Local Development Framework Consultation

Kirkby Lonsdale

RN317 (Cedar House) RN334 (Terret Dene) R640

Support

All these sites are within the built environment of Kirkby Lonsdale. They have good accesss and an established infrastructure is available. As construction sites they are each capable of receiving a relateively high density of development and avoiding neighbour objections.

These sites are logical infil locations and provide oportunities for imaginative economic and varied design solutions to meet different needs. At the same time there are oportunities to add to the qualities of the built environment in Kirkby Lonsdale.

Support

Having lived in Kirkby Lonsdale and seen the changing needs over 40 years, I cannot imagine that the changes and needs will be any less in the next 17 years and require reviewing.

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 am assuming that this will provide for a greater flexibility and for individual cases to be reviewed

Kirkby Lonsdale

R146

Oppose

Site R146 should be rejected on the grounds of access, both in terms of traffic movements within Kirkby Lonsdale and the physical characteristics of the site which is set high above Fairbank behind a characterful stone retaining wall and sheltered by mature trees, both of which are valuable features. Accessing this site could not be done without significant environmental damage.

There would be major environmental impact factors which would have to be addressed and consideration given to views of the site from the wider valley where it could be seen as skyline development.

Over-riding all these aspects, however is the illogical introduction of further traffic and its management into an already congested Kirkby Lonsdale. Any major extension for housing to Kirkby Lonsdale should be to the N W, having links to Kendal Rd or an improved Harling Bank, avoiding the necessity to circulate through the town.

Support

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

Kirkby Lonsdale

RN 331 RN292 RN205

Oppose

These sites should not be considered as suitable because they represent an undesirable extension of the town across the A65. Though a suitable vehicular approach could be achieved from the A65 roundabout the proximity of the town would almost certainly encourage pedestrians to be crossing a very dangerous road. A clear example can be witnessed at the Town End crossing to Whittington road.

To now accept the A65 as a route originally formed to by-pass, to now pass through the market town by such a large expansion of Kirkby Lonsdale, would be stacking up problems for the longer term. The major growth of KL's housing should be to the NW as I have explained elsewhere

Support

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

To allow for flexibility and common sence to be applied

Kirkby Lonsdale

RN238

Support

Site RN238 would seem to be a logical piece of rounding off on what is otherwise unused and waste land. I do believe that in past years it has been used as a tipping site and construction may not be totally straight forward.
The site is in close proximity to all mains services, and in my view should be included

Support

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

Individual sites such as this one should be dealt with on this basis.

Kirkby Lonsdale

RN 335

Support

Site RN335 is somewhat different from the other sites being promoted in so far as it is on the edge of the hamlet and would involve the demolition of unattractive agricultural builings which are currently used for storage purposes.

I understand an application currently provides for improved pedestrian access along the approach lane, which would be of benefit to High Biggins itself.

On balance I believe that this site should be included on the grounds of general improvement and as appropriate "rounding off" at this end of the hamlet

Support

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 see this site as being typical of what is best dealt with under option "B"