Local Development Framework Consultation

Levens

RN291#

Oppose

This is probably the most ridiculous option going. The impact to LDNP and the A590 are huge. Not to mention the impact on the residents of Levens. The view of the Lythe Valley from this elevated position is one of the most outstanding features of the village. It is also single track access already carrying and large amount of traffic. The route out of the village on the north side is steep, twisty, many blind corners and nothing much more than a country lane. The impact of many more vehicles using this (especially at peak times) i.e. people travelling to work, most likely in Kendal or surrounding area as there is no employment in Levens ?????????? (Why the houses to create more carbon footprint when they need to travel back to towns like Kendal to work) is only going to create a dangerous situation. School children walk to the very top of this hill to visit the woods for outdoor lessons (Forest Schools,Woodland Wonder) on a regular basis. I will not be permitting my child (however well supervised), to go if this road becomes a busy thoroughfare. Also what is a child to learn about the environment when currently they are appreciating living in a rural community with a real knowledge of space, wildlife and countryside, oops, with in excess of probably another 140 vehicles to dodge. I certaintly do not want any more vehicles using the southern access from the A590 along Levens Lane either for the very same reason as above. This is also single track access opening up at the very school gates.

Oppose

Moving the goalposts now raises suspicion.

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

It feels like a free for all now. At least keep it all under the same umberella

Levens

RN123# & RN127#

Support

RN123# This building has been an eyesore for the community for far too long. There is sufficient scope here to create several dwellings and with sympethetic construction to neighbouring properties this would actually be a great improvement for the village.

RN127# This would be an ideal location for small discreet development. The main bonus for here would be the direct access to the A590 without creating more traffic through the village.

Oppose

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

Levens

R105#

Oppose

This may appear to some as a logical site, however, the impact on the existing Greengate estate would be huge. The existing junction from Greengate onto the main road is already very busy at peak times especially as it is virtually opposite the school gates. Tacking an estate onto the back of an existing estate with the same vehicular access is quite unacceptable. Greegate is predominantly elderly and one would like to think that these people have chosen to live here because it is quiet and safe. Is NO consideration given to the distress this proposed development would cause, an estate at the bottom of their back garden and a rat run outside their front door. The access to this site is a bottleneck and those currently living on the edge of the access road would be severely compromised. The current infasructure of mains services is antiquated now. I can positively confirm that United Utilities do NOT know themselves where the main sewerage pipe serving the north west side of Greengate actually is!? We have constant problems with water pressure, sewerage and intermitent electrical interuption.

Oppose

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