8 responses from Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual)
1. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 17 Apr 2012 09:47:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA2.2 Land North of Laurel Gardens
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1.0 Consultation
1.1 SLDC did not change the proposals in-line with the citizens important wishes.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Legal Compliance in it’s document – "legal.doc” (Legal Compliance Tool from http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85651 )
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (page 7):
“6. Does the consultation contribute to the development and sustainability appraisal of alternatives?”
This has not been carried out correctly, alternatives have not been seriously considered. In particular the Kendal Town Council’s excellent reports, containing good alternatives, have been ignored.
The vast majority of the oppose responses made in the SLDC consultations were noted, listed in the consultation documents and then almost totally ignored. In my view these consultations were just so that SLDC could “tick the box” for the government inspector and therefore were a waste of taxpayers money.
I have done a detailed examination of the SLDC Consultation Database and these are my findings:
On 11th August 2011 (after the closing date) there were 2986 responses from the Kendal settlement. 98% of these responses opposed the proposals in their neighbourhood. Most of those that “support in part” did not support housing. Most of the few indicating “support” were representatives of the land owner, potential builder, Kendal Futures Board or the North West Development Agency.
The main reasons for the respondents opposition was the increase in traffic that these proposed developments would cause, and the affect they would have on the landscape character of Kendal. Better alternative sites were suggested, noted and then ignored. The present proposals will not “satisfy the needs of future generations” and are therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE.
Issues raised in the consultations would have contributed greatly to the development and sustainability of alternatives but the alternatives put forward have been ignored (also see other evidence 2.3 below). Therefore the LA DPD it is not Legally Compliant.
I would like to see alternatives discussed with Kendal Town Council and the Green Spaces group. Then any changes agreed included in the LA DPD.
2.0 Alternative plan
2.1 Law must be obeyed.
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (legal.doc page 5):
“* developing alternatives and options and appraising them through sustainability appraisal and against evidence.”
The SLDC Air Quality reports show that SLDC have been breaking the Law on Air Quality for many years. It means that SLDC must use an alternative plan for Kendal until it is proven that the law is being obeyed (with spare capacity for proposed development). The reason the law must be proven is that action plans have not worked for at least 14 years (before 1998). In the meantime affordable houses can be built in other areas of SLDC which have low traffic.
Until an alternative plan is in position to ensure the law on Air Quality is obeyed (with spare capacity for the proposed development) the LA DPD is not Legally Compliant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Legal Compliance requirements are not definitive or closed questions; they are open to personal interpretation, so I will not make any further comment in these sections.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Personal Comments:- From my experience of the Core Strategy hearings and the SLDC consultations I know my response will be ignored. The changes to Kendal’s infrastructure, that the new SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) states are required (see below), is just one example of this. I am therefore taking this opportunity to place on record all the relevant evidence I have gathered on why site R170M (policy LA2.2) should not be included in the LA DPD. Quotes from certain documents have been added to make it easier for the reader. There is repetition of some issues but this is because I have added different sources of evidence throughout the document.
It is undemocratic just to include Legal Compliance and Soundness in this consultation. In a democratic society the wishes of the majority of local people would have priority over these criteria. Also criteria such as “Justice” and “Fairness” should be considered. These were totally ignored in the Core Strategy consultation and hearings.
Test of Soundness
1.0 Not justified
1.1 Health and well-being of citizens in Kendal.
I have been informed that a developer does not have to fix an existing problem he just needs to show that he will not make it any worse. This is ridiculous, while SLDC are breaking the law on Air Quality developers must not be allowed to build on site R170M and other Kendal sites until the law is obeyed. SLDC breaking the law must surely be enough to prevent developers from winning an appeal. The people’s health and well-being must have top priority over everything else in the LA DPD.
The latest Cumbria County Council’s transport plan LPT3 does not include plans for the necessary infrastructure to fix existing problems neither does the SLDC Core Strategy. It was only after pressure from the public that SLDC & CCC produced the Transport Study (which is only a study) and after all this time the Transport Plan has not yet been made available to the public. Without a Transport Plan (including committed funding) signed off by all the participants the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE within the current timescales (2025) and is UNSOUND.
Before the year 2000 the SLDC objective was to meet the law on Air Quality by the year 2005 but air pollution has continually increased and the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) has even been made larger. This shows that SLDC are not serious in meeting their objectives where the health and well-being of citizens, or obeying the law, are concerned.
A typical example is the approval of the Planning Application for the old Auction Mart site. Also planning approval is certain to go ahead for the Canal Head development. These will make the air pollution worse in the AQMA. The worst pollution occurs when junctions are grid-locked and tinkering with traffic lights will not fix this problem. It will take major infrastructure changes to fix the existing traffic problems and allow for proposed LDF expansion. The Transport Study even admits that none of the improvements schemes will meet SLDC objectives.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
“6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
More building is planned in Kendal within the next few years (phase 1). This will make the major traffic problems worse. Infrastructure should already be in place to cope. Instead there is not even an approved Transport Plan in place, never mind the infrastructure that will be needed to meet SLDC standards and objectives.
The Transport Study is stating that further modelling is required. This shows that SLDC do not yet know at the present time if their proposals can be implemented or if funding will be available within the LDF timeframe (year 2025), therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND. Once money has been spent on major infrastructure changes it will be expected that these changes will last for at least 15 years (through the next LDF) therefore any further modelling must use a date of 2040 or beyond. These results will prove that the Taylor “hub & spoke” must be started now (see more evidence below).
SLDC should be very concerned about anyone who has any bronchial condition (e.g. asthma) and for the future health of children walking to school through Kendal during times of peak pollution. The health of residents of Kendal town should also cause great concern; a lot of them are elderly and frail.
SLDC have chosen the sites which cost the least to develop (e.g. no compulsory purchase costs) and will make the most profit for the developer rather than those best for the health and well being of local people. Money is being put before health. The law’s limits on air pollution are the maximum; the spirit of the law is zero pollution.
This does not mean that expansion cannot take place in other more suitable low pollution/low traffic areas of South Lakeland District. Plenty of more suitable sites, originally on the LA DPD maps for the SLDC district, have not been included on the latest maps. It is not fair that these traffic problems are not shared throughout the entire SLDC district. This is another reason why the hub & spoke system must be adopted – FAIRNESS.
The health and well-being of the people due to air pollution must have top priority over everything else in the LDF. This is not happening with the current proposals. Proving the law is being obeyed must come second on the priority list after health. If it does not already do so the “Soundness” examination must take account of these two very important issues.
The evidence above shows that these traffic problems in Kendal will not be fixed without major infrastructure changes which are not in Cumbria County Council’s LTP3.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND and site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and funding (see above).
For more evidence see extracts from the SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) below.
1.2 Alternative strategy.
Although SLDC have carried out consultations they have ignored the major objections. They have even ignored the alternatives put forward by Kendal Town Council in their excellent reports - “KTC_Response.pdf ”, “KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf ” & “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf. ". To avoid even more “urban sprawl” of Kendal the Taylor “hub & spoke” strategy must be adopted and not the current “doughnut” strategy. Kendal will be around for many thousands of years to come, which makes the “doughnut” strategy UNSUSTAINABLE (i.e. will not satisfy the needs of future generations). Only the “hub & spoke” is sustainable in the years to come because extra “satellites” can be added. By then the proposed “doughnut” system will make Kendal such an urban sprawl that very few people will wish to live there. To prevent this happening the “hub & spoke” system must be started NOW.
Money is being put before what is best for the health and well-being of the people of Kendal now and in the future (beyond 2025).
The Taylor Report, which puts forward compelling evidence in favour of the “hub & spoke” system, shows that the proposed “doughnut” system is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore the development of site R170 (being a peripheral Green Gap site) is UNSOUND and must be removed from the LA DPD.
2.0 Not effective
2.1 Not meeting definitions of soundness.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Soundness in the document - "soundness.doc" (Soundness Tool from: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85673 )
Extract from page 6 - Deliverable:
"21. Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives?
i. Sections of the development plan document which address delivery and the timescales for key developments and initiatives.
ii. Confirmation from the local strategic partnership and partner organisations that the timescales are realistic in terms of their contribution to delivery."
Extract from page 8 - Deliverable:
“28. Is it clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and does the timing of the provision complement the timescale of the strategy/policies?
i. Confirmation from infrastructure providers that they support the solutions proposed and the identified means and timescales for their delivery.
ii. Representations in respect of infrastructure.
iii. Reports or copies of correspondence on how representations in relation to infrastructure and its timing have been considered and dealt with.”
Extract from page 5 of SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
“12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
I have only selected this one paragraph; there are numerous other paragraphs which support these conclusions. In particular Page 15, Item 5.2.1, Table 5.1 which confirms that all schemes fail to meet SLDC’s objective. The results in Tables 5.2 & 5.3 are even worse.
SLDC’s objective is to meet “Acceptable junction performance” which is defined on page 9, item 4.1.5.
I'm not sure why the year 2022 was chosen as base-line, whatever major infrastructure is planned must enable SLDC to meet their objectives for years beyond 2025. In my opinion until 2040, the end of the next LDF.
Schemes 4, 5 & 6 require major investment and are not in the Core Strategy and therefore must be excluded from the Transport Plan when it is published. Note that the Transport Plan should incorporate extra capacity to cope with the “doughnut” system which, if approved, will undoubtedly continue after 2025.
The SLDC Air Quality Reports show that air pollution is getting worse in Kendal and also the AQMA has been increased.
Extract from page 27 of Air Quality Report (PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf)
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page857/PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf ).
"It would be hoped that each individual action would add to a combined reduction in levels to meet the requirement above. However, the 2009 annual mean NO2 results of the diffusion tube monitoring and the continuous analyser within the AQMA actually show that levels remain high, close to or above the 2010 objective and have actually increased from 2008 levels in 2009 in some locations. Without radical progress by Cumbria County Council on changes to the road system, vehicle access and parking in Kendal it is unlikely that the objective will be achieved."
Note the word “hoped”. Over many previous years this is typical of SLDC’s attitude towards obeying the law on Air Quality. SLDC action plans have not worked in the past and this is proved by the fact that the AQMA has recently been made larger.
The SLDC document "ED43_Housing Completions 1999 to 2010.doc" plus SLDC updates show that from the beginning of plan period 2003 to end of 2011 (8 years results) the total for South Lakeland is 1690 / 8 = 211 average and of these affordable are 406 / 8 = 51 average (or 24%). Figures for 2006 to 2011 (last 5 years results) are 934 / 5 = 187 average and of these affordable are 264 / 5 = 53 average (or 28%).
Between 2003 and 2011 the number of completions was 1690. At 400 per year the objective was 3200 over this 8 year period, a difference of 1510. To make up this deficit means that over the remaining 14 years (up to 2025) an extra 1510 / 14 = 107 per year will be required. This extra number per year will get a lot higher when the build rate stays below 400 per year.
This is nowhere near the Core Strategy figure of 400 dwellings per year or the percentage affordable figure of 35% and therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE. 200 dwellings per year would be a more realistic figure and this is the latest figure that is necessary according to a Kendal Town Council Report (see below).
SLDC have recognised this and have added the word “ambition” to build this number of houses to the LA DPD (see page 7 of the “Land Allocations DPD [Feb 12].pdf ” as an example). This word is not used in this context with regard to numbers in the Core Strategy document. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND with respect to the Core Strategy. The Leader of the Council insisted the numbers in the Core Strategy were achievable within the timescales of the LDF.
The above figures show there was an inward migration of 3 (high cost) to 1 (affordable). The majority of the proposed SLDC development is for the Kendal area (35%, 140 dpa) and this will add greatly to traffic problems mentioned above. This inward migration must not be planned (or allowed) to continue until all the partners involved have “signed on the dotted line” that they will meet the LA DPD milestones for all the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewerage, doctors, dentists, schools, etc) that is required. With the proviso that the build will actually take place in the timescales planned. It causes unnecessary stress to local people when unachievable targets are proposed or planned.
Another issue that affects DELIVERABILITY is Brownfield sites (or previously developed land).
It states in "SLDC_Core_Strategy_Document_March2011_sm4web2.pdf " (page 17):
"CS1.2 – The Development Strategy
Priority will be given to the reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land for all new housing development, with a target of ensuring that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites."
The “at least 28%” is also mentioned in CS6.6 (page 85). The 50% in item 7.14 is a mistake, it was the previous target. Now the target has been lowered, and "at least 28%" is said by SLDC to be achievable, the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets in each area. The Core Strategy and LA DPD have a requirement to be monitored and targets at least progressed vigorously.
The LA DPD does not mention this requirement; therefore it does not conform to the Core Strategy and is UNSOUND. Also these monitored figures need to be published and available to the public.
The SLDC Transport Report (Atkins 2009) states an amber limit for acceptable Junction Congestion and that in 2008 there were 7 red (above limit) junctions with 11 red junctions forecast in 2025.
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page2033/Kendal_TAJune_2009.pdf )
Pages 7 of this report specifically mentions the Middle Sparrowmire R170M site (referred to as “The Todds”) as being inappropriate because it would "worsen existing congestion on Windermere Road, as traffic travels into Kendal town centre. As the Windermere Road corridor already suffers congestion and delays during peak travel periods, it is considered that additional large-scale development in this area will lead to deterioration in traffic conditions." There are more similar comments on pages 60 & 71.
Site R170M feeds traffic into Windermere Road and therefore must be removed from the LA DPD until SLDC have met their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ” page 5 (Exec Summary):
"However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required."
The Canal Head development is more important to Kendal than site R170M therefore because site R170M will add more traffic to Kendal streets it is UNSOUND to build on it. It must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and committed funding.
Page 115 of the document “KENDAL Appendix 1.pdf ” (Appendix 1B – Consultation Responses after October 2010) for site R170M states:
“Achieving adequate visibility will be problematic given alignment of road and limited frontage. Such a large site would require a secondary access (Cumbria County Council – Highways).”
The conclusions reached by a chartered civil engineer who has carried out measurements to Transport Standards of the proposed access to site R170M are as follows:
“There is severely restricted forward visibility on both bends in Burneside Road either side of the proposed access location.
In either scenario tested the visibility from the proposed access towards Kendal falls far short of the standard required.
A new junction cannot be safely introduced in this location.”
This report can be supplied if required.
It cannot be right not to identify this secondary access. When it is identified there will be a lot more opposition to site R170 than is currently expressed.
As I said at the beginning of this response about including “JUSTICE” and “FAIRNESS”, it is not FAIR to include a site which is likely to have “show stopping” problems without first carrying out a thorough investigation into these particular problems.
Given the evidence above, until it can be proved that both access roads can be built to meet the Transport Standards, the development of the site R170 is UNSOUND and it must be removed from the LA DPD.
The site R170M is still part of a Green Gap. This means by definition it has higher protection than Greenfields. People who purchased their properties believing this to be true now find that they will be subjected to a grave INJUSTICE if site R170M is not removed from the LA DPD.
This is a very important reason why site R170M should not be developed – JUSTICE.
Extract from page 137 item 6.9 of the Inspector's Report on the public enquiry in 1996. Green Gap site R170M is the site mentioned below.
"Inspector's Conclusions:
6.9 The objection by Mr Downham [biased land owner] is not concerned with the provision of a green gap, but the extent of that gap. It is argued [land owner’s words] that the green gap, as shown in the Consultation draft of the Plan, follows a public footpath running between substantial hedges, a clearly defined landscape boundary: whilst the residential allocation at Sparrowmire has been reduced in the Deposit Draft, an equivalent extension to the green gap is not necessary. ^However, and most importantly in my view, the objection indicates that the "land should remain unallocated as white land so that when the Plan is reviewed in 10 years' time it can be considered as potential residential land" [land owner’s words]. I consider this underlying reason for excluding the land from the green gap identifies the very reason it should remain so designated. Structure Plan Policy 14 and the reasoned justification makes no reference to the length of time during which the vulnerable areas of countryside between settlements should be protected.^ Although policies and proposals in the Local Plan must clearly relate to the Plan period, and can be subject to review thereafter, it appears to me common sense that what is unacceptable now, will most probably be equally unacceptable at the end of the Plan period: certainly I consider the Plan should seek to engender a degree of public confidence that the separation secured will not, at some future time, be lightly squandered. ^For these reasons I believe that, where a green gap is seen as necessary, it is more important that the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap than that substantial, but arbitrary landscape features should be rigidly followed. I also consider the inter-visibility of settlements is not a factor which should affect the definition of green gaps."^
I have marked with ^...^ the most important words in the above paragraph and my clarifying words are in square brackets.
The first group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that the owner wished to leave the remaining land (now site R170M) as white land, so it can sold as high priced building land at a later date. The inspector states that this is the very reason it must remain as a Green Gap and because of this statement it is Green Gap. The LA DPD only includes Green Gap site R170M because the owner is keen to sell and make a large profit, if he didn’t it would not be included.
The second group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that “the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap”. It must not depend on “landscape features” or “inter-visibility of settlements”, but these are the very reasons that SLDC state as to why site R170M can be built-on.
Site R170M is still currently a Green Gap site and by definition has more protection than all Greenfields.
A Government Inspector’s words made the white land (now site R170M) into Green Gap and must not be ignored. Therefore to include site R170M in the LA DPD until all the more suitable Greenfield sites have been built-on is UNSOUND.
This R170M Green Gap is also land of most value to the existing community as backed up by this statement in ‘The Taylor Review’ (Page 58):
“20. Government policy is to increase the density of new housing as a means to maximising land use and better support local services. New extensions to settlements therefore may be relatively densely designed and built right up against the existing settlement to minimise the number of green fields ‘swallowed up’. However, this will mean they are built on exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town. Local residents against new development may be accused of ignoring the needs of others for housing, but they have a genuine point. They may not have bought the right to their countryside views, but they certainly have paid for them, and these developments are on exactly the fields of most landscape value to existing residents."
Taylor gives a valid reason why local people should not be labelled with the scorning name NIMBYs’ when they have a good reason and evidence to oppose development in their neighbourhood.
The evidence above shows that the proposed LA DPD numbers for dwellings to be built are UNDELIVERABLE before 2025. If the numbers were reduced to ones that were deliverable and sound there would be no reason to include the peripheral site R170M in the last phase (2022-25) of the LA DPD, since it is a Green Gap and hence has a higher protection than any of the proposed Greenfield sites. Note at this point in time site R170M is still part of a Green Gap.
“The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods.”
(see http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/communityinfrastructurelevy/ )
There is absolutely no evidence in the LA DPD about how much funding SLDC are capable of obtaining from developers from the levy. Their track record in the past has been very poor when negotiating for affordable dwelling percentages. The target over previous years has been 50% but SLDC of only achieved 28%. The target is now 35% which from past results is still just wishful thinking. SLDC are relying on this money to fund infrastructure and other projects. Until SLDC publish real evidence that the money raised from this levy is in excess (there will always be an overspend) of that required, for all the proposals in the LA DPD it is intended for, then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
Until it is certain that the required infrastructure funding will be available within the planned timescales, in order that SLDC meet their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion, then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has a approved construction plan and committed funding in place (see above). Also that it is shown to decrease the traffic levels in the Windermere Road corridor enough for SLDC traffic objectives are met in this area.
3.0 Further evidence in support of why Policy LA2.2 (site R170M) should be removed from the LA DPD.
3.1 Extracts from Kendal Town Council document "KTC_Response.pdf " (Apr 2011)
Page 8 Transport Improvements.
“The Assessment then looked at the impact of the various possible development sites which were then under discussion. The Assessment modelled the impact of various remedial measures that could be taken, ranging from junction improvements to the building of the Inner Relief Road. It concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three sites were removed:
• Land within the Shap Road/Appleby Road corridor (Site E23/49 and Sites M8/M35/ M36)
• The Todds, west of Burneside Road (Sites R148/R170)
• Stonebank Green (Sites M39/R676/R103/R675)
There was no solution which permitted these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment).”
This supports previous evidence that the development of site R170M (The Todds) is UNSOUND
Page 9 section on “Sewer Capacity”
“In addition, United Utilities has concerns about the capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Works, located to the south of Kendal, for which process modelling needs to be carried out. This impacts all the potential development sites in the town.”
I have an email from SLDC dated 27Apr2011 which states:
“The following is based on information and advice provided by United Utilities.
1. United Utilities cannot determine the number of dwellings that will cause Kendal Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) to reach process capacity without conducting modelling. The threshold for when capacity is reached is determined by the design capacity of the WwTW and the population that it serves with some headroom designed in to the calculations. This headroom is not excessive as United Utilities cannot design and build for a population that is not already there or where development is not definite.
2. There are local network issues in respect of sewer capacity in the Kendal area . They are primarily centred around the Burneside area as evidenced in the Core Strategy and supporting Land Allocations Document material.
3. South Lakeland District Council does not hold or have access to data/information regarding the catchment area of the Kendal Sewerage Works.”
SLDC/UU admit that the headroom (i.e. spare capacity) is not excessive. Despite this SLDC have no results of any modelling and have not insisted that this modelling be carried out by UU. SLDC do not even know the catchment area for Kendal Sewage Works. There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC do have this information today (a year later). Therefore SLDC do not know how many dwellings can be built before Kendal Sewage Works needs a major upgrade costing many millions of pounds.
United Utilities move their funding from year to year as they see their immediate priorities change, so until they actual “sign on the dotted line” to meet certain dates then their current dates can “be taken with a pinch of salt”. As evidence to support this, the paying customers of Burneside have been waiting over 20 years to get their sewerage fixed and they still have sewage on the streets during heavy rain. So there is no guarantee that the North West Kendal problem will be fixed before 2025.
Site R170M is one of the last sites in the plan to be developed therefore until the above figures are known for the whole of the catchment area and UU & OFWAT have “signed on the dotted line” to meet their agreed dates then the site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 9 section on “Hydrologic Considerations”.
“However, the mechanisms (some man-made, mostly natural) which are currently managing to keep Kendal free of floods are not well understood. Several of the sites included in the Land Allocations have a history of being badly affected by rainfall. This suggests they have a role to play in mitigating surface run-off and hence flood prevention. If this is correct, development of such sites could trigger flooding in the town - and making the sites themselves flood proof would certainly involve additional expense for developers.
Kendal Town Council believes this is an important omission from the current evidence base, and calls on SLDC to commission a full hydrology study of the area before including the affected sites in any final land allocation. Any remedial infrastructure required to allow these sites to be developed safely would need to be included in the overall infrastructure programme.
Land Allocations affected by this consideration are the lower Hallgarth sites (R169M and R170M), Appleby Road (MK35KM), Natland Beck at Kendal Parks (R107M, R150M), Stock Beck at Castle Green Road (R121M), and Stonecross (R103M), and Blind Beck (R129M)”
There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC have commissioned this study or have any results. Site R170M is mentioned in quote above and so until this study is carried out development of site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 10 Infrastructure.
“3. Sites should not be included in a Final Land Allocations document unless their impact on Kendal’s transport is understood, solutions are agreed with partners, and the impact has successfully passed a rerun of the Transport Assessment. ‘Emerging Option’ sites affected by this are indicated are indicated by an ‘X’ in the ‘Traffic’ column in the Detail by each Land Allocation site starting on page 11.”
Note site R170M has an ‘X’ in the Traffic column, so this site should be removed from the LA DPD until its impact on Kendal’s junction congestion is fully understood.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.2 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. "KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf" (Sep 2011)
Page 5 Doughnut Development
“Taylor contends: ...these developments undermine sustainability. They invariably encourage car use, especially if there are no services or employment within walking distance, with resulting congestion on roads into town. And without local and community facilities of their own, there is little to build social sustainability and cohesion or links between new and existing settlements as there will be little in the way of community life.
This approach to planning is also a recipe for confrontation, “developing exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town”
(as has been amply demonstrated in Kendal by the response to the Emerging Options consultation process).
Without change we will simply repeat the mistakes of recent decades, creating unattractive developments of housing estates encircling our rural towns and larger villages, and we will fail to stem the trend of smaller villages becoming dormitory settlements of commuters and the retired, ever less affordable for those who work within them. This is not a sustainable future for rural England.
Without strong Land Allocation policies from the Planning Authority, Kendal is heading towards an unsustainable “doughnutted” future.”
This confirms that development of the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 6 Recommendation for Kendal
“The Council believes the Planning Authority should follow Taylor and adopt this model in preparing its final Land Allocations policies for Kendal, as the only way in which the NPPF demand for sustainable development can be achieved in the town. It is important to note that this is not in conflict with the Core Strategy positioning of Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, or with the requirements for meeting forecast housing demand. From Taylor, the requirements for sustainable development in rural market towns is clear: it cannot be delivered by allocating isolated sites around the town; a hub and spoke model is required. Even without the NPPF’s insistence on sustainable development, there are other intrinsic advantages to the hub and spoke model for Kendal. The Council’s previous Response to Consultation highlighted the major infrastructure challenges to be overcome in the town. These become far more soluble if development proceeds on hub-by-hub basis, when the infrastructure work can be concentrated on the corresponding spokes. For example, it is far simpler to improve bus services, cycling provision, etc. if only one or two ‘spokes’ have to be addressed.
The evidence in the EHLSS shows that there are suitable sites available (the scope of the SHLAS only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that the “doughnut” strategy is incorrect for Kendal and should be replaced by the “hub & spoke” strategy. It also confirms that the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is unsustainable and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 10 Latest Forecasts (2011)
“The latest forecast in this series was produced in Spring 2011. It shows a drastically reduced requirement:
• only 360 dwellings across the 20 years, or
• just over 4,000 including migration, projected on the last five years’ evidence.
This suggests that a more appropriate target for the next 5-10 years would be around 200 dwellings per annum.”
This confirms the evidence given above that 200 per year is what is required and this number would be deliverable. If this number was planned then the peripheral Green Gap site R170M would not be required and being in the last phase would not be needed in this LA DPD.
This section supports previous evidence that the LA DPD is UNSUSTAINABLE and UNSOUND.
3.3 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf “ (Mar 2012)
Page 4 Summary
“The Council believes that the DPD is not justified because it fails the following tests of soundness:
• the LPA has failed in its duty to compare against reasonable alternatives
• key decisions are not supported by the evidence base or the evidence supports a different conclusion
• the evidence base is incomplete
The DPD is also not effective in that it is not deliverable, with key elements of the dependent infrastructure
not understood.”
This confirms the LA DPD is NOT DELIVERABLE.
Page 4
“For rural market towns, the evidence was pulled together in July 2008 by the Taylor Review9, setting out the policy framework necessary to deliver the “vision of a living, working sustainable countryside”. Taylor provided compelling evidence that “doughnut development” was the wrong approach for sustainable rural market towns, and that a “hub and spoke” model represented the best pattern for sustainability.”
The two KTC paragraphs above confirm that an alternative system must be adopted now, which will “meet the needs of future generations” of Kendal (i.e. BE SUSTAINABLE”) for the many thousands of years to come.
Page 4
“The evidence in the EHLSS indicates that suitable sites could be available (the scope of the SHLAA only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that a “hub & spoke” is viable.
Page 5
“The Assessment concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three large sites were removed. The consultants could find no mitigation which would permit these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment.)”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD because it is one of the three sites.
Page 5
“Given that this approach has differed significantly from the independent consultants’, the Council asks the Inspector to order an independent audit of this latest work by W.S.Atkins or equivalent to ensure it meets accepted professional standards of objectivity and integrity. The Council further asks the Inspector to ensure that no sites are included in the DPD which the evidence shows are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD, because it is one of the sites which “are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
Page 7
“The Council asks the Inspector to withhold approval of the DPD until there is a credible infrastructure plan showing the impact of the major sites on the overall town infrastructure, and with high level solutions identified and costed with enough detail to enable the economic deliverability of the sites to be proven.”
This adds to the evidence given above that there must be signatures, to supply the necessary infrastructure and funding, must be in place before this LA DPD is approved by the Government. Until this is done site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.4 Extracts from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Page 5 Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
"10. The LDF developments have a more notable impact in the AM peak compared to the base situation. The model results indicate that the provision of sustainable transport improvements (Scheme 2) would be required to support LDF development to nil-detriment compared to the 2022 base situation in the AM peak. However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required.
11. It should be noted that although these schemes are required to achieve nil-detriment, these improvements are only demonstrated to offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal. These infrastructure schemes would be expensive and may not be a cost-effective solution to congestion in Kendal town centre.
12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.
13. It is recommended that further modelling work is undertaken"
The Transport Study shows that the objectives cannot be achieved before 2025 therefore the problems are going to be much worse in the years 2026 onwards.
SLDC do not have signed-off solutions and timescales in place to meet the plan phases, therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 9 This page gives the CCC/SLDC definition for Junction Congestion limits.
"Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts."
The Atkins report uses a Volume/Capacity ratio of 90 as acceptable for a junction approach, which is similar.
The Study shows that these objectives will not be met by 2025 so this, along with page 10 (see below) adds evidence to the above.
Page 10
"4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. These are:Junction1: A5284 Stricklandgate/Sandes AvenueJunction 2: A5284 Sandes Avenue / A6 Blackhall Road signalised junction
Junction 5: A6 Longpool / Station Road mini-roundabout junction
Junction 12: A6 Highgate / Lowther Street signalised junction
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Junction 16: A6 Milnthorpe Road / Romney Road signalised junction
Junction 17: A5284 Windermere Road/Queens Road
Junction 18: A5284 Windermere Road/Burneside Road
Junction 21: A65 Burton Road / Oxenholme Road signalised junction
Junction 27: A684 Sedbergh Road / Sandylands Road priority junction
Junction 29: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (north) priority junction
Junction 30: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (south) priority junction
Junction 31: A685 Appleby Road/Sandylands Road"
“Measures must be in place” to fix these major problems first (i.e. meet SLDC objectives). They have a huge bearing on why SLDC is still breaking the law on Air Quality.
Page 14
“* Scheme 6: Scheme 5, plus a potential Kendal Southern Link Road, which comprises a new single-carriageway road linking the A6 Milnthorpe Road with the A65 Burton Road south of Kendal town centre.”
This new road proposal has never been mentioned before; it is not in the Core Strategy and therefore, as we have been told before, it cannot be considered in this LDF.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.5 Extracts from SLDC document "06 Infrastructure Position Statement.pdf ”:
Page 10
"4.19 United Utilities has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area. A proposal for expenditure in the years 2010 – 2015 is contained within the published five years Investment Plan (Asset Management programme). The plan can be found at the following website link: http://www.unitedutilities.com/Documents/Detailed_plan.pdf "
There is nothing in this PDF document that is specific to Kendal.
UU may have "a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area" but it is very poor at obeying this duty as is verified by the > 20 years Burnside have been suffering sewage problems (and still are).
Until UU actually “sign on the dotted line” to meet the required planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.23 Funding is more likely to be acquired in cases where there is development certainty (i.e. clear evidence of developer interest).
* UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct."
This backs previous evidence, never mind “development certainty” what about the existing paying customers who are still suffering sewage and flooding problems due to lack of investment.
Until United Utilities “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.24 There is currently loading capacity at Kendal Waste water Treatment Works (WwTW), however, for the number of dwellings that are proposed a full process and hydraulic survey of the Works will have to be undertaken before UU could comfortably approve the Planning Applications. As the sewer network is at capacity in North Kendal, UU could not agree to any significant development until after 2015 in this part of the town. Providing UU obtain funding through OFWAT to undertake the necessary upgrades etc. UU will be building into the 2014 Business Submission to OFWAT a case for funding to provide the means to accommodate development, which will boost the economy.
4.25 A feasibility study is being undertaken on the Kendal WwTW. Recommended phosphorous levels are set by Environment Agency (EA) through discharge consents, and until EA impose a new requirement for a lowered rate, UU will continue to discharge at the current rate. UU stated achieving any required lower rates would depend on new/better technology. Further Phosphorous removal would only be undertaken if UU were required to achieve a tighter standard as set by the EA following their review of water quality. Newer technology, which is not currently available, would be required to achieve any standard below 1mg/l. UU has advised development in the Kendal area should be capped at 2000 properties unless a more stringent phosphorus effluent standard can be achieved.
4.26 UU has advised that sites in North Kendal should only come forward in the latter periods of the plan period when sewage network improvements are in place.
4.27 Strategically there is enough water supply to accommodate levels of new development, but there are potential risks of deterioration of water quality."
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 14
"4.45 Electricity North West Ltd manage infrastructure and distribute and transmit electricity throughout South Lakeland. The regulator determines the amount of funding, however, it is not known what the next round of funding may or may not allow for investment in improvements. Information relating to substation capacity has not been ascertained. Evidence when exploring options for the Canal Head Area of Kendal shows that the Kendal Primary substation is currently operating close to or at capacity. It is possible that significant development in Kendal would require investment for network reinforcement and that a new Primary Substation would be required although Electricity North West Ltd does not confirm this. No information has been made available stating whether this is the case. Only when the customer has firm load requirements and location details can a system study be undertaken to ascertain the scale of impact of potential new development."
What if the system study states it cannot be done or they cannot obtain the funding within the plan timescales? Electricity North West Ltd already has the number of houses proposed and their locations so they must commit to a system study and confirm that the proposed developments are deliverable. Until then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 15
"4.48 National Grid Gas Distribution own and operate the local gas distribution network in South Lakeland. The confidential nature of the process means National Grid are unable to confirm whether they are currently processing or have made any offers for connection within Cumbria."
The document states nothing about National Grid Gas Distribution having a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of gas supply within its area.
The LA DPD cannot possibly be monitored correctly until all the Gas company has “signed on the dotted line” to meet the timescales required. Until then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This Infrastructure document is only a statement; there is no indication when the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be available to the public or any indication that the timescales can be met. The LA DPD is UNSOUND until the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Kendal Transport Plan are available with all milestones agreed, funding committed and both signed off by the respective utility companies. They can have the proviso that it depends on the build going ahead as planned.
3.6 Extracts from SLDC document “01 Consultation Report.pdf ”:
Page 19
“In their response the Highways Agency identified those sites it considers (if developed, due to cumulative impact with other sites) may impact upon the capacity, operation and safety of the strategic road network (SRN) (A590 and M6) within South Lakeland. As a consequence, the Agency has stated that the cumulative impact of development of sites under consideration in the following settlements (see below) may result in some impact to the SRN: Burneside, Crooklands, Endmoor, Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, Levens, Milnthorpe and Ulverston alongside the sites suggested for strategic employment use (in Ulverston and Kendal area).”
Note the word “may” on the second line. They either do or they don’t. After all these years of the LDF there is no excuse for this information not being available. SLDC must obtain an answer to this issue immediately and publish it. If any of the developments proposed within the LA DPD do affect the Strategic Road Network then any changes necessary must be included in the LA DPD and the Transport Plan (which must be issued before the hearings). Note the Strategic Road Network is NOT currently mentioned in the LA DPD.
Page 21
This page with reference to Burneside states:
“.....this is no guarantee that funding will be approved by OFWAT”.
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted” line to meet the planned timescales the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 21
“Additional work is needed by UU to check if cumulative impact on treatment works may raise capacity issues
SLDC must publish how many houses can be built in the Kendal catchment area before a major upgrade to the sewage works is required. Until UU know their total funding requirements the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 34
KENDAL
“Many people believe development of the sites suggested would harm the landscape character of the town, worsen air quality, exacerbate current flooding problems, harm biodiversity, generate unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and place further strains on a heavily constrained sewerage system. Some people questioned the need for additional housing believing there are enough empty properties in the town to meet current and future housing demands. A number of people stated development should be prioritised on brownfield sites and meet primarily local needs.”
“Many people including Kendal Town Council and Burneside and Natland Parish Council’s supported the concept of green gaps to protect Kendal coalescing with neighbouring settlements. However, a significant number of people and Kendal Town Council and Natland Parish Council believed the suggested emerging options would not prevent coalescence from happening. There was general widespread support for the open space designations suggested, however, many people believed the emerging options sites should also be designated open space.”
“Kendal Town Council expressed serious concerns with the overall approach being suggested for the town, believing the amounts of developments and the emerging option sites suggested would damage the landscape character of the town, and put unnecessary strain on an inadequate infrastructure system. The Town Council has suggested an alternative strategy/approach for the town this being to protect existing green space/countryside surrounding the town and to look at alternative sites adjacent to nearby settlements and possibly further afield where development would have less impact on the town’s infrastructure, air quality and its high quality landscape value.”
These three paragraphs confirm that the wishes of the majority of local people have been ignored and adds support to the evidence given above concerning Consultation and Legal Compliance.
Page 46
On this page it states “UU is currently considering lists of projects that will require major capital investment in Asset Management Plan 6 period 2015-2020.” and “UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct.”
Until United Utilities and OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” to meet the planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE, UNSOUND and that consultation process was not Legally Compliant.
3.7 Extracts from SLDC document “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
Pages 51 & 52
Item 3.6 - Key local factors influencing the location of new development in Kendal:
“Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail and from important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout Scar/Brigsteer Road; Avoiding coalescence between Kendal, Oxenholme, Burneside and Natland and maintaining the separate identities of these settlements;
Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, promoting sustainable transport and achieving a positive impact on the Kendal Air Quality Management Area;
Infrastructure constraints including sewage capacity at Kentrigg and Steele's Row and the implications for development in northwest Kendal.”
One of the main comments of the people who responded to the SLDC consultations and opposed them was the character and appearance of Kendal. This is imbedded in the above paragraph and has been totally ignored. The LA DPD is therefore not Legally Compliant.
The site R170M is close to Kentrigg (mentioned above) and so it is UNSOUND to include it in the LA DPD until United Utilities are fully committed (i.e. signed on the dotted line) to the LA DPD timescales.
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive it should state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
A graph on this page it shows the following numbers over the years 2003 – 2025 (22 years).
Maximum number of dwellings ever built in one year was 300 in year 2005/06 and even this did not reach the target of 400 per year.
Extrapolating from the graphs the average number of dwellings built per year for the first 8 years was 100+280+150+150+240+300+230+220 = 1670 / 8 = 209 per year. In the terms of this graph there are already an extra 1530 dwellings (109/yr on top of the 400/yr) that have built just to catch up. This compares well with the more accurate figures in section 2.1 above.
The figure of 720 per year for the three years 2022 – 2025 is just WISHFULL THINKING.
One of the questions that must be asked to confirm SOUNDNESS is “Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives”. The above numbers are clearly not realistic therefore the current LA DPD is UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND within the timescales of this LA DPD (2025).
4.0 Changes required to the LA DPD document title “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
4.1 During the recent SLDC consultation 98% of the local neighbourhood who responded OPPOSED the proposals for site R170M. In a door-door poll of over 400 neighbours during 2011 approximately 80% of those asked OPPOSED the proposal to build on site R170M. Of the remaining 20% most did not care one way or the other. The Localism Bill is a Con Trick (nice pun); it promises much but does not actually support what the majority of the people in the neighbourhood want.
To prove SLDC are DEMOCRATIC they must be serious about responding to the majority of the local neighbourhood’s wishes. Also the TOTAL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ABOVE PROVES THAT SLDC MUST REMOVE THE PERIPHERAL GREEN GAP SITE R170M FROM THE LA DPD TO MAKE IT SOUND. THIS IS HOW THE LA DPD MUST BE CHANGED.
4.2 After many years (before year 2000) of knowing about the traffic problems in Kendal, SLDC have failed to produce a transport plan or action plan that enabled them to meet their standards and objectives for Air Quality and Junction Congestion. This must NOT be allowed to continue. Only when these standards and objectives have been PROVEN to have been met (with spare capacity for expansion) will the people believe SLDC are serious about tackling these major problems. The recent SLDC consultations show that increase in traffic was one of main reasons why 98% of the people (that responded) OPPOSE the proposals to build on sites in their area of Kendal.
Previous experience with Core Strategy has shown me that all my evidence will be ignored and that site R170M will not be removed from the LA DPD. If this is to be repeated then I would like to see the following changes to LA DPD.
There is a note on page 57 (item 3.18) of the LA DPD (policy LA2.2 site R170M) which states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO RESOLVE PRESSURE ON THE SEWERAGE NETWORK IN NORTH KENDAL."
This means existing problems will be fixed before building starts.
THIS SETS A PRECEDENT WHICH MUST CONTINUE WITH REGARD TO OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS.
The threat to the health of people due to air pollution is of as much importance as sewage on the streets. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make air pollution worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT THE LAW ON AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
Increase in traffic, which leads to more junction congestion and a deterioration in the well-being of local people, was one of the major complaints in the recent SLDC consultations. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make junction congestion worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT SLDC’S DEFINITION OF “ACCEPTABLE JUNCTION PERFORMANCE” HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
For definition see page 9 of “Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf”.
“4.1.5 An RFC or DoS of 100% indicates that an approach is operating at maximum capacity. Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts. Above this level, an approach is likely to begin to experience congestion as there is insufficient spare capacity to cope with fluctuations in traffic flow.”
4.3 Page 51 item 3.6:
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive. The word “Minimising” is just not good enough to meet the people’s wishes. It must state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
4.4 Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
This Appendix 4 must be changed and other pages which quote these figures. The SLDC evidence does not support the requirement that anywhere near the 8800 dwellings can be built before 2025. The numbers in the graph are not realistic (a SOUNDNESS word), therefore NOT DELIVERABLE and UNSOUND. 720/year for last three years is just wishful thinking, it is not realistic; this graph shows that the maximum that has ever been built within the last 8 years is 300 per year for the year 2005/06. The developers will not build 750 per year because it would swamp the market and they would be left with a large number of empty houses.
There is no point in just stating on page 7 of the LA DPD that it is “the ambition to deliver 400 dwellings each year” if these numbers cannot realistically be built and sold. There is also no point in just monitoring these numbers just so a box can be ticked to say they have been monitored. The numbers must be realistic so that they can be monitored and vigorously progressed.
Kendal Town Council have stated in one of their reports [Sep2011 see above] that only around 200 dwellings per year is the number required. SLDC must discuss this issue with KTC and reduce the current total figure of 8800 to a number that can realistically be built & sold before 2025 and not one that is just WISHFULL THINKING.
4.5 There is a requirement in the Core Strategy for Brownfield land to be used for “at least 28%” of the number of dwellings built. Note the words are “at least” not it is the “ambition to use”. To be SOUND the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets for each area. These figures must be monitored, vigorously progressed and be made available to the public.
4.6 SLDC must discuss Kendal Town Council’s three reports in detail with the town council and members of opposition groups (e.g. Green Spaces). I would like to see the LA DPD changed to incorporate as much as possible of that which is agreed in these discussions.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL PEOPLE MUST BE AT THE TOP OF SLDC's PRIORITY LIST and despite all my emails and protest at the Core Strategy hearings this has not yet been done in Kendal.
So I wish to speak face to face with the inspector and ask him personally if he will recommend in his report that notes be added to the LA DPD stating that SLDC must fix their major existing problems first and meet the SLDC/CCC definition for "Acceptable Junction Congestion" and the Law on Air Quality before allowing actual build of site R170M, which will add to these problems (see examples of notes in section 4.2 above).
A PRECEDENT has already been set by a note in Policy LA2.2 for site R170M relating to the sewerage network in North Kendal. If United Utilities have to fix their major existing problems first before building is allowed then so must SLDC, this is logical and should not need a political decision.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 17 May 2012 10:40:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R170M-mod KENDAL NORTH OF LAUREL GARDENS
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1.0 Consultation
1.1 SLDC did not change the proposals in-line with the citizens important wishes.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Legal Compliance in it’s document – "legal.doc” (Legal Compliance Tool from http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85651 )
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (page 7):
“6. Does the consultation contribute to the development and sustainability appraisal of alternatives?”
This has not been carried out correctly, alternatives have not been seriously considered. In particular the Kendal Town Council’s excellent reports, containing good alternatives, have been ignored.
The vast majority of the oppose responses made in the SLDC consultations were noted, listed in the consultation documents and then almost totally ignored. In my view these consultations were just so that SLDC could “tick the box” for the government inspector and therefore were a waste of taxpayers money.
I have done a detailed examination of the SLDC Consultation Database and these are my findings:
On 11th August 2011 (after the closing date) there were 2986 responses from the Kendal settlement. 98% of these responses opposed the proposals in their neighbourhood. Most of those that “support in part” did not support housing. Most of the few indicating “support” were representatives of the land owner, potential builder, Kendal Futures Board or the North West Development Agency.
The main reasons for the respondents opposition was the increase in traffic that these proposed developments would cause, and the affect they would have on the landscape character of Kendal. Better alternative sites were suggested, noted and then ignored. The present proposals will not “satisfy the needs of future generations” and are therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE.
Issues raised in the consultations would have contributed greatly to the development and sustainability of alternatives but the alternatives put forward have been ignored (also see other evidence 2.3 below). Therefore the LA DPD it is not Legally Compliant.
I would like to see alternatives discussed with Kendal Town Council and the Green Spaces group. Then any changes agreed included in the LA DPD.
2.0 Alternative plan
2.1 Law must be obeyed.
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (legal.doc page 5):
“* developing alternatives and options and appraising them through sustainability appraisal and against evidence.”
The SLDC Air Quality reports show that SLDC have been breaking the Law on Air Quality for many years. It means that SLDC must use an alternative plan for Kendal until it is proven that the law is being obeyed (with spare capacity for proposed development). The reason the law must be proven is that action plans have not worked for at least 14 years (before 1998). In the meantime affordable houses can be built in other areas of SLDC which have low traffic.
Until an alternative plan is in position to ensure the law on Air Quality is obeyed (with spare capacity for the proposed development) the LA DPD is not Legally Compliant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Legal Compliance requirements are not definitive or closed questions; they are open to personal interpretation, so I will not make any further comment in these sections.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Personal Comments:- From my experience of the Core Strategy hearings and the SLDC consultations I know my response will be ignored. The changes to Kendal’s infrastructure, that the new SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) states are required (see below), is just one example of this. I am therefore taking this opportunity to place on record all the relevant evidence I have gathered on why site R170M (policy LA2.2) should not be included in the LA DPD. Quotes from certain documents have been added to make it easier for the reader. There is repetition of some issues but this is because I have added different sources of evidence throughout the document.
It is undemocratic just to include Legal Compliance and Soundness in this consultation. In a democratic society the wishes of the majority of local people would have priority over these criteria. Also criteria such as “Justice” and “Fairness” should be considered. These were totally ignored in the Core Strategy consultation and hearings.
Test of Soundness
1.0 Not justified
1.1 Health and well-being of citizens in Kendal.
I have been informed that a developer does not have to fix an existing problem he just needs to show that he will not make it any worse. This is ridiculous, while SLDC are breaking the law on Air Quality developers must not be allowed to build on site R170M and other Kendal sites until the law is obeyed. SLDC breaking the law must surely be enough to prevent developers from winning an appeal. The people’s health and well-being must have top priority over everything else in the LA DPD.
The latest Cumbria County Council’s transport plan LPT3 does not include plans for the necessary infrastructure to fix existing problems neither does the SLDC Core Strategy. It was only after pressure from the public that SLDC & CCC produced the Transport Study (which is only a study) and after all this time the Transport Plan has not yet been made available to the public. Without a Transport Plan (including committed funding) signed off by all the participants the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE within the current timescales (2025) and is UNSOUND.
Before the year 2000 the SLDC objective was to meet the law on Air Quality by the year 2005 but air pollution has continually increased and the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) has even been made larger. This shows that SLDC are not serious in meeting their objectives where the health and well-being of citizens, or obeying the law, are concerned.
A typical example is the approval of the Planning Application for the old Auction Mart site. Also planning approval is certain to go ahead for the Canal Head development. These will make the air pollution worse in the AQMA. The worst pollution occurs when junctions are grid-locked and tinkering with traffic lights will not fix this problem. It will take major infrastructure changes to fix the existing traffic problems and allow for proposed LDF expansion. The Transport Study even admits that none of the improvements schemes will meet SLDC objectives.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
“6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
More building is planned in Kendal within the next few years (phase 1). This will make the major traffic problems worse. Infrastructure should already be in place to cope. Instead there is not even an approved Transport Plan in place, never mind the infrastructure that will be needed to meet SLDC standards and objectives.
The Transport Study is stating that further modelling is required. This shows that SLDC do not yet know at the present time if their proposals can be implemented or if funding will be available within the LDF timeframe (year 2025), therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND. Once money has been spent on major infrastructure changes it will be expected that these changes will last for at least 15 years (through the next LDF) therefore any further modelling must use a date of 2040 or beyond. These results will prove that the Taylor “hub & spoke” must be started now (see more evidence below).
SLDC should be very concerned about anyone who has any bronchial condition (e.g. asthma) and for the future health of children walking to school through Kendal during times of peak pollution. The health of residents of Kendal town should also cause great concern; a lot of them are elderly and frail.
SLDC have chosen the sites which cost the least to develop (e.g. no compulsory purchase costs) and will make the most profit for the developer rather than those best for the health and well being of local people. Money is being put before health. The law’s limits on air pollution are the maximum; the spirit of the law is zero pollution.
This does not mean that expansion cannot take place in other more suitable low pollution/low traffic areas of South Lakeland District. Plenty of more suitable sites, originally on the LA DPD maps for the SLDC district, have not been included on the latest maps. It is not fair that these traffic problems are not shared throughout the entire SLDC district. This is another reason why the hub & spoke system must be adopted – FAIRNESS.
The health and well-being of the people due to air pollution must have top priority over everything else in the LDF. This is not happening with the current proposals. Proving the law is being obeyed must come second on the priority list after health. If it does not already do so the “Soundness” examination must take account of these two very important issues.
The evidence above shows that these traffic problems in Kendal will not be fixed without major infrastructure changes which are not in Cumbria County Council’s LTP3.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND and site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and funding (see above).
For more evidence see extracts from the SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) below.
1.2 Alternative strategy.
Although SLDC have carried out consultations they have ignored the major objections. They have even ignored the alternatives put forward by Kendal Town Council in their excellent reports - “KTC_Response.pdf ”, “KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf ” & “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf. ". To avoid even more “urban sprawl” of Kendal the Taylor “hub & spoke” strategy must be adopted and not the current “doughnut” strategy. Kendal will be around for many thousands of years to come, which makes the “doughnut” strategy UNSUSTAINABLE (i.e. will not satisfy the needs of future generations). Only the “hub & spoke” is sustainable in the years to come because extra “satellites” can be added. By then the proposed “doughnut” system will make Kendal such an urban sprawl that very few people will wish to live there. To prevent this happening the “hub & spoke” system must be started NOW.
Money is being put before what is best for the health and well-being of the people of Kendal now and in the future (beyond 2025).
The Taylor Report, which puts forward compelling evidence in favour of the “hub & spoke” system, shows that the proposed “doughnut” system is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore the development of site R170 (being a peripheral Green Gap site) is UNSOUND and must be removed from the LA DPD.
2.0 Not effective
2.1 Not meeting definitions of soundness.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Soundness in the document - "soundness.doc" (Soundness Tool from: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85673 )
Extract from page 6 - Deliverable:
"21. Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives?
i. Sections of the development plan document which address delivery and the timescales for key developments and initiatives.
ii. Confirmation from the local strategic partnership and partner organisations that the timescales are realistic in terms of their contribution to delivery."
Extract from page 8 - Deliverable:
“28. Is it clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and does the timing of the provision complement the timescale of the strategy/policies?
i. Confirmation from infrastructure providers that they support the solutions proposed and the identified means and timescales for their delivery.
ii. Representations in respect of infrastructure.
iii. Reports or copies of correspondence on how representations in relation to infrastructure and its timing have been considered and dealt with.”
Extract from page 5 of SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
“12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
I have only selected this one paragraph; there are numerous other paragraphs which support these conclusions. In particular Page 15, Item 5.2.1, Table 5.1 which confirms that all schemes fail to meet SLDC’s objective. The results in Tables 5.2 & 5.3 are even worse.
SLDC’s objective is to meet “Acceptable junction performance” which is defined on page 9, item 4.1.5.
I'm not sure why the year 2022 was chosen as base-line, whatever major infrastructure is planned must enable SLDC to meet their objectives for years beyond 2025. In my opinion until 2040, the end of the next LDF.
Schemes 4, 5 & 6 require major investment and are not in the Core Strategy and therefore must be excluded from the Transport Plan when it is published. Note that the Transport Plan should incorporate extra capacity to cope with the “doughnut” system which, if approved, will undoubtedly continue after 2025.
The SLDC Air Quality Reports show that air pollution is getting worse in Kendal and also the AQMA has been increased.
Extract from page 27 of Air Quality Report (PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf)
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page857/PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf ).
"It would be hoped that each individual action would add to a combined reduction in levels to meet the requirement above. However, the 2009 annual mean NO2 results of the diffusion tube monitoring and the continuous analyser within the AQMA actually show that levels remain high, close to or above the 2010 objective and have actually increased from 2008 levels in 2009 in some locations. Without radical progress by Cumbria County Council on changes to the road system, vehicle access and parking in Kendal it is unlikely that the objective will be achieved."
Note the word “hoped”. Over many previous years this is typical of SLDC’s attitude towards obeying the law on Air Quality. SLDC action plans have not worked in the past and this is proved by the fact that the AQMA has recently been made larger.
The SLDC document "ED43_Housing Completions 1999 to 2010.doc" plus SLDC updates show that from the beginning of plan period 2003 to end of 2011 (8 years results) the total for South Lakeland is 1690 / 8 = 211 average and of these affordable are 406 / 8 = 51 average (or 24%). Figures for 2006 to 2011 (last 5 years results) are 934 / 5 = 187 average and of these affordable are 264 / 5 = 53 average (or 28%).
Between 2003 and 2011 the number of completions was 1690. At 400 per year the objective was 3200 over this 8 year period, a difference of 1510. To make up this deficit means that over the remaining 14 years (up to 2025) an extra 1510 / 14 = 107 per year will be required. This extra number per year will get a lot higher when the build rate stays below 400 per year.
This is nowhere near the Core Strategy figure of 400 dwellings per year or the percentage affordable figure of 35% and therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE. 200 dwellings per year would be a more realistic figure and this is the latest figure that is necessary according to a Kendal Town Council Report (see below).
SLDC have recognised this and have added the word “ambition” to build this number of houses to the LA DPD (see page 7 of the “Land Allocations DPD [Feb 12].pdf ” as an example). This word is not used in this context with regard to numbers in the Core Strategy document. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND with respect to the Core Strategy. The Leader of the Council insisted the numbers in the Core Strategy were achievable within the timescales of the LDF.
The above figures show there was an inward migration of 3 (high cost) to 1 (affordable). The majority of the proposed SLDC development is for the Kendal area (35%, 140 dpa) and this will add greatly to traffic problems mentioned above. This inward migration must not be planned (or allowed) to continue until all the partners involved have “signed on the dotted line” that they will meet the LA DPD milestones for all the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewerage, doctors, dentists, schools, etc) that is required. With the proviso that the build will actually take place in the timescales planned. It causes unnecessary stress to local people when unachievable targets are proposed or planned.
Another issue that affects DELIVERABILITY is Brownfield sites (or previously developed land).
It states in "SLDC_Core_Strategy_Document_March2011_sm4web2.pdf " (page 17):
"CS1.2 – The Development Strategy
Priority will be given to the reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land for all new housing development, with a target of ensuring that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites."
The “at least 28%” is also mentioned in CS6.6 (page 85). The 50% in item 7.14 is a mistake, it was the previous target. Now the target has been lowered, and "at least 28%" is said by SLDC to be achievable, the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets in each area. The Core Strategy and LA DPD have a requirement to be monitored and targets at least progressed vigorously.
The LA DPD does not mention this requirement; therefore it does not conform to the Core Strategy and is UNSOUND. Also these monitored figures need to be published and available to the public.
The SLDC Transport Report (Atkins 2009) states an amber limit for acceptable Junction Congestion and that in 2008 there were 7 red (above limit) junctions with 11 red junctions forecast in 2025.
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page2033/Kendal_TAJune_2009.pdf )
Pages 7 of this report specifically mentions the Middle Sparrowmire R170M site (referred to as “The Todds”) as being inappropriate because it would "worsen existing congestion on Windermere Road, as traffic travels into Kendal town centre. As the Windermere Road corridor already suffers congestion and delays during peak travel periods, it is considered that additional large-scale development in this area will lead to deterioration in traffic conditions." There are more similar comments on pages 60 & 71.
Site R170M feeds traffic into Windermere Road and therefore must be removed from the LA DPD until SLDC have met their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ” page 5 (Exec Summary):
"However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required."
The Canal Head development is more important to Kendal than site R170M therefore because site R170M will add more traffic to Kendal streets it is UNSOUND to build on it. It must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and committed funding.
Page 115 of the document “KENDAL Appendix 1.pdf ” (Appendix 1B – Consultation Responses after October 2010) for site R170M states:
“Achieving adequate visibility will be problematic given alignment of road and limited frontage. Such a large site would require a secondary access (Cumbria County Council – Highways).”
The conclusions reached by a chartered civil engineer who has carried out measurements to Transport Standards of the proposed access to site R170M are as follows:
“There is severely restricted forward visibility on both bends in Burneside Road either side of the proposed access location.
In either scenario tested the visibility from the proposed access towards Kendal falls far short of the standard required.
A new junction cannot be safely introduced in this location.”
This report can be supplied if required.
It cannot be right not to identify this secondary access. When it is identified there will be a lot more opposition to site R170 than is currently expressed.
As I said at the beginning of this response about including “JUSTICE” and “FAIRNESS”, it is not FAIR to include a site which is likely to have “show stopping” problems without first carrying out a thorough investigation into these particular problems.
Given the evidence above, until it can be proved that both access roads can be built to meet the Transport Standards, the development of the site R170 is UNSOUND and it must be removed from the LA DPD.
The site R170M is still part of a Green Gap. This means by definition it has higher protection than Greenfields. People who purchased their properties believing this to be true now find that they will be subjected to a grave INJUSTICE if site R170M is not removed from the LA DPD.
This is a very important reason why site R170M should not be developed – JUSTICE.
Extract from page 137 item 6.9 of the Inspector's Report on the public enquiry in 1996. Green Gap site R170M is the site mentioned below.
"Inspector's Conclusions:
6.9 The objection by Mr Downham [biased land owner] is not concerned with the provision of a green gap, but the extent of that gap. It is argued [land owner’s words] that the green gap, as shown in the Consultation draft of the Plan, follows a public footpath running between substantial hedges, a clearly defined landscape boundary: whilst the residential allocation at Sparrowmire has been reduced in the Deposit Draft, an equivalent extension to the green gap is not necessary. ^However, and most importantly in my view, the objection indicates that the "land should remain unallocated as white land so that when the Plan is reviewed in 10 years' time it can be considered as potential residential land" [land owner’s words]. I consider this underlying reason for excluding the land from the green gap identifies the very reason it should remain so designated. Structure Plan Policy 14 and the reasoned justification makes no reference to the length of time during which the vulnerable areas of countryside between settlements should be protected.^ Although policies and proposals in the Local Plan must clearly relate to the Plan period, and can be subject to review thereafter, it appears to me common sense that what is unacceptable now, will most probably be equally unacceptable at the end of the Plan period: certainly I consider the Plan should seek to engender a degree of public confidence that the separation secured will not, at some future time, be lightly squandered. ^For these reasons I believe that, where a green gap is seen as necessary, it is more important that the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap than that substantial, but arbitrary landscape features should be rigidly followed. I also consider the inter-visibility of settlements is not a factor which should affect the definition of green gaps."^
I have marked with ^...^ the most important words in the above paragraph and my clarifying words are in square brackets.
The first group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that the owner wished to leave the remaining land (now site R170M) as white land, so it can sold as high priced building land at a later date. The inspector states that this is the very reason it must remain as a Green Gap and because of this statement it is Green Gap. The LA DPD only includes Green Gap site R170M because the owner is keen to sell and make a large profit, if he didn’t it would not be included.
The second group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that “the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap”. It must not depend on “landscape features” or “inter-visibility of settlements”, but these are the very reasons that SLDC state as to why site R170M can be built-on.
Site R170M is still currently a Green Gap site and by definition has more protection than all Greenfields.
A Government Inspector’s words made the white land (now site R170M) into Green Gap and must not be ignored. Therefore to include site R170M in the LA DPD until all the more suitable Greenfield sites have been built-on is UNSOUND.
This R170M Green Gap is also land of most value to the existing community as backed up by this statement in ‘The Taylor Review’ (Page 58):
“20. Government policy is to increase the density of new housing as a means to maximising land use and better support local services. New extensions to settlements therefore may be relatively densely designed and built right up against the existing settlement to minimise the number of green fields ‘swallowed up’. However, this will mean they are built on exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town. Local residents against new development may be accused of ignoring the needs of others for housing, but they have a genuine point. They may not have bought the right to their countryside views, but they certainly have paid for them, and these developments are on exactly the fields of most landscape value to existing residents."
Taylor gives a valid reason why local people should not be labelled with the scorning name NIMBYs’ when they have a good reason and evidence to oppose development in their neighbourhood.
The evidence above shows that the proposed LA DPD numbers for dwellings to be built are UNDELIVERABLE before 2025. If the numbers were reduced to ones that were deliverable and sound there would be no reason to include the peripheral site R170M in the last phase (2022-25) of the LA DPD, since it is a Green Gap and hence has a higher protection than any of the proposed Greenfield sites. Note at this point in time site R170M is still part of a Green Gap.
“The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods.”
(see http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/communityinfrastructurelevy/ )
There is absolutely no evidence in the LA DPD about how much funding SLDC are capable of obtaining from developers from the levy. Their track record in the past has been very poor when negotiating for affordable dwelling percentages. The target over previous years has been 50% but SLDC of only achieved 28%. The target is now 35% which from past results is still just wishful thinking. SLDC are relying on this money to fund infrastructure and other projects. Until SLDC publish real evidence that the money raised from this levy is in excess (there will always be an overspend) of that required, for all the proposals in the LA DPD it is intended for, then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
Until it is certain that the required infrastructure funding will be available within the planned timescales, in order that SLDC meet their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion, then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has a approved construction plan and committed funding in place (see above). Also that it is shown to decrease the traffic levels in the Windermere Road corridor enough for SLDC traffic objectives are met in this area.
3.0 Further evidence in support of why Policy LA2.2 (site R170M) should be removed from the LA DPD.
3.1 Extracts from Kendal Town Council document "KTC_Response.pdf " (Apr 2011)
Page 8 Transport Improvements.
“The Assessment then looked at the impact of the various possible development sites which were then under discussion. The Assessment modelled the impact of various remedial measures that could be taken, ranging from junction improvements to the building of the Inner Relief Road. It concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three sites were removed:
• Land within the Shap Road/Appleby Road corridor (Site E23/49 and Sites M8/M35/ M36)
• The Todds, west of Burneside Road (Sites R148/R170)
• Stonebank Green (Sites M39/R676/R103/R675)
There was no solution which permitted these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment).”
This supports previous evidence that the development of site R170M (The Todds) is UNSOUND
Page 9 section on “Sewer Capacity”
“In addition, United Utilities has concerns about the capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Works, located to the south of Kendal, for which process modelling needs to be carried out. This impacts all the potential development sites in the town.”
I have an email from SLDC dated 27Apr2011 which states:
“The following is based on information and advice provided by United Utilities.
1. United Utilities cannot determine the number of dwellings that will cause Kendal Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) to reach process capacity without conducting modelling. The threshold for when capacity is reached is determined by the design capacity of the WwTW and the population that it serves with some headroom designed in to the calculations. This headroom is not excessive as United Utilities cannot design and build for a population that is not already there or where development is not definite.
2. There are local network issues in respect of sewer capacity in the Kendal area . They are primarily centred around the Burneside area as evidenced in the Core Strategy and supporting Land Allocations Document material.
3. South Lakeland District Council does not hold or have access to data/information regarding the catchment area of the Kendal Sewerage Works.”
SLDC/UU admit that the headroom (i.e. spare capacity) is not excessive. Despite this SLDC have no results of any modelling and have not insisted that this modelling be carried out by UU. SLDC do not even know the catchment area for Kendal Sewage Works. There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC do have this information today (a year later). Therefore SLDC do not know how many dwellings can be built before Kendal Sewage Works needs a major upgrade costing many millions of pounds.
United Utilities move their funding from year to year as they see their immediate priorities change, so until they actual “sign on the dotted line” to meet certain dates then their current dates can “be taken with a pinch of salt”. As evidence to support this, the paying customers of Burneside have been waiting over 20 years to get their sewerage fixed and they still have sewage on the streets during heavy rain. So there is no guarantee that the North West Kendal problem will be fixed before 2025.
Site R170M is one of the last sites in the plan to be developed therefore until the above figures are known for the whole of the catchment area and UU & OFWAT have “signed on the dotted line” to meet their agreed dates then the site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 9 section on “Hydrologic Considerations”.
“However, the mechanisms (some man-made, mostly natural) which are currently managing to keep Kendal free of floods are not well understood. Several of the sites included in the Land Allocations have a history of being badly affected by rainfall. This suggests they have a role to play in mitigating surface run-off and hence flood prevention. If this is correct, development of such sites could trigger flooding in the town - and making the sites themselves flood proof would certainly involve additional expense for developers.
Kendal Town Council believes this is an important omission from the current evidence base, and calls on SLDC to commission a full hydrology study of the area before including the affected sites in any final land allocation. Any remedial infrastructure required to allow these sites to be developed safely would need to be included in the overall infrastructure programme.
Land Allocations affected by this consideration are the lower Hallgarth sites (R169M and R170M), Appleby Road (MK35KM), Natland Beck at Kendal Parks (R107M, R150M), Stock Beck at Castle Green Road (R121M), and Stonecross (R103M), and Blind Beck (R129M)”
There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC have commissioned this study or have any results. Site R170M is mentioned in quote above and so until this study is carried out development of site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 10 Infrastructure.
“3. Sites should not be included in a Final Land Allocations document unless their impact on Kendal’s transport is understood, solutions are agreed with partners, and the impact has successfully passed a rerun of the Transport Assessment. ‘Emerging Option’ sites affected by this are indicated are indicated by an ‘X’ in the ‘Traffic’ column in the Detail by each Land Allocation site starting on page 11.”
Note site R170M has an ‘X’ in the Traffic column, so this site should be removed from the LA DPD until its impact on Kendal’s junction congestion is fully understood.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.2 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. "KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf" (Sep 2011)
Page 5 Doughnut Development
“Taylor contends: ...these developments undermine sustainability. They invariably encourage car use, especially if there are no services or employment within walking distance, with resulting congestion on roads into town. And without local and community facilities of their own, there is little to build social sustainability and cohesion or links between new and existing settlements as there will be little in the way of community life.
This approach to planning is also a recipe for confrontation, “developing exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town”
(as has been amply demonstrated in Kendal by the response to the Emerging Options consultation process).
Without change we will simply repeat the mistakes of recent decades, creating unattractive developments of housing estates encircling our rural towns and larger villages, and we will fail to stem the trend of smaller villages becoming dormitory settlements of commuters and the retired, ever less affordable for those who work within them. This is not a sustainable future for rural England.
Without strong Land Allocation policies from the Planning Authority, Kendal is heading towards an unsustainable “doughnutted” future.”
This confirms that development of the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 6 Recommendation for Kendal
“The Council believes the Planning Authority should follow Taylor and adopt this model in preparing its final Land Allocations policies for Kendal, as the only way in which the NPPF demand for sustainable development can be achieved in the town. It is important to note that this is not in conflict with the Core Strategy positioning of Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, or with the requirements for meeting forecast housing demand. From Taylor, the requirements for sustainable development in rural market towns is clear: it cannot be delivered by allocating isolated sites around the town; a hub and spoke model is required. Even without the NPPF’s insistence on sustainable development, there are other intrinsic advantages to the hub and spoke model for Kendal. The Council’s previous Response to Consultation highlighted the major infrastructure challenges to be overcome in the town. These become far more soluble if development proceeds on hub-by-hub basis, when the infrastructure work can be concentrated on the corresponding spokes. For example, it is far simpler to improve bus services, cycling provision, etc. if only one or two ‘spokes’ have to be addressed.
The evidence in the EHLSS shows that there are suitable sites available (the scope of the SHLAS only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that the “doughnut” strategy is incorrect for Kendal and should be replaced by the “hub & spoke” strategy. It also confirms that the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is unsustainable and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 10 Latest Forecasts (2011)
“The latest forecast in this series was produced in Spring 2011. It shows a drastically reduced requirement:
• only 360 dwellings across the 20 years, or
• just over 4,000 including migration, projected on the last five years’ evidence.
This suggests that a more appropriate target for the next 5-10 years would be around 200 dwellings per annum.”
This confirms the evidence given above that 200 per year is what is required and this number would be deliverable. If this number was planned then the peripheral Green Gap site R170M would not be required and being in the last phase would not be needed in this LA DPD.
This section supports previous evidence that the LA DPD is UNSUSTAINABLE and UNSOUND.
3.3 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf “ (Mar 2012)
Page 4 Summary
“The Council believes that the DPD is not justified because it fails the following tests of soundness:
• the LPA has failed in its duty to compare against reasonable alternatives
• key decisions are not supported by the evidence base or the evidence supports a different conclusion
• the evidence base is incomplete
The DPD is also not effective in that it is not deliverable, with key elements of the dependent infrastructure
not understood.”
This confirms the LA DPD is NOT DELIVERABLE.
Page 4
“For rural market towns, the evidence was pulled together in July 2008 by the Taylor Review9, setting out the policy framework necessary to deliver the “vision of a living, working sustainable countryside”. Taylor provided compelling evidence that “doughnut development” was the wrong approach for sustainable rural market towns, and that a “hub and spoke” model represented the best pattern for sustainability.”
The two KTC paragraphs above confirm that an alternative system must be adopted now, which will “meet the needs of future generations” of Kendal (i.e. BE SUSTAINABLE”) for the many thousands of years to come.
Page 4
“The evidence in the EHLSS indicates that suitable sites could be available (the scope of the SHLAA only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that a “hub & spoke” is viable.
Page 5
“The Assessment concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three large sites were removed. The consultants could find no mitigation which would permit these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment.)”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD because it is one of the three sites.
Page 5
“Given that this approach has differed significantly from the independent consultants’, the Council asks the Inspector to order an independent audit of this latest work by W.S.Atkins or equivalent to ensure it meets accepted professional standards of objectivity and integrity. The Council further asks the Inspector to ensure that no sites are included in the DPD which the evidence shows are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD, because it is one of the sites which “are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
Page 7
“The Council asks the Inspector to withhold approval of the DPD until there is a credible infrastructure plan showing the impact of the major sites on the overall town infrastructure, and with high level solutions identified and costed with enough detail to enable the economic deliverability of the sites to be proven.”
This adds to the evidence given above that there must be signatures, to supply the necessary infrastructure and funding, must be in place before this LA DPD is approved by the Government. Until this is done site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.4 Extracts from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Page 5 Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
"10. The LDF developments have a more notable impact in the AM peak compared to the base situation. The model results indicate that the provision of sustainable transport improvements (Scheme 2) would be required to support LDF development to nil-detriment compared to the 2022 base situation in the AM peak. However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required.
11. It should be noted that although these schemes are required to achieve nil-detriment, these improvements are only demonstrated to offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal. These infrastructure schemes would be expensive and may not be a cost-effective solution to congestion in Kendal town centre.
12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.
13. It is recommended that further modelling work is undertaken"
The Transport Study shows that the objectives cannot be achieved before 2025 therefore the problems are going to be much worse in the years 2026 onwards.
SLDC do not have signed-off solutions and timescales in place to meet the plan phases, therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 9 This page gives the CCC/SLDC definition for Junction Congestion limits.
"Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts."
The Atkins report uses a Volume/Capacity ratio of 90 as acceptable for a junction approach, which is similar.
The Study shows that these objectives will not be met by 2025 so this, along with page 10 (see below) adds evidence to the above.
Page 10
"4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. These are:Junction1: A5284 Stricklandgate/Sandes AvenueJunction 2: A5284 Sandes Avenue / A6 Blackhall Road signalised junction
Junction 5: A6 Longpool / Station Road mini-roundabout junction
Junction 12: A6 Highgate / Lowther Street signalised junction
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Junction 16: A6 Milnthorpe Road / Romney Road signalised junction
Junction 17: A5284 Windermere Road/Queens Road
Junction 18: A5284 Windermere Road/Burneside Road
Junction 21: A65 Burton Road / Oxenholme Road signalised junction
Junction 27: A684 Sedbergh Road / Sandylands Road priority junction
Junction 29: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (north) priority junction
Junction 30: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (south) priority junction
Junction 31: A685 Appleby Road/Sandylands Road"
“Measures must be in place” to fix these major problems first (i.e. meet SLDC objectives). They have a huge bearing on why SLDC is still breaking the law on Air Quality.
Page 14
“* Scheme 6: Scheme 5, plus a potential Kendal Southern Link Road, which comprises a new single-carriageway road linking the A6 Milnthorpe Road with the A65 Burton Road south of Kendal town centre.”
This new road proposal has never been mentioned before; it is not in the Core Strategy and therefore, as we have been told before, it cannot be considered in this LDF.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.5 Extracts from SLDC document "06 Infrastructure Position Statement.pdf ”:
Page 10
"4.19 United Utilities has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area. A proposal for expenditure in the years 2010 – 2015 is contained within the published five years Investment Plan (Asset Management programme). The plan can be found at the following website link: http://www.unitedutilities.com/Documents/Detailed_plan.pdf "
There is nothing in this PDF document that is specific to Kendal.
UU may have "a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area" but it is very poor at obeying this duty as is verified by the > 20 years Burnside have been suffering sewage problems (and still are).
Until UU actually “sign on the dotted line” to meet the required planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.23 Funding is more likely to be acquired in cases where there is development certainty (i.e. clear evidence of developer interest).
* UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct."
This backs previous evidence, never mind “development certainty” what about the existing paying customers who are still suffering sewage and flooding problems due to lack of investment.
Until United Utilities “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.24 There is currently loading capacity at Kendal Waste water Treatment Works (WwTW), however, for the number of dwellings that are proposed a full process and hydraulic survey of the Works will have to be undertaken before UU could comfortably approve the Planning Applications. As the sewer network is at capacity in North Kendal, UU could not agree to any significant development until after 2015 in this part of the town. Providing UU obtain funding through OFWAT to undertake the necessary upgrades etc. UU will be building into the 2014 Business Submission to OFWAT a case for funding to provide the means to accommodate development, which will boost the economy.
4.25 A feasibility study is being undertaken on the Kendal WwTW. Recommended phosphorous levels are set by Environment Agency (EA) through discharge consents, and until EA impose a new requirement for a lowered rate, UU will continue to discharge at the current rate. UU stated achieving any required lower rates would depend on new/better technology. Further Phosphorous removal would only be undertaken if UU were required to achieve a tighter standard as set by the EA following their review of water quality. Newer technology, which is not currently available, would be required to achieve any standard below 1mg/l. UU has advised development in the Kendal area should be capped at 2000 properties unless a more stringent phosphorus effluent standard can be achieved.
4.26 UU has advised that sites in North Kendal should only come forward in the latter periods of the plan period when sewage network improvements are in place.
4.27 Strategically there is enough water supply to accommodate levels of new development, but there are potential risks of deterioration of water quality."
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 14
"4.45 Electricity North West Ltd manage infrastructure and distribute and transmit electricity throughout South Lakeland. The regulator determines the amount of funding, however, it is not known what the next round of funding may or may not allow for investment in improvements. Information relating to substation capacity has not been ascertained. Evidence when exploring options for the Canal Head Area of Kendal shows that the Kendal Primary substation is currently operating close to or at capacity. It is possible that significant development in Kendal would require investment for network reinforcement and that a new Primary Substation would be required although Electricity North West Ltd does not confirm this. No information has been made available stating whether this is the case. Only when the customer has firm load requirements and location details can a system study be undertaken to ascertain the scale of impact of potential new development."
What if the system study states it cannot be done or they cannot obtain the funding within the plan timescales? Electricity North West Ltd already has the number of houses proposed and their locations so they must commit to a system study and confirm that the proposed developments are deliverable. Until then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 15
"4.48 National Grid Gas Distribution own and operate the local gas distribution network in South Lakeland. The confidential nature of the process means National Grid are unable to confirm whether they are currently processing or have made any offers for connection within Cumbria."
The document states nothing about National Grid Gas Distribution having a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of gas supply within its area.
The LA DPD cannot possibly be monitored correctly until all the Gas company has “signed on the dotted line” to meet the timescales required. Until then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This Infrastructure document is only a statement; there is no indication when the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be available to the public or any indication that the timescales can be met. The LA DPD is UNSOUND until the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Kendal Transport Plan are available with all milestones agreed, funding committed and both signed off by the respective utility companies. They can have the proviso that it depends on the build going ahead as planned.
3.6 Extracts from SLDC document “01 Consultation Report.pdf ”:
Page 19
“In their response the Highways Agency identified those sites it considers (if developed, due to cumulative impact with other sites) may impact upon the capacity, operation and safety of the strategic road network (SRN) (A590 and M6) within South Lakeland. As a consequence, the Agency has stated that the cumulative impact of development of sites under consideration in the following settlements (see below) may result in some impact to the SRN: Burneside, Crooklands, Endmoor, Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, Levens, Milnthorpe and Ulverston alongside the sites suggested for strategic employment use (in Ulverston and Kendal area).”
Note the word “may” on the second line. They either do or they don’t. After all these years of the LDF there is no excuse for this information not being available. SLDC must obtain an answer to this issue immediately and publish it. If any of the developments proposed within the LA DPD do affect the Strategic Road Network then any changes necessary must be included in the LA DPD and the Transport Plan (which must be issued before the hearings). Note the Strategic Road Network is NOT currently mentioned in the LA DPD.
Page 21
This page with reference to Burneside states:
“.....this is no guarantee that funding will be approved by OFWAT”.
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted” line to meet the planned timescales the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 21
“Additional work is needed by UU to check if cumulative impact on treatment works may raise capacity issues
SLDC must publish how many houses can be built in the Kendal catchment area before a major upgrade to the sewage works is required. Until UU know their total funding requirements the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 34
KENDAL
“Many people believe development of the sites suggested would harm the landscape character of the town, worsen air quality, exacerbate current flooding problems, harm biodiversity, generate unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and place further strains on a heavily constrained sewerage system. Some people questioned the need for additional housing believing there are enough empty properties in the town to meet current and future housing demands. A number of people stated development should be prioritised on brownfield sites and meet primarily local needs.”
“Many people including Kendal Town Council and Burneside and Natland Parish Council’s supported the concept of green gaps to protect Kendal coalescing with neighbouring settlements. However, a significant number of people and Kendal Town Council and Natland Parish Council believed the suggested emerging options would not prevent coalescence from happening. There was general widespread support for the open space designations suggested, however, many people believed the emerging options sites should also be designated open space.”
“Kendal Town Council expressed serious concerns with the overall approach being suggested for the town, believing the amounts of developments and the emerging option sites suggested would damage the landscape character of the town, and put unnecessary strain on an inadequate infrastructure system. The Town Council has suggested an alternative strategy/approach for the town this being to protect existing green space/countryside surrounding the town and to look at alternative sites adjacent to nearby settlements and possibly further afield where development would have less impact on the town’s infrastructure, air quality and its high quality landscape value.”
These three paragraphs confirm that the wishes of the majority of local people have been ignored and adds support to the evidence given above concerning Consultation and Legal Compliance.
Page 46
On this page it states “UU is currently considering lists of projects that will require major capital investment in Asset Management Plan 6 period 2015-2020.” and “UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct.”
Until United Utilities and OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” to meet the planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE, UNSOUND and that consultation process was not Legally Compliant.
3.7 Extracts from SLDC document “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
Pages 51 & 52
Item 3.6 - Key local factors influencing the location of new development in Kendal:
“Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail and from important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout Scar/Brigsteer Road; Avoiding coalescence between Kendal, Oxenholme, Burneside and Natland and maintaining the separate identities of these settlements;
Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, promoting sustainable transport and achieving a positive impact on the Kendal Air Quality Management Area;
Infrastructure constraints including sewage capacity at Kentrigg and Steele's Row and the implications for development in northwest Kendal.”
One of the main comments of the people who responded to the SLDC consultations and opposed them was the character and appearance of Kendal. This is imbedded in the above paragraph and has been totally ignored. The LA DPD is therefore not Legally Compliant.
The site R170M is close to Kentrigg (mentioned above) and so it is UNSOUND to include it in the LA DPD until United Utilities are fully committed (i.e. signed on the dotted line) to the LA DPD timescales.
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive it should state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
A graph on this page it shows the following numbers over the years 2003 – 2025 (22 years).
Maximum number of dwellings ever built in one year was 300 in year 2005/06 and even this did not reach the target of 400 per year.
Extrapolating from the graphs the average number of dwellings built per year for the first 8 years was 100+280+150+150+240+300+230+220 = 1670 / 8 = 209 per year. In the terms of this graph there are already an extra 1530 dwellings (109/yr on top of the 400/yr) that have built just to catch up. This compares well with the more accurate figures in section 2.1 above.
The figure of 720 per year for the three years 2022 – 2025 is just WISHFULL THINKING.
One of the questions that must be asked to confirm SOUNDNESS is “Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives”. The above numbers are clearly not realistic therefore the current LA DPD is UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND within the timescales of this LA DPD (2025).
4.0 Changes required to the LA DPD document title “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
4.1 During the recent SLDC consultation 98% of the local neighbourhood who responded OPPOSED the proposals for site R170M. In a door-door poll of over 400 neighbours during 2011 approximately 80% of those asked OPPOSED the proposal to build on site R170M. Of the remaining 20% most did not care one way or the other. The Localism Bill is a Con Trick (nice pun); it promises much but does not actually support what the majority of the people in the neighbourhood want.
To prove SLDC are DEMOCRATIC they must be serious about responding to the majority of the local neighbourhood’s wishes. Also the TOTAL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ABOVE PROVES THAT SLDC MUST REMOVE THE PERIPHERAL GREEN GAP SITE R170M FROM THE LA DPD TO MAKE IT SOUND. THIS IS HOW THE LA DPD MUST BE CHANGED.
4.2 After many years (before year 2000) of knowing about the traffic problems in Kendal, SLDC have failed to produce a transport plan or action plan that enabled them to meet their standards and objectives for Air Quality and Junction Congestion. This must NOT be allowed to continue. Only when these standards and objectives have been PROVEN to have been met (with spare capacity for expansion) will the people believe SLDC are serious about tackling these major problems. The recent SLDC consultations show that increase in traffic was one of main reasons why 98% of the people (that responded) OPPOSE the proposals to build on sites in their area of Kendal.
Previous experience with Core Strategy has shown me that all my evidence will be ignored and that site R170M will not be removed from the LA DPD. If this is to be repeated then I would like to see the following changes to LA DPD.
There is a note on page 57 (item 3.18) of the LA DPD (policy LA2.2 site R170M) which states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO RESOLVE PRESSURE ON THE SEWERAGE NETWORK IN NORTH KENDAL."
This means existing problems will be fixed before building starts.
THIS SETS A PRECEDENT WHICH MUST CONTINUE WITH REGARD TO OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS.
The threat to the health of people due to air pollution is of as much importance as sewage on the streets. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make air pollution worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT THE LAW ON AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
Increase in traffic, which leads to more junction congestion and a deterioration in the well-being of local people, was one of the major complaints in the recent SLDC consultations. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make junction congestion worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT SLDC’S DEFINITION OF “ACCEPTABLE JUNCTION PERFORMANCE” HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
For definition see page 9 of “Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf”.
“4.1.5 An RFC or DoS of 100% indicates that an approach is operating at maximum capacity. Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts. Above this level, an approach is likely to begin to experience congestion as there is insufficient spare capacity to cope with fluctuations in traffic flow.”
4.3 Page 51 item 3.6:
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive. The word “Minimising” is just not good enough to meet the people’s wishes. It must state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
4.4 Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
This Appendix 4 must be changed and other pages which quote these figures. The SLDC evidence does not support the requirement that anywhere near the 8800 dwellings can be built before 2025. The numbers in the graph are not realistic (a SOUNDNESS word), therefore NOT DELIVERABLE and UNSOUND. 720/year for last three years is just wishful thinking, it is not realistic; this graph shows that the maximum that has ever been built within the last 8 years is 300 per year for the year 2005/06. The developers will not build 750 per year because it would swamp the market and they would be left with a large number of empty houses.
There is no point in just stating on page 7 of the LA DPD that it is “the ambition to deliver 400 dwellings each year” if these numbers cannot realistically be built and sold. There is also no point in just monitoring these numbers just so a box can be ticked to say they have been monitored. The numbers must be realistic so that they can be monitored and vigorously progressed.
Kendal Town Council have stated in one of their reports [Sep2011 see above] that only around 200 dwellings per year is the number required. SLDC must discuss this issue with KTC and reduce the current total figure of 8800 to a number that can realistically be built & sold before 2025 and not one that is just WISHFULL THINKING.
4.5 There is a requirement in the Core Strategy for Brownfield land to be used for “at least 28%” of the number of dwellings built. Note the words are “at least” not it is the “ambition to use”. To be SOUND the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets for each area. These figures must be monitored, vigorously progressed and be made available to the public.
4.6 SLDC must discuss Kendal Town Council’s three reports in detail with the town council and members of opposition groups (e.g. Green Spaces). I would like to see the LA DPD changed to incorporate as much as possible of that which is agreed in these discussions
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL PEOPLE MUST BE AT THE TOP OF SLDC's PRIORITY LIST and despite all my emails and protest at the Core Strategy hearings this has not yet been done in Kendal.
So I wish to speak face to face with the inspector and ask him personally if he will recommend in his report that notes be added to the LA DPD stating that SLDC must fix their major existing problems first and meet the SLDC/CCC definition for "Acceptable Junction Congestion" and the Law on Air Quality before allowing actual build of site R170M, which will add to these problems (see examples of notes in section 4.2 above).
A PRECEDENT has already been set by a note in Policy LA2.2 for site R170M relating to the sewerage network in North Kendal. If United Utilities have to fix their major existing problems first before building is allowed then so must SLDC, this is logical and should not need a political decision.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 17 May 2012 10:45:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Kendal sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1.0 Consultation
1.1 SLDC did not change the proposals in-line with the citizens important wishes.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Legal Compliance in it’s document – "legal.doc” (Legal Compliance Tool from http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85651 )
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (page 7):
“6. Does the consultation contribute to the development and sustainability appraisal of alternatives?”
This has not been carried out correctly, alternatives have not been seriously considered. In particular the Kendal Town Council’s excellent reports, containing good alternatives, have been ignored.
The vast majority of the oppose responses made in the SLDC consultations were noted, listed in the consultation documents and then almost totally ignored. In my view these consultations were just so that SLDC could “tick the box” for the government inspector and therefore were a waste of taxpayers money.
I have done a detailed examination of the SLDC Consultation Database and these are my findings:
On 11th August 2011 (after the closing date) there were 2986 responses from the Kendal settlement. 98% of these responses opposed the proposals in their neighbourhood. Most of those that “support in part” did not support housing. Most of the few indicating “support” were representatives of the land owner, potential builder, Kendal Futures Board or the North West Development Agency.
The main reasons for the respondents opposition was the increase in traffic that these proposed developments would cause, and the affect they would have on the landscape character of Kendal. Better alternative sites were suggested, noted and then ignored. The present proposals will not “satisfy the needs of future generations” and are therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE.
Issues raised in the consultations would have contributed greatly to the development and sustainability of alternatives but the alternatives put forward have been ignored (also see other evidence 2.3 below). Therefore the LA DPD it is not Legally Compliant.
I would like to see alternatives discussed with Kendal Town Council and the Green Spaces group. Then any changes agreed included in the LA DPD.
2.0 Alternative plan
2.1 Law must be obeyed.
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (legal.doc page 5):
“* developing alternatives and options and appraising them through sustainability appraisal and against evidence.”
The SLDC Air Quality reports show that SLDC have been breaking the Law on Air Quality for many years. It means that SLDC must use an alternative plan for Kendal until it is proven that the law is being obeyed (with spare capacity for proposed development). The reason the law must be proven is that action plans have not worked for at least 14 years (before 1998). In the meantime affordable houses can be built in other areas of SLDC which have low traffic.
Until an alternative plan is in position to ensure the law on Air Quality is obeyed (with spare capacity for the proposed development) the LA DPD is not Legally Compliant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Legal Compliance requirements are not definitive or closed questions; they are open to personal interpretation, so I will not make any further comment in these sections.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Personal Comments:- From my experience of the Core Strategy hearings and the SLDC consultations I know my response will be ignored. The changes to Kendal’s infrastructure, that the new SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) states are required (see below), is just one example of this. I am therefore taking this opportunity to place on record all the relevant evidence I have gathered on why site R170M (policy LA2.2) should not be included in the LA DPD. Quotes from certain documents have been added to make it easier for the reader. There is repetition of some issues but this is because I have added different sources of evidence throughout the document.
It is undemocratic just to include Legal Compliance and Soundness in this consultation. In a democratic society the wishes of the majority of local people would have priority over these criteria. Also criteria such as “Justice” and “Fairness” should be considered. These were totally ignored in the Core Strategy consultation and hearings.
Test of Soundness
1.0 Not justified
1.1 Health and well-being of citizens in Kendal.
I have been informed that a developer does not have to fix an existing problem he just needs to show that he will not make it any worse. This is ridiculous, while SLDC are breaking the law on Air Quality developers must not be allowed to build on site R170M and other Kendal sites until the law is obeyed. SLDC breaking the law must surely be enough to prevent developers from winning an appeal. The people’s health and well-being must have top priority over everything else in the LA DPD.
The latest Cumbria County Council’s transport plan LPT3 does not include plans for the necessary infrastructure to fix existing problems neither does the SLDC Core Strategy. It was only after pressure from the public that SLDC & CCC produced the Transport Study (which is only a study) and after all this time the Transport Plan has not yet been made available to the public. Without a Transport Plan (including committed funding) signed off by all the participants the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE within the current timescales (2025) and is UNSOUND.
Before the year 2000 the SLDC objective was to meet the law on Air Quality by the year 2005 but air pollution has continually increased and the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) has even been made larger. This shows that SLDC are not serious in meeting their objectives where the health and well-being of citizens, or obeying the law, are concerned.
A typical example is the approval of the Planning Application for the old Auction Mart site. Also planning approval is certain to go ahead for the Canal Head development. These will make the air pollution worse in the AQMA. The worst pollution occurs when junctions are grid-locked and tinkering with traffic lights will not fix this problem. It will take major infrastructure changes to fix the existing traffic problems and allow for proposed LDF expansion. The Transport Study even admits that none of the improvements schemes will meet SLDC objectives.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
“6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
More building is planned in Kendal within the next few years (phase 1). This will make the major traffic problems worse. Infrastructure should already be in place to cope. Instead there is not even an approved Transport Plan in place, never mind the infrastructure that will be needed to meet SLDC standards and objectives.
The Transport Study is stating that further modelling is required. This shows that SLDC do not yet know at the present time if their proposals can be implemented or if funding will be available within the LDF timeframe (year 2025), therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND. Once money has been spent on major infrastructure changes it will be expected that these changes will last for at least 15 years (through the next LDF) therefore any further modelling must use a date of 2040 or beyond. These results will prove that the Taylor “hub & spoke” must be started now (see more evidence below).
SLDC should be very concerned about anyone who has any bronchial condition (e.g. asthma) and for the future health of children walking to school through Kendal during times of peak pollution. The health of residents of Kendal town should also cause great concern; a lot of them are elderly and frail.
SLDC have chosen the sites which cost the least to develop (e.g. no compulsory purchase costs) and will make the most profit for the developer rather than those best for the health and well being of local people. Money is being put before health. The law’s limits on air pollution are the maximum; the spirit of the law is zero pollution.
This does not mean that expansion cannot take place in other more suitable low pollution/low traffic areas of South Lakeland District. Plenty of more suitable sites, originally on the LA DPD maps for the SLDC district, have not been included on the latest maps. It is not fair that these traffic problems are not shared throughout the entire SLDC district. This is another reason why the hub & spoke system must be adopted – FAIRNESS.
The health and well-being of the people due to air pollution must have top priority over everything else in the LDF. This is not happening with the current proposals. Proving the law is being obeyed must come second on the priority list after health. If it does not already do so the “Soundness” examination must take account of these two very important issues.
The evidence above shows that these traffic problems in Kendal will not be fixed without major infrastructure changes which are not in Cumbria County Council’s LTP3.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND and site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and funding (see above).
For more evidence see extracts from the SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) below.
1.2 Alternative strategy.
Although SLDC have carried out consultations they have ignored the major objections. They have even ignored the alternatives put forward by Kendal Town Council in their excellent reports - “KTC_Response.pdf ”, “KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf ” & “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf. ". To avoid even more “urban sprawl” of Kendal the Taylor “hub & spoke” strategy must be adopted and not the current “doughnut” strategy. Kendal will be around for many thousands of years to come, which makes the “doughnut” strategy UNSUSTAINABLE (i.e. will not satisfy the needs of future generations). Only the “hub & spoke” is sustainable in the years to come because extra “satellites” can be added. By then the proposed “doughnut” system will make Kendal such an urban sprawl that very few people will wish to live there. To prevent this happening the “hub & spoke” system must be started NOW.
Money is being put before what is best for the health and well-being of the people of Kendal now and in the future (beyond 2025).
The Taylor Report, which puts forward compelling evidence in favour of the “hub & spoke” system, shows that the proposed “doughnut” system is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore the development of site R170 (being a peripheral Green Gap site) is UNSOUND and must be removed from the LA DPD.
2.0 Not effective
2.1 Not meeting definitions of soundness.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Soundness in the document - "soundness.doc" (Soundness Tool from: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85673 )
Extract from page 6 - Deliverable:
"21. Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives?
i. Sections of the development plan document which address delivery and the timescales for key developments and initiatives.
ii. Confirmation from the local strategic partnership and partner organisations that the timescales are realistic in terms of their contribution to delivery."
Extract from page 8 - Deliverable:
“28. Is it clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and does the timing of the provision complement the timescale of the strategy/policies?
i. Confirmation from infrastructure providers that they support the solutions proposed and the identified means and timescales for their delivery.
ii. Representations in respect of infrastructure.
iii. Reports or copies of correspondence on how representations in relation to infrastructure and its timing have been considered and dealt with.”
Extract from page 5 of SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
“12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
I have only selected this one paragraph; there are numerous other paragraphs which support these conclusions. In particular Page 15, Item 5.2.1, Table 5.1 which confirms that all schemes fail to meet SLDC’s objective. The results in Tables 5.2 & 5.3 are even worse.
SLDC’s objective is to meet “Acceptable junction performance” which is defined on page 9, item 4.1.5.
I'm not sure why the year 2022 was chosen as base-line, whatever major infrastructure is planned must enable SLDC to meet their objectives for years beyond 2025. In my opinion until 2040, the end of the next LDF.
Schemes 4, 5 & 6 require major investment and are not in the Core Strategy and therefore must be excluded from the Transport Plan when it is published. Note that the Transport Plan should incorporate extra capacity to cope with the “doughnut” system which, if approved, will undoubtedly continue after 2025.
The SLDC Air Quality Reports show that air pollution is getting worse in Kendal and also the AQMA has been increased.
Extract from page 27 of Air Quality Report (PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf)
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page857/PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf ).
"It would be hoped that each individual action would add to a combined reduction in levels to meet the requirement above. However, the 2009 annual mean NO2 results of the diffusion tube monitoring and the continuous analyser within the AQMA actually show that levels remain high, close to or above the 2010 objective and have actually increased from 2008 levels in 2009 in some locations. Without radical progress by Cumbria County Council on changes to the road system, vehicle access and parking in Kendal it is unlikely that the objective will be achieved."
Note the word “hoped”. Over many previous years this is typical of SLDC’s attitude towards obeying the law on Air Quality. SLDC action plans have not worked in the past and this is proved by the fact that the AQMA has recently been made larger.
The SLDC document "ED43_Housing Completions 1999 to 2010.doc" plus SLDC updates show that from the beginning of plan period 2003 to end of 2011 (8 years results) the total for South Lakeland is 1690 / 8 = 211 average and of these affordable are 406 / 8 = 51 average (or 24%). Figures for 2006 to 2011 (last 5 years results) are 934 / 5 = 187 average and of these affordable are 264 / 5 = 53 average (or 28%).
Between 2003 and 2011 the number of completions was 1690. At 400 per year the objective was 3200 over this 8 year period, a difference of 1510. To make up this deficit means that over the remaining 14 years (up to 2025) an extra 1510 / 14 = 107 per year will be required. This extra number per year will get a lot higher when the build rate stays below 400 per year.
This is nowhere near the Core Strategy figure of 400 dwellings per year or the percentage affordable figure of 35% and therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE. 200 dwellings per year would be a more realistic figure and this is the latest figure that is necessary according to a Kendal Town Council Report (see below).
SLDC have recognised this and have added the word “ambition” to build this number of houses to the LA DPD (see page 7 of the “Land Allocations DPD [Feb 12].pdf ” as an example). This word is not used in this context with regard to numbers in the Core Strategy document. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND with respect to the Core Strategy. The Leader of the Council insisted the numbers in the Core Strategy were achievable within the timescales of the LDF.
The above figures show there was an inward migration of 3 (high cost) to 1 (affordable). The majority of the proposed SLDC development is for the Kendal area (35%, 140 dpa) and this will add greatly to traffic problems mentioned above. This inward migration must not be planned (or allowed) to continue until all the partners involved have “signed on the dotted line” that they will meet the LA DPD milestones for all the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewerage, doctors, dentists, schools, etc) that is required. With the proviso that the build will actually take place in the timescales planned. It causes unnecessary stress to local people when unachievable targets are proposed or planned.
Another issue that affects DELIVERABILITY is Brownfield sites (or previously developed land).
It states in "SLDC_Core_Strategy_Document_March2011_sm4web2.pdf " (page 17):
"CS1.2 – The Development Strategy
Priority will be given to the reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land for all new housing development, with a target of ensuring that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites."
The “at least 28%” is also mentioned in CS6.6 (page 85). The 50% in item 7.14 is a mistake, it was the previous target. Now the target has been lowered, and "at least 28%" is said by SLDC to be achievable, the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets in each area. The Core Strategy and LA DPD have a requirement to be monitored and targets at least progressed vigorously.
The LA DPD does not mention this requirement; therefore it does not conform to the Core Strategy and is UNSOUND. Also these monitored figures need to be published and available to the public.
The SLDC Transport Report (Atkins 2009) states an amber limit for acceptable Junction Congestion and that in 2008 there were 7 red (above limit) junctions with 11 red junctions forecast in 2025.
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page2033/Kendal_TAJune_2009.pdf )
Pages 7 of this report specifically mentions the Middle Sparrowmire R170M site (referred to as “The Todds”) as being inappropriate because it would "worsen existing congestion on Windermere Road, as traffic travels into Kendal town centre. As the Windermere Road corridor already suffers congestion and delays during peak travel periods, it is considered that additional large-scale development in this area will lead to deterioration in traffic conditions." There are more similar comments on pages 60 & 71.
Site R170M feeds traffic into Windermere Road and therefore must be removed from the LA DPD until SLDC have met their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ” page 5 (Exec Summary):
"However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required."
The Canal Head development is more important to Kendal than site R170M therefore because site R170M will add more traffic to Kendal streets it is UNSOUND to build on it. It must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and committed funding.
Page 115 of the document “KENDAL Appendix 1.pdf ” (Appendix 1B – Consultation Responses after October 2010) for site R170M states:
“Achieving adequate visibility will be problematic given alignment of road and limited frontage. Such a large site would require a secondary access (Cumbria County Council – Highways).”
The conclusions reached by a chartered civil engineer who has carried out measurements to Transport Standards of the proposed access to site R170M are as follows:
“There is severely restricted forward visibility on both bends in Burneside Road either side of the proposed access location.
In either scenario tested the visibility from the proposed access towards Kendal falls far short of the standard required.
A new junction cannot be safely introduced in this location.”
This report can be supplied if required.
It cannot be right not to identify this secondary access. When it is identified there will be a lot more opposition to site R170 than is currently expressed.
As I said at the beginning of this response about including “JUSTICE” and “FAIRNESS”, it is not FAIR to include a site which is likely to have “show stopping” problems without first carrying out a thorough investigation into these particular problems.
Given the evidence above, until it can be proved that both access roads can be built to meet the Transport Standards, the development of the site R170 is UNSOUND and it must be removed from the LA DPD.
The site R170M is still part of a Green Gap. This means by definition it has higher protection than Greenfields. People who purchased their properties believing this to be true now find that they will be subjected to a grave INJUSTICE if site R170M is not removed from the LA DPD.
This is a very important reason why site R170M should not be developed – JUSTICE.
Extract from page 137 item 6.9 of the Inspector's Report on the public enquiry in 1996. Green Gap site R170M is the site mentioned below.
"Inspector's Conclusions:
6.9 The objection by Mr Downham [biased land owner] is not concerned with the provision of a green gap, but the extent of that gap. It is argued [land owner’s words] that the green gap, as shown in the Consultation draft of the Plan, follows a public footpath running between substantial hedges, a clearly defined landscape boundary: whilst the residential allocation at Sparrowmire has been reduced in the Deposit Draft, an equivalent extension to the green gap is not necessary. ^However, and most importantly in my view, the objection indicates that the "land should remain unallocated as white land so that when the Plan is reviewed in 10 years' time it can be considered as potential residential land" [land owner’s words]. I consider this underlying reason for excluding the land from the green gap identifies the very reason it should remain so designated. Structure Plan Policy 14 and the reasoned justification makes no reference to the length of time during which the vulnerable areas of countryside between settlements should be protected.^ Although policies and proposals in the Local Plan must clearly relate to the Plan period, and can be subject to review thereafter, it appears to me common sense that what is unacceptable now, will most probably be equally unacceptable at the end of the Plan period: certainly I consider the Plan should seek to engender a degree of public confidence that the separation secured will not, at some future time, be lightly squandered. ^For these reasons I believe that, where a green gap is seen as necessary, it is more important that the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap than that substantial, but arbitrary landscape features should be rigidly followed. I also consider the inter-visibility of settlements is not a factor which should affect the definition of green gaps."^
I have marked with ^...^ the most important words in the above paragraph and my clarifying words are in square brackets.
The first group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that the owner wished to leave the remaining land (now site R170M) as white land, so it can sold as high priced building land at a later date. The inspector states that this is the very reason it must remain as a Green Gap and because of this statement it is Green Gap. The LA DPD only includes Green Gap site R170M because the owner is keen to sell and make a large profit, if he didn’t it would not be included.
The second group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that “the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap”. It must not depend on “landscape features” or “inter-visibility of settlements”, but these are the very reasons that SLDC state as to why site R170M can be built-on.
Site R170M is still currently a Green Gap site and by definition has more protection than all Greenfields.
A Government Inspector’s words made the white land (now site R170M) into Green Gap and must not be ignored. Therefore to include site R170M in the LA DPD until all the more suitable Greenfield sites have been built-on is UNSOUND.
This R170M Green Gap is also land of most value to the existing community as backed up by this statement in ‘The Taylor Review’ (Page 58):
“20. Government policy is to increase the density of new housing as a means to maximising land use and better support local services. New extensions to settlements therefore may be relatively densely designed and built right up against the existing settlement to minimise the number of green fields ‘swallowed up’. However, this will mean they are built on exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town. Local residents against new development may be accused of ignoring the needs of others for housing, but they have a genuine point. They may not have bought the right to their countryside views, but they certainly have paid for them, and these developments are on exactly the fields of most landscape value to existing residents."
Taylor gives a valid reason why local people should not be labelled with the scorning name NIMBYs’ when they have a good reason and evidence to oppose development in their neighbourhood.
The evidence above shows that the proposed LA DPD numbers for dwellings to be built are UNDELIVERABLE before 2025. If the numbers were reduced to ones that were deliverable and sound there would be no reason to include the peripheral site R170M in the last phase (2022-25) of the LA DPD, since it is a Green Gap and hence has a higher protection than any of the proposed Greenfield sites. Note at this point in time site R170M is still part of a Green Gap.
“The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods.”
(see http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/communityinfrastructurelevy/ )
There is absolutely no evidence in the LA DPD about how much funding SLDC are capable of obtaining from developers from the levy. Their track record in the past has been very poor when negotiating for affordable dwelling percentages. The target over previous years has been 50% but SLDC of only achieved 28%. The target is now 35% which from past results is still just wishful thinking. SLDC are relying on this money to fund infrastructure and other projects. Until SLDC publish real evidence that the money raised from this levy is in excess (there will always be an overspend) of that required, for all the proposals in the LA DPD it is intended for, then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
Until it is certain that the required infrastructure funding will be available within the planned timescales, in order that SLDC meet their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion, then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has a approved construction plan and committed funding in place (see above). Also that it is shown to decrease the traffic levels in the Windermere Road corridor enough for SLDC traffic objectives are met in this area.
3.0 Further evidence in support of why Policy LA2.2 (site R170M) should be removed from the LA DPD.
3.1 Extracts from Kendal Town Council document "KTC_Response.pdf " (Apr 2011)
Page 8 Transport Improvements.
“The Assessment then looked at the impact of the various possible development sites which were then under discussion. The Assessment modelled the impact of various remedial measures that could be taken, ranging from junction improvements to the building of the Inner Relief Road. It concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three sites were removed:
• Land within the Shap Road/Appleby Road corridor (Site E23/49 and Sites M8/M35/ M36)
• The Todds, west of Burneside Road (Sites R148/R170)
• Stonebank Green (Sites M39/R676/R103/R675)
There was no solution which permitted these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment).”
This supports previous evidence that the development of site R170M (The Todds) is UNSOUND
Page 9 section on “Sewer Capacity”
“In addition, United Utilities has concerns about the capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Works, located to the south of Kendal, for which process modelling needs to be carried out. This impacts all the potential development sites in the town.”
I have an email from SLDC dated 27Apr2011 which states:
“The following is based on information and advice provided by United Utilities.
1. United Utilities cannot determine the number of dwellings that will cause Kendal Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) to reach process capacity without conducting modelling. The threshold for when capacity is reached is determined by the design capacity of the WwTW and the population that it serves with some headroom designed in to the calculations. This headroom is not excessive as United Utilities cannot design and build for a population that is not already there or where development is not definite.
2. There are local network issues in respect of sewer capacity in the Kendal area . They are primarily centred around the Burneside area as evidenced in the Core Strategy and supporting Land Allocations Document material.
3. South Lakeland District Council does not hold or have access to data/information regarding the catchment area of the Kendal Sewerage Works.”
SLDC/UU admit that the headroom (i.e. spare capacity) is not excessive. Despite this SLDC have no results of any modelling and have not insisted that this modelling be carried out by UU. SLDC do not even know the catchment area for Kendal Sewage Works. There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC do have this information today (a year later). Therefore SLDC do not know how many dwellings can be built before Kendal Sewage Works needs a major upgrade costing many millions of pounds.
United Utilities move their funding from year to year as they see their immediate priorities change, so until they actual “sign on the dotted line” to meet certain dates then their current dates can “be taken with a pinch of salt”. As evidence to support this, the paying customers of Burneside have been waiting over 20 years to get their sewerage fixed and they still have sewage on the streets during heavy rain. So there is no guarantee that the North West Kendal problem will be fixed before 2025.
Site R170M is one of the last sites in the plan to be developed therefore until the above figures are known for the whole of the catchment area and UU & OFWAT have “signed on the dotted line” to meet their agreed dates then the site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 9 section on “Hydrologic Considerations”.
“However, the mechanisms (some man-made, mostly natural) which are currently managing to keep Kendal free of floods are not well understood. Several of the sites included in the Land Allocations have a history of being badly affected by rainfall. This suggests they have a role to play in mitigating surface run-off and hence flood prevention. If this is correct, development of such sites could trigger flooding in the town - and making the sites themselves flood proof would certainly involve additional expense for developers.
Kendal Town Council believes this is an important omission from the current evidence base, and calls on SLDC to commission a full hydrology study of the area before including the affected sites in any final land allocation. Any remedial infrastructure required to allow these sites to be developed safely would need to be included in the overall infrastructure programme.
Land Allocations affected by this consideration are the lower Hallgarth sites (R169M and R170M), Appleby Road (MK35KM), Natland Beck at Kendal Parks (R107M, R150M), Stock Beck at Castle Green Road (R121M), and Stonecross (R103M), and Blind Beck (R129M)”
There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC have commissioned this study or have any results. Site R170M is mentioned in quote above and so until this study is carried out development of site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 10 Infrastructure.
“3. Sites should not be included in a Final Land Allocations document unless their impact on Kendal’s transport is understood, solutions are agreed with partners, and the impact has successfully passed a rerun of the Transport Assessment. ‘Emerging Option’ sites affected by this are indicated are indicated by an ‘X’ in the ‘Traffic’ column in the Detail by each Land Allocation site starting on page 11.”
Note site R170M has an ‘X’ in the Traffic column, so this site should be removed from the LA DPD until its impact on Kendal’s junction congestion is fully understood.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.2 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. "KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf" (Sep 2011)
Page 5 Doughnut Development
“Taylor contends: ...these developments undermine sustainability. They invariably encourage car use, especially if there are no services or employment within walking distance, with resulting congestion on roads into town. And without local and community facilities of their own, there is little to build social sustainability and cohesion or links between new and existing settlements as there will be little in the way of community life.
This approach to planning is also a recipe for confrontation, “developing exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town”
(as has been amply demonstrated in Kendal by the response to the Emerging Options consultation process).
Without change we will simply repeat the mistakes of recent decades, creating unattractive developments of housing estates encircling our rural towns and larger villages, and we will fail to stem the trend of smaller villages becoming dormitory settlements of commuters and the retired, ever less affordable for those who work within them. This is not a sustainable future for rural England.
Without strong Land Allocation policies from the Planning Authority, Kendal is heading towards an unsustainable “doughnutted” future.”
This confirms that development of the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 6 Recommendation for Kendal
“The Council believes the Planning Authority should follow Taylor and adopt this model in preparing its final Land Allocations policies for Kendal, as the only way in which the NPPF demand for sustainable development can be achieved in the town. It is important to note that this is not in conflict with the Core Strategy positioning of Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, or with the requirements for meeting forecast housing demand. From Taylor, the requirements for sustainable development in rural market towns is clear: it cannot be delivered by allocating isolated sites around the town; a hub and spoke model is required. Even without the NPPF’s insistence on sustainable development, there are other intrinsic advantages to the hub and spoke model for Kendal. The Council’s previous Response to Consultation highlighted the major infrastructure challenges to be overcome in the town. These become far more soluble if development proceeds on hub-by-hub basis, when the infrastructure work can be concentrated on the corresponding spokes. For example, it is far simpler to improve bus services, cycling provision, etc. if only one or two ‘spokes’ have to be addressed.
The evidence in the EHLSS shows that there are suitable sites available (the scope of the SHLAS only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that the “doughnut” strategy is incorrect for Kendal and should be replaced by the “hub & spoke” strategy. It also confirms that the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is unsustainable and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 10 Latest Forecasts (2011)
“The latest forecast in this series was produced in Spring 2011. It shows a drastically reduced requirement:
• only 360 dwellings across the 20 years, or
• just over 4,000 including migration, projected on the last five years’ evidence.
This suggests that a more appropriate target for the next 5-10 years would be around 200 dwellings per annum.”
This confirms the evidence given above that 200 per year is what is required and this number would be deliverable. If this number was planned then the peripheral Green Gap site R170M would not be required and being in the last phase would not be needed in this LA DPD.
This section supports previous evidence that the LA DPD is UNSUSTAINABLE and UNSOUND.
3.3 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf “ (Mar 2012)
Page 4 Summary
“The Council believes that the DPD is not justified because it fails the following tests of soundness:
• the LPA has failed in its duty to compare against reasonable alternatives
• key decisions are not supported by the evidence base or the evidence supports a different conclusion
• the evidence base is incomplete
The DPD is also not effective in that it is not deliverable, with key elements of the dependent infrastructure
not understood.”
This confirms the LA DPD is NOT DELIVERABLE.
Page 4
“For rural market towns, the evidence was pulled together in July 2008 by the Taylor Review9, setting out the policy framework necessary to deliver the “vision of a living, working sustainable countryside”. Taylor provided compelling evidence that “doughnut development” was the wrong approach for sustainable rural market towns, and that a “hub and spoke” model represented the best pattern for sustainability.”
The two KTC paragraphs above confirm that an alternative system must be adopted now, which will “meet the needs of future generations” of Kendal (i.e. BE SUSTAINABLE”) for the many thousands of years to come.
Page 4
“The evidence in the EHLSS indicates that suitable sites could be available (the scope of the SHLAA only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that a “hub & spoke” is viable.
Page 5
“The Assessment concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three large sites were removed. The consultants could find no mitigation which would permit these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment.)”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD because it is one of the three sites.
Page 5
“Given that this approach has differed significantly from the independent consultants’, the Council asks the Inspector to order an independent audit of this latest work by W.S.Atkins or equivalent to ensure it meets accepted professional standards of objectivity and integrity. The Council further asks the Inspector to ensure that no sites are included in the DPD which the evidence shows are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD, because it is one of the sites which “are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
Page 7
“The Council asks the Inspector to withhold approval of the DPD until there is a credible infrastructure plan showing the impact of the major sites on the overall town infrastructure, and with high level solutions identified and costed with enough detail to enable the economic deliverability of the sites to be proven.”
This adds to the evidence given above that there must be signatures, to supply the necessary infrastructure and funding, must be in place before this LA DPD is approved by the Government. Until this is done site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.4 Extracts from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Page 5 Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
"10. The LDF developments have a more notable impact in the AM peak compared to the base situation. The model results indicate that the provision of sustainable transport improvements (Scheme 2) would be required to support LDF development to nil-detriment compared to the 2022 base situation in the AM peak. However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required.
11. It should be noted that although these schemes are required to achieve nil-detriment, these improvements are only demonstrated to offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal. These infrastructure schemes would be expensive and may not be a cost-effective solution to congestion in Kendal town centre.
12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.
13. It is recommended that further modelling work is undertaken"
The Transport Study shows that the objectives cannot be achieved before 2025 therefore the problems are going to be much worse in the years 2026 onwards.
SLDC do not have signed-off solutions and timescales in place to meet the plan phases, therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 9 This page gives the CCC/SLDC definition for Junction Congestion limits.
"Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts."
The Atkins report uses a Volume/Capacity ratio of 90 as acceptable for a junction approach, which is similar.
The Study shows that these objectives will not be met by 2025 so this, along with page 10 (see below) adds evidence to the above.
Page 10
"4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. These are:Junction1: A5284 Stricklandgate/Sandes AvenueJunction 2: A5284 Sandes Avenue / A6 Blackhall Road signalised junction
Junction 5: A6 Longpool / Station Road mini-roundabout junction
Junction 12: A6 Highgate / Lowther Street signalised junction
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Junction 16: A6 Milnthorpe Road / Romney Road signalised junction
Junction 17: A5284 Windermere Road/Queens Road
Junction 18: A5284 Windermere Road/Burneside Road
Junction 21: A65 Burton Road / Oxenholme Road signalised junction
Junction 27: A684 Sedbergh Road / Sandylands Road priority junction
Junction 29: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (north) priority junction
Junction 30: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (south) priority junction
Junction 31: A685 Appleby Road/Sandylands Road"
“Measures must be in place” to fix these major problems first (i.e. meet SLDC objectives). They have a huge bearing on why SLDC is still breaking the law on Air Quality.
Page 14
“* Scheme 6: Scheme 5, plus a potential Kendal Southern Link Road, which comprises a new single-carriageway road linking the A6 Milnthorpe Road with the A65 Burton Road south of Kendal town centre.”
This new road proposal has never been mentioned before; it is not in the Core Strategy and therefore, as we have been told before, it cannot be considered in this LDF.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.5 Extracts from SLDC document "06 Infrastructure Position Statement.pdf ”:
Page 10
"4.19 United Utilities has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area. A proposal for expenditure in the years 2010 – 2015 is contained within the published five years Investment Plan (Asset Management programme). The plan can be found at the following website link: http://www.unitedutilities.com/Documents/Detailed_plan.pdf "
There is nothing in this PDF document that is specific to Kendal.
UU may have "a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area" but it is very poor at obeying this duty as is verified by the > 20 years Burnside have been suffering sewage problems (and still are).
Until UU actually “sign on the dotted line” to meet the required planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.23 Funding is more likely to be acquired in cases where there is development certainty (i.e. clear evidence of developer interest).
* UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct."
This backs previous evidence, never mind “development certainty” what about the existing paying customers who are still suffering sewage and flooding problems due to lack of investment.
Until United Utilities “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.24 There is currently loading capacity at Kendal Waste water Treatment Works (WwTW), however, for the number of dwellings that are proposed a full process and hydraulic survey of the Works will have to be undertaken before UU could comfortably approve the Planning Applications. As the sewer network is at capacity in North Kendal, UU could not agree to any significant development until after 2015 in this part of the town. Providing UU obtain funding through OFWAT to undertake the necessary upgrades etc. UU will be building into the 2014 Business Submission to OFWAT a case for funding to provide the means to accommodate development, which will boost the economy.
4.25 A feasibility study is being undertaken on the Kendal WwTW. Recommended phosphorous levels are set by Environment Agency (EA) through discharge consents, and until EA impose a new requirement for a lowered rate, UU will continue to discharge at the current rate. UU stated achieving any required lower rates would depend on new/better technology. Further Phosphorous removal would only be undertaken if UU were required to achieve a tighter standard as set by the EA following their review of water quality. Newer technology, which is not currently available, would be required to achieve any standard below 1mg/l. UU has advised development in the Kendal area should be capped at 2000 properties unless a more stringent phosphorus effluent standard can be achieved.
4.26 UU has advised that sites in North Kendal should only come forward in the latter periods of the plan period when sewage network improvements are in place.
4.27 Strategically there is enough water supply to accommodate levels of new development, but there are potential risks of deterioration of water quality."
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 14
"4.45 Electricity North West Ltd manage infrastructure and distribute and transmit electricity throughout South Lakeland. The regulator determines the amount of funding, however, it is not known what the next round of funding may or may not allow for investment in improvements. Information relating to substation capacity has not been ascertained. Evidence when exploring options for the Canal Head Area of Kendal shows that the Kendal Primary substation is currently operating close to or at capacity. It is possible that significant development in Kendal would require investment for network reinforcement and that a new Primary Substation would be required although Electricity North West Ltd does not confirm this. No information has been made available stating whether this is the case. Only when the customer has firm load requirements and location details can a system study be undertaken to ascertain the scale of impact of potential new development."
What if the system study states it cannot be done or they cannot obtain the funding within the plan timescales? Electricity North West Ltd already has the number of houses proposed and their locations so they must commit to a system study and confirm that the proposed developments are deliverable. Until then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 15
"4.48 National Grid Gas Distribution own and operate the local gas distribution network in South Lakeland. The confidential nature of the process means National Grid are unable to confirm whether they are currently processing or have made any offers for connection within Cumbria."
The document states nothing about National Grid Gas Distribution having a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of gas supply within its area.
The LA DPD cannot possibly be monitored correctly until all the Gas company has “signed on the dotted line” to meet the timescales required. Until then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This Infrastructure document is only a statement; there is no indication when the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be available to the public or any indication that the timescales can be met. The LA DPD is UNSOUND until the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Kendal Transport Plan are available with all milestones agreed, funding committed and both signed off by the respective utility companies. They can have the proviso that it depends on the build going ahead as planned.
3.6 Extracts from SLDC document “01 Consultation Report.pdf ”:
Page 19
“In their response the Highways Agency identified those sites it considers (if developed, due to cumulative impact with other sites) may impact upon the capacity, operation and safety of the strategic road network (SRN) (A590 and M6) within South Lakeland. As a consequence, the Agency has stated that the cumulative impact of development of sites under consideration in the following settlements (see below) may result in some impact to the SRN: Burneside, Crooklands, Endmoor, Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, Levens, Milnthorpe and Ulverston alongside the sites suggested for strategic employment use (in Ulverston and Kendal area).”
Note the word “may” on the second line. They either do or they don’t. After all these years of the LDF there is no excuse for this information not being available. SLDC must obtain an answer to this issue immediately and publish it. If any of the developments proposed within the LA DPD do affect the Strategic Road Network then any changes necessary must be included in the LA DPD and the Transport Plan (which must be issued before the hearings). Note the Strategic Road Network is NOT currently mentioned in the LA DPD.
Page 21
This page with reference to Burneside states:
“.....this is no guarantee that funding will be approved by OFWAT”.
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted” line to meet the planned timescales the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 21
“Additional work is needed by UU to check if cumulative impact on treatment works may raise capacity issues
SLDC must publish how many houses can be built in the Kendal catchment area before a major upgrade to the sewage works is required. Until UU know their total funding requirements the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 34
KENDAL
“Many people believe development of the sites suggested would harm the landscape character of the town, worsen air quality, exacerbate current flooding problems, harm biodiversity, generate unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and place further strains on a heavily constrained sewerage system. Some people questioned the need for additional housing believing there are enough empty properties in the town to meet current and future housing demands. A number of people stated development should be prioritised on brownfield sites and meet primarily local needs.”
“Many people including Kendal Town Council and Burneside and Natland Parish Council’s supported the concept of green gaps to protect Kendal coalescing with neighbouring settlements. However, a significant number of people and Kendal Town Council and Natland Parish Council believed the suggested emerging options would not prevent coalescence from happening. There was general widespread support for the open space designations suggested, however, many people believed the emerging options sites should also be designated open space.”
“Kendal Town Council expressed serious concerns with the overall approach being suggested for the town, believing the amounts of developments and the emerging option sites suggested would damage the landscape character of the town, and put unnecessary strain on an inadequate infrastructure system. The Town Council has suggested an alternative strategy/approach for the town this being to protect existing green space/countryside surrounding the town and to look at alternative sites adjacent to nearby settlements and possibly further afield where development would have less impact on the town’s infrastructure, air quality and its high quality landscape value.”
These three paragraphs confirm that the wishes of the majority of local people have been ignored and adds support to the evidence given above concerning Consultation and Legal Compliance.
Page 46
On this page it states “UU is currently considering lists of projects that will require major capital investment in Asset Management Plan 6 period 2015-2020.” and “UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct.”
Until United Utilities and OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” to meet the planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE, UNSOUND and that consultation process was not Legally Compliant.
3.7 Extracts from SLDC document “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
Pages 51 & 52
Item 3.6 - Key local factors influencing the location of new development in Kendal:
“Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail and from important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout Scar/Brigsteer Road; Avoiding coalescence between Kendal, Oxenholme, Burneside and Natland and maintaining the separate identities of these settlements;
Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, promoting sustainable transport and achieving a positive impact on the Kendal Air Quality Management Area;
Infrastructure constraints including sewage capacity at Kentrigg and Steele's Row and the implications for development in northwest Kendal.”
One of the main comments of the people who responded to the SLDC consultations and opposed them was the character and appearance of Kendal. This is imbedded in the above paragraph and has been totally ignored. The LA DPD is therefore not Legally Compliant.
The site R170M is close to Kentrigg (mentioned above) and so it is UNSOUND to include it in the LA DPD until United Utilities are fully committed (i.e. signed on the dotted line) to the LA DPD timescales.
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive it should state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
A graph on this page it shows the following numbers over the years 2003 – 2025 (22 years).
Maximum number of dwellings ever built in one year was 300 in year 2005/06 and even this did not reach the target of 400 per year.
Extrapolating from the graphs the average number of dwellings built per year for the first 8 years was 100+280+150+150+240+300+230+220 = 1670 / 8 = 209 per year. In the terms of this graph there are already an extra 1530 dwellings (109/yr on top of the 400/yr) that have built just to catch up. This compares well with the more accurate figures in section 2.1 above.
The figure of 720 per year for the three years 2022 – 2025 is just WISHFULL THINKING.
One of the questions that must be asked to confirm SOUNDNESS is “Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives”. The above numbers are clearly not realistic therefore the current LA DPD is UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND within the timescales of this LA DPD (2025).
4.0 Changes required to the LA DPD document title “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
4.1 During the recent SLDC consultation 98% of the local neighbourhood who responded OPPOSED the proposals for site R170M. In a door-door poll of over 400 neighbours during 2011 approximately 80% of those asked OPPOSED the proposal to build on site R170M. Of the remaining 20% most did not care one way or the other. The Localism Bill is a Con Trick (nice pun); it promises much but does not actually support what the majority of the people in the neighbourhood want.
To prove SLDC are DEMOCRATIC they must be serious about responding to the majority of the local neighbourhood’s wishes. Also the TOTAL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ABOVE PROVES THAT SLDC MUST REMOVE THE PERIPHERAL GREEN GAP SITE R170M FROM THE LA DPD TO MAKE IT SOUND. THIS IS HOW THE LA DPD MUST BE CHANGED.
4.2 After many years (before year 2000) of knowing about the traffic problems in Kendal, SLDC have failed to produce a transport plan or action plan that enabled them to meet their standards and objectives for Air Quality and Junction Congestion. This must NOT be allowed to continue. Only when these standards and objectives have been PROVEN to have been met (with spare capacity for expansion) will the people believe SLDC are serious about tackling these major problems. The recent SLDC consultations show that increase in traffic was one of main reasons why 98% of the people (that responded) OPPOSE the proposals to build on sites in their area of Kendal.
Previous experience with Core Strategy has shown me that all my evidence will be ignored and that site R170M will not be removed from the LA DPD. If this is to be repeated then I would like to see the following changes to LA DPD.
There is a note on page 57 (item 3.18) of the LA DPD (policy LA2.2 site R170M) which states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO RESOLVE PRESSURE ON THE SEWERAGE NETWORK IN NORTH KENDAL."
This means existing problems will be fixed before building starts.
THIS SETS A PRECEDENT WHICH MUST CONTINUE WITH REGARD TO OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS.
The threat to the health of people due to air pollution is of as much importance as sewage on the streets. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make air pollution worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT THE LAW ON AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
Increase in traffic, which leads to more junction congestion and a deterioration in the well-being of local people, was one of the major complaints in the recent SLDC consultations. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make junction congestion worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT SLDC’S DEFINITION OF “ACCEPTABLE JUNCTION PERFORMANCE” HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
For definition see page 9 of “Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf”.
“4.1.5 An RFC or DoS of 100% indicates that an approach is operating at maximum capacity. Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts. Above this level, an approach is likely to begin to experience congestion as there is insufficient spare capacity to cope with fluctuations in traffic flow.”
4.3 Page 51 item 3.6:
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive. The word “Minimising” is just not good enough to meet the people’s wishes. It must state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
4.4 Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
This Appendix 4 must be changed and other pages which quote these figures. The SLDC evidence does not support the requirement that anywhere near the 8800 dwellings can be built before 2025. The numbers in the graph are not realistic (a SOUNDNESS word), therefore NOT DELIVERABLE and UNSOUND. 720/year for last three years is just wishful thinking, it is not realistic; this graph shows that the maximum that has ever been built within the last 8 years is 300 per year for the year 2005/06. The developers will not build 750 per year because it would swamp the market and they would be left with a large number of empty houses.
There is no point in just stating on page 7 of the LA DPD that it is “the ambition to deliver 400 dwellings each year” if these numbers cannot realistically be built and sold. There is also no point in just monitoring these numbers just so a box can be ticked to say they have been monitored. The numbers must be realistic so that they can be monitored and vigorously progressed.
Kendal Town Council have stated in one of their reports [Sep2011 see above] that only around 200 dwellings per year is the number required. SLDC must discuss this issue with KTC and reduce the current total figure of 8800 to a number that can realistically be built & sold before 2025 and not one that is just WISHFULL THINKING.
4.5 There is a requirement in the Core Strategy for Brownfield land to be used for “at least 28%” of the number of dwellings built. Note the words are “at least” not it is the “ambition to use”. To be SOUND the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets for each area. These figures must be monitored, vigorously progressed and be made available to the public.
4.6 SLDC must discuss Kendal Town Council’s three reports in detail with the town council and members of opposition groups (e.g. Green Spaces). I would like to see the LA DPD changed to incorporate as much as possible of that which is agreed in these discussions.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL PEOPLE MUST BE AT THE TOP OF SLDC's PRIORITY LIST and despite all my emails and protest at the Core Strategy hearings this has not yet been done in Kendal.
So I wish to speak face to face with the inspector and ask him personally if he will recommend in his report that notes be added to the LA DPD stating that SLDC must fix their major existing problems first and meet the SLDC/CCC definition for "Acceptable Junction Congestion" and the Law on Air Quality before allowing actual build of site R170M, which will add to these problems (see examples of notes in section 4.2 above).
A PRECEDENT has already been set by a note in Policy LA2.2 for site R170M relating to the sewerage network in North Kendal. If United Utilities have to fix their major existing problems first before building is allowed then so must SLDC, this is logical and should not need a political decision.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
4. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 17 May 2012 10:52:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.4 - Kendal Sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1.0 Consultation
1.1 SLDC did not change the proposals in-line with the citizens important wishes.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Legal Compliance in it’s document – "legal.doc” (Legal Compliance Tool from http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85651 )
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (page 7):
“6. Does the consultation contribute to the development and sustainability appraisal of alternatives?”
This has not been carried out correctly, alternatives have not been seriously considered. In particular the Kendal Town Council’s excellent reports, containing good alternatives, have been ignored.
The vast majority of the oppose responses made in the SLDC consultations were noted, listed in the consultation documents and then almost totally ignored. In my view these consultations were just so that SLDC could “tick the box” for the government inspector and therefore were a waste of taxpayers money.
I have done a detailed examination of the SLDC Consultation Database and these are my findings:
On 11th August 2011 (after the closing date) there were 2986 responses from the Kendal settlement. 98% of these responses opposed the proposals in their neighbourhood. Most of those that “support in part” did not support housing. Most of the few indicating “support” were representatives of the land owner, potential builder, Kendal Futures Board or the North West Development Agency.
The main reasons for the respondents opposition was the increase in traffic that these proposed developments would cause, and the affect they would have on the landscape character of Kendal. Better alternative sites were suggested, noted and then ignored. The present proposals will not “satisfy the needs of future generations” and are therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE.
Issues raised in the consultations would have contributed greatly to the development and sustainability of alternatives but the alternatives put forward have been ignored (also see other evidence 2.3 below). Therefore the LA DPD it is not Legally Compliant.
I would like to see alternatives discussed with Kendal Town Council and the Green Spaces group. Then any changes agreed included in the LA DPD.
2.0 Alternative plan
2.1 Law must be obeyed.
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (legal.doc page 5):
“* developing alternatives and options and appraising them through sustainability appraisal and against evidence.”
The SLDC Air Quality reports show that SLDC have been breaking the Law on Air Quality for many years. It means that SLDC must use an alternative plan for Kendal until it is proven that the law is being obeyed (with spare capacity for proposed development). The reason the law must be proven is that action plans have not worked for at least 14 years (before 1998). In the meantime affordable houses can be built in other areas of SLDC which have low traffic.
Until an alternative plan is in position to ensure the law on Air Quality is obeyed (with spare capacity for the proposed development) the LA DPD is not Legally Compliant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Legal Compliance requirements are not definitive or closed questions; they are open to personal interpretation, so I will not make any further comment in these sections.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Personal Comments:- From my experience of the Core Strategy hearings and the SLDC consultations I know my response will be ignored. The changes to Kendal’s infrastructure, that the new SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) states are required (see below), is just one example of this. I am therefore taking this opportunity to place on record all the relevant evidence I have gathered on why site R170M (policy LA2.2) should not be included in the LA DPD. Quotes from certain documents have been added to make it easier for the reader. There is repetition of some issues but this is because I have added different sources of evidence throughout the document.
It is undemocratic just to include Legal Compliance and Soundness in this consultation. In a democratic society the wishes of the majority of local people would have priority over these criteria. Also criteria such as “Justice” and “Fairness” should be considered. These were totally ignored in the Core Strategy consultation and hearings.
Test of Soundness
1.0 Not justified
1.1 Health and well-being of citizens in Kendal.
I have been informed that a developer does not have to fix an existing problem he just needs to show that he will not make it any worse. This is ridiculous, while SLDC are breaking the law on Air Quality developers must not be allowed to build on site R170M and other Kendal sites until the law is obeyed. SLDC breaking the law must surely be enough to prevent developers from winning an appeal. The people’s health and well-being must have top priority over everything else in the LA DPD.
The latest Cumbria County Council’s transport plan LPT3 does not include plans for the necessary infrastructure to fix existing problems neither does the SLDC Core Strategy. It was only after pressure from the public that SLDC & CCC produced the Transport Study (which is only a study) and after all this time the Transport Plan has not yet been made available to the public. Without a Transport Plan (including committed funding) signed off by all the participants the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE within the current timescales (2025) and is UNSOUND.
Before the year 2000 the SLDC objective was to meet the law on Air Quality by the year 2005 but air pollution has continually increased and the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) has even been made larger. This shows that SLDC are not serious in meeting their objectives where the health and well-being of citizens, or obeying the law, are concerned.
A typical example is the approval of the Planning Application for the old Auction Mart site. Also planning approval is certain to go ahead for the Canal Head development. These will make the air pollution worse in the AQMA. The worst pollution occurs when junctions are grid-locked and tinkering with traffic lights will not fix this problem. It will take major infrastructure changes to fix the existing traffic problems and allow for proposed LDF expansion. The Transport Study even admits that none of the improvements schemes will meet SLDC objectives.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
“6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
More building is planned in Kendal within the next few years (phase 1). This will make the major traffic problems worse. Infrastructure should already be in place to cope. Instead there is not even an approved Transport Plan in place, never mind the infrastructure that will be needed to meet SLDC standards and objectives.
The Transport Study is stating that further modelling is required. This shows that SLDC do not yet know at the present time if their proposals can be implemented or if funding will be available within the LDF timeframe (year 2025), therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND. Once money has been spent on major infrastructure changes it will be expected that these changes will last for at least 15 years (through the next LDF) therefore any further modelling must use a date of 2040 or beyond. These results will prove that the Taylor “hub & spoke” must be started now (see more evidence below).
SLDC should be very concerned about anyone who has any bronchial condition (e.g. asthma) and for the future health of children walking to school through Kendal during times of peak pollution. The health of residents of Kendal town should also cause great concern; a lot of them are elderly and frail.
SLDC have chosen the sites which cost the least to develop (e.g. no compulsory purchase costs) and will make the most profit for the developer rather than those best for the health and well being of local people. Money is being put before health. The law’s limits on air pollution are the maximum; the spirit of the law is zero pollution.
This does not mean that expansion cannot take place in other more suitable low pollution/low traffic areas of South Lakeland District. Plenty of more suitable sites, originally on the LA DPD maps for the SLDC district, have not been included on the latest maps. It is not fair that these traffic problems are not shared throughout the entire SLDC district. This is another reason why the hub & spoke system must be adopted – FAIRNESS.
The health and well-being of the people due to air pollution must have top priority over everything else in the LDF. This is not happening with the current proposals. Proving the law is being obeyed must come second on the priority list after health. If it does not already do so the “Soundness” examination must take account of these two very important issues.
The evidence above shows that these traffic problems in Kendal will not be fixed without major infrastructure changes which are not in Cumbria County Council’s LTP3.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND and site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and funding (see above).
For more evidence see extracts from the SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) below.
1.2 Alternative strategy.
Although SLDC have carried out consultations they have ignored the major objections. They have even ignored the alternatives put forward by Kendal Town Council in their excellent reports - “KTC_Response.pdf ”, “KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf ” & “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf. ". To avoid even more “urban sprawl” of Kendal the Taylor “hub & spoke” strategy must be adopted and not the current “doughnut” strategy. Kendal will be around for many thousands of years to come, which makes the “doughnut” strategy UNSUSTAINABLE (i.e. will not satisfy the needs of future generations). Only the “hub & spoke” is sustainable in the years to come because extra “satellites” can be added. By then the proposed “doughnut” system will make Kendal such an urban sprawl that very few people will wish to live there. To prevent this happening the “hub & spoke” system must be started NOW.
Money is being put before what is best for the health and well-being of the people of Kendal now and in the future (beyond 2025).
The Taylor Report, which puts forward compelling evidence in favour of the “hub & spoke” system, shows that the proposed “doughnut” system is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore the development of site R170 (being a peripheral Green Gap site) is UNSOUND and must be removed from the LA DPD.
2.0 Not effective
2.1 Not meeting definitions of soundness.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Soundness in the document - "soundness.doc" (Soundness Tool from: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85673 )
Extract from page 6 - Deliverable:
"21. Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives?
i. Sections of the development plan document which address delivery and the timescales for key developments and initiatives.
ii. Confirmation from the local strategic partnership and partner organisations that the timescales are realistic in terms of their contribution to delivery."
Extract from page 8 - Deliverable:
“28. Is it clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and does the timing of the provision complement the timescale of the strategy/policies?
i. Confirmation from infrastructure providers that they support the solutions proposed and the identified means and timescales for their delivery.
ii. Representations in respect of infrastructure.
iii. Reports or copies of correspondence on how representations in relation to infrastructure and its timing have been considered and dealt with.”
Extract from page 5 of SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
“12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
I have only selected this one paragraph; there are numerous other paragraphs which support these conclusions. In particular Page 15, Item 5.2.1, Table 5.1 which confirms that all schemes fail to meet SLDC’s objective. The results in Tables 5.2 & 5.3 are even worse.
SLDC’s objective is to meet “Acceptable junction performance” which is defined on page 9, item 4.1.5.
I'm not sure why the year 2022 was chosen as base-line, whatever major infrastructure is planned must enable SLDC to meet their objectives for years beyond 2025. In my opinion until 2040, the end of the next LDF.
Schemes 4, 5 & 6 require major investment and are not in the Core Strategy and therefore must be excluded from the Transport Plan when it is published. Note that the Transport Plan should incorporate extra capacity to cope with the “doughnut” system which, if approved, will undoubtedly continue after 2025.
The SLDC Air Quality Reports show that air pollution is getting worse in Kendal and also the AQMA has been increased.
Extract from page 27 of Air Quality Report (PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf)
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page857/PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf ).
"It would be hoped that each individual action would add to a combined reduction in levels to meet the requirement above. However, the 2009 annual mean NO2 results of the diffusion tube monitoring and the continuous analyser within the AQMA actually show that levels remain high, close to or above the 2010 objective and have actually increased from 2008 levels in 2009 in some locations. Without radical progress by Cumbria County Council on changes to the road system, vehicle access and parking in Kendal it is unlikely that the objective will be achieved."
Note the word “hoped”. Over many previous years this is typical of SLDC’s attitude towards obeying the law on Air Quality. SLDC action plans have not worked in the past and this is proved by the fact that the AQMA has recently been made larger.
The SLDC document "ED43_Housing Completions 1999 to 2010.doc" plus SLDC updates show that from the beginning of plan period 2003 to end of 2011 (8 years results) the total for South Lakeland is 1690 / 8 = 211 average and of these affordable are 406 / 8 = 51 average (or 24%). Figures for 2006 to 2011 (last 5 years results) are 934 / 5 = 187 average and of these affordable are 264 / 5 = 53 average (or 28%).
Between 2003 and 2011 the number of completions was 1690. At 400 per year the objective was 3200 over this 8 year period, a difference of 1510. To make up this deficit means that over the remaining 14 years (up to 2025) an extra 1510 / 14 = 107 per year will be required. This extra number per year will get a lot higher when the build rate stays below 400 per year.
This is nowhere near the Core Strategy figure of 400 dwellings per year or the percentage affordable figure of 35% and therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE. 200 dwellings per year would be a more realistic figure and this is the latest figure that is necessary according to a Kendal Town Council Report (see below).
SLDC have recognised this and have added the word “ambition” to build this number of houses to the LA DPD (see page 7 of the “Land Allocations DPD [Feb 12].pdf ” as an example). This word is not used in this context with regard to numbers in the Core Strategy document. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND with respect to the Core Strategy. The Leader of the Council insisted the numbers in the Core Strategy were achievable within the timescales of the LDF.
The above figures show there was an inward migration of 3 (high cost) to 1 (affordable). The majority of the proposed SLDC development is for the Kendal area (35%, 140 dpa) and this will add greatly to traffic problems mentioned above. This inward migration must not be planned (or allowed) to continue until all the partners involved have “signed on the dotted line” that they will meet the LA DPD milestones for all the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewerage, doctors, dentists, schools, etc) that is required. With the proviso that the build will actually take place in the timescales planned. It causes unnecessary stress to local people when unachievable targets are proposed or planned.
Another issue that affects DELIVERABILITY is Brownfield sites (or previously developed land).
It states in "SLDC_Core_Strategy_Document_March2011_sm4web2.pdf " (page 17):
"CS1.2 – The Development Strategy
Priority will be given to the reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land for all new housing development, with a target of ensuring that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites."
The “at least 28%” is also mentioned in CS6.6 (page 85). The 50% in item 7.14 is a mistake, it was the previous target. Now the target has been lowered, and "at least 28%" is said by SLDC to be achievable, the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets in each area. The Core Strategy and LA DPD have a requirement to be monitored and targets at least progressed vigorously.
The LA DPD does not mention this requirement; therefore it does not conform to the Core Strategy and is UNSOUND. Also these monitored figures need to be published and available to the public.
The SLDC Transport Report (Atkins 2009) states an amber limit for acceptable Junction Congestion and that in 2008 there were 7 red (above limit) junctions with 11 red junctions forecast in 2025.
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page2033/Kendal_TAJune_2009.pdf )
Pages 7 of this report specifically mentions the Middle Sparrowmire R170M site (referred to as “The Todds”) as being inappropriate because it would "worsen existing congestion on Windermere Road, as traffic travels into Kendal town centre. As the Windermere Road corridor already suffers congestion and delays during peak travel periods, it is considered that additional large-scale development in this area will lead to deterioration in traffic conditions." There are more similar comments on pages 60 & 71.
Site R170M feeds traffic into Windermere Road and therefore must be removed from the LA DPD until SLDC have met their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ” page 5 (Exec Summary):
"However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required."
The Canal Head development is more important to Kendal than site R170M therefore because site R170M will add more traffic to Kendal streets it is UNSOUND to build on it. It must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and committed funding.
Page 115 of the document “KENDAL Appendix 1.pdf ” (Appendix 1B – Consultation Responses after October 2010) for site R170M states:
“Achieving adequate visibility will be problematic given alignment of road and limited frontage. Such a large site would require a secondary access (Cumbria County Council – Highways).”
The conclusions reached by a chartered civil engineer who has carried out measurements to Transport Standards of the proposed access to site R170M are as follows:
“There is severely restricted forward visibility on both bends in Burneside Road either side of the proposed access location.
In either scenario tested the visibility from the proposed access towards Kendal falls far short of the standard required.
A new junction cannot be safely introduced in this location.”
This report can be supplied if required.
It cannot be right not to identify this secondary access. When it is identified there will be a lot more opposition to site R170 than is currently expressed.
As I said at the beginning of this response about including “JUSTICE” and “FAIRNESS”, it is not FAIR to include a site which is likely to have “show stopping” problems without first carrying out a thorough investigation into these particular problems.
Given the evidence above, until it can be proved that both access roads can be built to meet the Transport Standards, the development of the site R170 is UNSOUND and it must be removed from the LA DPD.
The site R170M is still part of a Green Gap. This means by definition it has higher protection than Greenfields. People who purchased their properties believing this to be true now find that they will be subjected to a grave INJUSTICE if site R170M is not removed from the LA DPD.
This is a very important reason why site R170M should not be developed – JUSTICE.
Extract from page 137 item 6.9 of the Inspector's Report on the public enquiry in 1996. Green Gap site R170M is the site mentioned below.
"Inspector's Conclusions:
6.9 The objection by Mr Downham [biased land owner] is not concerned with the provision of a green gap, but the extent of that gap. It is argued [land owner’s words] that the green gap, as shown in the Consultation draft of the Plan, follows a public footpath running between substantial hedges, a clearly defined landscape boundary: whilst the residential allocation at Sparrowmire has been reduced in the Deposit Draft, an equivalent extension to the green gap is not necessary. ^However, and most importantly in my view, the objection indicates that the "land should remain unallocated as white land so that when the Plan is reviewed in 10 years' time it can be considered as potential residential land" [land owner’s words]. I consider this underlying reason for excluding the land from the green gap identifies the very reason it should remain so designated. Structure Plan Policy 14 and the reasoned justification makes no reference to the length of time during which the vulnerable areas of countryside between settlements should be protected.^ Although policies and proposals in the Local Plan must clearly relate to the Plan period, and can be subject to review thereafter, it appears to me common sense that what is unacceptable now, will most probably be equally unacceptable at the end of the Plan period: certainly I consider the Plan should seek to engender a degree of public confidence that the separation secured will not, at some future time, be lightly squandered. ^For these reasons I believe that, where a green gap is seen as necessary, it is more important that the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap than that substantial, but arbitrary landscape features should be rigidly followed. I also consider the inter-visibility of settlements is not a factor which should affect the definition of green gaps."^
I have marked with ^...^ the most important words in the above paragraph and my clarifying words are in square brackets.
The first group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that the owner wished to leave the remaining land (now site R170M) as white land, so it can sold as high priced building land at a later date. The inspector states that this is the very reason it must remain as a Green Gap and because of this statement it is Green Gap. The LA DPD only includes Green Gap site R170M because the owner is keen to sell and make a large profit, if he didn’t it would not be included.
The second group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that “the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap”. It must not depend on “landscape features” or “inter-visibility of settlements”, but these are the very reasons that SLDC state as to why site R170M can be built-on.
Site R170M is still currently a Green Gap site and by definition has more protection than all Greenfields.
A Government Inspector’s words made the white land (now site R170M) into Green Gap and must not be ignored. Therefore to include site R170M in the LA DPD until all the more suitable Greenfield sites have been built-on is UNSOUND.
This R170M Green Gap is also land of most value to the existing community as backed up by this statement in ‘The Taylor Review’ (Page 58):
“20. Government policy is to increase the density of new housing as a means to maximising land use and better support local services. New extensions to settlements therefore may be relatively densely designed and built right up against the existing settlement to minimise the number of green fields ‘swallowed up’. However, this will mean they are built on exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town. Local residents against new development may be accused of ignoring the needs of others for housing, but they have a genuine point. They may not have bought the right to their countryside views, but they certainly have paid for them, and these developments are on exactly the fields of most landscape value to existing residents."
Taylor gives a valid reason why local people should not be labelled with the scorning name NIMBYs’ when they have a good reason and evidence to oppose development in their neighbourhood.
The evidence above shows that the proposed LA DPD numbers for dwellings to be built are UNDELIVERABLE before 2025. If the numbers were reduced to ones that were deliverable and sound there would be no reason to include the peripheral site R170M in the last phase (2022-25) of the LA DPD, since it is a Green Gap and hence has a higher protection than any of the proposed Greenfield sites. Note at this point in time site R170M is still part of a Green Gap.
“The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods.”
(see http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/communityinfrastructurelevy/ )
There is absolutely no evidence in the LA DPD about how much funding SLDC are capable of obtaining from developers from the levy. Their track record in the past has been very poor when negotiating for affordable dwelling percentages. The target over previous years has been 50% but SLDC of only achieved 28%. The target is now 35% which from past results is still just wishful thinking. SLDC are relying on this money to fund infrastructure and other projects. Until SLDC publish real evidence that the money raised from this levy is in excess (there will always be an overspend) of that required, for all the proposals in the LA DPD it is intended for, then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
Until it is certain that the required infrastructure funding will be available within the planned timescales, in order that SLDC meet their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion, then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has a approved construction plan and committed funding in place (see above). Also that it is shown to decrease the traffic levels in the Windermere Road corridor enough for SLDC traffic objectives are met in this area.
3.0 Further evidence in support of why Policy LA2.2 (site R170M) should be removed from the LA DPD.
3.1 Extracts from Kendal Town Council document "KTC_Response.pdf " (Apr 2011)
Page 8 Transport Improvements.
“The Assessment then looked at the impact of the various possible development sites which were then under discussion. The Assessment modelled the impact of various remedial measures that could be taken, ranging from junction improvements to the building of the Inner Relief Road. It concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three sites were removed:
• Land within the Shap Road/Appleby Road corridor (Site E23/49 and Sites M8/M35/ M36)
• The Todds, west of Burneside Road (Sites R148/R170)
• Stonebank Green (Sites M39/R676/R103/R675)
There was no solution which permitted these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment).”
This supports previous evidence that the development of site R170M (The Todds) is UNSOUND
Page 9 section on “Sewer Capacity”
“In addition, United Utilities has concerns about the capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Works, located to the south of Kendal, for which process modelling needs to be carried out. This impacts all the potential development sites in the town.”
I have an email from SLDC dated 27Apr2011 which states:
“The following is based on information and advice provided by United Utilities.
1. United Utilities cannot determine the number of dwellings that will cause Kendal Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) to reach process capacity without conducting modelling. The threshold for when capacity is reached is determined by the design capacity of the WwTW and the population that it serves with some headroom designed in to the calculations. This headroom is not excessive as United Utilities cannot design and build for a population that is not already there or where development is not definite.
2. There are local network issues in respect of sewer capacity in the Kendal area . They are primarily centred around the Burneside area as evidenced in the Core Strategy and supporting Land Allocations Document material.
3. South Lakeland District Council does not hold or have access to data/information regarding the catchment area of the Kendal Sewerage Works.”
SLDC/UU admit that the headroom (i.e. spare capacity) is not excessive. Despite this SLDC have no results of any modelling and have not insisted that this modelling be carried out by UU. SLDC do not even know the catchment area for Kendal Sewage Works. There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC do have this information today (a year later). Therefore SLDC do not know how many dwellings can be built before Kendal Sewage Works needs a major upgrade costing many millions of pounds.
United Utilities move their funding from year to year as they see their immediate priorities change, so until they actual “sign on the dotted line” to meet certain dates then their current dates can “be taken with a pinch of salt”. As evidence to support this, the paying customers of Burneside have been waiting over 20 years to get their sewerage fixed and they still have sewage on the streets during heavy rain. So there is no guarantee that the North West Kendal problem will be fixed before 2025.
Site R170M is one of the last sites in the plan to be developed therefore until the above figures are known for the whole of the catchment area and UU & OFWAT have “signed on the dotted line” to meet their agreed dates then the site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 9 section on “Hydrologic Considerations”.
“However, the mechanisms (some man-made, mostly natural) which are currently managing to keep Kendal free of floods are not well understood. Several of the sites included in the Land Allocations have a history of being badly affected by rainfall. This suggests they have a role to play in mitigating surface run-off and hence flood prevention. If this is correct, development of such sites could trigger flooding in the town - and making the sites themselves flood proof would certainly involve additional expense for developers.
Kendal Town Council believes this is an important omission from the current evidence base, and calls on SLDC to commission a full hydrology study of the area before including the affected sites in any final land allocation. Any remedial infrastructure required to allow these sites to be developed safely would need to be included in the overall infrastructure programme.
Land Allocations affected by this consideration are the lower Hallgarth sites (R169M and R170M), Appleby Road (MK35KM), Natland Beck at Kendal Parks (R107M, R150M), Stock Beck at Castle Green Road (R121M), and Stonecross (R103M), and Blind Beck (R129M)”
There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC have commissioned this study or have any results. Site R170M is mentioned in quote above and so until this study is carried out development of site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 10 Infrastructure.
“3. Sites should not be included in a Final Land Allocations document unless their impact on Kendal’s transport is understood, solutions are agreed with partners, and the impact has successfully passed a rerun of the Transport Assessment. ‘Emerging Option’ sites affected by this are indicated are indicated by an ‘X’ in the ‘Traffic’ column in the Detail by each Land Allocation site starting on page 11.”
Note site R170M has an ‘X’ in the Traffic column, so this site should be removed from the LA DPD until its impact on Kendal’s junction congestion is fully understood.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.2 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. "KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf" (Sep 2011)
Page 5 Doughnut Development
“Taylor contends: ...these developments undermine sustainability. They invariably encourage car use, especially if there are no services or employment within walking distance, with resulting congestion on roads into town. And without local and community facilities of their own, there is little to build social sustainability and cohesion or links between new and existing settlements as there will be little in the way of community life.
This approach to planning is also a recipe for confrontation, “developing exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town”
(as has been amply demonstrated in Kendal by the response to the Emerging Options consultation process).
Without change we will simply repeat the mistakes of recent decades, creating unattractive developments of housing estates encircling our rural towns and larger villages, and we will fail to stem the trend of smaller villages becoming dormitory settlements of commuters and the retired, ever less affordable for those who work within them. This is not a sustainable future for rural England.
Without strong Land Allocation policies from the Planning Authority, Kendal is heading towards an unsustainable “doughnutted” future.”
This confirms that development of the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 6 Recommendation for Kendal
“The Council believes the Planning Authority should follow Taylor and adopt this model in preparing its final Land Allocations policies for Kendal, as the only way in which the NPPF demand for sustainable development can be achieved in the town. It is important to note that this is not in conflict with the Core Strategy positioning of Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, or with the requirements for meeting forecast housing demand. From Taylor, the requirements for sustainable development in rural market towns is clear: it cannot be delivered by allocating isolated sites around the town; a hub and spoke model is required. Even without the NPPF’s insistence on sustainable development, there are other intrinsic advantages to the hub and spoke model for Kendal. The Council’s previous Response to Consultation highlighted the major infrastructure challenges to be overcome in the town. These become far more soluble if development proceeds on hub-by-hub basis, when the infrastructure work can be concentrated on the corresponding spokes. For example, it is far simpler to improve bus services, cycling provision, etc. if only one or two ‘spokes’ have to be addressed.
The evidence in the EHLSS shows that there are suitable sites available (the scope of the SHLAS only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that the “doughnut” strategy is incorrect for Kendal and should be replaced by the “hub & spoke” strategy. It also confirms that the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is unsustainable and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 10 Latest Forecasts (2011)
“The latest forecast in this series was produced in Spring 2011. It shows a drastically reduced requirement:
• only 360 dwellings across the 20 years, or
• just over 4,000 including migration, projected on the last five years’ evidence.
This suggests that a more appropriate target for the next 5-10 years would be around 200 dwellings per annum.”
This confirms the evidence given above that 200 per year is what is required and this number would be deliverable. If this number was planned then the peripheral Green Gap site R170M would not be required and being in the last phase would not be needed in this LA DPD.
This section supports previous evidence that the LA DPD is UNSUSTAINABLE and UNSOUND.
3.3 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf “ (Mar 2012)
Page 4 Summary
“The Council believes that the DPD is not justified because it fails the following tests of soundness:
• the LPA has failed in its duty to compare against reasonable alternatives
• key decisions are not supported by the evidence base or the evidence supports a different conclusion
• the evidence base is incomplete
The DPD is also not effective in that it is not deliverable, with key elements of the dependent infrastructure
not understood.”
This confirms the LA DPD is NOT DELIVERABLE.
Page 4
“For rural market towns, the evidence was pulled together in July 2008 by the Taylor Review9, setting out the policy framework necessary to deliver the “vision of a living, working sustainable countryside”. Taylor provided compelling evidence that “doughnut development” was the wrong approach for sustainable rural market towns, and that a “hub and spoke” model represented the best pattern for sustainability.”
The two KTC paragraphs above confirm that an alternative system must be adopted now, which will “meet the needs of future generations” of Kendal (i.e. BE SUSTAINABLE”) for the many thousands of years to come.
Page 4
“The evidence in the EHLSS indicates that suitable sites could be available (the scope of the SHLAA only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that a “hub & spoke” is viable.
Page 5
“The Assessment concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three large sites were removed. The consultants could find no mitigation which would permit these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment.)”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD because it is one of the three sites.
Page 5
“Given that this approach has differed significantly from the independent consultants’, the Council asks the Inspector to order an independent audit of this latest work by W.S.Atkins or equivalent to ensure it meets accepted professional standards of objectivity and integrity. The Council further asks the Inspector to ensure that no sites are included in the DPD which the evidence shows are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD, because it is one of the sites which “are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
Page 7
“The Council asks the Inspector to withhold approval of the DPD until there is a credible infrastructure plan showing the impact of the major sites on the overall town infrastructure, and with high level solutions identified and costed with enough detail to enable the economic deliverability of the sites to be proven.”
This adds to the evidence given above that there must be signatures, to supply the necessary infrastructure and funding, must be in place before this LA DPD is approved by the Government. Until this is done site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.4 Extracts from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Page 5 Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
"10. The LDF developments have a more notable impact in the AM peak compared to the base situation. The model results indicate that the provision of sustainable transport improvements (Scheme 2) would be required to support LDF development to nil-detriment compared to the 2022 base situation in the AM peak. However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required.
11. It should be noted that although these schemes are required to achieve nil-detriment, these improvements are only demonstrated to offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal. These infrastructure schemes would be expensive and may not be a cost-effective solution to congestion in Kendal town centre.
12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.
13. It is recommended that further modelling work is undertaken"
The Transport Study shows that the objectives cannot be achieved before 2025 therefore the problems are going to be much worse in the years 2026 onwards.
SLDC do not have signed-off solutions and timescales in place to meet the plan phases, therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 9 This page gives the CCC/SLDC definition for Junction Congestion limits.
"Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts."
The Atkins report uses a Volume/Capacity ratio of 90 as acceptable for a junction approach, which is similar.
The Study shows that these objectives will not be met by 2025 so this, along with page 10 (see below) adds evidence to the above.
Page 10
"4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. These are:Junction1: A5284 Stricklandgate/Sandes AvenueJunction 2: A5284 Sandes Avenue / A6 Blackhall Road signalised junction
Junction 5: A6 Longpool / Station Road mini-roundabout junction
Junction 12: A6 Highgate / Lowther Street signalised junction
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Junction 16: A6 Milnthorpe Road / Romney Road signalised junction
Junction 17: A5284 Windermere Road/Queens Road
Junction 18: A5284 Windermere Road/Burneside Road
Junction 21: A65 Burton Road / Oxenholme Road signalised junction
Junction 27: A684 Sedbergh Road / Sandylands Road priority junction
Junction 29: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (north) priority junction
Junction 30: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (south) priority junction
Junction 31: A685 Appleby Road/Sandylands Road"
“Measures must be in place” to fix these major problems first (i.e. meet SLDC objectives). They have a huge bearing on why SLDC is still breaking the law on Air Quality.
Page 14
“* Scheme 6: Scheme 5, plus a potential Kendal Southern Link Road, which comprises a new single-carriageway road linking the A6 Milnthorpe Road with the A65 Burton Road south of Kendal town centre.”
This new road proposal has never been mentioned before; it is not in the Core Strategy and therefore, as we have been told before, it cannot be considered in this LDF.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.5 Extracts from SLDC document "06 Infrastructure Position Statement.pdf ”:
Page 10
"4.19 United Utilities has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area. A proposal for expenditure in the years 2010 – 2015 is contained within the published five years Investment Plan (Asset Management programme). The plan can be found at the following website link: http://www.unitedutilities.com/Documents/Detailed_plan.pdf "
There is nothing in this PDF document that is specific to Kendal.
UU may have "a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area" but it is very poor at obeying this duty as is verified by the > 20 years Burnside have been suffering sewage problems (and still are).
Until UU actually “sign on the dotted line” to meet the required planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.23 Funding is more likely to be acquired in cases where there is development certainty (i.e. clear evidence of developer interest).
* UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct."
This backs previous evidence, never mind “development certainty” what about the existing paying customers who are still suffering sewage and flooding problems due to lack of investment.
Until United Utilities “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.24 There is currently loading capacity at Kendal Waste water Treatment Works (WwTW), however, for the number of dwellings that are proposed a full process and hydraulic survey of the Works will have to be undertaken before UU could comfortably approve the Planning Applications. As the sewer network is at capacity in North Kendal, UU could not agree to any significant development until after 2015 in this part of the town. Providing UU obtain funding through OFWAT to undertake the necessary upgrades etc. UU will be building into the 2014 Business Submission to OFWAT a case for funding to provide the means to accommodate development, which will boost the economy.
4.25 A feasibility study is being undertaken on the Kendal WwTW. Recommended phosphorous levels are set by Environment Agency (EA) through discharge consents, and until EA impose a new requirement for a lowered rate, UU will continue to discharge at the current rate. UU stated achieving any required lower rates would depend on new/better technology. Further Phosphorous removal would only be undertaken if UU were required to achieve a tighter standard as set by the EA following their review of water quality. Newer technology, which is not currently available, would be required to achieve any standard below 1mg/l. UU has advised development in the Kendal area should be capped at 2000 properties unless a more stringent phosphorus effluent standard can be achieved.
4.26 UU has advised that sites in North Kendal should only come forward in the latter periods of the plan period when sewage network improvements are in place.
4.27 Strategically there is enough water supply to accommodate levels of new development, but there are potential risks of deterioration of water quality."
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 14
"4.45 Electricity North West Ltd manage infrastructure and distribute and transmit electricity throughout South Lakeland. The regulator determines the amount of funding, however, it is not known what the next round of funding may or may not allow for investment in improvements. Information relating to substation capacity has not been ascertained. Evidence when exploring options for the Canal Head Area of Kendal shows that the Kendal Primary substation is currently operating close to or at capacity. It is possible that significant development in Kendal would require investment for network reinforcement and that a new Primary Substation would be required although Electricity North West Ltd does not confirm this. No information has been made available stating whether this is the case. Only when the customer has firm load requirements and location details can a system study be undertaken to ascertain the scale of impact of potential new development."
What if the system study states it cannot be done or they cannot obtain the funding within the plan timescales? Electricity North West Ltd already has the number of houses proposed and their locations so they must commit to a system study and confirm that the proposed developments are deliverable. Until then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 15
"4.48 National Grid Gas Distribution own and operate the local gas distribution network in South Lakeland. The confidential nature of the process means National Grid are unable to confirm whether they are currently processing or have made any offers for connection within Cumbria."
The document states nothing about National Grid Gas Distribution having a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of gas supply within its area.
The LA DPD cannot possibly be monitored correctly until all the Gas company has “signed on the dotted line” to meet the timescales required. Until then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This Infrastructure document is only a statement; there is no indication when the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be available to the public or any indication that the timescales can be met. The LA DPD is UNSOUND until the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Kendal Transport Plan are available with all milestones agreed, funding committed and both signed off by the respective utility companies. They can have the proviso that it depends on the build going ahead as planned.
3.6 Extracts from SLDC document “01 Consultation Report.pdf ”:
Page 19
“In their response the Highways Agency identified those sites it considers (if developed, due to cumulative impact with other sites) may impact upon the capacity, operation and safety of the strategic road network (SRN) (A590 and M6) within South Lakeland. As a consequence, the Agency has stated that the cumulative impact of development of sites under consideration in the following settlements (see below) may result in some impact to the SRN: Burneside, Crooklands, Endmoor, Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, Levens, Milnthorpe and Ulverston alongside the sites suggested for strategic employment use (in Ulverston and Kendal area).”
Note the word “may” on the second line. They either do or they don’t. After all these years of the LDF there is no excuse for this information not being available. SLDC must obtain an answer to this issue immediately and publish it. If any of the developments proposed within the LA DPD do affect the Strategic Road Network then any changes necessary must be included in the LA DPD and the Transport Plan (which must be issued before the hearings). Note the Strategic Road Network is NOT currently mentioned in the LA DPD.
Page 21
This page with reference to Burneside states:
“.....this is no guarantee that funding will be approved by OFWAT”.
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted” line to meet the planned timescales the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 21
“Additional work is needed by UU to check if cumulative impact on treatment works may raise capacity issues
SLDC must publish how many houses can be built in the Kendal catchment area before a major upgrade to the sewage works is required. Until UU know their total funding requirements the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 34
KENDAL
“Many people believe development of the sites suggested would harm the landscape character of the town, worsen air quality, exacerbate current flooding problems, harm biodiversity, generate unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and place further strains on a heavily constrained sewerage system. Some people questioned the need for additional housing believing there are enough empty properties in the town to meet current and future housing demands. A number of people stated development should be prioritised on brownfield sites and meet primarily local needs.”
“Many people including Kendal Town Council and Burneside and Natland Parish Council’s supported the concept of green gaps to protect Kendal coalescing with neighbouring settlements. However, a significant number of people and Kendal Town Council and Natland Parish Council believed the suggested emerging options would not prevent coalescence from happening. There was general widespread support for the open space designations suggested, however, many people believed the emerging options sites should also be designated open space.”
“Kendal Town Council expressed serious concerns with the overall approach being suggested for the town, believing the amounts of developments and the emerging option sites suggested would damage the landscape character of the town, and put unnecessary strain on an inadequate infrastructure system. The Town Council has suggested an alternative strategy/approach for the town this being to protect existing green space/countryside surrounding the town and to look at alternative sites adjacent to nearby settlements and possibly further afield where development would have less impact on the town’s infrastructure, air quality and its high quality landscape value.”
These three paragraphs confirm that the wishes of the majority of local people have been ignored and adds support to the evidence given above concerning Consultation and Legal Compliance.
Page 46
On this page it states “UU is currently considering lists of projects that will require major capital investment in Asset Management Plan 6 period 2015-2020.” and “UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct.”
Until United Utilities and OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” to meet the planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE, UNSOUND and that consultation process was not Legally Compliant.
3.7 Extracts from SLDC document “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
Pages 51 & 52
Item 3.6 - Key local factors influencing the location of new development in Kendal:
“Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail and from important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout Scar/Brigsteer Road; Avoiding coalescence between Kendal, Oxenholme, Burneside and Natland and maintaining the separate identities of these settlements;
Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, promoting sustainable transport and achieving a positive impact on the Kendal Air Quality Management Area;
Infrastructure constraints including sewage capacity at Kentrigg and Steele's Row and the implications for development in northwest Kendal.”
One of the main comments of the people who responded to the SLDC consultations and opposed them was the character and appearance of Kendal. This is imbedded in the above paragraph and has been totally ignored. The LA DPD is therefore not Legally Compliant.
The site R170M is close to Kentrigg (mentioned above) and so it is UNSOUND to include it in the LA DPD until United Utilities are fully committed (i.e. signed on the dotted line) to the LA DPD timescales.
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive it should state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
A graph on this page it shows the following numbers over the years 2003 – 2025 (22 years).
Maximum number of dwellings ever built in one year was 300 in year 2005/06 and even this did not reach the target of 400 per year.
Extrapolating from the graphs the average number of dwellings built per year for the first 8 years was 100+280+150+150+240+300+230+220 = 1670 / 8 = 209 per year. In the terms of this graph there are already an extra 1530 dwellings (109/yr on top of the 400/yr) that have built just to catch up. This compares well with the more accurate figures in section 2.1 above.
The figure of 720 per year for the three years 2022 – 2025 is just WISHFULL THINKING.
One of the questions that must be asked to confirm SOUNDNESS is “Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives”. The above numbers are clearly not realistic therefore the current LA DPD is UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND within the timescales of this LA DPD (2025).
4.0 Changes required to the LA DPD document title “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
4.1 During the recent SLDC consultation 98% of the local neighbourhood who responded OPPOSED the proposals for site R170M. In a door-door poll of over 400 neighbours during 2011 approximately 80% of those asked OPPOSED the proposal to build on site R170M. Of the remaining 20% most did not care one way or the other. The Localism Bill is a Con Trick (nice pun); it promises much but does not actually support what the majority of the people in the neighbourhood want.
To prove SLDC are DEMOCRATIC they must be serious about responding to the majority of the local neighbourhood’s wishes. Also the TOTAL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ABOVE PROVES THAT SLDC MUST REMOVE THE PERIPHERAL GREEN GAP SITE R170M FROM THE LA DPD TO MAKE IT SOUND. THIS IS HOW THE LA DPD MUST BE CHANGED.
4.2 After many years (before year 2000) of knowing about the traffic problems in Kendal, SLDC have failed to produce a transport plan or action plan that enabled them to meet their standards and objectives for Air Quality and Junction Congestion. This must NOT be allowed to continue. Only when these standards and objectives have been PROVEN to have been met (with spare capacity for expansion) will the people believe SLDC are serious about tackling these major problems. The recent SLDC consultations show that increase in traffic was one of main reasons why 98% of the people (that responded) OPPOSE the proposals to build on sites in their area of Kendal.
Previous experience with Core Strategy has shown me that all my evidence will be ignored and that site R170M will not be removed from the LA DPD. If this is to be repeated then I would like to see the following changes to LA DPD.
There is a note on page 57 (item 3.18) of the LA DPD (policy LA2.2 site R170M) which states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO RESOLVE PRESSURE ON THE SEWERAGE NETWORK IN NORTH KENDAL."
This means existing problems will be fixed before building starts.
THIS SETS A PRECEDENT WHICH MUST CONTINUE WITH REGARD TO OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS.
The threat to the health of people due to air pollution is of as much importance as sewage on the streets. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make air pollution worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT THE LAW ON AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
Increase in traffic, which leads to more junction congestion and a deterioration in the well-being of local people, was one of the major complaints in the recent SLDC consultations. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make junction congestion worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT SLDC’S DEFINITION OF “ACCEPTABLE JUNCTION PERFORMANCE” HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
For definition see page 9 of “Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf”.
“4.1.5 An RFC or DoS of 100% indicates that an approach is operating at maximum capacity. Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts. Above this level, an approach is likely to begin to experience congestion as there is insufficient spare capacity to cope with fluctuations in traffic flow.”
4.3 Page 51 item 3.6:
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive. The word “Minimising” is just not good enough to meet the people’s wishes. It must state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
4.4 Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
This Appendix 4 must be changed and other pages which quote these figures. The SLDC evidence does not support the requirement that anywhere near the 8800 dwellings can be built before 2025. The numbers in the graph are not realistic (a SOUNDNESS word), therefore NOT DELIVERABLE and UNSOUND. 720/year for last three years is just wishful thinking, it is not realistic; this graph shows that the maximum that has ever been built within the last 8 years is 300 per year for the year 2005/06. The developers will not build 750 per year because it would swamp the market and they would be left with a large number of empty houses.
There is no point in just stating on page 7 of the LA DPD that it is “the ambition to deliver 400 dwellings each year” if these numbers cannot realistically be built and sold. There is also no point in just monitoring these numbers just so a box can be ticked to say they have been monitored. The numbers must be realistic so that they can be monitored and vigorously progressed.
Kendal Town Council have stated in one of their reports [Sep2011 see above] that only around 200 dwellings per year is the number required. SLDC must discuss this issue with KTC and reduce the current total figure of 8800 to a number that can realistically be built & sold before 2025 and not one that is just WISHFULL THINKING.
4.5 There is a requirement in the Core Strategy for Brownfield land to be used for “at least 28%” of the number of dwellings built. Note the words are “at least” not it is the “ambition to use”. To be SOUND the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets for each area. These figures must be monitored, vigorously progressed and be made available to the public.
4.6 SLDC must discuss Kendal Town Council’s three reports in detail with the town council and members of opposition groups (e.g. Green Spaces). I would like to see the LA DPD changed to incorporate as much as possible of that which is agreed in these discussions.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL PEOPLE MUST BE AT THE TOP OF SLDC's PRIORITY LIST and despite all my emails and protest at the Core Strategy hearings this has not yet been done in Kendal.
So I wish to speak face to face with the inspector and ask him personally if he will recommend in his report that notes be added to the LA DPD stating that SLDC must fix their major existing problems first and meet the SLDC/CCC definition for "Acceptable Junction Congestion" and the Law on Air Quality before allowing actual build of site R170M, which will add to these problems (see examples of notes in section 4.2 above).
A PRECEDENT has already been set by a note in Policy LA2.2 for site R170M relating to the sewerage network in North Kendal. If United Utilities have to fix their major existing problems first before building is allowed then so must SLDC, this is logical and should not need a political decision.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
5. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 17 May 2012 10:54:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.6 Strategic Employment Sites - E4M KENDAL LAND AT SCROGGS WOOD, MILNTHORPE ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1.0 Consultation
1.1 SLDC did not change the proposals in-line with the citizens important wishes.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Legal Compliance in it’s document – "legal.doc” (Legal Compliance Tool from http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85651 )
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (page 7):
“6. Does the consultation contribute to the development and sustainability appraisal of alternatives?”
This has not been carried out correctly, alternatives have not been seriously considered. In particular the Kendal Town Council’s excellent reports, containing good alternatives, have been ignored.
The vast majority of the oppose responses made in the SLDC consultations were noted, listed in the consultation documents and then almost totally ignored. In my view these consultations were just so that SLDC could “tick the box” for the government inspector and therefore were a waste of taxpayers money.
I have done a detailed examination of the SLDC Consultation Database and these are my findings:
On 11th August 2011 (after the closing date) there were 2986 responses from the Kendal settlement. 98% of these responses opposed the proposals in their neighbourhood. Most of those that “support in part” did not support housing. Most of the few indicating “support” were representatives of the land owner, potential builder, Kendal Futures Board or the North West Development Agency.
The main reasons for the respondents opposition was the increase in traffic that these proposed developments would cause, and the affect they would have on the landscape character of Kendal. Better alternative sites were suggested, noted and then ignored. The present proposals will not “satisfy the needs of future generations” and are therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE.
Issues raised in the consultations would have contributed greatly to the development and sustainability of alternatives but the alternatives put forward have been ignored (also see other evidence 2.3 below). Therefore the LA DPD it is not Legally Compliant.
I would like to see alternatives discussed with Kendal Town Council and the Green Spaces group. Then any changes agreed included in the LA DPD.
2.0 Alternative plan
2.1 Law must be obeyed.
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (legal.doc page 5):
“* developing alternatives and options and appraising them through sustainability appraisal and against evidence.”
The SLDC Air Quality reports show that SLDC have been breaking the Law on Air Quality for many years. It means that SLDC must use an alternative plan for Kendal until it is proven that the law is being obeyed (with spare capacity for proposed development). The reason the law must be proven is that action plans have not worked for at least 14 years (before 1998). In the meantime affordable houses can be built in other areas of SLDC which have low traffic.
Until an alternative plan is in position to ensure the law on Air Quality is obeyed (with spare capacity for the proposed development) the LA DPD is not Legally Compliant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Legal Compliance requirements are not definitive or closed questions; they are open to personal interpretation, so I will not make any further comment in these sections.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Personal Comments:- From my experience of the Core Strategy hearings and the SLDC consultations I know my response will be ignored. The changes to Kendal’s infrastructure, that the new SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) states are required (see below), is just one example of this. I am therefore taking this opportunity to place on record all the relevant evidence I have gathered on why site R170M (policy LA2.2) should not be included in the LA DPD. Quotes from certain documents have been added to make it easier for the reader. There is repetition of some issues but this is because I have added different sources of evidence throughout the document.
It is undemocratic just to include Legal Compliance and Soundness in this consultation. In a democratic society the wishes of the majority of local people would have priority over these criteria. Also criteria such as “Justice” and “Fairness” should be considered. These were totally ignored in the Core Strategy consultation and hearings.
Test of Soundness
1.0 Not justified
1.1 Health and well-being of citizens in Kendal.
I have been informed that a developer does not have to fix an existing problem he just needs to show that he will not make it any worse. This is ridiculous, while SLDC are breaking the law on Air Quality developers must not be allowed to build on site R170M and other Kendal sites until the law is obeyed. SLDC breaking the law must surely be enough to prevent developers from winning an appeal. The people’s health and well-being must have top priority over everything else in the LA DPD.
The latest Cumbria County Council’s transport plan LPT3 does not include plans for the necessary infrastructure to fix existing problems neither does the SLDC Core Strategy. It was only after pressure from the public that SLDC & CCC produced the Transport Study (which is only a study) and after all this time the Transport Plan has not yet been made available to the public. Without a Transport Plan (including committed funding) signed off by all the participants the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE within the current timescales (2025) and is UNSOUND.
Before the year 2000 the SLDC objective was to meet the law on Air Quality by the year 2005 but air pollution has continually increased and the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) has even been made larger. This shows that SLDC are not serious in meeting their objectives where the health and well-being of citizens, or obeying the law, are concerned.
A typical example is the approval of the Planning Application for the old Auction Mart site. Also planning approval is certain to go ahead for the Canal Head development. These will make the air pollution worse in the AQMA. The worst pollution occurs when junctions are grid-locked and tinkering with traffic lights will not fix this problem. It will take major infrastructure changes to fix the existing traffic problems and allow for proposed LDF expansion. The Transport Study even admits that none of the improvements schemes will meet SLDC objectives.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
“6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
More building is planned in Kendal within the next few years (phase 1). This will make the major traffic problems worse. Infrastructure should already be in place to cope. Instead there is not even an approved Transport Plan in place, never mind the infrastructure that will be needed to meet SLDC standards and objectives.
The Transport Study is stating that further modelling is required. This shows that SLDC do not yet know at the present time if their proposals can be implemented or if funding will be available within the LDF timeframe (year 2025), therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND. Once money has been spent on major infrastructure changes it will be expected that these changes will last for at least 15 years (through the next LDF) therefore any further modelling must use a date of 2040 or beyond. These results will prove that the Taylor “hub & spoke” must be started now (see more evidence below).
SLDC should be very concerned about anyone who has any bronchial condition (e.g. asthma) and for the future health of children walking to school through Kendal during times of peak pollution. The health of residents of Kendal town should also cause great concern; a lot of them are elderly and frail.
SLDC have chosen the sites which cost the least to develop (e.g. no compulsory purchase costs) and will make the most profit for the developer rather than those best for the health and well being of local people. Money is being put before health. The law’s limits on air pollution are the maximum; the spirit of the law is zero pollution.
This does not mean that expansion cannot take place in other more suitable low pollution/low traffic areas of South Lakeland District. Plenty of more suitable sites, originally on the LA DPD maps for the SLDC district, have not been included on the latest maps. It is not fair that these traffic problems are not shared throughout the entire SLDC district. This is another reason why the hub & spoke system must be adopted – FAIRNESS.
The health and well-being of the people due to air pollution must have top priority over everything else in the LDF. This is not happening with the current proposals. Proving the law is being obeyed must come second on the priority list after health. If it does not already do so the “Soundness” examination must take account of these two very important issues.
The evidence above shows that these traffic problems in Kendal will not be fixed without major infrastructure changes which are not in Cumbria County Council’s LTP3.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND and site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and funding (see above).
For more evidence see extracts from the SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) below.
1.2 Alternative strategy.
Although SLDC have carried out consultations they have ignored the major objections. They have even ignored the alternatives put forward by Kendal Town Council in their excellent reports - “KTC_Response.pdf ”, “KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf ” & “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf. ". To avoid even more “urban sprawl” of Kendal the Taylor “hub & spoke” strategy must be adopted and not the current “doughnut” strategy. Kendal will be around for many thousands of years to come, which makes the “doughnut” strategy UNSUSTAINABLE (i.e. will not satisfy the needs of future generations). Only the “hub & spoke” is sustainable in the years to come because extra “satellites” can be added. By then the proposed “doughnut” system will make Kendal such an urban sprawl that very few people will wish to live there. To prevent this happening the “hub & spoke” system must be started NOW.
Money is being put before what is best for the health and well-being of the people of Kendal now and in the future (beyond 2025).
The Taylor Report, which puts forward compelling evidence in favour of the “hub & spoke” system, shows that the proposed “doughnut” system is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore the development of site R170 (being a peripheral Green Gap site) is UNSOUND and must be removed from the LA DPD.
2.0 Not effective
2.1 Not meeting definitions of soundness.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Soundness in the document - "soundness.doc" (Soundness Tool from: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85673 )
Extract from page 6 - Deliverable:
"21. Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives?
i. Sections of the development plan document which address delivery and the timescales for key developments and initiatives.
ii. Confirmation from the local strategic partnership and partner organisations that the timescales are realistic in terms of their contribution to delivery."
Extract from page 8 - Deliverable:
“28. Is it clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and does the timing of the provision complement the timescale of the strategy/policies?
i. Confirmation from infrastructure providers that they support the solutions proposed and the identified means and timescales for their delivery.
ii. Representations in respect of infrastructure.
iii. Reports or copies of correspondence on how representations in relation to infrastructure and its timing have been considered and dealt with.”
Extract from page 5 of SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
“12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
I have only selected this one paragraph; there are numerous other paragraphs which support these conclusions. In particular Page 15, Item 5.2.1, Table 5.1 which confirms that all schemes fail to meet SLDC’s objective. The results in Tables 5.2 & 5.3 are even worse.
SLDC’s objective is to meet “Acceptable junction performance” which is defined on page 9, item 4.1.5.
I'm not sure why the year 2022 was chosen as base-line, whatever major infrastructure is planned must enable SLDC to meet their objectives for years beyond 2025. In my opinion until 2040, the end of the next LDF.
Schemes 4, 5 & 6 require major investment and are not in the Core Strategy and therefore must be excluded from the Transport Plan when it is published. Note that the Transport Plan should incorporate extra capacity to cope with the “doughnut” system which, if approved, will undoubtedly continue after 2025.
The SLDC Air Quality Reports show that air pollution is getting worse in Kendal and also the AQMA has been increased.
Extract from page 27 of Air Quality Report (PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf)
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page857/PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf ).
"It would be hoped that each individual action would add to a combined reduction in levels to meet the requirement above. However, the 2009 annual mean NO2 results of the diffusion tube monitoring and the continuous analyser within the AQMA actually show that levels remain high, close to or above the 2010 objective and have actually increased from 2008 levels in 2009 in some locations. Without radical progress by Cumbria County Council on changes to the road system, vehicle access and parking in Kendal it is unlikely that the objective will be achieved."
Note the word “hoped”. Over many previous years this is typical of SLDC’s attitude towards obeying the law on Air Quality. SLDC action plans have not worked in the past and this is proved by the fact that the AQMA has recently been made larger.
The SLDC document "ED43_Housing Completions 1999 to 2010.doc" plus SLDC updates show that from the beginning of plan period 2003 to end of 2011 (8 years results) the total for South Lakeland is 1690 / 8 = 211 average and of these affordable are 406 / 8 = 51 average (or 24%). Figures for 2006 to 2011 (last 5 years results) are 934 / 5 = 187 average and of these affordable are 264 / 5 = 53 average (or 28%).
Between 2003 and 2011 the number of completions was 1690. At 400 per year the objective was 3200 over this 8 year period, a difference of 1510. To make up this deficit means that over the remaining 14 years (up to 2025) an extra 1510 / 14 = 107 per year will be required. This extra number per year will get a lot higher when the build rate stays below 400 per year.
This is nowhere near the Core Strategy figure of 400 dwellings per year or the percentage affordable figure of 35% and therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE. 200 dwellings per year would be a more realistic figure and this is the latest figure that is necessary according to a Kendal Town Council Report (see below).
SLDC have recognised this and have added the word “ambition” to build this number of houses to the LA DPD (see page 7 of the “Land Allocations DPD [Feb 12].pdf ” as an example). This word is not used in this context with regard to numbers in the Core Strategy document. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND with respect to the Core Strategy. The Leader of the Council insisted the numbers in the Core Strategy were achievable within the timescales of the LDF.
The above figures show there was an inward migration of 3 (high cost) to 1 (affordable). The majority of the proposed SLDC development is for the Kendal area (35%, 140 dpa) and this will add greatly to traffic problems mentioned above. This inward migration must not be planned (or allowed) to continue until all the partners involved have “signed on the dotted line” that they will meet the LA DPD milestones for all the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewerage, doctors, dentists, schools, etc) that is required. With the proviso that the build will actually take place in the timescales planned. It causes unnecessary stress to local people when unachievable targets are proposed or planned.
Another issue that affects DELIVERABILITY is Brownfield sites (or previously developed land).
It states in "SLDC_Core_Strategy_Document_March2011_sm4web2.pdf " (page 17):
"CS1.2 – The Development Strategy
Priority will be given to the reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land for all new housing development, with a target of ensuring that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites."
The “at least 28%” is also mentioned in CS6.6 (page 85). The 50% in item 7.14 is a mistake, it was the previous target. Now the target has been lowered, and "at least 28%" is said by SLDC to be achievable, the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets in each area. The Core Strategy and LA DPD have a requirement to be monitored and targets at least progressed vigorously.
The LA DPD does not mention this requirement; therefore it does not conform to the Core Strategy and is UNSOUND. Also these monitored figures need to be published and available to the public.
The SLDC Transport Report (Atkins 2009) states an amber limit for acceptable Junction Congestion and that in 2008 there were 7 red (above limit) junctions with 11 red junctions forecast in 2025.
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page2033/Kendal_TAJune_2009.pdf )
Pages 7 of this report specifically mentions the Middle Sparrowmire R170M site (referred to as “The Todds”) as being inappropriate because it would "worsen existing congestion on Windermere Road, as traffic travels into Kendal town centre. As the Windermere Road corridor already suffers congestion and delays during peak travel periods, it is considered that additional large-scale development in this area will lead to deterioration in traffic conditions." There are more similar comments on pages 60 & 71.
Site R170M feeds traffic into Windermere Road and therefore must be removed from the LA DPD until SLDC have met their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ” page 5 (Exec Summary):
"However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required."
The Canal Head development is more important to Kendal than site R170M therefore because site R170M will add more traffic to Kendal streets it is UNSOUND to build on it. It must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and committed funding.
Page 115 of the document “KENDAL Appendix 1.pdf ” (Appendix 1B – Consultation Responses after October 2010) for site R170M states:
“Achieving adequate visibility will be problematic given alignment of road and limited frontage. Such a large site would require a secondary access (Cumbria County Council – Highways).”
The conclusions reached by a chartered civil engineer who has carried out measurements to Transport Standards of the proposed access to site R170M are as follows:
“There is severely restricted forward visibility on both bends in Burneside Road either side of the proposed access location.
In either scenario tested the visibility from the proposed access towards Kendal falls far short of the standard required.
A new junction cannot be safely introduced in this location.”
This report can be supplied if required.
It cannot be right not to identify this secondary access. When it is identified there will be a lot more opposition to site R170 than is currently expressed.
As I said at the beginning of this response about including “JUSTICE” and “FAIRNESS”, it is not FAIR to include a site which is likely to have “show stopping” problems without first carrying out a thorough investigation into these particular problems.
Given the evidence above, until it can be proved that both access roads can be built to meet the Transport Standards, the development of the site R170 is UNSOUND and it must be removed from the LA DPD.
The site R170M is still part of a Green Gap. This means by definition it has higher protection than Greenfields. People who purchased their properties believing this to be true now find that they will be subjected to a grave INJUSTICE if site R170M is not removed from the LA DPD.
This is a very important reason why site R170M should not be developed – JUSTICE.
Extract from page 137 item 6.9 of the Inspector's Report on the public enquiry in 1996. Green Gap site R170M is the site mentioned below.
"Inspector's Conclusions:
6.9 The objection by Mr Downham [biased land owner] is not concerned with the provision of a green gap, but the extent of that gap. It is argued [land owner’s words] that the green gap, as shown in the Consultation draft of the Plan, follows a public footpath running between substantial hedges, a clearly defined landscape boundary: whilst the residential allocation at Sparrowmire has been reduced in the Deposit Draft, an equivalent extension to the green gap is not necessary. ^However, and most importantly in my view, the objection indicates that the "land should remain unallocated as white land so that when the Plan is reviewed in 10 years' time it can be considered as potential residential land" [land owner’s words]. I consider this underlying reason for excluding the land from the green gap identifies the very reason it should remain so designated. Structure Plan Policy 14 and the reasoned justification makes no reference to the length of time during which the vulnerable areas of countryside between settlements should be protected.^ Although policies and proposals in the Local Plan must clearly relate to the Plan period, and can be subject to review thereafter, it appears to me common sense that what is unacceptable now, will most probably be equally unacceptable at the end of the Plan period: certainly I consider the Plan should seek to engender a degree of public confidence that the separation secured will not, at some future time, be lightly squandered. ^For these reasons I believe that, where a green gap is seen as necessary, it is more important that the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap than that substantial, but arbitrary landscape features should be rigidly followed. I also consider the inter-visibility of settlements is not a factor which should affect the definition of green gaps."^
I have marked with ^...^ the most important words in the above paragraph and my clarifying words are in square brackets.
The first group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that the owner wished to leave the remaining land (now site R170M) as white land, so it can sold as high priced building land at a later date. The inspector states that this is the very reason it must remain as a Green Gap and because of this statement it is Green Gap. The LA DPD only includes Green Gap site R170M because the owner is keen to sell and make a large profit, if he didn’t it would not be included.
The second group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that “the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap”. It must not depend on “landscape features” or “inter-visibility of settlements”, but these are the very reasons that SLDC state as to why site R170M can be built-on.
Site R170M is still currently a Green Gap site and by definition has more protection than all Greenfields.
A Government Inspector’s words made the white land (now site R170M) into Green Gap and must not be ignored. Therefore to include site R170M in the LA DPD until all the more suitable Greenfield sites have been built-on is UNSOUND.
This R170M Green Gap is also land of most value to the existing community as backed up by this statement in ‘The Taylor Review’ (Page 58):
“20. Government policy is to increase the density of new housing as a means to maximising land use and better support local services. New extensions to settlements therefore may be relatively densely designed and built right up against the existing settlement to minimise the number of green fields ‘swallowed up’. However, this will mean they are built on exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town. Local residents against new development may be accused of ignoring the needs of others for housing, but they have a genuine point. They may not have bought the right to their countryside views, but they certainly have paid for them, and these developments are on exactly the fields of most landscape value to existing residents."
Taylor gives a valid reason why local people should not be labelled with the scorning name NIMBYs’ when they have a good reason and evidence to oppose development in their neighbourhood.
The evidence above shows that the proposed LA DPD numbers for dwellings to be built are UNDELIVERABLE before 2025. If the numbers were reduced to ones that were deliverable and sound there would be no reason to include the peripheral site R170M in the last phase (2022-25) of the LA DPD, since it is a Green Gap and hence has a higher protection than any of the proposed Greenfield sites. Note at this point in time site R170M is still part of a Green Gap.
“The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods.”
(see http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/communityinfrastructurelevy/ )
There is absolutely no evidence in the LA DPD about how much funding SLDC are capable of obtaining from developers from the levy. Their track record in the past has been very poor when negotiating for affordable dwelling percentages. The target over previous years has been 50% but SLDC of only achieved 28%. The target is now 35% which from past results is still just wishful thinking. SLDC are relying on this money to fund infrastructure and other projects. Until SLDC publish real evidence that the money raised from this levy is in excess (there will always be an overspend) of that required, for all the proposals in the LA DPD it is intended for, then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
Until it is certain that the required infrastructure funding will be available within the planned timescales, in order that SLDC meet their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion, then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has a approved construction plan and committed funding in place (see above). Also that it is shown to decrease the traffic levels in the Windermere Road corridor enough for SLDC traffic objectives are met in this area.
3.0 Further evidence in support of why Policy LA2.2 (site R170M) should be removed from the LA DPD.
3.1 Extracts from Kendal Town Council document "KTC_Response.pdf " (Apr 2011)
Page 8 Transport Improvements.
“The Assessment then looked at the impact of the various possible development sites which were then under discussion. The Assessment modelled the impact of various remedial measures that could be taken, ranging from junction improvements to the building of the Inner Relief Road. It concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three sites were removed:
• Land within the Shap Road/Appleby Road corridor (Site E23/49 and Sites M8/M35/ M36)
• The Todds, west of Burneside Road (Sites R148/R170)
• Stonebank Green (Sites M39/R676/R103/R675)
There was no solution which permitted these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment).”
This supports previous evidence that the development of site R170M (The Todds) is UNSOUND
Page 9 section on “Sewer Capacity”
“In addition, United Utilities has concerns about the capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Works, located to the south of Kendal, for which process modelling needs to be carried out. This impacts all the potential development sites in the town.”
I have an email from SLDC dated 27Apr2011 which states:
“The following is based on information and advice provided by United Utilities.
1. United Utilities cannot determine the number of dwellings that will cause Kendal Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) to reach process capacity without conducting modelling. The threshold for when capacity is reached is determined by the design capacity of the WwTW and the population that it serves with some headroom designed in to the calculations. This headroom is not excessive as United Utilities cannot design and build for a population that is not already there or where development is not definite.
2. There are local network issues in respect of sewer capacity in the Kendal area . They are primarily centred around the Burneside area as evidenced in the Core Strategy and supporting Land Allocations Document material.
3. South Lakeland District Council does not hold or have access to data/information regarding the catchment area of the Kendal Sewerage Works.”
SLDC/UU admit that the headroom (i.e. spare capacity) is not excessive. Despite this SLDC have no results of any modelling and have not insisted that this modelling be carried out by UU. SLDC do not even know the catchment area for Kendal Sewage Works. There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC do have this information today (a year later). Therefore SLDC do not know how many dwellings can be built before Kendal Sewage Works needs a major upgrade costing many millions of pounds.
United Utilities move their funding from year to year as they see their immediate priorities change, so until they actual “sign on the dotted line” to meet certain dates then their current dates can “be taken with a pinch of salt”. As evidence to support this, the paying customers of Burneside have been waiting over 20 years to get their sewerage fixed and they still have sewage on the streets during heavy rain. So there is no guarantee that the North West Kendal problem will be fixed before 2025.
Site R170M is one of the last sites in the plan to be developed therefore until the above figures are known for the whole of the catchment area and UU & OFWAT have “signed on the dotted line” to meet their agreed dates then the site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 9 section on “Hydrologic Considerations”.
“However, the mechanisms (some man-made, mostly natural) which are currently managing to keep Kendal free of floods are not well understood. Several of the sites included in the Land Allocations have a history of being badly affected by rainfall. This suggests they have a role to play in mitigating surface run-off and hence flood prevention. If this is correct, development of such sites could trigger flooding in the town - and making the sites themselves flood proof would certainly involve additional expense for developers.
Kendal Town Council believes this is an important omission from the current evidence base, and calls on SLDC to commission a full hydrology study of the area before including the affected sites in any final land allocation. Any remedial infrastructure required to allow these sites to be developed safely would need to be included in the overall infrastructure programme.
Land Allocations affected by this consideration are the lower Hallgarth sites (R169M and R170M), Appleby Road (MK35KM), Natland Beck at Kendal Parks (R107M, R150M), Stock Beck at Castle Green Road (R121M), and Stonecross (R103M), and Blind Beck (R129M)”
There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC have commissioned this study or have any results. Site R170M is mentioned in quote above and so until this study is carried out development of site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 10 Infrastructure.
“3. Sites should not be included in a Final Land Allocations document unless their impact on Kendal’s transport is understood, solutions are agreed with partners, and the impact has successfully passed a rerun of the Transport Assessment. ‘Emerging Option’ sites affected by this are indicated are indicated by an ‘X’ in the ‘Traffic’ column in the Detail by each Land Allocation site starting on page 11.”
Note site R170M has an ‘X’ in the Traffic column, so this site should be removed from the LA DPD until its impact on Kendal’s junction congestion is fully understood.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.2 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. "KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf" (Sep 2011)
Page 5 Doughnut Development
“Taylor contends: ...these developments undermine sustainability. They invariably encourage car use, especially if there are no services or employment within walking distance, with resulting congestion on roads into town. And without local and community facilities of their own, there is little to build social sustainability and cohesion or links between new and existing settlements as there will be little in the way of community life.
This approach to planning is also a recipe for confrontation, “developing exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town”
(as has been amply demonstrated in Kendal by the response to the Emerging Options consultation process).
Without change we will simply repeat the mistakes of recent decades, creating unattractive developments of housing estates encircling our rural towns and larger villages, and we will fail to stem the trend of smaller villages becoming dormitory settlements of commuters and the retired, ever less affordable for those who work within them. This is not a sustainable future for rural England.
Without strong Land Allocation policies from the Planning Authority, Kendal is heading towards an unsustainable “doughnutted” future.”
This confirms that development of the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 6 Recommendation for Kendal
“The Council believes the Planning Authority should follow Taylor and adopt this model in preparing its final Land Allocations policies for Kendal, as the only way in which the NPPF demand for sustainable development can be achieved in the town. It is important to note that this is not in conflict with the Core Strategy positioning of Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, or with the requirements for meeting forecast housing demand. From Taylor, the requirements for sustainable development in rural market towns is clear: it cannot be delivered by allocating isolated sites around the town; a hub and spoke model is required. Even without the NPPF’s insistence on sustainable development, there are other intrinsic advantages to the hub and spoke model for Kendal. The Council’s previous Response to Consultation highlighted the major infrastructure challenges to be overcome in the town. These become far more soluble if development proceeds on hub-by-hub basis, when the infrastructure work can be concentrated on the corresponding spokes. For example, it is far simpler to improve bus services, cycling provision, etc. if only one or two ‘spokes’ have to be addressed.
The evidence in the EHLSS shows that there are suitable sites available (the scope of the SHLAS only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that the “doughnut” strategy is incorrect for Kendal and should be replaced by the “hub & spoke” strategy. It also confirms that the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is unsustainable and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 10 Latest Forecasts (2011)
“The latest forecast in this series was produced in Spring 2011. It shows a drastically reduced requirement:
• only 360 dwellings across the 20 years, or
• just over 4,000 including migration, projected on the last five years’ evidence.
This suggests that a more appropriate target for the next 5-10 years would be around 200 dwellings per annum.”
This confirms the evidence given above that 200 per year is what is required and this number would be deliverable. If this number was planned then the peripheral Green Gap site R170M would not be required and being in the last phase would not be needed in this LA DPD.
This section supports previous evidence that the LA DPD is UNSUSTAINABLE and UNSOUND.
3.3 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf “ (Mar 2012)
Page 4 Summary
“The Council believes that the DPD is not justified because it fails the following tests of soundness:
• the LPA has failed in its duty to compare against reasonable alternatives
• key decisions are not supported by the evidence base or the evidence supports a different conclusion
• the evidence base is incomplete
The DPD is also not effective in that it is not deliverable, with key elements of the dependent infrastructure
not understood.”
This confirms the LA DPD is NOT DELIVERABLE.
Page 4
“For rural market towns, the evidence was pulled together in July 2008 by the Taylor Review9, setting out the policy framework necessary to deliver the “vision of a living, working sustainable countryside”. Taylor provided compelling evidence that “doughnut development” was the wrong approach for sustainable rural market towns, and that a “hub and spoke” model represented the best pattern for sustainability.”
The two KTC paragraphs above confirm that an alternative system must be adopted now, which will “meet the needs of future generations” of Kendal (i.e. BE SUSTAINABLE”) for the many thousands of years to come.
Page 4
“The evidence in the EHLSS indicates that suitable sites could be available (the scope of the SHLAA only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that a “hub & spoke” is viable.
Page 5
“The Assessment concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three large sites were removed. The consultants could find no mitigation which would permit these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment.)”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD because it is one of the three sites.
Page 5
“Given that this approach has differed significantly from the independent consultants’, the Council asks the Inspector to order an independent audit of this latest work by W.S.Atkins or equivalent to ensure it meets accepted professional standards of objectivity and integrity. The Council further asks the Inspector to ensure that no sites are included in the DPD which the evidence shows are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD, because it is one of the sites which “are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
Page 7
“The Council asks the Inspector to withhold approval of the DPD until there is a credible infrastructure plan showing the impact of the major sites on the overall town infrastructure, and with high level solutions identified and costed with enough detail to enable the economic deliverability of the sites to be proven.”
This adds to the evidence given above that there must be signatures, to supply the necessary infrastructure and funding, must be in place before this LA DPD is approved by the Government. Until this is done site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.4 Extracts from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Page 5 Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
"10. The LDF developments have a more notable impact in the AM peak compared to the base situation. The model results indicate that the provision of sustainable transport improvements (Scheme 2) would be required to support LDF development to nil-detriment compared to the 2022 base situation in the AM peak. However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required.
11. It should be noted that although these schemes are required to achieve nil-detriment, these improvements are only demonstrated to offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal. These infrastructure schemes would be expensive and may not be a cost-effective solution to congestion in Kendal town centre.
12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.
13. It is recommended that further modelling work is undertaken"
The Transport Study shows that the objectives cannot be achieved before 2025 therefore the problems are going to be much worse in the years 2026 onwards.
SLDC do not have signed-off solutions and timescales in place to meet the plan phases, therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 9 This page gives the CCC/SLDC definition for Junction Congestion limits.
"Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts."
The Atkins report uses a Volume/Capacity ratio of 90 as acceptable for a junction approach, which is similar.
The Study shows that these objectives will not be met by 2025 so this, along with page 10 (see below) adds evidence to the above.
Page 10
"4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. These are:Junction1: A5284 Stricklandgate/Sandes AvenueJunction 2: A5284 Sandes Avenue / A6 Blackhall Road signalised junction
Junction 5: A6 Longpool / Station Road mini-roundabout junction
Junction 12: A6 Highgate / Lowther Street signalised junction
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Junction 16: A6 Milnthorpe Road / Romney Road signalised junction
Junction 17: A5284 Windermere Road/Queens Road
Junction 18: A5284 Windermere Road/Burneside Road
Junction 21: A65 Burton Road / Oxenholme Road signalised junction
Junction 27: A684 Sedbergh Road / Sandylands Road priority junction
Junction 29: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (north) priority junction
Junction 30: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (south) priority junction
Junction 31: A685 Appleby Road/Sandylands Road"
“Measures must be in place” to fix these major problems first (i.e. meet SLDC objectives). They have a huge bearing on why SLDC is still breaking the law on Air Quality.
Page 14
“* Scheme 6: Scheme 5, plus a potential Kendal Southern Link Road, which comprises a new single-carriageway road linking the A6 Milnthorpe Road with the A65 Burton Road south of Kendal town centre.”
This new road proposal has never been mentioned before; it is not in the Core Strategy and therefore, as we have been told before, it cannot be considered in this LDF.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.5 Extracts from SLDC document "06 Infrastructure Position Statement.pdf ”:
Page 10
"4.19 United Utilities has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area. A proposal for expenditure in the years 2010 – 2015 is contained within the published five years Investment Plan (Asset Management programme). The plan can be found at the following website link: http://www.unitedutilities.com/Documents/Detailed_plan.pdf "
There is nothing in this PDF document that is specific to Kendal.
UU may have "a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area" but it is very poor at obeying this duty as is verified by the > 20 years Burnside have been suffering sewage problems (and still are).
Until UU actually “sign on the dotted line” to meet the required planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.23 Funding is more likely to be acquired in cases where there is development certainty (i.e. clear evidence of developer interest).
* UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct."
This backs previous evidence, never mind “development certainty” what about the existing paying customers who are still suffering sewage and flooding problems due to lack of investment.
Until United Utilities “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.24 There is currently loading capacity at Kendal Waste water Treatment Works (WwTW), however, for the number of dwellings that are proposed a full process and hydraulic survey of the Works will have to be undertaken before UU could comfortably approve the Planning Applications. As the sewer network is at capacity in North Kendal, UU could not agree to any significant development until after 2015 in this part of the town. Providing UU obtain funding through OFWAT to undertake the necessary upgrades etc. UU will be building into the 2014 Business Submission to OFWAT a case for funding to provide the means to accommodate development, which will boost the economy.
4.25 A feasibility study is being undertaken on the Kendal WwTW. Recommended phosphorous levels are set by Environment Agency (EA) through discharge consents, and until EA impose a new requirement for a lowered rate, UU will continue to discharge at the current rate. UU stated achieving any required lower rates would depend on new/better technology. Further Phosphorous removal would only be undertaken if UU were required to achieve a tighter standard as set by the EA following their review of water quality. Newer technology, which is not currently available, would be required to achieve any standard below 1mg/l. UU has advised development in the Kendal area should be capped at 2000 properties unless a more stringent phosphorus effluent standard can be achieved.
4.26 UU has advised that sites in North Kendal should only come forward in the latter periods of the plan period when sewage network improvements are in place.
4.27 Strategically there is enough water supply to accommodate levels of new development, but there are potential risks of deterioration of water quality."
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 14
"4.45 Electricity North West Ltd manage infrastructure and distribute and transmit electricity throughout South Lakeland. The regulator determines the amount of funding, however, it is not known what the next round of funding may or may not allow for investment in improvements. Information relating to substation capacity has not been ascertained. Evidence when exploring options for the Canal Head Area of Kendal shows that the Kendal Primary substation is currently operating close to or at capacity. It is possible that significant development in Kendal would require investment for network reinforcement and that a new Primary Substation would be required although Electricity North West Ltd does not confirm this. No information has been made available stating whether this is the case. Only when the customer has firm load requirements and location details can a system study be undertaken to ascertain the scale of impact of potential new development."
What if the system study states it cannot be done or they cannot obtain the funding within the plan timescales? Electricity North West Ltd already has the number of houses proposed and their locations so they must commit to a system study and confirm that the proposed developments are deliverable. Until then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 15
"4.48 National Grid Gas Distribution own and operate the local gas distribution network in South Lakeland. The confidential nature of the process means National Grid are unable to confirm whether they are currently processing or have made any offers for connection within Cumbria."
The document states nothing about National Grid Gas Distribution having a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of gas supply within its area.
The LA DPD cannot possibly be monitored correctly until all the Gas company has “signed on the dotted line” to meet the timescales required. Until then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This Infrastructure document is only a statement; there is no indication when the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be available to the public or any indication that the timescales can be met. The LA DPD is UNSOUND until the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Kendal Transport Plan are available with all milestones agreed, funding committed and both signed off by the respective utility companies. They can have the proviso that it depends on the build going ahead as planned.
3.6 Extracts from SLDC document “01 Consultation Report.pdf ”:
Page 19
“In their response the Highways Agency identified those sites it considers (if developed, due to cumulative impact with other sites) may impact upon the capacity, operation and safety of the strategic road network (SRN) (A590 and M6) within South Lakeland. As a consequence, the Agency has stated that the cumulative impact of development of sites under consideration in the following settlements (see below) may result in some impact to the SRN: Burneside, Crooklands, Endmoor, Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, Levens, Milnthorpe and Ulverston alongside the sites suggested for strategic employment use (in Ulverston and Kendal area).”
Note the word “may” on the second line. They either do or they don’t. After all these years of the LDF there is no excuse for this information not being available. SLDC must obtain an answer to this issue immediately and publish it. If any of the developments proposed within the LA DPD do affect the Strategic Road Network then any changes necessary must be included in the LA DPD and the Transport Plan (which must be issued before the hearings). Note the Strategic Road Network is NOT currently mentioned in the LA DPD.
Page 21
This page with reference to Burneside states:
“.....this is no guarantee that funding will be approved by OFWAT”.
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted” line to meet the planned timescales the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 21
“Additional work is needed by UU to check if cumulative impact on treatment works may raise capacity issues
SLDC must publish how many houses can be built in the Kendal catchment area before a major upgrade to the sewage works is required. Until UU know their total funding requirements the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 34
KENDAL
“Many people believe development of the sites suggested would harm the landscape character of the town, worsen air quality, exacerbate current flooding problems, harm biodiversity, generate unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and place further strains on a heavily constrained sewerage system. Some people questioned the need for additional housing believing there are enough empty properties in the town to meet current and future housing demands. A number of people stated development should be prioritised on brownfield sites and meet primarily local needs.”
“Many people including Kendal Town Council and Burneside and Natland Parish Council’s supported the concept of green gaps to protect Kendal coalescing with neighbouring settlements. However, a significant number of people and Kendal Town Council and Natland Parish Council believed the suggested emerging options would not prevent coalescence from happening. There was general widespread support for the open space designations suggested, however, many people believed the emerging options sites should also be designated open space.”
“Kendal Town Council expressed serious concerns with the overall approach being suggested for the town, believing the amounts of developments and the emerging option sites suggested would damage the landscape character of the town, and put unnecessary strain on an inadequate infrastructure system. The Town Council has suggested an alternative strategy/approach for the town this being to protect existing green space/countryside surrounding the town and to look at alternative sites adjacent to nearby settlements and possibly further afield where development would have less impact on the town’s infrastructure, air quality and its high quality landscape value.”
These three paragraphs confirm that the wishes of the majority of local people have been ignored and adds support to the evidence given above concerning Consultation and Legal Compliance.
Page 46
On this page it states “UU is currently considering lists of projects that will require major capital investment in Asset Management Plan 6 period 2015-2020.” and “UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct.”
Until United Utilities and OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” to meet the planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE, UNSOUND and that consultation process was not Legally Compliant.
3.7 Extracts from SLDC document “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
Pages 51 & 52
Item 3.6 - Key local factors influencing the location of new development in Kendal:
“Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail and from important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout Scar/Brigsteer Road; Avoiding coalescence between Kendal, Oxenholme, Burneside and Natland and maintaining the separate identities of these settlements;
Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, promoting sustainable transport and achieving a positive impact on the Kendal Air Quality Management Area;
Infrastructure constraints including sewage capacity at Kentrigg and Steele's Row and the implications for development in northwest Kendal.”
One of the main comments of the people who responded to the SLDC consultations and opposed them was the character and appearance of Kendal. This is imbedded in the above paragraph and has been totally ignored. The LA DPD is therefore not Legally Compliant.
The site R170M is close to Kentrigg (mentioned above) and so it is UNSOUND to include it in the LA DPD until United Utilities are fully committed (i.e. signed on the dotted line) to the LA DPD timescales.
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive it should state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
A graph on this page it shows the following numbers over the years 2003 – 2025 (22 years).
Maximum number of dwellings ever built in one year was 300 in year 2005/06 and even this did not reach the target of 400 per year.
Extrapolating from the graphs the average number of dwellings built per year for the first 8 years was 100+280+150+150+240+300+230+220 = 1670 / 8 = 209 per year. In the terms of this graph there are already an extra 1530 dwellings (109/yr on top of the 400/yr) that have built just to catch up. This compares well with the more accurate figures in section 2.1 above.
The figure of 720 per year for the three years 2022 – 2025 is just WISHFULL THINKING.
One of the questions that must be asked to confirm SOUNDNESS is “Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives”. The above numbers are clearly not realistic therefore the current LA DPD is UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND within the timescales of this LA DPD (2025).
4.0 Changes required to the LA DPD document title “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
4.1 During the recent SLDC consultation 98% of the local neighbourhood who responded OPPOSED the proposals for site R170M. In a door-door poll of over 400 neighbours during 2011 approximately 80% of those asked OPPOSED the proposal to build on site R170M. Of the remaining 20% most did not care one way or the other. The Localism Bill is a Con Trick (nice pun); it promises much but does not actually support what the majority of the people in the neighbourhood want.
To prove SLDC are DEMOCRATIC they must be serious about responding to the majority of the local neighbourhood’s wishes. Also the TOTAL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ABOVE PROVES THAT SLDC MUST REMOVE THE PERIPHERAL GREEN GAP SITE R170M FROM THE LA DPD TO MAKE IT SOUND. THIS IS HOW THE LA DPD MUST BE CHANGED.
4.2 After many years (before year 2000) of knowing about the traffic problems in Kendal, SLDC have failed to produce a transport plan or action plan that enabled them to meet their standards and objectives for Air Quality and Junction Congestion. This must NOT be allowed to continue. Only when these standards and objectives have been PROVEN to have been met (with spare capacity for expansion) will the people believe SLDC are serious about tackling these major problems. The recent SLDC consultations show that increase in traffic was one of main reasons why 98% of the people (that responded) OPPOSE the proposals to build on sites in their area of Kendal.
Previous experience with Core Strategy has shown me that all my evidence will be ignored and that site R170M will not be removed from the LA DPD. If this is to be repeated then I would like to see the following changes to LA DPD.
There is a note on page 57 (item 3.18) of the LA DPD (policy LA2.2 site R170M) which states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO RESOLVE PRESSURE ON THE SEWERAGE NETWORK IN NORTH KENDAL."
This means existing problems will be fixed before building starts.
THIS SETS A PRECEDENT WHICH MUST CONTINUE WITH REGARD TO OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS.
The threat to the health of people due to air pollution is of as much importance as sewage on the streets. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make air pollution worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT THE LAW ON AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
Increase in traffic, which leads to more junction congestion and a deterioration in the well-being of local people, was one of the major complaints in the recent SLDC consultations. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make junction congestion worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT SLDC’S DEFINITION OF “ACCEPTABLE JUNCTION PERFORMANCE” HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
For definition see page 9 of “Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf”.
“4.1.5 An RFC or DoS of 100% indicates that an approach is operating at maximum capacity. Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts. Above this level, an approach is likely to begin to experience congestion as there is insufficient spare capacity to cope with fluctuations in traffic flow.”
4.3 Page 51 item 3.6:
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive. The word “Minimising” is just not good enough to meet the people’s wishes. It must state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
4.4 Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
This Appendix 4 must be changed and other pages which quote these figures. The SLDC evidence does not support the requirement that anywhere near the 8800 dwellings can be built before 2025. The numbers in the graph are not realistic (a SOUNDNESS word), therefore NOT DELIVERABLE and UNSOUND. 720/year for last three years is just wishful thinking, it is not realistic; this graph shows that the maximum that has ever been built within the last 8 years is 300 per year for the year 2005/06. The developers will not build 750 per year because it would swamp the market and they would be left with a large number of empty houses.
There is no point in just stating on page 7 of the LA DPD that it is “the ambition to deliver 400 dwellings each year” if these numbers cannot realistically be built and sold. There is also no point in just monitoring these numbers just so a box can be ticked to say they have been monitored. The numbers must be realistic so that they can be monitored and vigorously progressed.
Kendal Town Council have stated in one of their reports [Sep2011 see above] that only around 200 dwellings per year is the number required. SLDC must discuss this issue with KTC and reduce the current total figure of 8800 to a number that can realistically be built & sold before 2025 and not one that is just WISHFULL THINKING.
4.5 There is a requirement in the Core Strategy for Brownfield land to be used for “at least 28%” of the number of dwellings built. Note the words are “at least” not it is the “ambition to use”. To be SOUND the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets for each area. These figures must be monitored, vigorously progressed and be made available to the public.
4.6 SLDC must discuss Kendal Town Council’s three reports in detail with the town council and members of opposition groups (e.g. Green Spaces). I would like to see the LA DPD changed to incorporate as much as possible of that which is agreed in these discussions.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL PEOPLE MUST BE AT THE TOP OF SLDC's PRIORITY LIST and despite all my emails and protest at the Core Strategy hearings this has not yet been done in Kendal.
So I wish to speak face to face with the inspector and ask him personally if he will recommend in his report that notes be added to the LA DPD stating that SLDC must fix their major existing problems first and meet the SLDC/CCC definition for "Acceptable Junction Congestion" and the Law on Air Quality before allowing actual build of site R170M, which will add to these problems (see examples of notes in section 4.2 above).
A PRECEDENT has already been set by a note in Policy LA2.2 for site R170M relating to the sewerage network in North Kendal. If United Utilities have to fix their major existing problems first before building is allowed then so must SLDC, this is logical and should not need a political decision.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
6. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 17 May 2012 10:58:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - M2M-mod KENDAL LAND EAST OF BURTON ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1.0 Consultation
1.1 SLDC did not change the proposals in-line with the citizens important wishes.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Legal Compliance in it’s document – "legal.doc” (Legal Compliance Tool from http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85651 )
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (page 7):
“6. Does the consultation contribute to the development and sustainability appraisal of alternatives?”
This has not been carried out correctly, alternatives have not been seriously considered. In particular the Kendal Town Council’s excellent reports, containing good alternatives, have been ignored.
The vast majority of the oppose responses made in the SLDC consultations were noted, listed in the consultation documents and then almost totally ignored. In my view these consultations were just so that SLDC could “tick the box” for the government inspector and therefore were a waste of taxpayers money.
I have done a detailed examination of the SLDC Consultation Database and these are my findings:
On 11th August 2011 (after the closing date) there were 2986 responses from the Kendal settlement. 98% of these responses opposed the proposals in their neighbourhood. Most of those that “support in part” did not support housing. Most of the few indicating “support” were representatives of the land owner, potential builder, Kendal Futures Board or the North West Development Agency.
The main reasons for the respondents opposition was the increase in traffic that these proposed developments would cause, and the affect they would have on the landscape character of Kendal. Better alternative sites were suggested, noted and then ignored. The present proposals will not “satisfy the needs of future generations” and are therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE.
Issues raised in the consultations would have contributed greatly to the development and sustainability of alternatives but the alternatives put forward have been ignored (also see other evidence 2.3 below). Therefore the LA DPD it is not Legally Compliant.
I would like to see alternatives discussed with Kendal Town Council and the Green Spaces group. Then any changes agreed included in the LA DPD.
2.0 Alternative plan
2.1 Law must be obeyed.
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (legal.doc page 5):
“* developing alternatives and options and appraising them through sustainability appraisal and against evidence.”
The SLDC Air Quality reports show that SLDC have been breaking the Law on Air Quality for many years. It means that SLDC must use an alternative plan for Kendal until it is proven that the law is being obeyed (with spare capacity for proposed development). The reason the law must be proven is that action plans have not worked for at least 14 years (before 1998). In the meantime affordable houses can be built in other areas of SLDC which have low traffic.
Until an alternative plan is in position to ensure the law on Air Quality is obeyed (with spare capacity for the proposed development) the LA DPD is not Legally Compliant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Legal Compliance requirements are not definitive or closed questions; they are open to personal interpretation, so I will not make any further comment in these sections.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Personal Comments:- From my experience of the Core Strategy hearings and the SLDC consultations I know my response will be ignored. The changes to Kendal’s infrastructure, that the new SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) states are required (see below), is just one example of this. I am therefore taking this opportunity to place on record all the relevant evidence I have gathered on why site R170M (policy LA2.2) should not be included in the LA DPD. Quotes from certain documents have been added to make it easier for the reader. There is repetition of some issues but this is because I have added different sources of evidence throughout the document.
It is undemocratic just to include Legal Compliance and Soundness in this consultation. In a democratic society the wishes of the majority of local people would have priority over these criteria. Also criteria such as “Justice” and “Fairness” should be considered. These were totally ignored in the Core Strategy consultation and hearings.
Test of Soundness
1.0 Not justified
1.1 Health and well-being of citizens in Kendal.
I have been informed that a developer does not have to fix an existing problem he just needs to show that he will not make it any worse. This is ridiculous, while SLDC are breaking the law on Air Quality developers must not be allowed to build on site R170M and other Kendal sites until the law is obeyed. SLDC breaking the law must surely be enough to prevent developers from winning an appeal. The people’s health and well-being must have top priority over everything else in the LA DPD.
The latest Cumbria County Council’s transport plan LPT3 does not include plans for the necessary infrastructure to fix existing problems neither does the SLDC Core Strategy. It was only after pressure from the public that SLDC & CCC produced the Transport Study (which is only a study) and after all this time the Transport Plan has not yet been made available to the public. Without a Transport Plan (including committed funding) signed off by all the participants the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE within the current timescales (2025) and is UNSOUND.
Before the year 2000 the SLDC objective was to meet the law on Air Quality by the year 2005 but air pollution has continually increased and the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) has even been made larger. This shows that SLDC are not serious in meeting their objectives where the health and well-being of citizens, or obeying the law, are concerned.
A typical example is the approval of the Planning Application for the old Auction Mart site. Also planning approval is certain to go ahead for the Canal Head development. These will make the air pollution worse in the AQMA. The worst pollution occurs when junctions are grid-locked and tinkering with traffic lights will not fix this problem. It will take major infrastructure changes to fix the existing traffic problems and allow for proposed LDF expansion. The Transport Study even admits that none of the improvements schemes will meet SLDC objectives.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
“6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
More building is planned in Kendal within the next few years (phase 1). This will make the major traffic problems worse. Infrastructure should already be in place to cope. Instead there is not even an approved Transport Plan in place, never mind the infrastructure that will be needed to meet SLDC standards and objectives.
The Transport Study is stating that further modelling is required. This shows that SLDC do not yet know at the present time if their proposals can be implemented or if funding will be available within the LDF timeframe (year 2025), therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND. Once money has been spent on major infrastructure changes it will be expected that these changes will last for at least 15 years (through the next LDF) therefore any further modelling must use a date of 2040 or beyond. These results will prove that the Taylor “hub & spoke” must be started now (see more evidence below).
SLDC should be very concerned about anyone who has any bronchial condition (e.g. asthma) and for the future health of children walking to school through Kendal during times of peak pollution. The health of residents of Kendal town should also cause great concern; a lot of them are elderly and frail.
SLDC have chosen the sites which cost the least to develop (e.g. no compulsory purchase costs) and will make the most profit for the developer rather than those best for the health and well being of local people. Money is being put before health. The law’s limits on air pollution are the maximum; the spirit of the law is zero pollution.
This does not mean that expansion cannot take place in other more suitable low pollution/low traffic areas of South Lakeland District. Plenty of more suitable sites, originally on the LA DPD maps for the SLDC district, have not been included on the latest maps. It is not fair that these traffic problems are not shared throughout the entire SLDC district. This is another reason why the hub & spoke system must be adopted – FAIRNESS.
The health and well-being of the people due to air pollution must have top priority over everything else in the LDF. This is not happening with the current proposals. Proving the law is being obeyed must come second on the priority list after health. If it does not already do so the “Soundness” examination must take account of these two very important issues.
The evidence above shows that these traffic problems in Kendal will not be fixed without major infrastructure changes which are not in Cumbria County Council’s LTP3.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND and site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and funding (see above).
For more evidence see extracts from the SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) below.
1.2 Alternative strategy.
Although SLDC have carried out consultations they have ignored the major objections. They have even ignored the alternatives put forward by Kendal Town Council in their excellent reports - “KTC_Response.pdf ”, “KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf ” & “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf. ". To avoid even more “urban sprawl” of Kendal the Taylor “hub & spoke” strategy must be adopted and not the current “doughnut” strategy. Kendal will be around for many thousands of years to come, which makes the “doughnut” strategy UNSUSTAINABLE (i.e. will not satisfy the needs of future generations). Only the “hub & spoke” is sustainable in the years to come because extra “satellites” can be added. By then the proposed “doughnut” system will make Kendal such an urban sprawl that very few people will wish to live there. To prevent this happening the “hub & spoke” system must be started NOW.
Money is being put before what is best for the health and well-being of the people of Kendal now and in the future (beyond 2025).
The Taylor Report, which puts forward compelling evidence in favour of the “hub & spoke” system, shows that the proposed “doughnut” system is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore the development of site R170 (being a peripheral Green Gap site) is UNSOUND and must be removed from the LA DPD.
2.0 Not effective
2.1 Not meeting definitions of soundness.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Soundness in the document - "soundness.doc" (Soundness Tool from: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85673 )
Extract from page 6 - Deliverable:
"21. Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives?
i. Sections of the development plan document which address delivery and the timescales for key developments and initiatives.
ii. Confirmation from the local strategic partnership and partner organisations that the timescales are realistic in terms of their contribution to delivery."
Extract from page 8 - Deliverable:
“28. Is it clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and does the timing of the provision complement the timescale of the strategy/policies?
i. Confirmation from infrastructure providers that they support the solutions proposed and the identified means and timescales for their delivery.
ii. Representations in respect of infrastructure.
iii. Reports or copies of correspondence on how representations in relation to infrastructure and its timing have been considered and dealt with.”
Extract from page 5 of SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
“12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
I have only selected this one paragraph; there are numerous other paragraphs which support these conclusions. In particular Page 15, Item 5.2.1, Table 5.1 which confirms that all schemes fail to meet SLDC’s objective. The results in Tables 5.2 & 5.3 are even worse.
SLDC’s objective is to meet “Acceptable junction performance” which is defined on page 9, item 4.1.5.
I'm not sure why the year 2022 was chosen as base-line, whatever major infrastructure is planned must enable SLDC to meet their objectives for years beyond 2025. In my opinion until 2040, the end of the next LDF.
Schemes 4, 5 & 6 require major investment and are not in the Core Strategy and therefore must be excluded from the Transport Plan when it is published. Note that the Transport Plan should incorporate extra capacity to cope with the “doughnut” system which, if approved, will undoubtedly continue after 2025.
The SLDC Air Quality Reports show that air pollution is getting worse in Kendal and also the AQMA has been increased.
Extract from page 27 of Air Quality Report (PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf)
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page857/PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf ).
"It would be hoped that each individual action would add to a combined reduction in levels to meet the requirement above. However, the 2009 annual mean NO2 results of the diffusion tube monitoring and the continuous analyser within the AQMA actually show that levels remain high, close to or above the 2010 objective and have actually increased from 2008 levels in 2009 in some locations. Without radical progress by Cumbria County Council on changes to the road system, vehicle access and parking in Kendal it is unlikely that the objective will be achieved."
Note the word “hoped”. Over many previous years this is typical of SLDC’s attitude towards obeying the law on Air Quality. SLDC action plans have not worked in the past and this is proved by the fact that the AQMA has recently been made larger.
The SLDC document "ED43_Housing Completions 1999 to 2010.doc" plus SLDC updates show that from the beginning of plan period 2003 to end of 2011 (8 years results) the total for South Lakeland is 1690 / 8 = 211 average and of these affordable are 406 / 8 = 51 average (or 24%). Figures for 2006 to 2011 (last 5 years results) are 934 / 5 = 187 average and of these affordable are 264 / 5 = 53 average (or 28%).
Between 2003 and 2011 the number of completions was 1690. At 400 per year the objective was 3200 over this 8 year period, a difference of 1510. To make up this deficit means that over the remaining 14 years (up to 2025) an extra 1510 / 14 = 107 per year will be required. This extra number per year will get a lot higher when the build rate stays below 400 per year.
This is nowhere near the Core Strategy figure of 400 dwellings per year or the percentage affordable figure of 35% and therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE. 200 dwellings per year would be a more realistic figure and this is the latest figure that is necessary according to a Kendal Town Council Report (see below).
SLDC have recognised this and have added the word “ambition” to build this number of houses to the LA DPD (see page 7 of the “Land Allocations DPD [Feb 12].pdf ” as an example). This word is not used in this context with regard to numbers in the Core Strategy document. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND with respect to the Core Strategy. The Leader of the Council insisted the numbers in the Core Strategy were achievable within the timescales of the LDF.
The above figures show there was an inward migration of 3 (high cost) to 1 (affordable). The majority of the proposed SLDC development is for the Kendal area (35%, 140 dpa) and this will add greatly to traffic problems mentioned above. This inward migration must not be planned (or allowed) to continue until all the partners involved have “signed on the dotted line” that they will meet the LA DPD milestones for all the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewerage, doctors, dentists, schools, etc) that is required. With the proviso that the build will actually take place in the timescales planned. It causes unnecessary stress to local people when unachievable targets are proposed or planned.
Another issue that affects DELIVERABILITY is Brownfield sites (or previously developed land).
It states in "SLDC_Core_Strategy_Document_March2011_sm4web2.pdf " (page 17):
"CS1.2 – The Development Strategy
Priority will be given to the reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land for all new housing development, with a target of ensuring that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites."
The “at least 28%” is also mentioned in CS6.6 (page 85). The 50% in item 7.14 is a mistake, it was the previous target. Now the target has been lowered, and "at least 28%" is said by SLDC to be achievable, the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets in each area. The Core Strategy and LA DPD have a requirement to be monitored and targets at least progressed vigorously.
The LA DPD does not mention this requirement; therefore it does not conform to the Core Strategy and is UNSOUND. Also these monitored figures need to be published and available to the public.
The SLDC Transport Report (Atkins 2009) states an amber limit for acceptable Junction Congestion and that in 2008 there were 7 red (above limit) junctions with 11 red junctions forecast in 2025.
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page2033/Kendal_TAJune_2009.pdf )
Pages 7 of this report specifically mentions the Middle Sparrowmire R170M site (referred to as “The Todds”) as being inappropriate because it would "worsen existing congestion on Windermere Road, as traffic travels into Kendal town centre. As the Windermere Road corridor already suffers congestion and delays during peak travel periods, it is considered that additional large-scale development in this area will lead to deterioration in traffic conditions." There are more similar comments on pages 60 & 71.
Site R170M feeds traffic into Windermere Road and therefore must be removed from the LA DPD until SLDC have met their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ” page 5 (Exec Summary):
"However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required."
The Canal Head development is more important to Kendal than site R170M therefore because site R170M will add more traffic to Kendal streets it is UNSOUND to build on it. It must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and committed funding.
Page 115 of the document “KENDAL Appendix 1.pdf ” (Appendix 1B – Consultation Responses after October 2010) for site R170M states:
“Achieving adequate visibility will be problematic given alignment of road and limited frontage. Such a large site would require a secondary access (Cumbria County Council – Highways).”
The conclusions reached by a chartered civil engineer who has carried out measurements to Transport Standards of the proposed access to site R170M are as follows:
“There is severely restricted forward visibility on both bends in Burneside Road either side of the proposed access location.
In either scenario tested the visibility from the proposed access towards Kendal falls far short of the standard required.
A new junction cannot be safely introduced in this location.”
This report can be supplied if required.
It cannot be right not to identify this secondary access. When it is identified there will be a lot more opposition to site R170 than is currently expressed.
As I said at the beginning of this response about including “JUSTICE” and “FAIRNESS”, it is not FAIR to include a site which is likely to have “show stopping” problems without first carrying out a thorough investigation into these particular problems.
Given the evidence above, until it can be proved that both access roads can be built to meet the Transport Standards, the development of the site R170 is UNSOUND and it must be removed from the LA DPD.
The site R170M is still part of a Green Gap. This means by definition it has higher protection than Greenfields. People who purchased their properties believing this to be true now find that they will be subjected to a grave INJUSTICE if site R170M is not removed from the LA DPD.
This is a very important reason why site R170M should not be developed – JUSTICE.
Extract from page 137 item 6.9 of the Inspector's Report on the public enquiry in 1996. Green Gap site R170M is the site mentioned below.
"Inspector's Conclusions:
6.9 The objection by Mr Downham [biased land owner] is not concerned with the provision of a green gap, but the extent of that gap. It is argued [land owner’s words] that the green gap, as shown in the Consultation draft of the Plan, follows a public footpath running between substantial hedges, a clearly defined landscape boundary: whilst the residential allocation at Sparrowmire has been reduced in the Deposit Draft, an equivalent extension to the green gap is not necessary. ^However, and most importantly in my view, the objection indicates that the "land should remain unallocated as white land so that when the Plan is reviewed in 10 years' time it can be considered as potential residential land" [land owner’s words]. I consider this underlying reason for excluding the land from the green gap identifies the very reason it should remain so designated. Structure Plan Policy 14 and the reasoned justification makes no reference to the length of time during which the vulnerable areas of countryside between settlements should be protected.^ Although policies and proposals in the Local Plan must clearly relate to the Plan period, and can be subject to review thereafter, it appears to me common sense that what is unacceptable now, will most probably be equally unacceptable at the end of the Plan period: certainly I consider the Plan should seek to engender a degree of public confidence that the separation secured will not, at some future time, be lightly squandered. ^For these reasons I believe that, where a green gap is seen as necessary, it is more important that the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap than that substantial, but arbitrary landscape features should be rigidly followed. I also consider the inter-visibility of settlements is not a factor which should affect the definition of green gaps."^
I have marked with ^...^ the most important words in the above paragraph and my clarifying words are in square brackets.
The first group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that the owner wished to leave the remaining land (now site R170M) as white land, so it can sold as high priced building land at a later date. The inspector states that this is the very reason it must remain as a Green Gap and because of this statement it is Green Gap. The LA DPD only includes Green Gap site R170M because the owner is keen to sell and make a large profit, if he didn’t it would not be included.
The second group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that “the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap”. It must not depend on “landscape features” or “inter-visibility of settlements”, but these are the very reasons that SLDC state as to why site R170M can be built-on.
Site R170M is still currently a Green Gap site and by definition has more protection than all Greenfields.
A Government Inspector’s words made the white land (now site R170M) into Green Gap and must not be ignored. Therefore to include site R170M in the LA DPD until all the more suitable Greenfield sites have been built-on is UNSOUND.
This R170M Green Gap is also land of most value to the existing community as backed up by this statement in ‘The Taylor Review’ (Page 58):
“20. Government policy is to increase the density of new housing as a means to maximising land use and better support local services. New extensions to settlements therefore may be relatively densely designed and built right up against the existing settlement to minimise the number of green fields ‘swallowed up’. However, this will mean they are built on exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town. Local residents against new development may be accused of ignoring the needs of others for housing, but they have a genuine point. They may not have bought the right to their countryside views, but they certainly have paid for them, and these developments are on exactly the fields of most landscape value to existing residents."
Taylor gives a valid reason why local people should not be labelled with the scorning name NIMBYs’ when they have a good reason and evidence to oppose development in their neighbourhood.
The evidence above shows that the proposed LA DPD numbers for dwellings to be built are UNDELIVERABLE before 2025. If the numbers were reduced to ones that were deliverable and sound there would be no reason to include the peripheral site R170M in the last phase (2022-25) of the LA DPD, since it is a Green Gap and hence has a higher protection than any of the proposed Greenfield sites. Note at this point in time site R170M is still part of a Green Gap.
“The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods.”
(see http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/communityinfrastructurelevy/ )
There is absolutely no evidence in the LA DPD about how much funding SLDC are capable of obtaining from developers from the levy. Their track record in the past has been very poor when negotiating for affordable dwelling percentages. The target over previous years has been 50% but SLDC of only achieved 28%. The target is now 35% which from past results is still just wishful thinking. SLDC are relying on this money to fund infrastructure and other projects. Until SLDC publish real evidence that the money raised from this levy is in excess (there will always be an overspend) of that required, for all the proposals in the LA DPD it is intended for, then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
Until it is certain that the required infrastructure funding will be available within the planned timescales, in order that SLDC meet their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion, then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has a approved construction plan and committed funding in place (see above). Also that it is shown to decrease the traffic levels in the Windermere Road corridor enough for SLDC traffic objectives are met in this area.
3.0 Further evidence in support of why Policy LA2.2 (site R170M) should be removed from the LA DPD.
3.1 Extracts from Kendal Town Council document "KTC_Response.pdf " (Apr 2011)
Page 8 Transport Improvements.
“The Assessment then looked at the impact of the various possible development sites which were then under discussion. The Assessment modelled the impact of various remedial measures that could be taken, ranging from junction improvements to the building of the Inner Relief Road. It concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three sites were removed:
• Land within the Shap Road/Appleby Road corridor (Site E23/49 and Sites M8/M35/ M36)
• The Todds, west of Burneside Road (Sites R148/R170)
• Stonebank Green (Sites M39/R676/R103/R675)
There was no solution which permitted these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment).”
This supports previous evidence that the development of site R170M (The Todds) is UNSOUND
Page 9 section on “Sewer Capacity”
“In addition, United Utilities has concerns about the capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Works, located to the south of Kendal, for which process modelling needs to be carried out. This impacts all the potential development sites in the town.”
I have an email from SLDC dated 27Apr2011 which states:
“The following is based on information and advice provided by United Utilities.
1. United Utilities cannot determine the number of dwellings that will cause Kendal Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) to reach process capacity without conducting modelling. The threshold for when capacity is reached is determined by the design capacity of the WwTW and the population that it serves with some headroom designed in to the calculations. This headroom is not excessive as United Utilities cannot design and build for a population that is not already there or where development is not definite.
2. There are local network issues in respect of sewer capacity in the Kendal area . They are primarily centred around the Burneside area as evidenced in the Core Strategy and supporting Land Allocations Document material.
3. South Lakeland District Council does not hold or have access to data/information regarding the catchment area of the Kendal Sewerage Works.”
SLDC/UU admit that the headroom (i.e. spare capacity) is not excessive. Despite this SLDC have no results of any modelling and have not insisted that this modelling be carried out by UU. SLDC do not even know the catchment area for Kendal Sewage Works. There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC do have this information today (a year later). Therefore SLDC do not know how many dwellings can be built before Kendal Sewage Works needs a major upgrade costing many millions of pounds.
United Utilities move their funding from year to year as they see their immediate priorities change, so until they actual “sign on the dotted line” to meet certain dates then their current dates can “be taken with a pinch of salt”. As evidence to support this, the paying customers of Burneside have been waiting over 20 years to get their sewerage fixed and they still have sewage on the streets during heavy rain. So there is no guarantee that the North West Kendal problem will be fixed before 2025.
Site R170M is one of the last sites in the plan to be developed therefore until the above figures are known for the whole of the catchment area and UU & OFWAT have “signed on the dotted line” to meet their agreed dates then the site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 9 section on “Hydrologic Considerations”.
“However, the mechanisms (some man-made, mostly natural) which are currently managing to keep Kendal free of floods are not well understood. Several of the sites included in the Land Allocations have a history of being badly affected by rainfall. This suggests they have a role to play in mitigating surface run-off and hence flood prevention. If this is correct, development of such sites could trigger flooding in the town - and making the sites themselves flood proof would certainly involve additional expense for developers.
Kendal Town Council believes this is an important omission from the current evidence base, and calls on SLDC to commission a full hydrology study of the area before including the affected sites in any final land allocation. Any remedial infrastructure required to allow these sites to be developed safely would need to be included in the overall infrastructure programme.
Land Allocations affected by this consideration are the lower Hallgarth sites (R169M and R170M), Appleby Road (MK35KM), Natland Beck at Kendal Parks (R107M, R150M), Stock Beck at Castle Green Road (R121M), and Stonecross (R103M), and Blind Beck (R129M)”
There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC have commissioned this study or have any results. Site R170M is mentioned in quote above and so until this study is carried out development of site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 10 Infrastructure.
“3. Sites should not be included in a Final Land Allocations document unless their impact on Kendal’s transport is understood, solutions are agreed with partners, and the impact has successfully passed a rerun of the Transport Assessment. ‘Emerging Option’ sites affected by this are indicated are indicated by an ‘X’ in the ‘Traffic’ column in the Detail by each Land Allocation site starting on page 11.”
Note site R170M has an ‘X’ in the Traffic column, so this site should be removed from the LA DPD until its impact on Kendal’s junction congestion is fully understood.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.2 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. "KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf" (Sep 2011)
Page 5 Doughnut Development
“Taylor contends: ...these developments undermine sustainability. They invariably encourage car use, especially if there are no services or employment within walking distance, with resulting congestion on roads into town. And without local and community facilities of their own, there is little to build social sustainability and cohesion or links between new and existing settlements as there will be little in the way of community life.
This approach to planning is also a recipe for confrontation, “developing exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town”
(as has been amply demonstrated in Kendal by the response to the Emerging Options consultation process).
Without change we will simply repeat the mistakes of recent decades, creating unattractive developments of housing estates encircling our rural towns and larger villages, and we will fail to stem the trend of smaller villages becoming dormitory settlements of commuters and the retired, ever less affordable for those who work within them. This is not a sustainable future for rural England.
Without strong Land Allocation policies from the Planning Authority, Kendal is heading towards an unsustainable “doughnutted” future.”
This confirms that development of the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 6 Recommendation for Kendal
“The Council believes the Planning Authority should follow Taylor and adopt this model in preparing its final Land Allocations policies for Kendal, as the only way in which the NPPF demand for sustainable development can be achieved in the town. It is important to note that this is not in conflict with the Core Strategy positioning of Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, or with the requirements for meeting forecast housing demand. From Taylor, the requirements for sustainable development in rural market towns is clear: it cannot be delivered by allocating isolated sites around the town; a hub and spoke model is required. Even without the NPPF’s insistence on sustainable development, there are other intrinsic advantages to the hub and spoke model for Kendal. The Council’s previous Response to Consultation highlighted the major infrastructure challenges to be overcome in the town. These become far more soluble if development proceeds on hub-by-hub basis, when the infrastructure work can be concentrated on the corresponding spokes. For example, it is far simpler to improve bus services, cycling provision, etc. if only one or two ‘spokes’ have to be addressed.
The evidence in the EHLSS shows that there are suitable sites available (the scope of the SHLAS only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that the “doughnut” strategy is incorrect for Kendal and should be replaced by the “hub & spoke” strategy. It also confirms that the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is unsustainable and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 10 Latest Forecasts (2011)
“The latest forecast in this series was produced in Spring 2011. It shows a drastically reduced requirement:
• only 360 dwellings across the 20 years, or
• just over 4,000 including migration, projected on the last five years’ evidence.
This suggests that a more appropriate target for the next 5-10 years would be around 200 dwellings per annum.”
This confirms the evidence given above that 200 per year is what is required and this number would be deliverable. If this number was planned then the peripheral Green Gap site R170M would not be required and being in the last phase would not be needed in this LA DPD.
This section supports previous evidence that the LA DPD is UNSUSTAINABLE and UNSOUND.
3.3 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf “ (Mar 2012)
Page 4 Summary
“The Council believes that the DPD is not justified because it fails the following tests of soundness:
• the LPA has failed in its duty to compare against reasonable alternatives
• key decisions are not supported by the evidence base or the evidence supports a different conclusion
• the evidence base is incomplete
The DPD is also not effective in that it is not deliverable, with key elements of the dependent infrastructure
not understood.”
This confirms the LA DPD is NOT DELIVERABLE.
Page 4
“For rural market towns, the evidence was pulled together in July 2008 by the Taylor Review9, setting out the policy framework necessary to deliver the “vision of a living, working sustainable countryside”. Taylor provided compelling evidence that “doughnut development” was the wrong approach for sustainable rural market towns, and that a “hub and spoke” model represented the best pattern for sustainability.”
The two KTC paragraphs above confirm that an alternative system must be adopted now, which will “meet the needs of future generations” of Kendal (i.e. BE SUSTAINABLE”) for the many thousands of years to come.
Page 4
“The evidence in the EHLSS indicates that suitable sites could be available (the scope of the SHLAA only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that a “hub & spoke” is viable.
Page 5
“The Assessment concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three large sites were removed. The consultants could find no mitigation which would permit these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment.)”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD because it is one of the three sites.
Page 5
“Given that this approach has differed significantly from the independent consultants’, the Council asks the Inspector to order an independent audit of this latest work by W.S.Atkins or equivalent to ensure it meets accepted professional standards of objectivity and integrity. The Council further asks the Inspector to ensure that no sites are included in the DPD which the evidence shows are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD, because it is one of the sites which “are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
Page 7
“The Council asks the Inspector to withhold approval of the DPD until there is a credible infrastructure plan showing the impact of the major sites on the overall town infrastructure, and with high level solutions identified and costed with enough detail to enable the economic deliverability of the sites to be proven.”
This adds to the evidence given above that there must be signatures, to supply the necessary infrastructure and funding, must be in place before this LA DPD is approved by the Government. Until this is done site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.4 Extracts from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Page 5 Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
"10. The LDF developments have a more notable impact in the AM peak compared to the base situation. The model results indicate that the provision of sustainable transport improvements (Scheme 2) would be required to support LDF development to nil-detriment compared to the 2022 base situation in the AM peak. However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required.
11. It should be noted that although these schemes are required to achieve nil-detriment, these improvements are only demonstrated to offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal. These infrastructure schemes would be expensive and may not be a cost-effective solution to congestion in Kendal town centre.
12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.
13. It is recommended that further modelling work is undertaken"
The Transport Study shows that the objectives cannot be achieved before 2025 therefore the problems are going to be much worse in the years 2026 onwards.
SLDC do not have signed-off solutions and timescales in place to meet the plan phases, therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 9 This page gives the CCC/SLDC definition for Junction Congestion limits.
"Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts."
The Atkins report uses a Volume/Capacity ratio of 90 as acceptable for a junction approach, which is similar.
The Study shows that these objectives will not be met by 2025 so this, along with page 10 (see below) adds evidence to the above.
Page 10
"4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. These are:Junction1: A5284 Stricklandgate/Sandes AvenueJunction 2: A5284 Sandes Avenue / A6 Blackhall Road signalised junction
Junction 5: A6 Longpool / Station Road mini-roundabout junction
Junction 12: A6 Highgate / Lowther Street signalised junction
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Junction 16: A6 Milnthorpe Road / Romney Road signalised junction
Junction 17: A5284 Windermere Road/Queens Road
Junction 18: A5284 Windermere Road/Burneside Road
Junction 21: A65 Burton Road / Oxenholme Road signalised junction
Junction 27: A684 Sedbergh Road / Sandylands Road priority junction
Junction 29: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (north) priority junction
Junction 30: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (south) priority junction
Junction 31: A685 Appleby Road/Sandylands Road"
“Measures must be in place” to fix these major problems first (i.e. meet SLDC objectives). They have a huge bearing on why SLDC is still breaking the law on Air Quality.
Page 14
“* Scheme 6: Scheme 5, plus a potential Kendal Southern Link Road, which comprises a new single-carriageway road linking the A6 Milnthorpe Road with the A65 Burton Road south of Kendal town centre.”
This new road proposal has never been mentioned before; it is not in the Core Strategy and therefore, as we have been told before, it cannot be considered in this LDF.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.5 Extracts from SLDC document "06 Infrastructure Position Statement.pdf ”:
Page 10
"4.19 United Utilities has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area. A proposal for expenditure in the years 2010 – 2015 is contained within the published five years Investment Plan (Asset Management programme). The plan can be found at the following website link: http://www.unitedutilities.com/Documents/Detailed_plan.pdf "
There is nothing in this PDF document that is specific to Kendal.
UU may have "a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area" but it is very poor at obeying this duty as is verified by the > 20 years Burnside have been suffering sewage problems (and still are).
Until UU actually “sign on the dotted line” to meet the required planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.23 Funding is more likely to be acquired in cases where there is development certainty (i.e. clear evidence of developer interest).
* UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct."
This backs previous evidence, never mind “development certainty” what about the existing paying customers who are still suffering sewage and flooding problems due to lack of investment.
Until United Utilities “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.24 There is currently loading capacity at Kendal Waste water Treatment Works (WwTW), however, for the number of dwellings that are proposed a full process and hydraulic survey of the Works will have to be undertaken before UU could comfortably approve the Planning Applications. As the sewer network is at capacity in North Kendal, UU could not agree to any significant development until after 2015 in this part of the town. Providing UU obtain funding through OFWAT to undertake the necessary upgrades etc. UU will be building into the 2014 Business Submission to OFWAT a case for funding to provide the means to accommodate development, which will boost the economy.
4.25 A feasibility study is being undertaken on the Kendal WwTW. Recommended phosphorous levels are set by Environment Agency (EA) through discharge consents, and until EA impose a new requirement for a lowered rate, UU will continue to discharge at the current rate. UU stated achieving any required lower rates would depend on new/better technology. Further Phosphorous removal would only be undertaken if UU were required to achieve a tighter standard as set by the EA following their review of water quality. Newer technology, which is not currently available, would be required to achieve any standard below 1mg/l. UU has advised development in the Kendal area should be capped at 2000 properties unless a more stringent phosphorus effluent standard can be achieved.
4.26 UU has advised that sites in North Kendal should only come forward in the latter periods of the plan period when sewage network improvements are in place.
4.27 Strategically there is enough water supply to accommodate levels of new development, but there are potential risks of deterioration of water quality."
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 14
"4.45 Electricity North West Ltd manage infrastructure and distribute and transmit electricity throughout South Lakeland. The regulator determines the amount of funding, however, it is not known what the next round of funding may or may not allow for investment in improvements. Information relating to substation capacity has not been ascertained. Evidence when exploring options for the Canal Head Area of Kendal shows that the Kendal Primary substation is currently operating close to or at capacity. It is possible that significant development in Kendal would require investment for network reinforcement and that a new Primary Substation would be required although Electricity North West Ltd does not confirm this. No information has been made available stating whether this is the case. Only when the customer has firm load requirements and location details can a system study be undertaken to ascertain the scale of impact of potential new development."
What if the system study states it cannot be done or they cannot obtain the funding within the plan timescales? Electricity North West Ltd already has the number of houses proposed and their locations so they must commit to a system study and confirm that the proposed developments are deliverable. Until then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 15
"4.48 National Grid Gas Distribution own and operate the local gas distribution network in South Lakeland. The confidential nature of the process means National Grid are unable to confirm whether they are currently processing or have made any offers for connection within Cumbria."
The document states nothing about National Grid Gas Distribution having a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of gas supply within its area.
The LA DPD cannot possibly be monitored correctly until all the Gas company has “signed on the dotted line” to meet the timescales required. Until then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This Infrastructure document is only a statement; there is no indication when the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be available to the public or any indication that the timescales can be met. The LA DPD is UNSOUND until the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Kendal Transport Plan are available with all milestones agreed, funding committed and both signed off by the respective utility companies. They can have the proviso that it depends on the build going ahead as planned.
3.6 Extracts from SLDC document “01 Consultation Report.pdf ”:
Page 19
“In their response the Highways Agency identified those sites it considers (if developed, due to cumulative impact with other sites) may impact upon the capacity, operation and safety of the strategic road network (SRN) (A590 and M6) within South Lakeland. As a consequence, the Agency has stated that the cumulative impact of development of sites under consideration in the following settlements (see below) may result in some impact to the SRN: Burneside, Crooklands, Endmoor, Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, Levens, Milnthorpe and Ulverston alongside the sites suggested for strategic employment use (in Ulverston and Kendal area).”
Note the word “may” on the second line. They either do or they don’t. After all these years of the LDF there is no excuse for this information not being available. SLDC must obtain an answer to this issue immediately and publish it. If any of the developments proposed within the LA DPD do affect the Strategic Road Network then any changes necessary must be included in the LA DPD and the Transport Plan (which must be issued before the hearings). Note the Strategic Road Network is NOT currently mentioned in the LA DPD.
Page 21
This page with reference to Burneside states:
“.....this is no guarantee that funding will be approved by OFWAT”.
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted” line to meet the planned timescales the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 21
“Additional work is needed by UU to check if cumulative impact on treatment works may raise capacity issues
SLDC must publish how many houses can be built in the Kendal catchment area before a major upgrade to the sewage works is required. Until UU know their total funding requirements the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 34
KENDAL
“Many people believe development of the sites suggested would harm the landscape character of the town, worsen air quality, exacerbate current flooding problems, harm biodiversity, generate unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and place further strains on a heavily constrained sewerage system. Some people questioned the need for additional housing believing there are enough empty properties in the town to meet current and future housing demands. A number of people stated development should be prioritised on brownfield sites and meet primarily local needs.”
“Many people including Kendal Town Council and Burneside and Natland Parish Council’s supported the concept of green gaps to protect Kendal coalescing with neighbouring settlements. However, a significant number of people and Kendal Town Council and Natland Parish Council believed the suggested emerging options would not prevent coalescence from happening. There was general widespread support for the open space designations suggested, however, many people believed the emerging options sites should also be designated open space.”
“Kendal Town Council expressed serious concerns with the overall approach being suggested for the town, believing the amounts of developments and the emerging option sites suggested would damage the landscape character of the town, and put unnecessary strain on an inadequate infrastructure system. The Town Council has suggested an alternative strategy/approach for the town this being to protect existing green space/countryside surrounding the town and to look at alternative sites adjacent to nearby settlements and possibly further afield where development would have less impact on the town’s infrastructure, air quality and its high quality landscape value.”
These three paragraphs confirm that the wishes of the majority of local people have been ignored and adds support to the evidence given above concerning Consultation and Legal Compliance.
Page 46
On this page it states “UU is currently considering lists of projects that will require major capital investment in Asset Management Plan 6 period 2015-2020.” and “UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct.”
Until United Utilities and OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” to meet the planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE, UNSOUND and that consultation process was not Legally Compliant.
3.7 Extracts from SLDC document “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
Pages 51 & 52
Item 3.6 - Key local factors influencing the location of new development in Kendal:
“Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail and from important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout Scar/Brigsteer Road; Avoiding coalescence between Kendal, Oxenholme, Burneside and Natland and maintaining the separate identities of these settlements;
Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, promoting sustainable transport and achieving a positive impact on the Kendal Air Quality Management Area;
Infrastructure constraints including sewage capacity at Kentrigg and Steele's Row and the implications for development in northwest Kendal.”
One of the main comments of the people who responded to the SLDC consultations and opposed them was the character and appearance of Kendal. This is imbedded in the above paragraph and has been totally ignored. The LA DPD is therefore not Legally Compliant.
The site R170M is close to Kentrigg (mentioned above) and so it is UNSOUND to include it in the LA DPD until United Utilities are fully committed (i.e. signed on the dotted line) to the LA DPD timescales.
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive it should state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
A graph on this page it shows the following numbers over the years 2003 – 2025 (22 years).
Maximum number of dwellings ever built in one year was 300 in year 2005/06 and even this did not reach the target of 400 per year.
Extrapolating from the graphs the average number of dwellings built per year for the first 8 years was 100+280+150+150+240+300+230+220 = 1670 / 8 = 209 per year. In the terms of this graph there are already an extra 1530 dwellings (109/yr on top of the 400/yr) that have built just to catch up. This compares well with the more accurate figures in section 2.1 above.
The figure of 720 per year for the three years 2022 – 2025 is just WISHFULL THINKING.
One of the questions that must be asked to confirm SOUNDNESS is “Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives”. The above numbers are clearly not realistic therefore the current LA DPD is UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND within the timescales of this LA DPD (2025).
4.0 Changes required to the LA DPD document title “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
4.1 During the recent SLDC consultation 98% of the local neighbourhood who responded OPPOSED the proposals for site R170M. In a door-door poll of over 400 neighbours during 2011 approximately 80% of those asked OPPOSED the proposal to build on site R170M. Of the remaining 20% most did not care one way or the other. The Localism Bill is a Con Trick (nice pun); it promises much but does not actually support what the majority of the people in the neighbourhood want.
To prove SLDC are DEMOCRATIC they must be serious about responding to the majority of the local neighbourhood’s wishes. Also the TOTAL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ABOVE PROVES THAT SLDC MUST REMOVE THE PERIPHERAL GREEN GAP SITE R170M FROM THE LA DPD TO MAKE IT SOUND. THIS IS HOW THE LA DPD MUST BE CHANGED.
4.2 After many years (before year 2000) of knowing about the traffic problems in Kendal, SLDC have failed to produce a transport plan or action plan that enabled them to meet their standards and objectives for Air Quality and Junction Congestion. This must NOT be allowed to continue. Only when these standards and objectives have been PROVEN to have been met (with spare capacity for expansion) will the people believe SLDC are serious about tackling these major problems. The recent SLDC consultations show that increase in traffic was one of main reasons why 98% of the people (that responded) OPPOSE the proposals to build on sites in their area of Kendal.
Previous experience with Core Strategy has shown me that all my evidence will be ignored and that site R170M will not be removed from the LA DPD. If this is to be repeated then I would like to see the following changes to LA DPD.
There is a note on page 57 (item 3.18) of the LA DPD (policy LA2.2 site R170M) which states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO RESOLVE PRESSURE ON THE SEWERAGE NETWORK IN NORTH KENDAL."
This means existing problems will be fixed before building starts.
THIS SETS A PRECEDENT WHICH MUST CONTINUE WITH REGARD TO OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS.
The threat to the health of people due to air pollution is of as much importance as sewage on the streets. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make air pollution worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT THE LAW ON AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
Increase in traffic, which leads to more junction congestion and a deterioration in the well-being of local people, was one of the major complaints in the recent SLDC consultations. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make junction congestion worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT SLDC’S DEFINITION OF “ACCEPTABLE JUNCTION PERFORMANCE” HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
For definition see page 9 of “Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf”.
“4.1.5 An RFC or DoS of 100% indicates that an approach is operating at maximum capacity. Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts. Above this level, an approach is likely to begin to experience congestion as there is insufficient spare capacity to cope with fluctuations in traffic flow.”
4.3 Page 51 item 3.6:
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive. The word “Minimising” is just not good enough to meet the people’s wishes. It must state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
4.4 Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
This Appendix 4 must be changed and other pages which quote these figures. The SLDC evidence does not support the requirement that anywhere near the 8800 dwellings can be built before 2025. The numbers in the graph are not realistic (a SOUNDNESS word), therefore NOT DELIVERABLE and UNSOUND. 720/year for last three years is just wishful thinking, it is not realistic; this graph shows that the maximum that has ever been built within the last 8 years is 300 per year for the year 2005/06. The developers will not build 750 per year because it would swamp the market and they would be left with a large number of empty houses.
There is no point in just stating on page 7 of the LA DPD that it is “the ambition to deliver 400 dwellings each year” if these numbers cannot realistically be built and sold. There is also no point in just monitoring these numbers just so a box can be ticked to say they have been monitored. The numbers must be realistic so that they can be monitored and vigorously progressed.
Kendal Town Council have stated in one of their reports [Sep2011 see above] that only around 200 dwellings per year is the number required. SLDC must discuss this issue with KTC and reduce the current total figure of 8800 to a number that can realistically be built & sold before 2025 and not one that is just WISHFULL THINKING.
4.5 There is a requirement in the Core Strategy for Brownfield land to be used for “at least 28%” of the number of dwellings built. Note the words are “at least” not it is the “ambition to use”. To be SOUND the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets for each area. These figures must be monitored, vigorously progressed and be made available to the public.
4.6 SLDC must discuss Kendal Town Council’s three reports in detail with the town council and members of opposition groups (e.g. Green Spaces). I would like to see the LA DPD changed to incorporate as much as possible of that which is agreed in these discussions.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL PEOPLE MUST BE AT THE TOP OF SLDC's PRIORITY LIST and despite all my emails and protest at the Core Strategy hearings this has not yet been done in Kendal.
So I wish to speak face to face with the inspector and ask him personally if he will recommend in his report that notes be added to the LA DPD stating that SLDC must fix their major existing problems first and meet the SLDC/CCC definition for "Acceptable Junction Congestion" and the Law on Air Quality before allowing actual build of site R170M, which will add to these problems (see examples of notes in section 4.2 above).
A PRECEDENT has already been set by a note in Policy LA2.2 for site R170M relating to the sewerage network in North Kendal. If United Utilities have to fix their major existing problems first before building is allowed then so must SLDC, this is logical and should not need a political decision.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
7. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 17 May 2012 11:03:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Sites - All Kendal sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1.0 Consultation
1.1 SLDC did not change the proposals in-line with the citizens important wishes.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Legal Compliance in it’s document – "legal.doc” (Legal Compliance Tool from http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85651 )
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (page 7):
“6. Does the consultation contribute to the development and sustainability appraisal of alternatives?”
This has not been carried out correctly, alternatives have not been seriously considered. In particular the Kendal Town Council’s excellent reports, containing good alternatives, have been ignored.
The vast majority of the oppose responses made in the SLDC consultations were noted, listed in the consultation documents and then almost totally ignored. In my view these consultations were just so that SLDC could “tick the box” for the government inspector and therefore were a waste of taxpayers money.
I have done a detailed examination of the SLDC Consultation Database and these are my findings:
On 11th August 2011 (after the closing date) there were 2986 responses from the Kendal settlement. 98% of these responses opposed the proposals in their neighbourhood. Most of those that “support in part” did not support housing. Most of the few indicating “support” were representatives of the land owner, potential builder, Kendal Futures Board or the North West Development Agency.
The main reasons for the respondents opposition was the increase in traffic that these proposed developments would cause, and the affect they would have on the landscape character of Kendal. Better alternative sites were suggested, noted and then ignored. The present proposals will not “satisfy the needs of future generations” and are therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE.
Issues raised in the consultations would have contributed greatly to the development and sustainability of alternatives but the alternatives put forward have been ignored (also see other evidence 2.3 below). Therefore the LA DPD it is not Legally Compliant.
I would like to see alternatives discussed with Kendal Town Council and the Green Spaces group. Then any changes agreed included in the LA DPD.
2.0 Alternative plan
2.1 Law must be obeyed.
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (legal.doc page 5):
“* developing alternatives and options and appraising them through sustainability appraisal and against evidence.”
The SLDC Air Quality reports show that SLDC have been breaking the Law on Air Quality for many years. It means that SLDC must use an alternative plan for Kendal until it is proven that the law is being obeyed (with spare capacity for proposed development). The reason the law must be proven is that action plans have not worked for at least 14 years (before 1998). In the meantime affordable houses can be built in other areas of SLDC which have low traffic.
Until an alternative plan is in position to ensure the law on Air Quality is obeyed (with spare capacity for the proposed development) the LA DPD is not Legally Compliant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Legal Compliance requirements are not definitive or closed questions; they are open to personal interpretation, so I will not make any further comment in these sections.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Personal Comments:- From my experience of the Core Strategy hearings and the SLDC consultations I know my response will be ignored. The changes to Kendal’s infrastructure, that the new SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) states are required (see below), is just one example of this. I am therefore taking this opportunity to place on record all the relevant evidence I have gathered on why site R170M (policy LA2.2) should not be included in the LA DPD. Quotes from certain documents have been added to make it easier for the reader. There is repetition of some issues but this is because I have added different sources of evidence throughout the document.
It is undemocratic just to include Legal Compliance and Soundness in this consultation. In a democratic society the wishes of the majority of local people would have priority over these criteria. Also criteria such as “Justice” and “Fairness” should be considered. These were totally ignored in the Core Strategy consultation and hearings.
Test of Soundness
1.0 Not justified
1.1 Health and well-being of citizens in Kendal.
I have been informed that a developer does not have to fix an existing problem he just needs to show that he will not make it any worse. This is ridiculous, while SLDC are breaking the law on Air Quality developers must not be allowed to build on site R170M and other Kendal sites until the law is obeyed. SLDC breaking the law must surely be enough to prevent developers from winning an appeal. The people’s health and well-being must have top priority over everything else in the LA DPD.
The latest Cumbria County Council’s transport plan LPT3 does not include plans for the necessary infrastructure to fix existing problems neither does the SLDC Core Strategy. It was only after pressure from the public that SLDC & CCC produced the Transport Study (which is only a study) and after all this time the Transport Plan has not yet been made available to the public. Without a Transport Plan (including committed funding) signed off by all the participants the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE within the current timescales (2025) and is UNSOUND.
Before the year 2000 the SLDC objective was to meet the law on Air Quality by the year 2005 but air pollution has continually increased and the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) has even been made larger. This shows that SLDC are not serious in meeting their objectives where the health and well-being of citizens, or obeying the law, are concerned.
A typical example is the approval of the Planning Application for the old Auction Mart site. Also planning approval is certain to go ahead for the Canal Head development. These will make the air pollution worse in the AQMA. The worst pollution occurs when junctions are grid-locked and tinkering with traffic lights will not fix this problem. It will take major infrastructure changes to fix the existing traffic problems and allow for proposed LDF expansion. The Transport Study even admits that none of the improvements schemes will meet SLDC objectives.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
“6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
More building is planned in Kendal within the next few years (phase 1). This will make the major traffic problems worse. Infrastructure should already be in place to cope. Instead there is not even an approved Transport Plan in place, never mind the infrastructure that will be needed to meet SLDC standards and objectives.
The Transport Study is stating that further modelling is required. This shows that SLDC do not yet know at the present time if their proposals can be implemented or if funding will be available within the LDF timeframe (year 2025), therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND. Once money has been spent on major infrastructure changes it will be expected that these changes will last for at least 15 years (through the next LDF) therefore any further modelling must use a date of 2040 or beyond. These results will prove that the Taylor “hub & spoke” must be started now (see more evidence below).
SLDC should be very concerned about anyone who has any bronchial condition (e.g. asthma) and for the future health of children walking to school through Kendal during times of peak pollution. The health of residents of Kendal town should also cause great concern; a lot of them are elderly and frail.
SLDC have chosen the sites which cost the least to develop (e.g. no compulsory purchase costs) and will make the most profit for the developer rather than those best for the health and well being of local people. Money is being put before health. The law’s limits on air pollution are the maximum; the spirit of the law is zero pollution.
This does not mean that expansion cannot take place in other more suitable low pollution/low traffic areas of South Lakeland District. Plenty of more suitable sites, originally on the LA DPD maps for the SLDC district, have not been included on the latest maps. It is not fair that these traffic problems are not shared throughout the entire SLDC district. This is another reason why the hub & spoke system must be adopted – FAIRNESS.
The health and well-being of the people due to air pollution must have top priority over everything else in the LDF. This is not happening with the current proposals. Proving the law is being obeyed must come second on the priority list after health. If it does not already do so the “Soundness” examination must take account of these two very important issues.
The evidence above shows that these traffic problems in Kendal will not be fixed without major infrastructure changes which are not in Cumbria County Council’s LTP3.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND and site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and funding (see above).
For more evidence see extracts from the SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) below.
1.2 Alternative strategy.
Although SLDC have carried out consultations they have ignored the major objections. They have even ignored the alternatives put forward by Kendal Town Council in their excellent reports - “KTC_Response.pdf ”, “KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf ” & “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf. ". To avoid even more “urban sprawl” of Kendal the Taylor “hub & spoke” strategy must be adopted and not the current “doughnut” strategy. Kendal will be around for many thousands of years to come, which makes the “doughnut” strategy UNSUSTAINABLE (i.e. will not satisfy the needs of future generations). Only the “hub & spoke” is sustainable in the years to come because extra “satellites” can be added. By then the proposed “doughnut” system will make Kendal such an urban sprawl that very few people will wish to live there. To prevent this happening the “hub & spoke” system must be started NOW.
Money is being put before what is best for the health and well-being of the people of Kendal now and in the future (beyond 2025).
The Taylor Report, which puts forward compelling evidence in favour of the “hub & spoke” system, shows that the proposed “doughnut” system is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore the development of site R170 (being a peripheral Green Gap site) is UNSOUND and must be removed from the LA DPD.
2.0 Not effective
2.1 Not meeting definitions of soundness.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Soundness in the document - "soundness.doc" (Soundness Tool from: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85673 )
Extract from page 6 - Deliverable:
"21. Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives?
i. Sections of the development plan document which address delivery and the timescales for key developments and initiatives.
ii. Confirmation from the local strategic partnership and partner organisations that the timescales are realistic in terms of their contribution to delivery."
Extract from page 8 - Deliverable:
“28. Is it clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and does the timing of the provision complement the timescale of the strategy/policies?
i. Confirmation from infrastructure providers that they support the solutions proposed and the identified means and timescales for their delivery.
ii. Representations in respect of infrastructure.
iii. Reports or copies of correspondence on how representations in relation to infrastructure and its timing have been considered and dealt with.”
Extract from page 5 of SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
“12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
I have only selected this one paragraph; there are numerous other paragraphs which support these conclusions. In particular Page 15, Item 5.2.1, Table 5.1 which confirms that all schemes fail to meet SLDC’s objective. The results in Tables 5.2 & 5.3 are even worse.
SLDC’s objective is to meet “Acceptable junction performance” which is defined on page 9, item 4.1.5.
I'm not sure why the year 2022 was chosen as base-line, whatever major infrastructure is planned must enable SLDC to meet their objectives for years beyond 2025. In my opinion until 2040, the end of the next LDF.
Schemes 4, 5 & 6 require major investment and are not in the Core Strategy and therefore must be excluded from the Transport Plan when it is published. Note that the Transport Plan should incorporate extra capacity to cope with the “doughnut” system which, if approved, will undoubtedly continue after 2025.
The SLDC Air Quality Reports show that air pollution is getting worse in Kendal and also the AQMA has been increased.
Extract from page 27 of Air Quality Report (PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf)
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page857/PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf ).
"It would be hoped that each individual action would add to a combined reduction in levels to meet the requirement above. However, the 2009 annual mean NO2 results of the diffusion tube monitoring and the continuous analyser within the AQMA actually show that levels remain high, close to or above the 2010 objective and have actually increased from 2008 levels in 2009 in some locations. Without radical progress by Cumbria County Council on changes to the road system, vehicle access and parking in Kendal it is unlikely that the objective will be achieved."
Note the word “hoped”. Over many previous years this is typical of SLDC’s attitude towards obeying the law on Air Quality. SLDC action plans have not worked in the past and this is proved by the fact that the AQMA has recently been made larger.
The SLDC document "ED43_Housing Completions 1999 to 2010.doc" plus SLDC updates show that from the beginning of plan period 2003 to end of 2011 (8 years results) the total for South Lakeland is 1690 / 8 = 211 average and of these affordable are 406 / 8 = 51 average (or 24%). Figures for 2006 to 2011 (last 5 years results) are 934 / 5 = 187 average and of these affordable are 264 / 5 = 53 average (or 28%).
Between 2003 and 2011 the number of completions was 1690. At 400 per year the objective was 3200 over this 8 year period, a difference of 1510. To make up this deficit means that over the remaining 14 years (up to 2025) an extra 1510 / 14 = 107 per year will be required. This extra number per year will get a lot higher when the build rate stays below 400 per year.
This is nowhere near the Core Strategy figure of 400 dwellings per year or the percentage affordable figure of 35% and therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE. 200 dwellings per year would be a more realistic figure and this is the latest figure that is necessary according to a Kendal Town Council Report (see below).
SLDC have recognised this and have added the word “ambition” to build this number of houses to the LA DPD (see page 7 of the “Land Allocations DPD [Feb 12].pdf ” as an example). This word is not used in this context with regard to numbers in the Core Strategy document. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND with respect to the Core Strategy. The Leader of the Council insisted the numbers in the Core Strategy were achievable within the timescales of the LDF.
The above figures show there was an inward migration of 3 (high cost) to 1 (affordable). The majority of the proposed SLDC development is for the Kendal area (35%, 140 dpa) and this will add greatly to traffic problems mentioned above. This inward migration must not be planned (or allowed) to continue until all the partners involved have “signed on the dotted line” that they will meet the LA DPD milestones for all the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewerage, doctors, dentists, schools, etc) that is required. With the proviso that the build will actually take place in the timescales planned. It causes unnecessary stress to local people when unachievable targets are proposed or planned.
Another issue that affects DELIVERABILITY is Brownfield sites (or previously developed land).
It states in "SLDC_Core_Strategy_Document_March2011_sm4web2.pdf " (page 17):
"CS1.2 – The Development Strategy
Priority will be given to the reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land for all new housing development, with a target of ensuring that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites."
The “at least 28%” is also mentioned in CS6.6 (page 85). The 50% in item 7.14 is a mistake, it was the previous target. Now the target has been lowered, and "at least 28%" is said by SLDC to be achievable, the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets in each area. The Core Strategy and LA DPD have a requirement to be monitored and targets at least progressed vigorously.
The LA DPD does not mention this requirement; therefore it does not conform to the Core Strategy and is UNSOUND. Also these monitored figures need to be published and available to the public.
The SLDC Transport Report (Atkins 2009) states an amber limit for acceptable Junction Congestion and that in 2008 there were 7 red (above limit) junctions with 11 red junctions forecast in 2025.
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page2033/Kendal_TAJune_2009.pdf )
Pages 7 of this report specifically mentions the Middle Sparrowmire R170M site (referred to as “The Todds”) as being inappropriate because it would "worsen existing congestion on Windermere Road, as traffic travels into Kendal town centre. As the Windermere Road corridor already suffers congestion and delays during peak travel periods, it is considered that additional large-scale development in this area will lead to deterioration in traffic conditions." There are more similar comments on pages 60 & 71.
Site R170M feeds traffic into Windermere Road and therefore must be removed from the LA DPD until SLDC have met their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ” page 5 (Exec Summary):
"However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required."
The Canal Head development is more important to Kendal than site R170M therefore because site R170M will add more traffic to Kendal streets it is UNSOUND to build on it. It must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and committed funding.
Page 115 of the document “KENDAL Appendix 1.pdf ” (Appendix 1B – Consultation Responses after October 2010) for site R170M states:
“Achieving adequate visibility will be problematic given alignment of road and limited frontage. Such a large site would require a secondary access (Cumbria County Council – Highways).”
The conclusions reached by a chartered civil engineer who has carried out measurements to Transport Standards of the proposed access to site R170M are as follows:
“There is severely restricted forward visibility on both bends in Burneside Road either side of the proposed access location.
In either scenario tested the visibility from the proposed access towards Kendal falls far short of the standard required.
A new junction cannot be safely introduced in this location.”
This report can be supplied if required.
It cannot be right not to identify this secondary access. When it is identified there will be a lot more opposition to site R170 than is currently expressed.
As I said at the beginning of this response about including “JUSTICE” and “FAIRNESS”, it is not FAIR to include a site which is likely to have “show stopping” problems without first carrying out a thorough investigation into these particular problems.
Given the evidence above, until it can be proved that both access roads can be built to meet the Transport Standards, the development of the site R170 is UNSOUND and it must be removed from the LA DPD.
The site R170M is still part of a Green Gap. This means by definition it has higher protection than Greenfields. People who purchased their properties believing this to be true now find that they will be subjected to a grave INJUSTICE if site R170M is not removed from the LA DPD.
This is a very important reason why site R170M should not be developed – JUSTICE.
Extract from page 137 item 6.9 of the Inspector's Report on the public enquiry in 1996. Green Gap site R170M is the site mentioned below.
"Inspector's Conclusions:
6.9 The objection by Mr Downham [biased land owner] is not concerned with the provision of a green gap, but the extent of that gap. It is argued [land owner’s words] that the green gap, as shown in the Consultation draft of the Plan, follows a public footpath running between substantial hedges, a clearly defined landscape boundary: whilst the residential allocation at Sparrowmire has been reduced in the Deposit Draft, an equivalent extension to the green gap is not necessary. ^However, and most importantly in my view, the objection indicates that the "land should remain unallocated as white land so that when the Plan is reviewed in 10 years' time it can be considered as potential residential land" [land owner’s words]. I consider this underlying reason for excluding the land from the green gap identifies the very reason it should remain so designated. Structure Plan Policy 14 and the reasoned justification makes no reference to the length of time during which the vulnerable areas of countryside between settlements should be protected.^ Although policies and proposals in the Local Plan must clearly relate to the Plan period, and can be subject to review thereafter, it appears to me common sense that what is unacceptable now, will most probably be equally unacceptable at the end of the Plan period: certainly I consider the Plan should seek to engender a degree of public confidence that the separation secured will not, at some future time, be lightly squandered. ^For these reasons I believe that, where a green gap is seen as necessary, it is more important that the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap than that substantial, but arbitrary landscape features should be rigidly followed. I also consider the inter-visibility of settlements is not a factor which should affect the definition of green gaps."^
I have marked with ^...^ the most important words in the above paragraph and my clarifying words are in square brackets.
The first group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that the owner wished to leave the remaining land (now site R170M) as white land, so it can sold as high priced building land at a later date. The inspector states that this is the very reason it must remain as a Green Gap and because of this statement it is Green Gap. The LA DPD only includes Green Gap site R170M because the owner is keen to sell and make a large profit, if he didn’t it would not be included.
The second group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that “the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap”. It must not depend on “landscape features” or “inter-visibility of settlements”, but these are the very reasons that SLDC state as to why site R170M can be built-on.
Site R170M is still currently a Green Gap site and by definition has more protection than all Greenfields.
A Government Inspector’s words made the white land (now site R170M) into Green Gap and must not be ignored. Therefore to include site R170M in the LA DPD until all the more suitable Greenfield sites have been built-on is UNSOUND.
This R170M Green Gap is also land of most value to the existing community as backed up by this statement in ‘The Taylor Review’ (Page 58):
“20. Government policy is to increase the density of new housing as a means to maximising land use and better support local services. New extensions to settlements therefore may be relatively densely designed and built right up against the existing settlement to minimise the number of green fields ‘swallowed up’. However, this will mean they are built on exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town. Local residents against new development may be accused of ignoring the needs of others for housing, but they have a genuine point. They may not have bought the right to their countryside views, but they certainly have paid for them, and these developments are on exactly the fields of most landscape value to existing residents."
Taylor gives a valid reason why local people should not be labelled with the scorning name NIMBYs’ when they have a good reason and evidence to oppose development in their neighbourhood.
The evidence above shows that the proposed LA DPD numbers for dwellings to be built are UNDELIVERABLE before 2025. If the numbers were reduced to ones that were deliverable and sound there would be no reason to include the peripheral site R170M in the last phase (2022-25) of the LA DPD, since it is a Green Gap and hence has a higher protection than any of the proposed Greenfield sites. Note at this point in time site R170M is still part of a Green Gap.
“The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods.”
(see http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/communityinfrastructurelevy/ )
There is absolutely no evidence in the LA DPD about how much funding SLDC are capable of obtaining from developers from the levy. Their track record in the past has been very poor when negotiating for affordable dwelling percentages. The target over previous years has been 50% but SLDC of only achieved 28%. The target is now 35% which from past results is still just wishful thinking. SLDC are relying on this money to fund infrastructure and other projects. Until SLDC publish real evidence that the money raised from this levy is in excess (there will always be an overspend) of that required, for all the proposals in the LA DPD it is intended for, then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
Until it is certain that the required infrastructure funding will be available within the planned timescales, in order that SLDC meet their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion, then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has a approved construction plan and committed funding in place (see above). Also that it is shown to decrease the traffic levels in the Windermere Road corridor enough for SLDC traffic objectives are met in this area.
3.0 Further evidence in support of why Policy LA2.2 (site R170M) should be removed from the LA DPD.
3.1 Extracts from Kendal Town Council document "KTC_Response.pdf " (Apr 2011)
Page 8 Transport Improvements.
“The Assessment then looked at the impact of the various possible development sites which were then under discussion. The Assessment modelled the impact of various remedial measures that could be taken, ranging from junction improvements to the building of the Inner Relief Road. It concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three sites were removed:
• Land within the Shap Road/Appleby Road corridor (Site E23/49 and Sites M8/M35/ M36)
• The Todds, west of Burneside Road (Sites R148/R170)
• Stonebank Green (Sites M39/R676/R103/R675)
There was no solution which permitted these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment).”
This supports previous evidence that the development of site R170M (The Todds) is UNSOUND
Page 9 section on “Sewer Capacity”
“In addition, United Utilities has concerns about the capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Works, located to the south of Kendal, for which process modelling needs to be carried out. This impacts all the potential development sites in the town.”
I have an email from SLDC dated 27Apr2011 which states:
“The following is based on information and advice provided by United Utilities.
1. United Utilities cannot determine the number of dwellings that will cause Kendal Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) to reach process capacity without conducting modelling. The threshold for when capacity is reached is determined by the design capacity of the WwTW and the population that it serves with some headroom designed in to the calculations. This headroom is not excessive as United Utilities cannot design and build for a population that is not already there or where development is not definite.
2. There are local network issues in respect of sewer capacity in the Kendal area . They are primarily centred around the Burneside area as evidenced in the Core Strategy and supporting Land Allocations Document material.
3. South Lakeland District Council does not hold or have access to data/information regarding the catchment area of the Kendal Sewerage Works.”
SLDC/UU admit that the headroom (i.e. spare capacity) is not excessive. Despite this SLDC have no results of any modelling and have not insisted that this modelling be carried out by UU. SLDC do not even know the catchment area for Kendal Sewage Works. There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC do have this information today (a year later). Therefore SLDC do not know how many dwellings can be built before Kendal Sewage Works needs a major upgrade costing many millions of pounds.
United Utilities move their funding from year to year as they see their immediate priorities change, so until they actual “sign on the dotted line” to meet certain dates then their current dates can “be taken with a pinch of salt”. As evidence to support this, the paying customers of Burneside have been waiting over 20 years to get their sewerage fixed and they still have sewage on the streets during heavy rain. So there is no guarantee that the North West Kendal problem will be fixed before 2025.
Site R170M is one of the last sites in the plan to be developed therefore until the above figures are known for the whole of the catchment area and UU & OFWAT have “signed on the dotted line” to meet their agreed dates then the site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 9 section on “Hydrologic Considerations”.
“However, the mechanisms (some man-made, mostly natural) which are currently managing to keep Kendal free of floods are not well understood. Several of the sites included in the Land Allocations have a history of being badly affected by rainfall. This suggests they have a role to play in mitigating surface run-off and hence flood prevention. If this is correct, development of such sites could trigger flooding in the town - and making the sites themselves flood proof would certainly involve additional expense for developers.
Kendal Town Council believes this is an important omission from the current evidence base, and calls on SLDC to commission a full hydrology study of the area before including the affected sites in any final land allocation. Any remedial infrastructure required to allow these sites to be developed safely would need to be included in the overall infrastructure programme.
Land Allocations affected by this consideration are the lower Hallgarth sites (R169M and R170M), Appleby Road (MK35KM), Natland Beck at Kendal Parks (R107M, R150M), Stock Beck at Castle Green Road (R121M), and Stonecross (R103M), and Blind Beck (R129M)”
There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC have commissioned this study or have any results. Site R170M is mentioned in quote above and so until this study is carried out development of site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 10 Infrastructure.
“3. Sites should not be included in a Final Land Allocations document unless their impact on Kendal’s transport is understood, solutions are agreed with partners, and the impact has successfully passed a rerun of the Transport Assessment. ‘Emerging Option’ sites affected by this are indicated are indicated by an ‘X’ in the ‘Traffic’ column in the Detail by each Land Allocation site starting on page 11.”
Note site R170M has an ‘X’ in the Traffic column, so this site should be removed from the LA DPD until its impact on Kendal’s junction congestion is fully understood.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.2 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. "KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf" (Sep 2011)
Page 5 Doughnut Development
“Taylor contends: ...these developments undermine sustainability. They invariably encourage car use, especially if there are no services or employment within walking distance, with resulting congestion on roads into town. And without local and community facilities of their own, there is little to build social sustainability and cohesion or links between new and existing settlements as there will be little in the way of community life.
This approach to planning is also a recipe for confrontation, “developing exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town”
(as has been amply demonstrated in Kendal by the response to the Emerging Options consultation process).
Without change we will simply repeat the mistakes of recent decades, creating unattractive developments of housing estates encircling our rural towns and larger villages, and we will fail to stem the trend of smaller villages becoming dormitory settlements of commuters and the retired, ever less affordable for those who work within them. This is not a sustainable future for rural England.
Without strong Land Allocation policies from the Planning Authority, Kendal is heading towards an unsustainable “doughnutted” future.”
This confirms that development of the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 6 Recommendation for Kendal
“The Council believes the Planning Authority should follow Taylor and adopt this model in preparing its final Land Allocations policies for Kendal, as the only way in which the NPPF demand for sustainable development can be achieved in the town. It is important to note that this is not in conflict with the Core Strategy positioning of Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, or with the requirements for meeting forecast housing demand. From Taylor, the requirements for sustainable development in rural market towns is clear: it cannot be delivered by allocating isolated sites around the town; a hub and spoke model is required. Even without the NPPF’s insistence on sustainable development, there are other intrinsic advantages to the hub and spoke model for Kendal. The Council’s previous Response to Consultation highlighted the major infrastructure challenges to be overcome in the town. These become far more soluble if development proceeds on hub-by-hub basis, when the infrastructure work can be concentrated on the corresponding spokes. For example, it is far simpler to improve bus services, cycling provision, etc. if only one or two ‘spokes’ have to be addressed.
The evidence in the EHLSS shows that there are suitable sites available (the scope of the SHLAS only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that the “doughnut” strategy is incorrect for Kendal and should be replaced by the “hub & spoke” strategy. It also confirms that the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is unsustainable and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 10 Latest Forecasts (2011)
“The latest forecast in this series was produced in Spring 2011. It shows a drastically reduced requirement:
• only 360 dwellings across the 20 years, or
• just over 4,000 including migration, projected on the last five years’ evidence.
This suggests that a more appropriate target for the next 5-10 years would be around 200 dwellings per annum.”
This confirms the evidence given above that 200 per year is what is required and this number would be deliverable. If this number was planned then the peripheral Green Gap site R170M would not be required and being in the last phase would not be needed in this LA DPD.
This section supports previous evidence that the LA DPD is UNSUSTAINABLE and UNSOUND.
3.3 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf “ (Mar 2012)
Page 4 Summary
“The Council believes that the DPD is not justified because it fails the following tests of soundness:
• the LPA has failed in its duty to compare against reasonable alternatives
• key decisions are not supported by the evidence base or the evidence supports a different conclusion
• the evidence base is incomplete
The DPD is also not effective in that it is not deliverable, with key elements of the dependent infrastructure
not understood.”
This confirms the LA DPD is NOT DELIVERABLE.
Page 4
“For rural market towns, the evidence was pulled together in July 2008 by the Taylor Review9, setting out the policy framework necessary to deliver the “vision of a living, working sustainable countryside”. Taylor provided compelling evidence that “doughnut development” was the wrong approach for sustainable rural market towns, and that a “hub and spoke” model represented the best pattern for sustainability.”
The two KTC paragraphs above confirm that an alternative system must be adopted now, which will “meet the needs of future generations” of Kendal (i.e. BE SUSTAINABLE”) for the many thousands of years to come.
Page 4
“The evidence in the EHLSS indicates that suitable sites could be available (the scope of the SHLAA only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that a “hub & spoke” is viable.
Page 5
“The Assessment concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three large sites were removed. The consultants could find no mitigation which would permit these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment.)”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD because it is one of the three sites.
Page 5
“Given that this approach has differed significantly from the independent consultants’, the Council asks the Inspector to order an independent audit of this latest work by W.S.Atkins or equivalent to ensure it meets accepted professional standards of objectivity and integrity. The Council further asks the Inspector to ensure that no sites are included in the DPD which the evidence shows are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD, because it is one of the sites which “are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
Page 7
“The Council asks the Inspector to withhold approval of the DPD until there is a credible infrastructure plan showing the impact of the major sites on the overall town infrastructure, and with high level solutions identified and costed with enough detail to enable the economic deliverability of the sites to be proven.”
This adds to the evidence given above that there must be signatures, to supply the necessary infrastructure and funding, must be in place before this LA DPD is approved by the Government. Until this is done site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.4 Extracts from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Page 5 Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
"10. The LDF developments have a more notable impact in the AM peak compared to the base situation. The model results indicate that the provision of sustainable transport improvements (Scheme 2) would be required to support LDF development to nil-detriment compared to the 2022 base situation in the AM peak. However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required.
11. It should be noted that although these schemes are required to achieve nil-detriment, these improvements are only demonstrated to offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal. These infrastructure schemes would be expensive and may not be a cost-effective solution to congestion in Kendal town centre.
12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.
13. It is recommended that further modelling work is undertaken"
The Transport Study shows that the objectives cannot be achieved before 2025 therefore the problems are going to be much worse in the years 2026 onwards.
SLDC do not have signed-off solutions and timescales in place to meet the plan phases, therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 9 This page gives the CCC/SLDC definition for Junction Congestion limits.
"Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts."
The Atkins report uses a Volume/Capacity ratio of 90 as acceptable for a junction approach, which is similar.
The Study shows that these objectives will not be met by 2025 so this, along with page 10 (see below) adds evidence to the above.
Page 10
"4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. These are:Junction1: A5284 Stricklandgate/Sandes AvenueJunction 2: A5284 Sandes Avenue / A6 Blackhall Road signalised junction
Junction 5: A6 Longpool / Station Road mini-roundabout junction
Junction 12: A6 Highgate / Lowther Street signalised junction
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Junction 16: A6 Milnthorpe Road / Romney Road signalised junction
Junction 17: A5284 Windermere Road/Queens Road
Junction 18: A5284 Windermere Road/Burneside Road
Junction 21: A65 Burton Road / Oxenholme Road signalised junction
Junction 27: A684 Sedbergh Road / Sandylands Road priority junction
Junction 29: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (north) priority junction
Junction 30: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (south) priority junction
Junction 31: A685 Appleby Road/Sandylands Road"
“Measures must be in place” to fix these major problems first (i.e. meet SLDC objectives). They have a huge bearing on why SLDC is still breaking the law on Air Quality.
Page 14
“* Scheme 6: Scheme 5, plus a potential Kendal Southern Link Road, which comprises a new single-carriageway road linking the A6 Milnthorpe Road with the A65 Burton Road south of Kendal town centre.”
This new road proposal has never been mentioned before; it is not in the Core Strategy and therefore, as we have been told before, it cannot be considered in this LDF.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.5 Extracts from SLDC document "06 Infrastructure Position Statement.pdf ”:
Page 10
"4.19 United Utilities has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area. A proposal for expenditure in the years 2010 – 2015 is contained within the published five years Investment Plan (Asset Management programme). The plan can be found at the following website link: http://www.unitedutilities.com/Documents/Detailed_plan.pdf "
There is nothing in this PDF document that is specific to Kendal.
UU may have "a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area" but it is very poor at obeying this duty as is verified by the > 20 years Burnside have been suffering sewage problems (and still are).
Until UU actually “sign on the dotted line” to meet the required planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.23 Funding is more likely to be acquired in cases where there is development certainty (i.e. clear evidence of developer interest).
* UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct."
This backs previous evidence, never mind “development certainty” what about the existing paying customers who are still suffering sewage and flooding problems due to lack of investment.
Until United Utilities “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.24 There is currently loading capacity at Kendal Waste water Treatment Works (WwTW), however, for the number of dwellings that are proposed a full process and hydraulic survey of the Works will have to be undertaken before UU could comfortably approve the Planning Applications. As the sewer network is at capacity in North Kendal, UU could not agree to any significant development until after 2015 in this part of the town. Providing UU obtain funding through OFWAT to undertake the necessary upgrades etc. UU will be building into the 2014 Business Submission to OFWAT a case for funding to provide the means to accommodate development, which will boost the economy.
4.25 A feasibility study is being undertaken on the Kendal WwTW. Recommended phosphorous levels are set by Environment Agency (EA) through discharge consents, and until EA impose a new requirement for a lowered rate, UU will continue to discharge at the current rate. UU stated achieving any required lower rates would depend on new/better technology. Further Phosphorous removal would only be undertaken if UU were required to achieve a tighter standard as set by the EA following their review of water quality. Newer technology, which is not currently available, would be required to achieve any standard below 1mg/l. UU has advised development in the Kendal area should be capped at 2000 properties unless a more stringent phosphorus effluent standard can be achieved.
4.26 UU has advised that sites in North Kendal should only come forward in the latter periods of the plan period when sewage network improvements are in place.
4.27 Strategically there is enough water supply to accommodate levels of new development, but there are potential risks of deterioration of water quality."
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 14
"4.45 Electricity North West Ltd manage infrastructure and distribute and transmit electricity throughout South Lakeland. The regulator determines the amount of funding, however, it is not known what the next round of funding may or may not allow for investment in improvements. Information relating to substation capacity has not been ascertained. Evidence when exploring options for the Canal Head Area of Kendal shows that the Kendal Primary substation is currently operating close to or at capacity. It is possible that significant development in Kendal would require investment for network reinforcement and that a new Primary Substation would be required although Electricity North West Ltd does not confirm this. No information has been made available stating whether this is the case. Only when the customer has firm load requirements and location details can a system study be undertaken to ascertain the scale of impact of potential new development."
What if the system study states it cannot be done or they cannot obtain the funding within the plan timescales? Electricity North West Ltd already has the number of houses proposed and their locations so they must commit to a system study and confirm that the proposed developments are deliverable. Until then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 15
"4.48 National Grid Gas Distribution own and operate the local gas distribution network in South Lakeland. The confidential nature of the process means National Grid are unable to confirm whether they are currently processing or have made any offers for connection within Cumbria."
The document states nothing about National Grid Gas Distribution having a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of gas supply within its area.
The LA DPD cannot possibly be monitored correctly until all the Gas company has “signed on the dotted line” to meet the timescales required. Until then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This Infrastructure document is only a statement; there is no indication when the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be available to the public or any indication that the timescales can be met. The LA DPD is UNSOUND until the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Kendal Transport Plan are available with all milestones agreed, funding committed and both signed off by the respective utility companies. They can have the proviso that it depends on the build going ahead as planned.
3.6 Extracts from SLDC document “01 Consultation Report.pdf ”:
Page 19
“In their response the Highways Agency identified those sites it considers (if developed, due to cumulative impact with other sites) may impact upon the capacity, operation and safety of the strategic road network (SRN) (A590 and M6) within South Lakeland. As a consequence, the Agency has stated that the cumulative impact of development of sites under consideration in the following settlements (see below) may result in some impact to the SRN: Burneside, Crooklands, Endmoor, Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, Levens, Milnthorpe and Ulverston alongside the sites suggested for strategic employment use (in Ulverston and Kendal area).”
Note the word “may” on the second line. They either do or they don’t. After all these years of the LDF there is no excuse for this information not being available. SLDC must obtain an answer to this issue immediately and publish it. If any of the developments proposed within the LA DPD do affect the Strategic Road Network then any changes necessary must be included in the LA DPD and the Transport Plan (which must be issued before the hearings). Note the Strategic Road Network is NOT currently mentioned in the LA DPD.
Page 21
This page with reference to Burneside states:
“.....this is no guarantee that funding will be approved by OFWAT”.
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted” line to meet the planned timescales the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 21
“Additional work is needed by UU to check if cumulative impact on treatment works may raise capacity issues
SLDC must publish how many houses can be built in the Kendal catchment area before a major upgrade to the sewage works is required. Until UU know their total funding requirements the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 34
KENDAL
“Many people believe development of the sites suggested would harm the landscape character of the town, worsen air quality, exacerbate current flooding problems, harm biodiversity, generate unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and place further strains on a heavily constrained sewerage system. Some people questioned the need for additional housing believing there are enough empty properties in the town to meet current and future housing demands. A number of people stated development should be prioritised on brownfield sites and meet primarily local needs.”
“Many people including Kendal Town Council and Burneside and Natland Parish Council’s supported the concept of green gaps to protect Kendal coalescing with neighbouring settlements. However, a significant number of people and Kendal Town Council and Natland Parish Council believed the suggested emerging options would not prevent coalescence from happening. There was general widespread support for the open space designations suggested, however, many people believed the emerging options sites should also be designated open space.”
“Kendal Town Council expressed serious concerns with the overall approach being suggested for the town, believing the amounts of developments and the emerging option sites suggested would damage the landscape character of the town, and put unnecessary strain on an inadequate infrastructure system. The Town Council has suggested an alternative strategy/approach for the town this being to protect existing green space/countryside surrounding the town and to look at alternative sites adjacent to nearby settlements and possibly further afield where development would have less impact on the town’s infrastructure, air quality and its high quality landscape value.”
These three paragraphs confirm that the wishes of the majority of local people have been ignored and adds support to the evidence given above concerning Consultation and Legal Compliance.
Page 46
On this page it states “UU is currently considering lists of projects that will require major capital investment in Asset Management Plan 6 period 2015-2020.” and “UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct.”
Until United Utilities and OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” to meet the planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE, UNSOUND and that consultation process was not Legally Compliant.
3.7 Extracts from SLDC document “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
Pages 51 & 52
Item 3.6 - Key local factors influencing the location of new development in Kendal:
“Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail and from important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout Scar/Brigsteer Road; Avoiding coalescence between Kendal, Oxenholme, Burneside and Natland and maintaining the separate identities of these settlements;
Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, promoting sustainable transport and achieving a positive impact on the Kendal Air Quality Management Area;
Infrastructure constraints including sewage capacity at Kentrigg and Steele's Row and the implications for development in northwest Kendal.”
One of the main comments of the people who responded to the SLDC consultations and opposed them was the character and appearance of Kendal. This is imbedded in the above paragraph and has been totally ignored. The LA DPD is therefore not Legally Compliant.
The site R170M is close to Kentrigg (mentioned above) and so it is UNSOUND to include it in the LA DPD until United Utilities are fully committed (i.e. signed on the dotted line) to the LA DPD timescales.
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive it should state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
A graph on this page it shows the following numbers over the years 2003 – 2025 (22 years).
Maximum number of dwellings ever built in one year was 300 in year 2005/06 and even this did not reach the target of 400 per year.
Extrapolating from the graphs the average number of dwellings built per year for the first 8 years was 100+280+150+150+240+300+230+220 = 1670 / 8 = 209 per year. In the terms of this graph there are already an extra 1530 dwellings (109/yr on top of the 400/yr) that have built just to catch up. This compares well with the more accurate figures in section 2.1 above.
The figure of 720 per year for the three years 2022 – 2025 is just WISHFULL THINKING.
One of the questions that must be asked to confirm SOUNDNESS is “Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives”. The above numbers are clearly not realistic therefore the current LA DPD is UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND within the timescales of this LA DPD (2025).
4.0 Changes required to the LA DPD document title “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
4.1 During the recent SLDC consultation 98% of the local neighbourhood who responded OPPOSED the proposals for site R170M. In a door-door poll of over 400 neighbours during 2011 approximately 80% of those asked OPPOSED the proposal to build on site R170M. Of the remaining 20% most did not care one way or the other. The Localism Bill is a Con Trick (nice pun); it promises much but does not actually support what the majority of the people in the neighbourhood want.
To prove SLDC are DEMOCRATIC they must be serious about responding to the majority of the local neighbourhood’s wishes. Also the TOTAL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ABOVE PROVES THAT SLDC MUST REMOVE THE PERIPHERAL GREEN GAP SITE R170M FROM THE LA DPD TO MAKE IT SOUND. THIS IS HOW THE LA DPD MUST BE CHANGED.
4.2 After many years (before year 2000) of knowing about the traffic problems in Kendal, SLDC have failed to produce a transport plan or action plan that enabled them to meet their standards and objectives for Air Quality and Junction Congestion. This must NOT be allowed to continue. Only when these standards and objectives have been PROVEN to have been met (with spare capacity for expansion) will the people believe SLDC are serious about tackling these major problems. The recent SLDC consultations show that increase in traffic was one of main reasons why 98% of the people (that responded) OPPOSE the proposals to build on sites in their area of Kendal.
Previous experience with Core Strategy has shown me that all my evidence will be ignored and that site R170M will not be removed from the LA DPD. If this is to be repeated then I would like to see the following changes to LA DPD.
There is a note on page 57 (item 3.18) of the LA DPD (policy LA2.2 site R170M) which states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO RESOLVE PRESSURE ON THE SEWERAGE NETWORK IN NORTH KENDAL."
This means existing problems will be fixed before building starts.
THIS SETS A PRECEDENT WHICH MUST CONTINUE WITH REGARD TO OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS.
The threat to the health of people due to air pollution is of as much importance as sewage on the streets. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make air pollution worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT THE LAW ON AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
Increase in traffic, which leads to more junction congestion and a deterioration in the well-being of local people, was one of the major complaints in the recent SLDC consultations. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make junction congestion worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT SLDC’S DEFINITION OF “ACCEPTABLE JUNCTION PERFORMANCE” HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
For definition see page 9 of “Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf”.
“4.1.5 An RFC or DoS of 100% indicates that an approach is operating at maximum capacity. Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts. Above this level, an approach is likely to begin to experience congestion as there is insufficient spare capacity to cope with fluctuations in traffic flow.”
4.3 Page 51 item 3.6:
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive. The word “Minimising” is just not good enough to meet the people’s wishes. It must state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
4.4 Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
This Appendix 4 must be changed and other pages which quote these figures. The SLDC evidence does not support the requirement that anywhere near the 8800 dwellings can be built before 2025. The numbers in the graph are not realistic (a SOUNDNESS word), therefore NOT DELIVERABLE and UNSOUND. 720/year for last three years is just wishful thinking, it is not realistic; this graph shows that the maximum that has ever been built within the last 8 years is 300 per year for the year 2005/06. The developers will not build 750 per year because it would swamp the market and they would be left with a large number of empty houses.
There is no point in just stating on page 7 of the LA DPD that it is “the ambition to deliver 400 dwellings each year” if these numbers cannot realistically be built and sold. There is also no point in just monitoring these numbers just so a box can be ticked to say they have been monitored. The numbers must be realistic so that they can be monitored and vigorously progressed.
Kendal Town Council have stated in one of their reports [Sep2011 see above] that only around 200 dwellings per year is the number required. SLDC must discuss this issue with KTC and reduce the current total figure of 8800 to a number that can realistically be built & sold before 2025 and not one that is just WISHFULL THINKING.
4.5 There is a requirement in the Core Strategy for Brownfield land to be used for “at least 28%” of the number of dwellings built. Note the words are “at least” not it is the “ambition to use”. To be SOUND the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets for each area. These figures must be monitored, vigorously progressed and be made available to the public.
4.6 SLDC must discuss Kendal Town Council’s three reports in detail with the town council and members of opposition groups (e.g. Green Spaces). I would like to see the LA DPD changed to incorporate as much as possible of that which is agreed in these discussions.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL PEOPLE MUST BE AT THE TOP OF SLDC's PRIORITY LIST and despite all my emails and protest at the Core Strategy hearings this has not yet been done in Kendal.
So I wish to speak face to face with the inspector and ask him personally if he will recommend in his report that notes be added to the LA DPD stating that SLDC must fix their major existing problems first and meet the SLDC/CCC definition for "Acceptable Junction Congestion" and the Law on Air Quality before allowing actual build of site R170M, which will add to these problems (see examples of notes in section 4.2 above).
A PRECEDENT has already been set by a note in Policy LA2.2 for site R170M relating to the sewerage network in North Kendal. If United Utilities have to fix their major existing problems first before building is allowed then so must SLDC, this is logical and should not need a political decision.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
8. Mr Derek Whitmore (Individual) : 17 May 2012 11:06:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1.0 Consultation
1.1 SLDC did not change the proposals in-line with the citizens important wishes.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Legal Compliance in it’s document – "legal.doc” (Legal Compliance Tool from http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85651 )
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (page 7):
“6. Does the consultation contribute to the development and sustainability appraisal of alternatives?”
This has not been carried out correctly, alternatives have not been seriously considered. In particular the Kendal Town Council’s excellent reports, containing good alternatives, have been ignored.
The vast majority of the oppose responses made in the SLDC consultations were noted, listed in the consultation documents and then almost totally ignored. In my view these consultations were just so that SLDC could “tick the box” for the government inspector and therefore were a waste of taxpayers money.
I have done a detailed examination of the SLDC Consultation Database and these are my findings:
On 11th August 2011 (after the closing date) there were 2986 responses from the Kendal settlement. 98% of these responses opposed the proposals in their neighbourhood. Most of those that “support in part” did not support housing. Most of the few indicating “support” were representatives of the land owner, potential builder, Kendal Futures Board or the North West Development Agency.
The main reasons for the respondents opposition was the increase in traffic that these proposed developments would cause, and the affect they would have on the landscape character of Kendal. Better alternative sites were suggested, noted and then ignored. The present proposals will not “satisfy the needs of future generations” and are therefore NOT SUSTAINABLE.
Issues raised in the consultations would have contributed greatly to the development and sustainability of alternatives but the alternatives put forward have been ignored (also see other evidence 2.3 below). Therefore the LA DPD it is not Legally Compliant.
I would like to see alternatives discussed with Kendal Town Council and the Green Spaces group. Then any changes agreed included in the LA DPD.
2.0 Alternative plan
2.1 Law must be obeyed.
Extract from Stage 2: Plan preparation - frontloading phase (legal.doc page 5):
“* developing alternatives and options and appraising them through sustainability appraisal and against evidence.”
The SLDC Air Quality reports show that SLDC have been breaking the Law on Air Quality for many years. It means that SLDC must use an alternative plan for Kendal until it is proven that the law is being obeyed (with spare capacity for proposed development). The reason the law must be proven is that action plans have not worked for at least 14 years (before 1998). In the meantime affordable houses can be built in other areas of SLDC which have low traffic.
Until an alternative plan is in position to ensure the law on Air Quality is obeyed (with spare capacity for the proposed development) the LA DPD is not Legally Compliant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Legal Compliance requirements are not definitive or closed questions; they are open to personal interpretation, so I will not make any further comment in these sections.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Personal Comments:- From my experience of the Core Strategy hearings and the SLDC consultations I know my response will be ignored. The changes to Kendal’s infrastructure, that the new SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) states are required (see below), is just one example of this. I am therefore taking this opportunity to place on record all the relevant evidence I have gathered on why site R170M (policy LA2.2) should not be included in the LA DPD. Quotes from certain documents have been added to make it easier for the reader. There is repetition of some issues but this is because I have added different sources of evidence throughout the document.
It is undemocratic just to include Legal Compliance and Soundness in this consultation. In a democratic society the wishes of the majority of local people would have priority over these criteria. Also criteria such as “Justice” and “Fairness” should be considered. These were totally ignored in the Core Strategy consultation and hearings.
Test of Soundness
1.0 Not justified
1.1 Health and well-being of citizens in Kendal.
I have been informed that a developer does not have to fix an existing problem he just needs to show that he will not make it any worse. This is ridiculous, while SLDC are breaking the law on Air Quality developers must not be allowed to build on site R170M and other Kendal sites until the law is obeyed. SLDC breaking the law must surely be enough to prevent developers from winning an appeal. The people’s health and well-being must have top priority over everything else in the LA DPD.
The latest Cumbria County Council’s transport plan LPT3 does not include plans for the necessary infrastructure to fix existing problems neither does the SLDC Core Strategy. It was only after pressure from the public that SLDC & CCC produced the Transport Study (which is only a study) and after all this time the Transport Plan has not yet been made available to the public. Without a Transport Plan (including committed funding) signed off by all the participants the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE within the current timescales (2025) and is UNSOUND.
Before the year 2000 the SLDC objective was to meet the law on Air Quality by the year 2005 but air pollution has continually increased and the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) has even been made larger. This shows that SLDC are not serious in meeting their objectives where the health and well-being of citizens, or obeying the law, are concerned.
A typical example is the approval of the Planning Application for the old Auction Mart site. Also planning approval is certain to go ahead for the Canal Head development. These will make the air pollution worse in the AQMA. The worst pollution occurs when junctions are grid-locked and tinkering with traffic lights will not fix this problem. It will take major infrastructure changes to fix the existing traffic problems and allow for proposed LDF expansion. The Transport Study even admits that none of the improvements schemes will meet SLDC objectives.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
“6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
More building is planned in Kendal within the next few years (phase 1). This will make the major traffic problems worse. Infrastructure should already be in place to cope. Instead there is not even an approved Transport Plan in place, never mind the infrastructure that will be needed to meet SLDC standards and objectives.
The Transport Study is stating that further modelling is required. This shows that SLDC do not yet know at the present time if their proposals can be implemented or if funding will be available within the LDF timeframe (year 2025), therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND. Once money has been spent on major infrastructure changes it will be expected that these changes will last for at least 15 years (through the next LDF) therefore any further modelling must use a date of 2040 or beyond. These results will prove that the Taylor “hub & spoke” must be started now (see more evidence below).
SLDC should be very concerned about anyone who has any bronchial condition (e.g. asthma) and for the future health of children walking to school through Kendal during times of peak pollution. The health of residents of Kendal town should also cause great concern; a lot of them are elderly and frail.
SLDC have chosen the sites which cost the least to develop (e.g. no compulsory purchase costs) and will make the most profit for the developer rather than those best for the health and well being of local people. Money is being put before health. The law’s limits on air pollution are the maximum; the spirit of the law is zero pollution.
This does not mean that expansion cannot take place in other more suitable low pollution/low traffic areas of South Lakeland District. Plenty of more suitable sites, originally on the LA DPD maps for the SLDC district, have not been included on the latest maps. It is not fair that these traffic problems are not shared throughout the entire SLDC district. This is another reason why the hub & spoke system must be adopted – FAIRNESS.
The health and well-being of the people due to air pollution must have top priority over everything else in the LDF. This is not happening with the current proposals. Proving the law is being obeyed must come second on the priority list after health. If it does not already do so the “Soundness” examination must take account of these two very important issues.
The evidence above shows that these traffic problems in Kendal will not be fixed without major infrastructure changes which are not in Cumbria County Council’s LTP3.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND and site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and funding (see above).
For more evidence see extracts from the SLDC Transport Study (Jan12) below.
1.2 Alternative strategy.
Although SLDC have carried out consultations they have ignored the major objections. They have even ignored the alternatives put forward by Kendal Town Council in their excellent reports - “KTC_Response.pdf ”, “KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf ” & “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf. ". To avoid even more “urban sprawl” of Kendal the Taylor “hub & spoke” strategy must be adopted and not the current “doughnut” strategy. Kendal will be around for many thousands of years to come, which makes the “doughnut” strategy UNSUSTAINABLE (i.e. will not satisfy the needs of future generations). Only the “hub & spoke” is sustainable in the years to come because extra “satellites” can be added. By then the proposed “doughnut” system will make Kendal such an urban sprawl that very few people will wish to live there. To prevent this happening the “hub & spoke” system must be started NOW.
Money is being put before what is best for the health and well-being of the people of Kendal now and in the future (beyond 2025).
The Taylor Report, which puts forward compelling evidence in favour of the “hub & spoke” system, shows that the proposed “doughnut” system is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore the development of site R170 (being a peripheral Green Gap site) is UNSOUND and must be removed from the LA DPD.
2.0 Not effective
2.1 Not meeting definitions of soundness.
The Government Planning Advisory Service (PAS) defines the requirements for Soundness in the document - "soundness.doc" (Soundness Tool from: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/85673 )
Extract from page 6 - Deliverable:
"21. Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives?
i. Sections of the development plan document which address delivery and the timescales for key developments and initiatives.
ii. Confirmation from the local strategic partnership and partner organisations that the timescales are realistic in terms of their contribution to delivery."
Extract from page 8 - Deliverable:
“28. Is it clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and does the timing of the provision complement the timescale of the strategy/policies?
i. Confirmation from infrastructure providers that they support the solutions proposed and the identified means and timescales for their delivery.
ii. Representations in respect of infrastructure.
iii. Reports or copies of correspondence on how representations in relation to infrastructure and its timing have been considered and dealt with.”
Extract from page 5 of SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
“12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”
I have only selected this one paragraph; there are numerous other paragraphs which support these conclusions. In particular Page 15, Item 5.2.1, Table 5.1 which confirms that all schemes fail to meet SLDC’s objective. The results in Tables 5.2 & 5.3 are even worse.
SLDC’s objective is to meet “Acceptable junction performance” which is defined on page 9, item 4.1.5.
I'm not sure why the year 2022 was chosen as base-line, whatever major infrastructure is planned must enable SLDC to meet their objectives for years beyond 2025. In my opinion until 2040, the end of the next LDF.
Schemes 4, 5 & 6 require major investment and are not in the Core Strategy and therefore must be excluded from the Transport Plan when it is published. Note that the Transport Plan should incorporate extra capacity to cope with the “doughnut” system which, if approved, will undoubtedly continue after 2025.
The SLDC Air Quality Reports show that air pollution is getting worse in Kendal and also the AQMA has been increased.
Extract from page 27 of Air Quality Report (PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf)
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page857/PR_Report_Template_2010.pdf ).
"It would be hoped that each individual action would add to a combined reduction in levels to meet the requirement above. However, the 2009 annual mean NO2 results of the diffusion tube monitoring and the continuous analyser within the AQMA actually show that levels remain high, close to or above the 2010 objective and have actually increased from 2008 levels in 2009 in some locations. Without radical progress by Cumbria County Council on changes to the road system, vehicle access and parking in Kendal it is unlikely that the objective will be achieved."
Note the word “hoped”. Over many previous years this is typical of SLDC’s attitude towards obeying the law on Air Quality. SLDC action plans have not worked in the past and this is proved by the fact that the AQMA has recently been made larger.
The SLDC document "ED43_Housing Completions 1999 to 2010.doc" plus SLDC updates show that from the beginning of plan period 2003 to end of 2011 (8 years results) the total for South Lakeland is 1690 / 8 = 211 average and of these affordable are 406 / 8 = 51 average (or 24%). Figures for 2006 to 2011 (last 5 years results) are 934 / 5 = 187 average and of these affordable are 264 / 5 = 53 average (or 28%).
Between 2003 and 2011 the number of completions was 1690. At 400 per year the objective was 3200 over this 8 year period, a difference of 1510. To make up this deficit means that over the remaining 14 years (up to 2025) an extra 1510 / 14 = 107 per year will be required. This extra number per year will get a lot higher when the build rate stays below 400 per year.
This is nowhere near the Core Strategy figure of 400 dwellings per year or the percentage affordable figure of 35% and therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE. 200 dwellings per year would be a more realistic figure and this is the latest figure that is necessary according to a Kendal Town Council Report (see below).
SLDC have recognised this and have added the word “ambition” to build this number of houses to the LA DPD (see page 7 of the “Land Allocations DPD [Feb 12].pdf ” as an example). This word is not used in this context with regard to numbers in the Core Strategy document. Therefore the LA DPD is UNSOUND with respect to the Core Strategy. The Leader of the Council insisted the numbers in the Core Strategy were achievable within the timescales of the LDF.
The above figures show there was an inward migration of 3 (high cost) to 1 (affordable). The majority of the proposed SLDC development is for the Kendal area (35%, 140 dpa) and this will add greatly to traffic problems mentioned above. This inward migration must not be planned (or allowed) to continue until all the partners involved have “signed on the dotted line” that they will meet the LA DPD milestones for all the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewerage, doctors, dentists, schools, etc) that is required. With the proviso that the build will actually take place in the timescales planned. It causes unnecessary stress to local people when unachievable targets are proposed or planned.
Another issue that affects DELIVERABILITY is Brownfield sites (or previously developed land).
It states in "SLDC_Core_Strategy_Document_March2011_sm4web2.pdf " (page 17):
"CS1.2 – The Development Strategy
Priority will be given to the reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land for all new housing development, with a target of ensuring that at least 28% of new housing development takes place on such sites."
The “at least 28%” is also mentioned in CS6.6 (page 85). The 50% in item 7.14 is a mistake, it was the previous target. Now the target has been lowered, and "at least 28%" is said by SLDC to be achievable, the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets in each area. The Core Strategy and LA DPD have a requirement to be monitored and targets at least progressed vigorously.
The LA DPD does not mention this requirement; therefore it does not conform to the Core Strategy and is UNSOUND. Also these monitored figures need to be published and available to the public.
The SLDC Transport Report (Atkins 2009) states an amber limit for acceptable Junction Congestion and that in 2008 there were 7 red (above limit) junctions with 11 red junctions forecast in 2025.
(see http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page2033/Kendal_TAJune_2009.pdf )
Pages 7 of this report specifically mentions the Middle Sparrowmire R170M site (referred to as “The Todds”) as being inappropriate because it would "worsen existing congestion on Windermere Road, as traffic travels into Kendal town centre. As the Windermere Road corridor already suffers congestion and delays during peak travel periods, it is considered that additional large-scale development in this area will lead to deterioration in traffic conditions." There are more similar comments on pages 60 & 71.
Site R170M feeds traffic into Windermere Road and therefore must be removed from the LA DPD until SLDC have met their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion.
Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ” page 5 (Exec Summary):
"However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required."
The Canal Head development is more important to Kendal than site R170M therefore because site R170M will add more traffic to Kendal streets it is UNSOUND to build on it. It must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has an approved construction plan and committed funding.
Page 115 of the document “KENDAL Appendix 1.pdf ” (Appendix 1B – Consultation Responses after October 2010) for site R170M states:
“Achieving adequate visibility will be problematic given alignment of road and limited frontage. Such a large site would require a secondary access (Cumbria County Council – Highways).”
The conclusions reached by a chartered civil engineer who has carried out measurements to Transport Standards of the proposed access to site R170M are as follows:
“There is severely restricted forward visibility on both bends in Burneside Road either side of the proposed access location.
In either scenario tested the visibility from the proposed access towards Kendal falls far short of the standard required.
A new junction cannot be safely introduced in this location.”
This report can be supplied if required.
It cannot be right not to identify this secondary access. When it is identified there will be a lot more opposition to site R170 than is currently expressed.
As I said at the beginning of this response about including “JUSTICE” and “FAIRNESS”, it is not FAIR to include a site which is likely to have “show stopping” problems without first carrying out a thorough investigation into these particular problems.
Given the evidence above, until it can be proved that both access roads can be built to meet the Transport Standards, the development of the site R170 is UNSOUND and it must be removed from the LA DPD.
The site R170M is still part of a Green Gap. This means by definition it has higher protection than Greenfields. People who purchased their properties believing this to be true now find that they will be subjected to a grave INJUSTICE if site R170M is not removed from the LA DPD.
This is a very important reason why site R170M should not be developed – JUSTICE.
Extract from page 137 item 6.9 of the Inspector's Report on the public enquiry in 1996. Green Gap site R170M is the site mentioned below.
"Inspector's Conclusions:
6.9 The objection by Mr Downham [biased land owner] is not concerned with the provision of a green gap, but the extent of that gap. It is argued [land owner’s words] that the green gap, as shown in the Consultation draft of the Plan, follows a public footpath running between substantial hedges, a clearly defined landscape boundary: whilst the residential allocation at Sparrowmire has been reduced in the Deposit Draft, an equivalent extension to the green gap is not necessary. ^However, and most importantly in my view, the objection indicates that the "land should remain unallocated as white land so that when the Plan is reviewed in 10 years' time it can be considered as potential residential land" [land owner’s words]. I consider this underlying reason for excluding the land from the green gap identifies the very reason it should remain so designated. Structure Plan Policy 14 and the reasoned justification makes no reference to the length of time during which the vulnerable areas of countryside between settlements should be protected.^ Although policies and proposals in the Local Plan must clearly relate to the Plan period, and can be subject to review thereafter, it appears to me common sense that what is unacceptable now, will most probably be equally unacceptable at the end of the Plan period: certainly I consider the Plan should seek to engender a degree of public confidence that the separation secured will not, at some future time, be lightly squandered. ^For these reasons I believe that, where a green gap is seen as necessary, it is more important that the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap than that substantial, but arbitrary landscape features should be rigidly followed. I also consider the inter-visibility of settlements is not a factor which should affect the definition of green gaps."^
I have marked with ^...^ the most important words in the above paragraph and my clarifying words are in square brackets.
The first group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that the owner wished to leave the remaining land (now site R170M) as white land, so it can sold as high priced building land at a later date. The inspector states that this is the very reason it must remain as a Green Gap and because of this statement it is Green Gap. The LA DPD only includes Green Gap site R170M because the owner is keen to sell and make a large profit, if he didn’t it would not be included.
The second group of sentences marked ^...^ indicates that “the whole gap between the settlements should be designated as green gap”. It must not depend on “landscape features” or “inter-visibility of settlements”, but these are the very reasons that SLDC state as to why site R170M can be built-on.
Site R170M is still currently a Green Gap site and by definition has more protection than all Greenfields.
A Government Inspector’s words made the white land (now site R170M) into Green Gap and must not be ignored. Therefore to include site R170M in the LA DPD until all the more suitable Greenfield sites have been built-on is UNSOUND.
This R170M Green Gap is also land of most value to the existing community as backed up by this statement in ‘The Taylor Review’ (Page 58):
“20. Government policy is to increase the density of new housing as a means to maximising land use and better support local services. New extensions to settlements therefore may be relatively densely designed and built right up against the existing settlement to minimise the number of green fields ‘swallowed up’. However, this will mean they are built on exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town. Local residents against new development may be accused of ignoring the needs of others for housing, but they have a genuine point. They may not have bought the right to their countryside views, but they certainly have paid for them, and these developments are on exactly the fields of most landscape value to existing residents."
Taylor gives a valid reason why local people should not be labelled with the scorning name NIMBYs’ when they have a good reason and evidence to oppose development in their neighbourhood.
The evidence above shows that the proposed LA DPD numbers for dwellings to be built are UNDELIVERABLE before 2025. If the numbers were reduced to ones that were deliverable and sound there would be no reason to include the peripheral site R170M in the last phase (2022-25) of the LA DPD, since it is a Green Gap and hence has a higher protection than any of the proposed Greenfield sites. Note at this point in time site R170M is still part of a Green Gap.
“The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods.”
(see http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/communityinfrastructurelevy/ )
There is absolutely no evidence in the LA DPD about how much funding SLDC are capable of obtaining from developers from the levy. Their track record in the past has been very poor when negotiating for affordable dwelling percentages. The target over previous years has been 50% but SLDC of only achieved 28%. The target is now 35% which from past results is still just wishful thinking. SLDC are relying on this money to fund infrastructure and other projects. Until SLDC publish real evidence that the money raised from this levy is in excess (there will always be an overspend) of that required, for all the proposals in the LA DPD it is intended for, then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
With the excessive financial demands that will inevitably be placed on each development in terms of school places, direct highway consequences, a 35% affordable housing contribution etc, it seems highly likely that any contribution to an Infrastructure Levy for wider scale projects would be relatively modest and inadequate. These financial implications appear to again confirm that the proposals are UNSOUND.
Until it is certain that the required infrastructure funding will be available within the planned timescales, in order that SLDC meet their objectives on Air Quality and Junction Congestion, then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Site R170M will add further traffic to the streets of Kendal. Therefore site R170M must be removed from the LA DPD until the Northern Development Route has a approved construction plan and committed funding in place (see above). Also that it is shown to decrease the traffic levels in the Windermere Road corridor enough for SLDC traffic objectives are met in this area.
3.0 Further evidence in support of why Policy LA2.2 (site R170M) should be removed from the LA DPD.
3.1 Extracts from Kendal Town Council document "KTC_Response.pdf " (Apr 2011)
Page 8 Transport Improvements.
“The Assessment then looked at the impact of the various possible development sites which were then under discussion. The Assessment modelled the impact of various remedial measures that could be taken, ranging from junction improvements to the building of the Inner Relief Road. It concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three sites were removed:
• Land within the Shap Road/Appleby Road corridor (Site E23/49 and Sites M8/M35/ M36)
• The Todds, west of Burneside Road (Sites R148/R170)
• Stonebank Green (Sites M39/R676/R103/R675)
There was no solution which permitted these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment).”
This supports previous evidence that the development of site R170M (The Todds) is UNSOUND
Page 9 section on “Sewer Capacity”
“In addition, United Utilities has concerns about the capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Works, located to the south of Kendal, for which process modelling needs to be carried out. This impacts all the potential development sites in the town.”
I have an email from SLDC dated 27Apr2011 which states:
“The following is based on information and advice provided by United Utilities.
1. United Utilities cannot determine the number of dwellings that will cause Kendal Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) to reach process capacity without conducting modelling. The threshold for when capacity is reached is determined by the design capacity of the WwTW and the population that it serves with some headroom designed in to the calculations. This headroom is not excessive as United Utilities cannot design and build for a population that is not already there or where development is not definite.
2. There are local network issues in respect of sewer capacity in the Kendal area . They are primarily centred around the Burneside area as evidenced in the Core Strategy and supporting Land Allocations Document material.
3. South Lakeland District Council does not hold or have access to data/information regarding the catchment area of the Kendal Sewerage Works.”
SLDC/UU admit that the headroom (i.e. spare capacity) is not excessive. Despite this SLDC have no results of any modelling and have not insisted that this modelling be carried out by UU. SLDC do not even know the catchment area for Kendal Sewage Works. There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC do have this information today (a year later). Therefore SLDC do not know how many dwellings can be built before Kendal Sewage Works needs a major upgrade costing many millions of pounds.
United Utilities move their funding from year to year as they see their immediate priorities change, so until they actual “sign on the dotted line” to meet certain dates then their current dates can “be taken with a pinch of salt”. As evidence to support this, the paying customers of Burneside have been waiting over 20 years to get their sewerage fixed and they still have sewage on the streets during heavy rain. So there is no guarantee that the North West Kendal problem will be fixed before 2025.
Site R170M is one of the last sites in the plan to be developed therefore until the above figures are known for the whole of the catchment area and UU & OFWAT have “signed on the dotted line” to meet their agreed dates then the site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 9 section on “Hydrologic Considerations”.
“However, the mechanisms (some man-made, mostly natural) which are currently managing to keep Kendal free of floods are not well understood. Several of the sites included in the Land Allocations have a history of being badly affected by rainfall. This suggests they have a role to play in mitigating surface run-off and hence flood prevention. If this is correct, development of such sites could trigger flooding in the town - and making the sites themselves flood proof would certainly involve additional expense for developers.
Kendal Town Council believes this is an important omission from the current evidence base, and calls on SLDC to commission a full hydrology study of the area before including the affected sites in any final land allocation. Any remedial infrastructure required to allow these sites to be developed safely would need to be included in the overall infrastructure programme.
Land Allocations affected by this consideration are the lower Hallgarth sites (R169M and R170M), Appleby Road (MK35KM), Natland Beck at Kendal Parks (R107M, R150M), Stock Beck at Castle Green Road (R121M), and Stonecross (R103M), and Blind Beck (R129M)”
There is nothing in the documentation on the SLDC web site to indicate that SLDC have commissioned this study or have any results. Site R170M is mentioned in quote above and so until this study is carried out development of site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 10 Infrastructure.
“3. Sites should not be included in a Final Land Allocations document unless their impact on Kendal’s transport is understood, solutions are agreed with partners, and the impact has successfully passed a rerun of the Transport Assessment. ‘Emerging Option’ sites affected by this are indicated are indicated by an ‘X’ in the ‘Traffic’ column in the Detail by each Land Allocation site starting on page 11.”
Note site R170M has an ‘X’ in the Traffic column, so this site should be removed from the LA DPD until its impact on Kendal’s junction congestion is fully understood.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.2 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. "KTCResponsePart2toLandAllocation.pdf" (Sep 2011)
Page 5 Doughnut Development
“Taylor contends: ...these developments undermine sustainability. They invariably encourage car use, especially if there are no services or employment within walking distance, with resulting congestion on roads into town. And without local and community facilities of their own, there is little to build social sustainability and cohesion or links between new and existing settlements as there will be little in the way of community life.
This approach to planning is also a recipe for confrontation, “developing exactly the land of most value to the existing community – the fields or woods at the ends of their gardens, the green edge to the town”
(as has been amply demonstrated in Kendal by the response to the Emerging Options consultation process).
Without change we will simply repeat the mistakes of recent decades, creating unattractive developments of housing estates encircling our rural towns and larger villages, and we will fail to stem the trend of smaller villages becoming dormitory settlements of commuters and the retired, ever less affordable for those who work within them. This is not a sustainable future for rural England.
Without strong Land Allocation policies from the Planning Authority, Kendal is heading towards an unsustainable “doughnutted” future.”
This confirms that development of the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is UNSUSTAINABLE and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 6 Recommendation for Kendal
“The Council believes the Planning Authority should follow Taylor and adopt this model in preparing its final Land Allocations policies for Kendal, as the only way in which the NPPF demand for sustainable development can be achieved in the town. It is important to note that this is not in conflict with the Core Strategy positioning of Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, or with the requirements for meeting forecast housing demand. From Taylor, the requirements for sustainable development in rural market towns is clear: it cannot be delivered by allocating isolated sites around the town; a hub and spoke model is required. Even without the NPPF’s insistence on sustainable development, there are other intrinsic advantages to the hub and spoke model for Kendal. The Council’s previous Response to Consultation highlighted the major infrastructure challenges to be overcome in the town. These become far more soluble if development proceeds on hub-by-hub basis, when the infrastructure work can be concentrated on the corresponding spokes. For example, it is far simpler to improve bus services, cycling provision, etc. if only one or two ‘spokes’ have to be addressed.
The evidence in the EHLSS shows that there are suitable sites available (the scope of the SHLAS only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that the “doughnut” strategy is incorrect for Kendal and should be replaced by the “hub & spoke” strategy. It also confirms that the peripheral Green Gap site R170M is unsustainable and therefore UNSOUND.
Page 10 Latest Forecasts (2011)
“The latest forecast in this series was produced in Spring 2011. It shows a drastically reduced requirement:
• only 360 dwellings across the 20 years, or
• just over 4,000 including migration, projected on the last five years’ evidence.
This suggests that a more appropriate target for the next 5-10 years would be around 200 dwellings per annum.”
This confirms the evidence given above that 200 per year is what is required and this number would be deliverable. If this number was planned then the peripheral Green Gap site R170M would not be required and being in the last phase would not be needed in this LA DPD.
This section supports previous evidence that the LA DPD is UNSUSTAINABLE and UNSOUND.
3.3 Extracts from Kendal Town Council doc. “Land Allocations Representation (2).pdf “ (Mar 2012)
Page 4 Summary
“The Council believes that the DPD is not justified because it fails the following tests of soundness:
• the LPA has failed in its duty to compare against reasonable alternatives
• key decisions are not supported by the evidence base or the evidence supports a different conclusion
• the evidence base is incomplete
The DPD is also not effective in that it is not deliverable, with key elements of the dependent infrastructure
not understood.”
This confirms the LA DPD is NOT DELIVERABLE.
Page 4
“For rural market towns, the evidence was pulled together in July 2008 by the Taylor Review9, setting out the policy framework necessary to deliver the “vision of a living, working sustainable countryside”. Taylor provided compelling evidence that “doughnut development” was the wrong approach for sustainable rural market towns, and that a “hub and spoke” model represented the best pattern for sustainability.”
The two KTC paragraphs above confirm that an alternative system must be adopted now, which will “meet the needs of future generations” of Kendal (i.e. BE SUSTAINABLE”) for the many thousands of years to come.
Page 4
“The evidence in the EHLSS indicates that suitable sites could be available (the scope of the SHLAA only covered sites within existing settlement boundaries, and is of less relevance), and there are options both for completely new communities on green field sites, or for breathing new life into existing communities.”
This confirms that a “hub & spoke” is viable.
Page 5
“The Assessment concluded that the existing highway network plus proposed improvements would just about accommodate the forecast level of traffic, provided three large sites were removed. The consultants could find no mitigation which would permit these sites to be developed within the parameters given for the Assessment (e.g. no compulsory purchase orders for major junction redevelopment.)”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD because it is one of the three sites.
Page 5
“Given that this approach has differed significantly from the independent consultants’, the Council asks the Inspector to order an independent audit of this latest work by W.S.Atkins or equivalent to ensure it meets accepted professional standards of objectivity and integrity. The Council further asks the Inspector to ensure that no sites are included in the DPD which the evidence shows are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
This confirms that site R170M must be removed from this LA DPD, because it is one of the sites which “are not deliverable on transport grounds.”
Page 7
“The Council asks the Inspector to withhold approval of the DPD until there is a credible infrastructure plan showing the impact of the major sites on the overall town infrastructure, and with high level solutions identified and costed with enough detail to enable the economic deliverability of the sites to be proven.”
This adds to the evidence given above that there must be signatures, to supply the necessary infrastructure and funding, must be in place before this LA DPD is approved by the Government. Until this is done site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.4 Extracts from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf ”:
Page 5 Exec Summary (see also 6.1.6 on page 18)
"10. The LDF developments have a more notable impact in the AM peak compared to the base situation. The model results indicate that the provision of sustainable transport improvements (Scheme 2) would be required to support LDF development to nil-detriment compared to the 2022 base situation in the AM peak. However, the provision of a new route along Dowker’s Lane (scheme 4) would be required if the Rugby Club development is included. If the Canal Head development is included, the proposed Kendal Northern Development Route (Scheme 5) would be required.
11. It should be noted that although these schemes are required to achieve nil-detriment, these improvements are only demonstrated to offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal. These infrastructure schemes would be expensive and may not be a cost-effective solution to congestion in Kendal town centre.
12. Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.
13. It is recommended that further modelling work is undertaken"
The Transport Study shows that the objectives cannot be achieved before 2025 therefore the problems are going to be much worse in the years 2026 onwards.
SLDC do not have signed-off solutions and timescales in place to meet the plan phases, therefore the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 9 This page gives the CCC/SLDC definition for Junction Congestion limits.
"Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts."
The Atkins report uses a Volume/Capacity ratio of 90 as acceptable for a junction approach, which is similar.
The Study shows that these objectives will not be met by 2025 so this, along with page 10 (see below) adds evidence to the above.
Page 10
"4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. These are:Junction1: A5284 Stricklandgate/Sandes AvenueJunction 2: A5284 Sandes Avenue / A6 Blackhall Road signalised junction
Junction 5: A6 Longpool / Station Road mini-roundabout junction
Junction 12: A6 Highgate / Lowther Street signalised junction
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Junction 16: A6 Milnthorpe Road / Romney Road signalised junction
Junction 17: A5284 Windermere Road/Queens Road
Junction 18: A5284 Windermere Road/Burneside Road
Junction 21: A65 Burton Road / Oxenholme Road signalised junction
Junction 27: A684 Sedbergh Road / Sandylands Road priority junction
Junction 29: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (north) priority junction
Junction 30: A6 Shap Road / A685 Appleby Road (south) priority junction
Junction 31: A685 Appleby Road/Sandylands Road"
“Measures must be in place” to fix these major problems first (i.e. meet SLDC objectives). They have a huge bearing on why SLDC is still breaking the law on Air Quality.
Page 14
“* Scheme 6: Scheme 5, plus a potential Kendal Southern Link Road, which comprises a new single-carriageway road linking the A6 Milnthorpe Road with the A65 Burton Road south of Kendal town centre.”
This new road proposal has never been mentioned before; it is not in the Core Strategy and therefore, as we have been told before, it cannot be considered in this LDF.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
3.5 Extracts from SLDC document "06 Infrastructure Position Statement.pdf ”:
Page 10
"4.19 United Utilities has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area. A proposal for expenditure in the years 2010 – 2015 is contained within the published five years Investment Plan (Asset Management programme). The plan can be found at the following website link: http://www.unitedutilities.com/Documents/Detailed_plan.pdf "
There is nothing in this PDF document that is specific to Kendal.
UU may have "a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area" but it is very poor at obeying this duty as is verified by the > 20 years Burnside have been suffering sewage problems (and still are).
Until UU actually “sign on the dotted line” to meet the required planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.23 Funding is more likely to be acquired in cases where there is development certainty (i.e. clear evidence of developer interest).
* UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct."
This backs previous evidence, never mind “development certainty” what about the existing paying customers who are still suffering sewage and flooding problems due to lack of investment.
Until United Utilities “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
Page 11
"4.24 There is currently loading capacity at Kendal Waste water Treatment Works (WwTW), however, for the number of dwellings that are proposed a full process and hydraulic survey of the Works will have to be undertaken before UU could comfortably approve the Planning Applications. As the sewer network is at capacity in North Kendal, UU could not agree to any significant development until after 2015 in this part of the town. Providing UU obtain funding through OFWAT to undertake the necessary upgrades etc. UU will be building into the 2014 Business Submission to OFWAT a case for funding to provide the means to accommodate development, which will boost the economy.
4.25 A feasibility study is being undertaken on the Kendal WwTW. Recommended phosphorous levels are set by Environment Agency (EA) through discharge consents, and until EA impose a new requirement for a lowered rate, UU will continue to discharge at the current rate. UU stated achieving any required lower rates would depend on new/better technology. Further Phosphorous removal would only be undertaken if UU were required to achieve a tighter standard as set by the EA following their review of water quality. Newer technology, which is not currently available, would be required to achieve any standard below 1mg/l. UU has advised development in the Kendal area should be capped at 2000 properties unless a more stringent phosphorus effluent standard can be achieved.
4.26 UU has advised that sites in North Kendal should only come forward in the latter periods of the plan period when sewage network improvements are in place.
4.27 Strategically there is enough water supply to accommodate levels of new development, but there are potential risks of deterioration of water quality."
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” and commit to planned dates and funding the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 14
"4.45 Electricity North West Ltd manage infrastructure and distribute and transmit electricity throughout South Lakeland. The regulator determines the amount of funding, however, it is not known what the next round of funding may or may not allow for investment in improvements. Information relating to substation capacity has not been ascertained. Evidence when exploring options for the Canal Head Area of Kendal shows that the Kendal Primary substation is currently operating close to or at capacity. It is possible that significant development in Kendal would require investment for network reinforcement and that a new Primary Substation would be required although Electricity North West Ltd does not confirm this. No information has been made available stating whether this is the case. Only when the customer has firm load requirements and location details can a system study be undertaken to ascertain the scale of impact of potential new development."
What if the system study states it cannot be done or they cannot obtain the funding within the plan timescales? Electricity North West Ltd already has the number of houses proposed and their locations so they must commit to a system study and confirm that the proposed developments are deliverable. Until then the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 15
"4.48 National Grid Gas Distribution own and operate the local gas distribution network in South Lakeland. The confidential nature of the process means National Grid are unable to confirm whether they are currently processing or have made any offers for connection within Cumbria."
The document states nothing about National Grid Gas Distribution having a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of gas supply within its area.
The LA DPD cannot possibly be monitored correctly until all the Gas company has “signed on the dotted line” to meet the timescales required. Until then the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This Infrastructure document is only a statement; there is no indication when the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be available to the public or any indication that the timescales can be met. The LA DPD is UNSOUND until the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Kendal Transport Plan are available with all milestones agreed, funding committed and both signed off by the respective utility companies. They can have the proviso that it depends on the build going ahead as planned.
3.6 Extracts from SLDC document “01 Consultation Report.pdf ”:
Page 19
“In their response the Highways Agency identified those sites it considers (if developed, due to cumulative impact with other sites) may impact upon the capacity, operation and safety of the strategic road network (SRN) (A590 and M6) within South Lakeland. As a consequence, the Agency has stated that the cumulative impact of development of sites under consideration in the following settlements (see below) may result in some impact to the SRN: Burneside, Crooklands, Endmoor, Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, Levens, Milnthorpe and Ulverston alongside the sites suggested for strategic employment use (in Ulverston and Kendal area).”
Note the word “may” on the second line. They either do or they don’t. After all these years of the LDF there is no excuse for this information not being available. SLDC must obtain an answer to this issue immediately and publish it. If any of the developments proposed within the LA DPD do affect the Strategic Road Network then any changes necessary must be included in the LA DPD and the Transport Plan (which must be issued before the hearings). Note the Strategic Road Network is NOT currently mentioned in the LA DPD.
Page 21
This page with reference to Burneside states:
“.....this is no guarantee that funding will be approved by OFWAT”.
Until OFWAT “sign on the dotted” line to meet the planned timescales the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 21
“Additional work is needed by UU to check if cumulative impact on treatment works may raise capacity issues
SLDC must publish how many houses can be built in the Kendal catchment area before a major upgrade to the sewage works is required. Until UU know their total funding requirements the LA DPD is UNSOUND.
Page 34
KENDAL
“Many people believe development of the sites suggested would harm the landscape character of the town, worsen air quality, exacerbate current flooding problems, harm biodiversity, generate unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and place further strains on a heavily constrained sewerage system. Some people questioned the need for additional housing believing there are enough empty properties in the town to meet current and future housing demands. A number of people stated development should be prioritised on brownfield sites and meet primarily local needs.”
“Many people including Kendal Town Council and Burneside and Natland Parish Council’s supported the concept of green gaps to protect Kendal coalescing with neighbouring settlements. However, a significant number of people and Kendal Town Council and Natland Parish Council believed the suggested emerging options would not prevent coalescence from happening. There was general widespread support for the open space designations suggested, however, many people believed the emerging options sites should also be designated open space.”
“Kendal Town Council expressed serious concerns with the overall approach being suggested for the town, believing the amounts of developments and the emerging option sites suggested would damage the landscape character of the town, and put unnecessary strain on an inadequate infrastructure system. The Town Council has suggested an alternative strategy/approach for the town this being to protect existing green space/countryside surrounding the town and to look at alternative sites adjacent to nearby settlements and possibly further afield where development would have less impact on the town’s infrastructure, air quality and its high quality landscape value.”
These three paragraphs confirm that the wishes of the majority of local people have been ignored and adds support to the evidence given above concerning Consultation and Legal Compliance.
Page 46
On this page it states “UU is currently considering lists of projects that will require major capital investment in Asset Management Plan 6 period 2015-2020.” and “UU reiterate that even if a bid is submitted there is no guarantee funding will be approved by OFWAT. The speed at which approved schemes are implemented will depend on the priority given to schemes within the 5-year programme and the time required to design, obtain planning permission and construct.”
Until United Utilities and OFWAT “sign on the dotted line” to meet the planned timescales and commit funding, the LA DPD is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE, UNSOUND and that consultation process was not Legally Compliant.
3.7 Extracts from SLDC document “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
Pages 51 & 52
Item 3.6 - Key local factors influencing the location of new development in Kendal:
“Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail and from important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout Scar/Brigsteer Road; Avoiding coalescence between Kendal, Oxenholme, Burneside and Natland and maintaining the separate identities of these settlements;
Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, promoting sustainable transport and achieving a positive impact on the Kendal Air Quality Management Area;
Infrastructure constraints including sewage capacity at Kentrigg and Steele's Row and the implications for development in northwest Kendal.”
One of the main comments of the people who responded to the SLDC consultations and opposed them was the character and appearance of Kendal. This is imbedded in the above paragraph and has been totally ignored. The LA DPD is therefore not Legally Compliant.
The site R170M is close to Kentrigg (mentioned above) and so it is UNSOUND to include it in the LA DPD until United Utilities are fully committed (i.e. signed on the dotted line) to the LA DPD timescales.
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive it should state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
A graph on this page it shows the following numbers over the years 2003 – 2025 (22 years).
Maximum number of dwellings ever built in one year was 300 in year 2005/06 and even this did not reach the target of 400 per year.
Extrapolating from the graphs the average number of dwellings built per year for the first 8 years was 100+280+150+150+240+300+230+220 = 1670 / 8 = 209 per year. In the terms of this graph there are already an extra 1530 dwellings (109/yr on top of the 400/yr) that have built just to catch up. This compares well with the more accurate figures in section 2.1 above.
The figure of 720 per year for the three years 2022 – 2025 is just WISHFULL THINKING.
One of the questions that must be asked to confirm SOUNDNESS is “Are there realistic timescales related to the objectives”. The above numbers are clearly not realistic therefore the current LA DPD is UNSOUND.
This section supports previous evidence that site R170M is UNDELIVERABLE and UNSOUND within the timescales of this LA DPD (2025).
4.0 Changes required to the LA DPD document title “Land Allocations DPD.pdf ” [Mar12]:
4.1 During the recent SLDC consultation 98% of the local neighbourhood who responded OPPOSED the proposals for site R170M. In a door-door poll of over 400 neighbours during 2011 approximately 80% of those asked OPPOSED the proposal to build on site R170M. Of the remaining 20% most did not care one way or the other. The Localism Bill is a Con Trick (nice pun); it promises much but does not actually support what the majority of the people in the neighbourhood want.
To prove SLDC are DEMOCRATIC they must be serious about responding to the majority of the local neighbourhood’s wishes. Also the TOTAL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ABOVE PROVES THAT SLDC MUST REMOVE THE PERIPHERAL GREEN GAP SITE R170M FROM THE LA DPD TO MAKE IT SOUND. THIS IS HOW THE LA DPD MUST BE CHANGED.
4.2 After many years (before year 2000) of knowing about the traffic problems in Kendal, SLDC have failed to produce a transport plan or action plan that enabled them to meet their standards and objectives for Air Quality and Junction Congestion. This must NOT be allowed to continue. Only when these standards and objectives have been PROVEN to have been met (with spare capacity for expansion) will the people believe SLDC are serious about tackling these major problems. The recent SLDC consultations show that increase in traffic was one of main reasons why 98% of the people (that responded) OPPOSE the proposals to build on sites in their area of Kendal.
Previous experience with Core Strategy has shown me that all my evidence will be ignored and that site R170M will not be removed from the LA DPD. If this is to be repeated then I would like to see the following changes to LA DPD.
There is a note on page 57 (item 3.18) of the LA DPD (policy LA2.2 site R170M) which states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO RESOLVE PRESSURE ON THE SEWERAGE NETWORK IN NORTH KENDAL."
This means existing problems will be fixed before building starts.
THIS SETS A PRECEDENT WHICH MUST CONTINUE WITH REGARD TO OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS.
The threat to the health of people due to air pollution is of as much importance as sewage on the streets. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make air pollution worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT THE LAW ON AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
Increase in traffic, which leads to more junction congestion and a deterioration in the well-being of local people, was one of the major complaints in the recent SLDC consultations. Site R170M will add more traffic to the streets of Kendal and make junction congestion worse. Therefore a note must be added to Policy LA2.2 (item 3.18) that states:
"DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO SHOW THAT SLDC’S DEFINITION OF “ACCEPTABLE JUNCTION PERFORMANCE” HAS BEEN MET IN KENDAL."
For definition see page 9 of “Kendal Transport Study (Jan12).pdf”.
“4.1.5 An RFC or DoS of 100% indicates that an approach is operating at maximum capacity. Acceptable junction performance is indicated by a degree of saturation below 90 percent for signal-controlled junctions, or an RFC below 85 percent for priority junctions and roundabouts. Above this level, an approach is likely to begin to experience congestion as there is insufficient spare capacity to cope with fluctuations in traffic flow.”
4.3 Page 51 item 3.6:
The sentence “Minimising the impact of development on Kendal’s central traffic system, …..” is not definitive. The word “Minimising” is just not good enough to meet the people’s wishes. It must state “Meet and maintain SLDC’s standards and objectives with regard to Kendal’s central traffic system, …..”
4.4 Page 163 APPENDIX 4 - HOUSING TRAJECTORY
This Appendix 4 must be changed and other pages which quote these figures. The SLDC evidence does not support the requirement that anywhere near the 8800 dwellings can be built before 2025. The numbers in the graph are not realistic (a SOUNDNESS word), therefore NOT DELIVERABLE and UNSOUND. 720/year for last three years is just wishful thinking, it is not realistic; this graph shows that the maximum that has ever been built within the last 8 years is 300 per year for the year 2005/06. The developers will not build 750 per year because it would swamp the market and they would be left with a large number of empty houses.
There is no point in just stating on page 7 of the LA DPD that it is “the ambition to deliver 400 dwellings each year” if these numbers cannot realistically be built and sold. There is also no point in just monitoring these numbers just so a box can be ticked to say they have been monitored. The numbers must be realistic so that they can be monitored and vigorously progressed.
Kendal Town Council have stated in one of their reports [Sep2011 see above] that only around 200 dwellings per year is the number required. SLDC must discuss this issue with KTC and reduce the current total figure of 8800 to a number that can realistically be built & sold before 2025 and not one that is just WISHFULL THINKING.
4.5 There is a requirement in the Core Strategy for Brownfield land to be used for “at least 28%” of the number of dwellings built. Note the words are “at least” not it is the “ambition to use”. To be SOUND the LA DPD must indicate the amount of Brownfield land that is currently available and the targets for each area. These figures must be monitored, vigorously progressed and be made available to the public.
4.6 SLDC must discuss Kendal Town Council’s three reports in detail with the town council and members of opposition groups (e.g. Green Spaces). I would like to see the LA DPD changed to incorporate as much as possible of that which is agreed in these discussions.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL PEOPLE MUST BE AT THE TOP OF SLDC's PRIORITY LIST and despite all my emails and protest at the Core Strategy hearings this has not yet been done in Kendal.
So I wish to speak face to face with the inspector and ask him personally if he will recommend in his report that notes be added to the LA DPD stating that SLDC must fix their major existing problems first and meet the SLDC/CCC definition for "Acceptable Junction Congestion" and the Law on Air Quality before allowing actual build of site R170M, which will add to these problems (see examples of notes in section 4.2 above).
A PRECEDENT has already been set by a note in Policy LA2.2 for site R170M relating to the sewerage network in North Kendal. If United Utilities have to fix their major existing problems first before building is allowed then so must SLDC, this is logical and should not need a political decision.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
