Local Development Framework Consultation

Kendal NW

RN299

Oppose

I have already expressed my concerns regarding the two previous proposed area of development in this area, namely E65 and R169M to which RN298 is now a further proposed extension. All my earlier comments apply to this proposed extension and indeed, given the new extent of this proposal, are even more relevant. I trust that my earlier comments will be taken into account with respect to this latest proposal.

Not withstanding the accepted need for affordable new homes in rural areas, to which I readily subscribe, there can be little merit in trying to achieve this objective, by destroying the very environment which makes the benefits of living in these areas so desirable.

The extensive nature of what is now being proposed, appears to be driven more by a need to satisfy the commercial aspirations of land owners and external developers, rather than catering specifically and sympathetically for the housing needs of the local population.

The intrusion of development into this green space and the prolification of urban sprawl that it will create, can only significantly damage the visual amenity that exists and which is valued by all who know and love this part of Kendal and South Lakeland.

It is clear from the propals that extensive infrastucture works will be required to facilitate the highway engineering requirements of the development. These alone will, in themselves, present significant disruption, alteration and intrusion into the the landscape of the area. The very nature of such extensive engineering works indicates the volume of traffic that the development will create. Given the already significant delays and congestion into Kendal from the North, at peak periods, this will adversely affect not only the local population, but all those who need to access Kendal from this direction, tourists and residents alike.

Given the topography of the area, it would be difficult to adequately screen the original proposals from a visual aspect from Windermere Road. The new proposal would be impossible to screen. The detriment to the visual amenity in this locality cannot be overstated.

The additional impermeable surfacing that will result, if this proposal is permitted, will significantly increase the speed of surface water run-off into the local steams, all of which ultimately outfall into the River Kent in Burneside. In times of storm, this will inevitably exacerbate the serious problems experienced by local residents in that area last year. The geology and complex drainage regime that exists, both in the fields concerned and in the hillside above, will be affected by any development, but particulary so by the scale of what is being proposed. Any attenuation measures to reduce the problem of increased flooding downstream would be expensive, extensive and could not be relied upon to entirely eliminate this problem.

The proposal development straddles an existing footpath and whilst this could perhaps be re-routed, I would ask that its presence and the significance of this, is taken into account, in reaching any decision on the proposal.

The very nature of South Lakeland that makes it so attractive to residents and visitors and indeed upon which the valuable tourism industry depends, can only be adversely affected if wholesale developments of the type being proposed are permitted. Surely, it must be much more preferable to incorporate new housing in discrete developments, that fit snugly and sympathetically into the landscape and which serve to compliment, rather than destroy the environment.

If the objective of the Council is to facilitate affordable housing, as set out in the Core Planning Proposal, then this particular site will, in my opinion, prove to be expensive in providing all the necessary infrastucture required. The topography, the provision of new services, highway engineering, environmental measures, planting and screening that will be required, will all add to the cost of developing the site, none of which is compatible with providing affordable homes.

My own home at Lane Foot Farm will potentially be adversely affected from an amenity aspect, by any development that is allowed in this area. In the past, my home has been the subject of restrictions imposed by the National Trust with regard to a submitted planning application. It would be perverse in the extreme, if an adjacent development of the type now proposed was permitted, given the planning restrictions applied to minor improvements, to which Lane Foot Farm residents have been subjected in the past.

A beautiful environment, such as the one at Lane Foot Farm, once disfigured by inappropriate development, cannot ever be replaced and will be lost to present and future generations for ever.

With regard to the concept of "sustainable development", I believe that this proposal fails on two of the three criteria, namely environmental and economics. Indeed, given that it is unlikely that the development will produce many affordable homes, it is likely to fail on social grounds as well.

It is clear that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of the Core Development Plan in many significant areas. It will devastate a large portion of intrinsic high quality natural environment, it will not provide housing where the greatest need has been identified, ie to the Eastern areas of Kendal; it does nothing to improve accessibility; it will not provide "a balanced community"; it does not intend to use existing buildings or infrastucture; it is unlikely to produce affordable housing; it will do nothing to promote tourism or economic benefit.

I strongly request that this proposal is rejected.


Ivan M Leigh
4, Lane Foot Farm
Windermere Road
Kendal.

No view

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 believe that development, paticularly in sensitive areas of the environment, should only be sanctioned if they fully satify the needs of the local community and only after full consultation with that community. It should always take into account the stated aims of the relevant Core Strategy. Sustainable development, in my opinion, can only be provided by integrating new development sympathetically into the existing environment in a way that compliments and improves the existing facilities. This can only be done in an area like Kendal, by small scale developments incorporated into existing settlements in such a way that they do not adversely affect, or over stress the existing infrastructure. Sensitively designed, small scale developments that fit pleasingly and naturally into the existing environment can provide attractive, long term sustainability that serves the needs of the community. Large scale intrusive developments in rural areas seldom do this.