Local Development Framework Consultation

Kendal

RN154, R100, R121M, ON50, RN302

Oppose

Firstly, my family and I proposed the re-inclusion of R100/RN154. We wish to make it clear that the proposal for re-inclusion of R100/RN154 was because SLDC did not adopt a full site evaluation on the site and not because we wish it to be developed upon. SLDC must, we believe, fully evaluate and create fact files for all sites proposed not just reject sites on the basis of a view (of any kind) because this will potentially create problems not only for SLDC but for residents in future.

R100/RN154 were not re-proposed by us because as some responders to this latest consultation (e.g. Mr Mike Norton) wish to believe because we object to R121M and to deflect our opposition to R121M to other site(s) but to allow local residents an opportunity to evaluate their development potential without SLDC giving it a higher priority for rejection than other sites (especially on flaky grounds such as a view - which has no bearing on private planning applications and could effectively be applied to many sites in the proposals) and especially given no comments have been previously registered for the sites. Frankly we resent the accusation as such as it has no basis in fact. We would ask SLDC to review especially Mr Norton's accusation as it could constitute a serious written public misrepresentation of the truth - it is one thing to express an opinion it is another to make a false accusation.

SLDC must go through the correct processes and not give special treatment to one site or another especially when the information included in the existing fact files is totally inaccurate.

We have received abusive mail (through the post which is a criminal offence) regarding our reproposal of R100/RN154 and we would wish to point out to anyone reading this that the mail received has been passed onto the Police to investigate and we would strongly urge anyone else receiving such correspondence to do the same.

As for RN302 and ON50 - these are just attempts by the developer Russell Armer to "juggle" with the existing proposals and effectively adds MORE dwellings into a proposed area that is already unviable for development. The modification with RN302 does nothing to change our views regarding R121M (which RN302 forms part of) - R121M is NOT viable for development. ON50 is just a carrot being dangled to try and get the development passed by offering up an area that would be difficult to access due to it's terrain as a public open space.

The issues regarding flooding, affects on protected species etc are not going to go away by the new proposals with RN302, ON50. More dwellings in fact create more problems for the local community, landscape and environment not less.

Therefore this represents formal opposition to sites R100, RN154, RN302, ON50 and a repeat of our opposition to R121M.

Oppose

The timespan for these plans is if anything now too small - there is a real danger by shortening the timespan of the plans that this will encourage potentially non-essential developments to take place at the wrong time. If anything we feel that the timespan needs to be increased not shortened.
In addition we would wish to remind SLDC that the need for spacial strategies such as this have actually been abandoned by central government and would therefore question whether there is any real need to progress with a full "master" plan for the area.

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

Kendal

R121M, RN302#, ON50#