Local Development Framework Consultation

Ackenthwaite

R656# R138#, R471#, R98#, RN281#, RN305#, RN318#, RN323#, RN42# and RN43#

Oppose

I have already submitted objections (on 24 Jul 08) to land development in Ackenthwaite during the first round of consultation, those being that I oppose development on the grounds of:

a. Poor initial consultation;
b. Inability to improve necessary infrastructure (roads and pavements) on Ackenthwaite Road due to existing housing;
c. No credible plan in place by South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) to improve infrastructure (schools and recreation facilities) to support additional housing;
d. Retaining Ackenthwaite as a green belt site and avoiding a “patchwork” effect of urban development in rural areas;
e. Poor drainage on the site;
f. Inconsistency of the proposed building sites with the SLDC Core Strategy planning policy, and;
g. More suitable alternative sites existing in Kendal and Milnthorpe.

Therefore, I will not repeat all my arguments in detail here, as my original letter remains extant. I do however, express deep concern that despite my original objection and several others from the local community, it has taken proposals by only two parties (Mr and Mrs Conway and Mr S Gilyatt) to require this second consolation period for area R656#; this is despite the SLDC having discounted R656# after the first consolation period. As such, there appears to have been excessive weight given to the sponsors of the latest development proposals in this area for what is essentially, a minority interest and does not represent the majority view in the local community. Equally concerning is the fact that this second consultation period has been instigated to explore ‘alternative sites for consideration.’ As site R656# was in the original consultation document it is, by definition, not an alternative site and therefore, does not warrant a second consultation period. In short, this second consultation period for area R656# is undemocratic, unnecessary and a waste of SLDC resources and taxpayers money.

Equally other alternative sites around Ackenthwaite (R138#, R471#, R98#, RN281#, RN305#, RN318#, RN323#, RN42# and RN43#) only have one or two proposers, which again, makes this second consultation period appear redundant, excessive and does not reflect the majority local interest; in sum, again it is undemocratic.

Local residents were also lead to believe that the SLDC preferred sites (decided after the first round of consultation) west of St Antony’s Hill and east Milnthorpe (sites R624M and RN140), more than met the housing targets that SLDC had set. Why this situation has suddenly been reversed on the strength of an application by one or two parties, simply lacks credibility and transparency towards objective council planning.

While it is encouraging that Mr and Mrs Conway and Mr Giylatt have taken an active interest in the Land Allocations document (LAd), I do not believe their arguments stand up to scrutiny. The Conway’s objected to areas adjacent to Firs road (R462M and R151M) because it is too steep and subject to flooding. They also point out that the A6 is a busy road and could not take additional traffic. They suggest R656# as an alternative, but I would point out that this area too is steep and regularly floods, thus the rationale for suggesting R656# seems ill researched, hypocritical and lacks credibility. Similarly Ackenthwaite Road and Haverfalts Lane cannot be widened due to existing housing so existing road infrastructure could not support additional housing; traffic in Ackenthwaite would not just be busy, but simply dangerous to existing residents in comparison to the A6.

Mr Giylatt makes a compelling and extensive argument in opposing housing on site R151M as it would be developing a green field area that would affect Milnthorpe’s main face to the public. Mr Giylatt suggests that practically all areas surrounding Ackenthwaite should instead, be used for housing. This seems at odds with the thrust of his objection to protect green sites making his argument appear inconsistent. Additionally Mr Giylatt points out that traffic on the A6 is already at levels where more housing and associated vehicular activity in this particular area would be “unsafe and unwanted.” I would again contend that given the current road structure in Ackenthwaite, roads would have to be expanded to enable vehicle and footpath access to any new housing projects. Such a move would require demolishing houses in Ackenthwaite Road and Haverfalts Lane adjacent to Owlets Ash Fields. This seems counter productive when the object of the LAd is to build, not destroy, housing. Mr Gilyatt also suggests that Ackenthwaite is a “soulless cluster of predominantly low cost and/or affordable housing”. This is simply inaccurate as there are many dwellings in Ackenthwaite, which are some 200 years old and have as much right to heritage as any other residence in Milnthorpe. Ackenthwaite is separate from Milnthorpe and viewed by SLDC as an open rural area, thus doubling the size of its residential footprint over a short period of time is unsustainable, inappropriate and unnecessary. Ultimately Mr Giylatt’s argument concentrates on protection of existing green land and potential excessive traffic in an area close to residence. It does not accurately consider road infrastructure in Ackenthwaite, development of facilities in Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite, drainage, Ackenthwaite’s heritage, Ackenthwaite’s right to preservation and the inconsistency of his suggestions with SLDC core strategy of sustainable housing development. As such his suggestion to develop Ackenthwaite for housing is simply moribund, ill conceived and should not be supported by SLDC.

It is worth again highlighting that Ackenthwaite is not only a green field site, but one which supports local agriculture. It should be remembered that agriculture is a key economic employer in the local area which requires robust support from the council following the foot and mouth crisis in recent years and current economic downturn in farming; taking away viable agricultural land would be counter productive in this sense. Green sites around Ackenthwaite should only be used for irreversible housing development if the Ackenthwaite area is critically short of housing; the situation after the first consultation period suggests the housing problem is no longer critical after the identification of preferred sites elsewhere.

Should development be granted on R656# and associated sites around Ackenthwaite, subsequent housing would simply cause a patchwork of urban development in a green area when alternative brown sites or natural areas for expansion already exist in larger urban areas such as Kendal. Also, the inevitable increase in local traffic could not be sustained given the current road and pathway network. Given the local topography of housing in Ackenthewaite, network expansion would be impossible unless existing housing is demolished. Therefore, I strongly believe that the plans to build in north Ackenthwaite (R656#) and surrounding areas around the village, lack intellectual rigour and should not be supported.

Oppose

Given that the current Land Allocations document (LAd) has so far, been ongoing for eight years and has yet to come to a final conclusion that is fit for ministerial approval, (not to mention currently enduring a second and arguably unnecessary consultation period), this strongly suggests that shortening the LAd to by say five years, will simply cause a situation where local land planning will be under constant review. When considering current progress to date, it is conceivable to suggest that by the time this LAd has been completed under a shorter timeframe, another plan will have to be started. As such, local residents and planners will be in a perpetual state of uncertainty and turmoil with no realistic, clear or sustained housing policy. Instead an ever-changing policy with moving goal posts is likely to evolve which will lack coherence, focus and credibility for local industry, developers and residents. Therefore, I oppose a reduction in the time span of the LAd.

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

Without doubt, by empowering local communities, businesses and developers to bring forward and argue plans in an open manner via Core Strategies and local plans and initiatives, a more credible method of development planning is achieved than using a single Land Allocations document (LAd). If the local council provides an overarching development policy or strategy, local communities can use this as a “handrail” in assessing and considering local development. Local communities are best placed to decide on development decisions, as they logically understand local topography, mood and aspirations better than a centralised and distant coordination cell or LAd.

The current situation ultimately gives the council exclusive judgement in matters that are often extremely sensitive and important to local residents, which cannot be fully understood by a centralised planning team. By empowering local communities to make development decisions, residents will not only take ownership and responsibility for key strategic planning, but will increasingly take pride in their local area. This naturally leads to a stronger sense of community, greater social well-being, more proactive citizens in the political process and happier residents in South Lakeland. The current method of allocating land via a LAd does not offer these benefits and is ultimately disingenuous to local aspiration or thought.

Ackenthwaite

R656#

Oppose