and higher fields regularly flows during rainfall, directly onto the proposed land from unidentified springs and culverted watercourses.

Access roads to properties in this area of town are already congested, recent additional development on Rydal Road, the imminent development of 94 properties at Northeast Sandylands, and the Auction Mart site on Sandylands Road. Any additional development would add to this problem. The exits onto Appleby Road, Wildman Street and Sedbergh Road are already overly congested, with no available space for improvement. Has any impact on air quality from additional vehicles/congestion been considered? bearing in mind the addition of a new supermarket at this end of town. Also the proposed access roads off Peat Lane, Whitbarrow Close and Grisedale Avenue onto any development to the rear of Ullswater Road are too narrow for any additional traffic.
Area R124 is clearly shown to be outside the development boundary, so having removed it once it would be difficult for the local planning authority to justify a reversal of its previous decision and vehemntly be contested by those potentially affected.
Regarding the school, this is already at capacity, where are all the additional school children from the aforementioned developments going to go. Either an extension of the school is required, prior to granting any development, or will parents be required to add to the access problems by ferrying children to other schools in the area? I presume any development in this area would predominantly be low cost affordable housing, a likely source of more children.
I trust you will consider and act with regard to the points raised.

Yours faithfully

S Senior

No view

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

Option A as Option B would be driven by developers who, although may meet planning constraints of low cost housing, are predominantly driven by profit, with little consideration for those affected by development.