Local Development Framework Consultation

Kirkby Lonsdale

RN205#

Oppose

It is disappointing that the site South of the A65 at Kirkby Lonsdale RN311# and especially the QES Rugby Pitch RN205# have been included in the list of sites considered as part of the additional Land Allocation Consultation Summer 2011.

These comments relate specifically to the Rugby pitch RN205# although changes to planning rules resulting from the introduction of the Localism bill presents a new risk that any allocation of other sites South of the A65 including RN311# will provide developers with a precedent to extend future development closer to Low Biggins.

I oppose any development of the QES Rugby Pitch RN205# due to the reasons listed below and request that the site RN205# be defined as a Green Gap to protect it from the potential expansion of new developments which are currently taking place just North of the A65 and the spread of any potential development on site RN311# if it were to be allocated for development.

Any development of the Rugby Pitch RN205# would have a devastating impact on our home, would risk destroying the character of the hamlet and go against SLDCs own Strategic Vision 2005 which states “Towns and villages will have been kept distinct from one another by green gaps that keep individual settlements distinct and protect their individual character”

The Land Allocations document (Kirkby Lonsdale Fact File R679KL / RN205 page19) recognised the strong local opposition to development of the site including Kirkby Lonsdale Town Council. Main concerns relate to the severance effect of developing South of the A65, adverse impact on the character of the area clearly visible from the A65, loss of school playing field and the presence of the Haweswater aqueduct bisecting the Rugby Pitch preventing any development for a distance of 10.5m either side.

Responses to the Core Strategy Preferred options published on the SLDC website relating to what was then Alternative option 3 South Kirkby Lonsdale, showed a overwhelming majority of respondents opposing the option highlighting several significant factors each of which should be sufficient to justify the removal the pitch RN205# from what was then area R679 irrespective of the fact that it is a frequently used sports facility. The main factors listed below are discussed in more detail later in this response.

1. The A65 forms a strong boundary to Kirkby Lonsdale any development on the South side would cause severance and increase the number of pedestrians crossing an arterial route to the Lake District.

2. The Thirlmere aquaduct runs diagonally across the QES pitch limiting any development.

3. Housing proposed in the LDF would be inappropriate for Low Biggins in terms of scale, character, and context

4. Fields to the South of the A65 provide a green gap distinguishing the hamlet of Low Biggins from Kirkby Lonsdale

5. The area South of the A65 is clearly visible to traffic, houses adjacent to the QES rugby pitch are in an area of special advertising control. The localised ridge referred to in the LDF is not large enough to screen any development in the area

6. Any development on the QES rugby pitch would overlook existing properties to the West in Low Biggins.

7. The preferred Option for development to the North and West of Kirkby Lonsdale scored significantly higher in the Area Strategy.
We purchased Springfield Lodge in July 2007 after returning to the area in 2003 and spent four years in rented accommodation while we searched for the ideal property to convert into a family home, raise our family and eventually retire. We received planning permission for extending Springfield Lodge in January 2008, building work commenced in May 2008 and is now approaching completion.

We have invested our life’s savings into the improvements, any development on the QES pitch would have a devastating impact on the peaceful enjoyment of our property, eliminating the views of open countryside to the rear and resulting in a loss of privacy due to overlooking. The LDF consultation process is already having a detrimental effect on the enjoyment of our home.

1. The A65 forms a strong boundary between Kirkby Lonsdale and the open fields and small hamlets including Low Biggins which characterise the area. The A65 is an arterial route to the Lake district, any new development South of the A65 would result in a significant increase in the number of pedestrians needing to cross the A65 to access schools and facilities in Kirkby Lonsdale and increase the amount of traffic on the A65 for existing residents of Low Biggins crossing the A65.
The Core Strategy proposes that Kendal become a Principal Service Centre providing employment to many residents of the proposed developments in the Key Service Centre of Kirkby Lonsdale. Developing the area South of the A65 would increase the amount of traffic along the A65 adjacent to the school increasing the risk to children crossing from Low and High Biggins during rush hour periods. Any development South of the A65 would have the effect of drawing the road towards the heart of Kirkby rather than its current effective role as a bypass to the town.
At the Kirkby Lonsdale Civic Society public meeting referred to earlier, one speaker commented that Long Preston and Hellifield were examples of current settlements where development had been allowed to take place on either side of the A65. In both these cases the development occurred before the A65 became a trunk road and local residents in both Long Preston and Hellifield have been campaigning for years to secure a bypass that will relieve the communities from noise, air pollution, vibration and severance effects of the A65.

2. The Thirlmere Aquaduct runs across the fields to the South of the A65 directly behind the houses to the East of Low Biggins and diagonally across the centre of the QES pitch. Any development in this area would be severely limited by constraints associated with the aquaduct and risk damaging this vital infrastructure which has been providing water to Manchester since 1894. Access hatches to the four large pipes which make up the aquaduct are visible in the corner of the QES field to the North of the A65 opposite the road leading to Low Biggins and just behind the top of the ridge to the South of the A65 where there is a large gap in the trees as the aquaduct passes through the top of the ridge.

The four pipes have a total width of 11 meters; United Utilities advised that there would also be a minimum 5 meter easement either side of the aquaduct producing a protected strip 21 meters wide along the length of the aquaduct. Building within the easement of the aquaduct is prohibited and the provision of services to any development would be made more complex and expensive by the presence of the aquaduct. The aquaduct is mentioned in the deeds of several properties on the East side of Low Biggins where limitations associated with the aquaduct are defined and provision made for the access of equipment to perform maintenance and repairs. There is also a public footpath which runs through the centre of the pitch.

3. Strategic objective 4 states that new development will need to be appropriate in terms of design, scale, character and context and be sensitive to the surrounding environment (natural and built). Housing proposed in the LDF has a density of around 44 dwellings per hectare or 17 dwellings per acre which would be inappropriate for Low Biggins in terms of scale, character, and context. A planning application made in 2000 (No.5002660) by the previous owners of Springfield lodge to build two houses on the site which is adjacent to the QES pitch was rejected as SLDC considered that the development would be prominently sited and detract from the character of the locality which is within countryside designated as Landscape of County importance. Any larger development in immediate vicinity would inevitably have a much larger detrimental impact to the character of the area than that previously rejected by SLDC and would clearly breach Strategic objective 4.

4. The principal strategic vision states that in 2025 “Towns and villages will have been kept distinct from one another by protecting green gaps that keep individual settlements distinct and protect their individual character” the fields to the South of the A65 provide a green gap distinguishing the hamlet of Low Biggins from Kirkby Lonsdale.

5. The area South of the A65 is clearly visible to traffic, houses adjacent to the QES rugby pitch are in an area of special advertising control. The localised ridge referred to in the LDF is not large enough to screen any development in the area. The rugby posts which are located towards the middle of the field and are 6.4m high, slightly less than a typical house yet they clearly visible to traffic from the East, North, and West of the playing field. The QES pitch was created using infill over uneven countryside, towards the North East corner of the pitch this infill is visible to a depth of approximately 2 meters. Any development on the pitch would require special foundations to reach through the infill adding to the cost of building and increasing the risk of future subsidence.

6. The QES pitch is elevated by approximately 1.5 meters in relation to Springfield Lodge so any development on the QES pitch would overlook our property with much of the inside of the lounge and master bedroom being clearly visible, especially at night through the large glazed areas which were originally intended to take advantage of the views to the rear.

7. The preferred Option for development to the North and West of Kirkby Lonsdale scored significantly higher in the Area Strategy. The preferred option has the potential to draw together many of the key objectives of the core strategy with the potential for future growth making it clearly more attractive than any of the alternative options considered including limited development South of the A65. The specific site and design of any new housing in the preferred area should attempt to minimise the impact on existing residents in the adjacent area, SLDC should consider reducing in the number of houses allocated to Kirkby in light of the current down turn in the housing market. Comments supporting the preferred option in part were submitted during the LDF consultation.

To date the LDF consultation period has been rife with rumours and speculation over which sites in Kirkby Lonsdale would be identified for future development. We suspect that PR representatives for local developers have been busy working behind the scenes trying to influence the opinions of key decision makers and the general public in an attempt to put the South Kirkby Lonsdale option back in contention with the preferred option of West Kirkby Lonsdale identified in the LDF. We request that the SLDC planners hold true to their original feelings that the A65 forms a strong boundary to the town which must not be breached.

The site RN205# (ON9) part of R679KL was suggested as a green gap through the Allocations of Land Discussion Paper. Although the site was not put forward as a preferred option for residential use its designation as a green gap was rejected as it was considered that the A65 and QES school grounds to the North already provide a strong measure of protection against coalescence between Kirkby Lonsdale and the small linear Hamlet of Low Biggins. It was also noted that should the issue of development South of the A65 be raised again then it would be appropriate to reconsider the green gap issue in relation to the QES pitch site RN205#(ON9).

The QES Pitch RN205#(ON9) should be reconsidered for green gap status due to the fact that site MN24, part of the school grounds North of the A65 is one of three sites proposed for development by QES and that Russell Armour are currently constructing around 50 new houses on an adjacent site R638 which was formally the Cedar House school playing fields. The green field sites north of the A65 which help differentiate Kirkby Lonsdale from Low Biggins and help give the area its unique character are disappearing fast.

There have also been rumours that a local developer with close contacts to a local estate and land agents has targeted the QES pitch RN205#(ON9) for possible development. The introduction of the new localism bill may provide them with the opportunity to manipulate public opinion and bypass the recommendations of the SLDC consultation and Strategic Policy. The legislation is likely to result in planning by numbers with new developments pushed into less densely populated areas such as Low Biggins. Designating the pitch as a green gap site now will protect the field against potential expansion of any development on the adjacent site RN311#, should it be allocated, help protect our own and adjacent properties in Low Biggins against the devastating impact of any development of the rugby pitch and help uphold the planning strategy developed by SLDC which protects the unique character of the area.

Oppose

Reducing the timescale will possibly result in hasty decisions and reduced consultation with local people affected by any development.

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

There need to be some formal process of enforcing core planning policy aimed at protecting the character of rural areas. Personally I think it absurd that the council is preventing the conversion of disused barns into homes yet proposing to hand over swathes of green field sites to developers who will make massive profits and be required to allocate less than 30% of the houses they build as affordable housing.

The shortage of affordable housing for local residents in rural areas is fuelled by the nations obsession for second homes. The government should penalise rather than reward second home ownership through the tax system and local councils in rural areas should be empowered to act at a local level to discourage second home ownership which saps the lifeblood out of rural communities as they stand empty for most of the time. Planning and government policy needs to be more closely linked and can only be enforced through consultation processes such at this.