4 responses from Mr Philip Livesey (Individual)
1. Mr Philip Livesey (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 18:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SE
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
MN34#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
My reasons for opposing this site as an extension to R97M are the same as those opposing R97M.This basically is that it would destroy the community of Natland Mill Beck Lane and with it the local amenity provided by this lane, being a little bit of country accessible to people living in the south east of Kendal
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
2. Mr Philip Livesey (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 19:03:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SE
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M40# & R140#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The reasons for opposing these two sites are the same,namely that they would destroy the route into Kendal by covering what is at present highly visible country landscape with highly visible buildings. The increased congestion on an already busy road, due to Asda, B & Q and the Hospital, would cause even more problems in this area.We are in danger of destroying the reason most of us love to live here and replacing it with a vast urban sprawl
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
3. Mr Philip Livesey (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 19:12:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SE
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E31#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The further encroachment of Kendal on land which is part of Natland Parish, and borders on the historic site of the Roman Fort and also the "Sattery" is to be resisted. If the canal is ever reopened this site would straddle a large part of it's arrival at the border of Kendal, is this really the sort of first impression we want to give to visitors?
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
4. Mr Philip Livesey (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 19:17:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kendal SW
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E4M#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This area should be left what it is at present, namely an attractive rural border to Kendal. Not destroyed for someone's selfish profit.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
