Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.1 Development Boundaries- ENDMOOR

No

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

See 2.3 below

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

Factual Data

The DPD is expected to be backed by “research/fact finding: the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts”. The following bullets illustrate that this has not been done properly and all these points need to be addressed to justify the DPD. The DPD currently 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.
• There has been no evidence provided of consultation with statutory bodies such as Highways, Utilities, Network Rail, Bus operators etc.
• SLDC used 2005 Business plans, acknowledged as out of date. Following the economic downturn, figures are deficient and do not reflect the current needs.
• SLDC Housing figures provided by the Office for National Statistics, were last updated in 2006. Cumbria CC deem only 2,400 new homes required, not 6,000 as portrayed by SLDC. This represents a 4.6% increase in housing stock, against an 11.5% increase using SLDC figures. I therefore question the need for 6,000 new homes in South Lakeland now that the Regional Spatial Strategy has been removed by the current Government. I ask that SLDC halts the publication of the LDP, pending implementation of the Localism Bill and the introduction of Neighbourhood Planning”.
• Development does not take into account the 1000 homes identified by the local MP (Tim Farron) as in need of refurbishment.
• There is already an adequate supply of market housing available for sale of all types and price ranges, so there is no “exceptional need” to allocate land for market housing. Some property has been on the market for 2 years in Endmoor.
• No requirement for local commercial/industrial development has been demonstrated. Large numbers of vacant commercial property are available now locally at Summerlands and Gatebeck and further development is included in the already developing Auction Mart site.
• In the case of Endmoor, and M41M in particular, there will be significant impact with the proposed size of developments on the village and surrounding drumlin landscape which has previously been acknowledged as an Area of Great Landscape Value and a Landscape of County Importance which is supported by recent Inspectors reports:-
– County Showfield - Ref 5/89/4103
– Crematorium - T/APP/M0933/A/99/1017017/P2
– Sillfield Wind Turbines - Ref: SL/2008/0900
• In addition to the above, area M41M is visible from a very wide area ranging from public roads paths close to local summits such as The Helm, Scout Hill, Warth Hill and even as far away as Scout Scar. A development would be a major visible intrusion on the landscape, which no tree planting scheme would hide.
• In January 2010, SLDC identified key issues for Endmoor included the need for a more satisfactory northern edge and the need to safeguard the surrounding landscape. Replacing a 7 home edge with a 100 home development on a greenfield site does not meet these requirements. This could be achieved simply by planting more trees.
• The 30 houses per hectare in M41M/R670 is contrary to the SLDC Development Framework Section 2 Page 16 Sustainable Development Principles CS1.1 Point 2 & 3 and Land Allocation Development Plan Doc, Appendix 1 Sustainability Appraisal for Endmoor P187. Proposed housing density is 2.5 times the current village density and higher than other local village enlargements proposed. M41M /R670 would see a 30% increase in Endmoor village area and a 48% increase in homes/population. SLDC stated that extensions to LSC’s are only permitted where a clear need for development was identified, significant environmental impacts could be avoided and previously developed land utilised.
• It has never been explained why Endmoor has been allocated 125 new dwelling when Milnthorpe and Kirby Lonsdale have more infrastructure in place such as water drainage, shops, amenities etc., but have fewer new houses proposed.
• I question whether Endmoor can be considered as an LSC - the village shop is up for sale (and has been for several years) and the Post Office closed last year.
• Sewerage/Waste water requirements show Endmoor Sewage Works and Crooklands to be at capacity. United Utilities have not agreed to develop any existing or new sewerage works – United Utilities Letter Ref DC/12/882
• Current Water supply stated by United Utilities as in need of network reinforcement. We have lots of supply interruptions now due to burst pipes.
• At the recent Crematorium proposal, independent consultants concluded that the application be refused on the grounds that the highway network was unsuitable for expected volume of traffic. EN33 Commercial development would entail even higher traffic volumes. I also believe that the inclusion of EN33 in the DPD is outwith Policy CS7.4

To make the DPD legally compliant or sound, the following changes are considered necessary:

1) Review design figures based on current housing and business needs. This applies across the whole DPD.
2) More locally for Endmoor, remove M41M and R670 from the DPD , noting that M41M site has previously been identified as an Area of Great Landscape Value in the County Showfield Inspectors report - Ref 5/89/4103. They should be replaced with the ‘Fishing Tarn’ field and Birchfield area or area EN33, with reduced the density and number of houses to meet Development Framework criteria3) Reduce the size of area of the Village Development Boundary such that this will be more compliant with the Sustainable Development Principles CS1.1 -2&3.


Consultation

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
I believe SLDC have failed to deliver an effective and adequate consultation with the community resulting in no real and meaningful dialogue. The consultation has not been in accordance with the SCI and as such is unsound.
Some consultation has taken place but where alternatives have been suggested they have been ignored. For example the ‘Fishing Tarn’ fields and land at Birchfield in Endmoor were suggested as an alternative for development but ignored, no feedback was given. SLDC have refused to consider the views of local people on the negative environmental and landscape impact the schemes will create. In particular the people of Endmoor were not consulted on choice of EN20 & EN33 as an employment site and there is no business case to support this choice of location. As a brownfield site it would be far better allocated as housing land. Other issues with this land are contained in the Crematorium Inspectors findings (T/APP/M0933/A/99/1017615/P2).
In summary, the proposals now put forward do not bear any resemblance to the original proposals we were asked to comment upon. Furthermore little attention appears to be given to the people who are unable to make their comments electronically. A limited number of consultative style meetings have taken place but there has been an obsessive style adopted to make people comment back via the internet.
At a local consultative meeting SLDC advised the proposed development of M41M site originally as 68 homes and mixed commercial land. They then said there would be fewer homes and no commercial development but the final revised plans now show 100 homes. No consultation took place on increases with villagers.
The current land owner for M41M is a member of Preston Richard Parish Council (Endmoor) and has considerable but unrepresentative political influence over local decisions. He has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been very vociferous during consultations in promoting the development of this site (often drowning out local opinion). He has had Storey Homes of Carlisle on the site to develop a proposal. Indeed there were eight submissions by Storey Homes to the Initial Consultation across the district and as a consequence many areas of land identified as Emerging Options were significantly increased in size. This private consultation and lobbying does not represent proper public consultation. Whether or not a landowner and developer should be able to influence the council’s decisions to this extent is a matter which I request that the inspector considers. The sites subjected to reports by Story Homes are believed to include:-

Levens R682LVM
Cartmel R112
Kendal R107M, R150M
Kendal R103M, M39
Kendal R97M
Kendal (Endmoor) M41M
Ulverston RN131M
Swarthmoor RN109M
The Phase 2 development of the M41M site is planned for 2017 – 2025. SLDC state a Development Brief would be required before any development could proceed. However Storey’s are known to want to bring it forward 5 years.
It is also somewhat concerning that a piece of land off Birchfield in Endmoor (known as R83)which has been suggested as a development opportunity – meeting all the criteria required - has been rejected outright without explanation. My concern centres on the fact that the vice-chair of SLDC Planning Committee lives on the existing Birchfield site.
Hence I believe that the DPD is unsound due to my concern that a developer and landowner and possibly a Planning Committee member may have had an undue influence in the preparation of the Plan, to their benefit and detriment of residents with the resultant polarisation of the consultative process. Just because a piece of land is available for sale should not be an influencing criteria for inclusion in the DPD. With this in mind an independent investigation should be carried out to establish the extent of the influence that these parties have had on the DPD, before it is submitted to the government for approval.
In order to be legally compliant I believe SLDC need to honestly listen to the community (rather than landowners desperate to sell) and accept the fact that they need to adopt an alternative strategy rather than making minor changes to their current unsound strategy, in the hope that this will be acceptable.

Affordable Housing

A major thrust of the Council's policies has been the provision of affordable housing - it is not disputed that there is such a need but this often repeated phrase has not been satisfactorily defined. Wages are low in this area (as is the case in any area where tourism is the main economic driver) and in the continuing poor fiscal climate there is no reason to believe that Kendal will be able to attract large employers paying much over minimum wage. Also there continue to be large numbers of vacant or unsold properties in the area. Young people cannot afford ‘affordable’ housing. It is with much regret that our own children have had to go south for challenging work which pays well enough to secure a mortgage. The reality is that new housing in the SLDC area will largely just bring in better off commuters from Preston and Lancaster or attract more retirees and do nothing for locals.
Yorkshire Dales and Lake District National Parks take up a large proportion of SLDC area. SLDC housing (and industrial) numbers have been concentrated into the relatively small areas outside the Park boundaries in part to accommodate needs that arise from within the Parks. Consequently an excessive concentration is proposed which will place overwhelming pressures on the infrastructure (transport, education, health etc) within those small areas. Doctors, dentists and such like already have closed lists. Recently a fundamental policy change was made by LDNP within their LDF to permit 900 affordable houses to be built within the Park. SLDC proposed housing numbers should have been reduced proportionately. The basic housing numbers proposed by SLDC have remained unchanged throughout the long LDF process.
In Endmoor there is no evidence for such high numbers of new affordable housing in the village
• Only 4 families in the Parish on Housing waiting list
• Recent Housing Needs Survey found only 10 families in the Parish in need of affordable housing
• Services in the village do not match the needs of families in these houses.
There is also a history within the village of affordable housing being built but failing to be maintained as part of the ongoing affordable housing stock because it has been traded on as holiday homes and general market housing.
Infrastructure
There is no sound infrastructure development plan. It is clear that the issue of road safety on the A65 from which M41M would be accessed has not been addressed (two people have been killed in separate incidents on this stretch of road in the last few years). The transport study, with initial modeling results, is very much work in progress and the Executive Summary states that "overall the level of congestion resulting from the LDF development is not fully mitigated by any of the improvement schemes". On this basis alone the DPD should be referred back as unsound.
Utility supplies have not been addressed. Water is at capacity and the sewage requires extension, United Utilities have said that none of these are in their plan. Network Rail have not been consulted over level crossings and passenger train use. These would be particularly relevant on the Carnforth to Barrow line where overcrowding already occurs on morning trains and there are many level crossings.
An infrastructure delivery plan was promised as long ago as the summer of 2011 and we were told it would accompany the published DPD. Instead a "position statement" has been published which gives no answers to pressing questions such as:

• Air Quality (where Kendal is already breaching the law)
• Sewerage (where the system is already under strain as discussed above)
• Education Places (particularly pressure on primary school places)
• Flooding (there is often visible flooding in respect of M41M)
• Primary care health facilities (where some practices are full)

The DPD should not be approved until a viable infrastructure delivery plan is in place on all these issues, otherwise piecemeal developments, without a mitigating strategy, will have an adverse impact on quality of life for all Kendal residents.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious point in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Endmoor sites

No

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

See 2.3 below

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

• There is already an adequate supply of market housing available for sale of all types and price ranges, so there is no “exceptional need” to allocate land for market housing. Some property has been on the market for 2 years in Endmoor.
• No requirement for local commercial/industrial development has been demonstrated. Large numbers of vacant commercial property are available now locally at Summerlands and Gatebeck and further development is included in the already developing Auction Mart site.
• In the case of Endmoor, and M41M in particular, there will be significant impact with the proposed size of developments on the village and surrounding drumlin landscape which has previously been acknowledged as an Area of Great Landscape Value and a Landscape of County Importance which is supported by recent Inspectors reports:-
– County Showfield - Ref 5/89/4103
– Crematorium - T/APP/M0933/A/99/1017017/P2
– Sillfield Wind Turbines - Ref: SL/2008/0900
• In addition to the above, area M41M is visible from a very wide area ranging from public roads paths close to local summits such as The Helm, Scout Hill, Warth Hill and even as far away as Scout Scar. A development would be a major visible intrusion on the landscape, which no tree planting scheme would hide.
• In January 2010, SLDC identified key issues for Endmoor included the need for a more satisfactory northern edge and the need to safeguard the surrounding landscape. Replacing a 7 home edge with a 100 home development on a greenfield site does not meet these requirements. This could be achieved simply by planting more trees.
• The 30 houses per hectare in M41M/R670 is contrary to the SLDC Development Framework Section 2 Page 16 Sustainable Development Principles CS1.1 Point 2 & 3 and Land Allocation Development Plan Doc, Appendix 1 Sustainability Appraisal for Endmoor P187. Proposed housing density is 2.5 times the current village density and higher than other local village enlargements proposed. M41M /R670 would see a 30% increase in Endmoor village area and a 48% increase in homes/population. SLDC stated that extensions to LSC’s are only permitted where a clear need for development was identified, significant environmental impacts could be avoided and previously developed land utilised.
• It has never been explained why Endmoor has been allocated 125 new dwelling when Milnthorpe and Kirby Lonsdale have more infrastructure in place such as water drainage, shops, amenities etc., but have fewer new houses proposed.
• I question whether Endmoor can be considered as an LSC - the village shop is up for sale (and has been for several years) and the Post Office closed last year.
• Sewerage/Waste water requirements show Endmoor Sewage Works and Crooklands to be at capacity. United Utilities have not agreed to develop any existing or new sewerage works – United Utilities Letter Ref DC/12/882
• Current Water supply stated by United Utilities as in need of network reinforcement. We have lots of supply interruptions now due to burst pipes.
• At the recent Crematorium proposal, independent consultants concluded that the application be refused on the grounds that the highway network was unsuitable for expected volume of traffic. EN33 Commercial development would entail even higher traffic volumes. I also believe that the inclusion of EN33 in the DPD is outwith Policy CS7.4
It is also somewhat concerning that a piece of land off Birchfield in Endmoor (known as R83)which has been suggested as a development opportunity – meeting all the criteria required - has been rejected outright without explanation. My concern centres on the fact that the vice-chair of SLDC Planning Committee lives on the existing Birchfield site.
Hence I believe that the DPD is unsound due to my concern that a developer and landowner and possibly a Planning Committee member may have had an undue influence in the preparation of the Plan, to their benefit and detriment of residents with the resultant polarisation of the consultative process. Just because a piece of land is available for sale should not be an influencing criteria for inclusion in the DPD. With this in mind an independent investigation should be carried out to establish the extent of the influence that these parties have had on the DPD, before it is submitted to the government for approval.
In order to be legally compliant I believe SLDC need to honestly listen to the community (rather than landowners desperate to sell) and accept the fact that they need to adopt an alternative strategy rather than making minor changes to their current unsound strategy, in the hope that this will be acceptable.
Affordable Housing

A major thrust of the Council's policies has been the provision of affordable housing - it is not disputed that there is such a need but this often repeated phrase has not been satisfactorily defined. Wages are low in this area (as is the case in any area where tourism is the main economic driver) and in the continuing poor fiscal climate there is no reason to believe that Kendal will be able to attract large employers paying much over minimum wage. Also there continue to be large numbers of vacant or unsold properties in the area. Young people cannot afford ‘affordable’ housing. It is with much regret that our own children have had to go south for challenging work which pays well enough to secure a mortgage. The reality is that new housing in the SLDC area will largely just bring in better off commuters from Preston and Lancaster or attract more retirees and do nothing for locals.
Yorkshire Dales and Lake District National Parks take up a large proportion of SLDC area. SLDC housing (and industrial) numbers have been concentrated into the relatively small areas outside the Park boundaries in part to accommodate needs that arise from within the Parks. Consequently an excessive concentration is proposed which will place overwhelming pressures on the infrastructure (transport, education, health etc) within those small areas. Doctors, dentists and such like already have closed lists. Recently a fundamental policy change was made by LDNP within their LDF to permit 900 affordable houses to be built within the Park. SLDC proposed housing numbers should have been reduced proportionately. The basic housing numbers proposed by SLDC have remained unchanged throughout the long LDF process.
In Endmoor there is no evidence for such high numbers of new affordable housing in the village
• Only 4 families in the Parish on Housing waiting list
• Recent Housing Needs Survey found only 10 families in the Parish in need of affordable housing
• Services in the village do not match the needs of families in these houses.
There is also a history within the village of affordable housing being built but failing to be maintained as part of the ongoing affordable housing stock because it has been traded on as holiday homes and general market housing.
Infrastructure
There is no sound infrastructure development plan. It is clear that the issue of road safety on the A65 from which M41M would be accessed has not been addressed (two people have been killed in separate incidents on this stretch of road in the last few years). The transport study, with initial modeling results, is very much work in progress and the Executive Summary states that "overall the level of congestion resulting from the LDF development is not fully mitigated by any of the improvement schemes". On this basis alone the DPD should be referred back as unsound.
Utility supplies have not been addressed. Water is at capacity and the sewage requires extension, United Utilities have said that none of these are in their plan. Network Rail have not been consulted over level crossings and passenger train use. These would be particularly relevant on the Carnforth to Barrow line where overcrowding already occurs on morning trains and there are many level crossings.
An infrastructure delivery plan was promised as long ago as the summer of 2011 and we were told it would accompany the published DPD. Instead a "position statement" has been published which gives no answers to pressing questions such as:

• Air Quality (where Kendal is already breaching the law)
• Sewerage (where the system is already under strain as discussed above)
• Education Places (particularly pressure on primary school places)
• Flooding (there is often visible flooding in respect of M41M)
• Primary care health facilities (where some practices are full)

The DPD should not be approved until a viable infrastructure delivery plan is in place on all these issues, otherwise piecemeal developments, without a mitigating strategy, will have an adverse impact on quality of life for all Kendal residents.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious point in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - M41M ENDMOOR NORTH OF SYCAMORE DRIVE

No

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

See 2.3 below

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

To make the DPD legally compliant or sound, the following changes are considered necessary:

1) Review design figures based on current housing and business needs. This applies across the whole DPD.
2) More locally for Endmoor, remove M41M and R670 from the DPD , noting that M41M site has previously been identified as an Area of Great Landscape Value in the County Showfield Inspectors report - Ref 5/89/4103. They should be replaced with the ‘Fishing Tarn’ field and Birchfield area or area EN33, with reduced the density and number of houses to meet Development Framework criteria3) Reduce the size of area of the Village Development Boundary such that this will be more compliant with the Sustainable Development Principles CS1.1 -2&3.
In summary, the proposals now put forward do not bear any resemblance to the original proposals we were asked to comment upon. Furthermore little attention appears to be given to the people who are unable to make their comments electronically. A limited number of consultative style meetings have taken place but there has been an obsessive style adopted to make people comment back via the internet.
At a local consultative meeting SLDC advised the proposed development of M41M site originally as 68 homes and mixed commercial land. They then said there would be fewer homes and no commercial development but the final revised plans now show 100 homes. No consultation took place on increases with villagers.
The current land owner for M41M is a member of Preston Richard Parish Council (Endmoor) and has considerable but unrepresentative political influence over local decisions. He has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been very vociferous during consultations in promoting the development of this site (often drowning out local opinion). He has had Storey Homes of Carlisle on the site to develop a proposal. Indeed there were eight submissions by Storey Homes to the Initial Consultation across the district and as a consequence many areas of land identified as Emerging Options were significantly increased in size. This private consultation and lobbying does not represent proper public consultation. Whether or not a landowner and developer should be able to influence the council’s decisions to this extent is a matter which I request that the inspector considers. The sites subjected to reports by Story Homes are believed to include:-

Levens R682LVM
Cartmel R112
Kendal R107M, R150M
Kendal R103M, M39
Kendal R97M
Kendal (Endmoor) M41M
Ulverston RN131M
Swarthmoor RN109M
The Phase 2 development of the M41M site is planned for 2017 – 2025. SLDC state a Development Brief would be required before any development could proceed. However Storey’s are known to want to bring it forward 5 years.
It is also somewhat concerning that a piece of land off Birchfield in Endmoor (known as R83)which has been suggested as a development opportunity – meeting all the criteria required - has been rejected outright without explanation. My concern centres on the fact that the vice-chair of SLDC Planning Committee lives on the existing Birchfield site.
Hence I believe that the DPD is unsound due to my concern that a developer and landowner and possibly a Planning Committee member may have had an undue influence in the preparation of the Plan, to their benefit and detriment of residents with the resultant polarisation of the consultative process. Just because a piece of land is available for sale should not be an influencing criteria for inclusion in the DPD. With this in mind an independent investigation should be carried out to establish the extent of the influence that these parties have had on the DPD, before it is submitted to the government for approval.
In order to be legally compliant I believe SLDC need to honestly listen to the community (rather than landowners desperate to sell) and accept the fact that they need to adopt an alternative strategy rather than making minor changes to their current unsound strategy, in the hope that this will be acceptable.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious point in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R670-mod ENDMOOR SOUTH OF BOWLING GREEN

No

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

See 2.3 below

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

To make the DPD legally compliant or sound, the following changes are considered necessary:

1) Review design figures based on current housing and business needs. This applies across the whole DPD.
2) More locally for Endmoor, remove M41M and R670 from the DPD , noting that M41M site has previously been identified as an Area of Great Landscape Value in the County Showfield Inspectors report - Ref 5/89/4103. They should be replaced with the ‘Fishing Tarn’ field and Birchfield area or area EN33, with reduced the density and number of houses to meet Development Framework criteria3) Reduce the size of area of the Village Development Boundary such that this will be more compliant with the Sustainable Development Principles CS1.1 -2&3.
In summary, the proposals now put forward do not bear any resemblance to the original proposals we were asked to comment upon. Furthermore little attention appears to be given to the people who are unable to make their comments electronically. A limited number of consultative style meetings have taken place but there has been an obsessive style adopted to make people comment back via the internet.
At a local consultative meeting SLDC advised the proposed development of M41M site originally as 68 homes and mixed commercial land. They then said there would be fewer homes and no commercial development but the final revised plans now show 100 homes. No consultation took place on increases with villagers.
The current land owner for M41M is a member of Preston Richard Parish Council (Endmoor) and has considerable but unrepresentative political influence over local decisions. He has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been very vociferous during consultations in promoting the development of this site (often drowning out local opinion). He has had Storey Homes of Carlisle on the site to develop a proposal. Indeed there were eight submissions by Storey Homes to the Initial Consultation across the district and as a consequence many areas of land identified as Emerging Options were significantly increased in size. This private consultation and lobbying does not represent proper public consultation. Whether or not a landowner and developer should be able to influence the council’s decisions to this extent is a matter which I request that the inspector considers. The sites subjected to reports by Story Homes are believed to include:-

Levens R682LVM
Cartmel R112
Kendal R107M, R150M
Kendal R103M, M39
Kendal R97M
Kendal (Endmoor) M41M
Ulverston RN131M
Swarthmoor RN109M
The Phase 2 development of the M41M site is planned for 2017 – 2025. SLDC state a Development Brief would be required before any development could proceed. However Storey’s are known to want to bring it forward 5 years.
It is also somewhat concerning that a piece of land off Birchfield in Endmoor (known as R83)which has been suggested as a development opportunity – meeting all the criteria required - has been rejected outright without explanation. My concern centres on the fact that the vice-chair of SLDC Planning Committee lives on the existing Birchfield site.
Hence I believe that the DPD is unsound due to my concern that a developer and landowner and possibly a Planning Committee member may have had an undue influence in the preparation of the Plan, to their benefit and detriment of residents with the resultant polarisation of the consultative process. Just because a piece of land is available for sale should not be an influencing criteria for inclusion in the DPD. With this in mind an independent investigation should be carried out to establish the extent of the influence that these parties have had on the DPD, before it is submitted to the government for approval.
In order to be legally compliant I believe SLDC need to honestly listen to the community (rather than landowners desperate to sell) and accept the fact that they need to adopt an alternative strategy rather than making minor changes to their current unsound strategy, in the hope that this will be acceptable.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious point in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - EN20, EN33# ENDMOOR LAND NORTH OF GATEBECK LANE, GATEBECK

No

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

See 2.3 below

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

• There is already an adequate supply of market housing available for sale of all types and price ranges, so there is no “exceptional need” to allocate land for market housing. Some property has been on the market for 2 years in Endmoor.
• No requirement for local commercial/industrial development has been demonstrated. Large numbers of vacant commercial property are available now locally at Summerlands and Gatebeck and further development is included in the already developing Auction Mart site.
• In the case of Endmoor, and M41M in particular, there will be significant impact with the proposed size of developments on the village and surrounding drumlin landscape which has previously been acknowledged as an Area of Great Landscape Value and a Landscape of County Importance which is supported by recent Inspectors reports:-
– County Showfield - Ref 5/89/4103
– Crematorium - T/APP/M0933/A/99/1017017/P2
– Sillfield Wind Turbines - Ref: SL/2008/0900
• In addition to the above, area M41M is visible from a very wide area ranging from public roads paths close to local summits such as The Helm, Scout Hill, Warth Hill and even as far away as Scout Scar. A development would be a major visible intrusion on the landscape, which no tree planting scheme would hide.
• In January 2010, SLDC identified key issues for Endmoor included the need for a more satisfactory northern edge and the need to safeguard the surrounding landscape. Replacing a 7 home edge with a 100 home development on a greenfield site does not meet these requirements. This could be achieved simply by planting more trees.
• The 30 houses per hectare in M41M/R670 is contrary to the SLDC Development Framework Section 2 Page 16 Sustainable Development Principles CS1.1 Point 2 & 3 and Land Allocation Development Plan Doc, Appendix 1 Sustainability Appraisal for Endmoor P187. Proposed housing density is 2.5 times the current village density and higher than other local village enlargements proposed. M41M /R670 would see a 30% increase in Endmoor village area and a 48% increase in homes/population. SLDC stated that extensions to LSC’s are only permitted where a clear need for development was identified, significant environmental impacts could be avoided and previously developed land utilised.
• It has never been explained why Endmoor has been allocated 125 new dwelling when Milnthorpe and Kirby Lonsdale have more infrastructure in place such as water drainage, shops, amenities etc., but have fewer new houses proposed.
• I question whether Endmoor can be considered as an LSC - the village shop is up for sale (and has been for several years) and the Post Office closed last year.
• Sewerage/Waste water requirements show Endmoor Sewage Works and Crooklands to be at capacity. United Utilities have not agreed to develop any existing or new sewerage works – United Utilities Letter Ref DC/12/882
• Current Water supply stated by United Utilities as in need of network reinforcement. We have lots of supply interruptions now due to burst pipes.
• At the recent Crematorium proposal, independent consultants concluded that the application be refused on the grounds that the highway network was unsuitable for expected volume of traffic. EN33 Commercial development would entail even higher traffic volumes. I also believe that the inclusion of EN33 in the DPD is outwith Policy CS7.4

To make the DPD legally compliant or sound, the following changes are considered necessary:

1) Review design figures based on current housing and business needs. This applies across the whole DPD.
2) More locally for Endmoor, remove M41M and R670 from the DPD , noting that M41M site has previously been identified as an Area of Great Landscape Value in the County Showfield Inspectors report - Ref 5/89/4103. They should be replaced with the ‘Fishing Tarn’ field and Birchfield area or area EN33, with reduced the density and number of houses to meet Development Framework criteria3) Reduce the size of area of the Village Development Boundary such that this will be more compliant with the Sustainable Development Principles CS1.1 -2&3.

In summary, the proposals now put forward do not bear any resemblance to the original proposals we were asked to comment upon. Furthermore little attention appears to be given to the people who are unable to make their comments electronically. A limited number of consultative style meetings have taken place but there has been an obsessive style adopted to make people comment back via the internet.
At a local consultative meeting SLDC advised the proposed development of M41M site originally as 68 homes and mixed commercial land. They then said there would be fewer homes and no commercial development but the final revised plans now show 100 homes. No consultation took place on increases with villagers.
The current land owner for M41M is a member of Preston Richard Parish Council (Endmoor) and has considerable but unrepresentative political influence over local decisions. He has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been very vociferous during consultations in promoting the development of this site (often drowning out local opinion). He has had Storey Homes of Carlisle on the site to develop a proposal. Indeed there were eight submissions by Storey Homes to the Initial Consultation across the district and as a consequence many areas of land identified as Emerging Options were significantly increased in size. This private consultation and lobbying does not represent proper public consultation. Whether or not a landowner and developer should be able to influence the council’s decisions to this extent is a matter which I request that the inspector considers. The sites subjected to reports by Story Homes are believed to include:-

Levens R682LVM
Cartmel R112
Kendal R107M, R150M
Kendal R103M, M39
Kendal R97M
Kendal (Endmoor) M41M
Ulverston RN131M
Swarthmoor RN109M
The Phase 2 development of the M41M site is planned for 2017 – 2025. SLDC state a Development Brief would be required before any development could proceed. However Storey’s are known to want to bring it forward 5 years.
It is also somewhat concerning that a piece of land off Birchfield in Endmoor (known as R83)which has been suggested as a development opportunity – meeting all the criteria required - has been rejected outright without explanation. My concern centres on the fact that the vice-chair of SLDC Planning Committee lives on the existing Birchfield site.
Hence I believe that the DPD is unsound due to my concern that a developer and landowner and possibly a Planning Committee member may have had an undue influence in the preparation of the Plan, to their benefit and detriment of residents with the resultant polarisation of the consultative process. Just because a piece of land is available for sale should not be an influencing criteria for inclusion in the DPD. With this in mind an independent investigation should be carried out to establish the extent of the influence that these parties have had on the DPD, before it is submitted to the government for approval.
In order to be legally compliant I believe SLDC need to honestly listen to the community (rather than landowners desperate to sell) and accept the fact that they need to adopt an alternative strategy rather than making minor changes to their current unsound strategy, in the hope that this will be acceptable.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious point in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

0.0 Whole Document

No

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

See 2.3 below

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

Factual Data

The DPD is expected to be backed by “research/fact finding: the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts”. The following bullets illustrate that this has not been done properly and all these points need to be addressed to justify the DPD. The DPD currently 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.
• There has been no evidence provided of consultation with statutory bodies such as Highways, Utilities, Network Rail, Bus operators etc.
• SLDC used 2005 Business plans, acknowledged as out of date. Following the economic downturn, figures are deficient and do not reflect the current needs.
• SLDC Housing figures provided by the Office for National Statistics, were last updated in 2006. Cumbria CC deem only 2,400 new homes required, not 6,000 as portrayed by SLDC. This represents a 4.6% increase in housing stock, against an 11.5% increase using SLDC figures. I therefore question the need for 6,000 new homes in South Lakeland now that the Regional Spatial Strategy has been removed by the current Government. I ask that SLDC halts the publication of the LDP, pending implementation of the Localism Bill and the introduction of Neighbourhood Planning”.
• Development does not take into account the 1000 homes identified by the local MP (Tim Farron) as in need of refurbishment.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious point in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

1.9

No

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

See 2.3 below

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

Consultation

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
I believe SLDC have failed to deliver an effective and adequate consultation with the community resulting in no real and meaningful dialogue. The consultation has not been in accordance with the SCI and as such is unsound.
Some consultation has taken place but where alternatives have been suggested they have been ignored. For example the ‘Fishing Tarn’ fields and land at Birchfield in Endmoor were suggested as an alternative for development but ignored, no feedback was given. SLDC have refused to consider the views of local people on the negative environmental and landscape impact the schemes will create. In particular the people of Endmoor were not consulted on choice of EN20 & EN33 as an employment site and there is no business case to support this choice of location. As a brownfield site it would be far better allocated as housing land. Other issues with this land are contained in the Crematorium Inspectors findings (T/APP/M0933/A/99/1017615/P2).

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious point in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

1.10

No

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

See 2.3 below

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

In summary, the proposals now put forward do not bear any resemblance to the original proposals we were asked to comment upon. Furthermore little attention appears to be given to the people who are unable to make their comments electronically. A limited number of consultative style meetings have taken place but there has been an obsessive style adopted to make people comment back via the internet.
At a local consultative meeting SLDC advised the proposed development of M41M site originally as 68 homes and mixed commercial land. They then said there would be fewer homes and no commercial development but the final revised plans now show 100 homes. No consultation took place on increases with villagers.
The current land owner for M41M is a member of Preston Richard Parish Council (Endmoor) and has considerable but unrepresentative political influence over local decisions. He has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been very vociferous during consultations in promoting the development of this site (often drowning out local opinion). He has had Storey Homes of Carlisle on the site to develop a proposal. Indeed there were eight submissions by Storey Homes to the Initial Consultation across the district and as a consequence many areas of land identified as Emerging Options were significantly increased in size. This private consultation and lobbying does not represent proper public consultation. Whether or not a landowner and developer should be able to influence the council’s decisions to this extent is a matter which I request that the inspector considers. The sites subjected to reports by Story Homes are believed to include:-

Levens R682LVM
Cartmel R112
Kendal R107M, R150M
Kendal R103M, M39
Kendal R97M
Kendal (Endmoor) M41M
Ulverston RN131M
Swarthmoor RN109M
The Phase 2 development of the M41M site is planned for 2017 – 2025. SLDC state a Development Brief would be required before any development could proceed. However Storey’s are known to want to bring it forward 5 years.
It is also somewhat concerning that a piece of land off Birchfield in Endmoor (known as R83)which has been suggested as a development opportunity – meeting all the criteria required - has been rejected outright without explanation. My concern centres on the fact that the vice-chair of SLDC Planning Committee lives on the existing Birchfield site.
Hence I believe that the DPD is unsound due to my concern that a developer and landowner and possibly a Planning Committee member may have had an undue influence in the preparation of the Plan, to their benefit and detriment of residents with the resultant polarisation of the consultative process. Just because a piece of land is available for sale should not be an influencing criteria for inclusion in the DPD. With this in mind an independent investigation should be carried out to establish the extent of the influence that these parties have had on the DPD, before it is submitted to the government for approval.
In order to be legally compliant I believe SLDC need to honestly listen to the community (rather than landowners desperate to sell) and accept the fact that they need to adopt an alternative strategy rather than making minor changes to their current unsound strategy, in the hope that this will be acceptable.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious point in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - Site Omission

R83

No

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

See 2.3 below

No

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

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.

Consultation

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
I believe SLDC have failed to deliver an effective and adequate consultation with the community resulting in no real and meaningful dialogue. The consultation has not been in accordance with the SCI and as such is unsound.
Some consultation has taken place but where alternatives have been suggested they have been ignored. For example the ‘Fishing Tarn’ fields and land at Birchfield in Endmoor were suggested as an alternative for development but ignored, no feedback was given. SLDC have refused to consider the views of local people on the negative environmental and landscape impact the schemes will create. In particular the people of Endmoor were not consulted on choice of EN20 & EN33 as an employment site and there is no business case to support this choice of location. As a brownfield site it would be far better allocated as housing land. Other issues with this land are contained in the Crematorium Inspectors findings (T/APP/M0933/A/99/1017615/P2).
It is also somewhat concerning that a piece of land off Birchfield in Endmoor (known as R83)which has been suggested as a development opportunity – meeting all the criteria required - has been rejected outright without explanation. My concern centres on the fact that the vice-chair of SLDC Planning Committee lives on the existing Birchfield site.
Hence I believe that the DPD is unsound due to my concern that a developer and landowner and possibly a Planning Committee member may have had an undue influence in the preparation of the Plan, to their benefit and detriment of residents with the resultant polarisation of the consultative process. Just because a piece of land is available for sale should not be an influencing criteria for inclusion in the DPD. With this in mind an independent investigation should be carried out to establish the extent of the influence that these parties have had on the DPD, before it is submitted to the government for approval.
In order to be legally compliant I believe SLDC need to honestly listen to the community (rather than landowners desperate to sell) and accept the fact that they need to adopt an alternative strategy rather than making minor changes to their current unsound strategy, in the hope that this will be acceptable.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious point in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - Site Omission

Site omission - Ref. RN239#

No

The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

See 2.3 below.

No

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.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

To make the DPD legally compliant or sound, the following changes are considered necessary:

1) Review design figures based on current housing and business needs. This applies across the whole DPD.
2) More locally for Endmoor, remove M41M and R670 from the DPD , noting that M41M site has previously been identified as an Area of Great Landscape Value in the County Showfield Inspectors report - Ref 5/89/4103. They should be replaced with the ‘Fishing Tarn’ field and Birchfield area or area EN33, with reduced the density and number of houses to meet Development Framework criteria3) Reduce the size of area of the Village Development Boundary such that this will be more compliant with the Sustainable Development Principles CS1.1 -2&3.


Consultation

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
I believe SLDC have failed to deliver an effective and adequate consultation with the community resulting in no real and meaningful dialogue. The consultation has not been in accordance with the SCI and as such is unsound.
Some consultation has taken place but where alternatives have been suggested they have been ignored. For example the ‘Fishing Tarn’ fields and land at Birchfield in Endmoor were suggested as an alternative for development but ignored, no feedback was given. SLDC have refused to consider the views of local people on the negative environmental and landscape impact the schemes will create. In particular the people of Endmoor were not consulted on choice of EN20 & EN33 as an employment site and there is no business case to support this choice of location. As a brownfield site it would be far better allocated as housing land. Other issues with this land are contained in the Crematorium Inspectors findings (T/APP/M0933/A/99/1017615/P2).

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

I have made a number of serious points in my response and I want to ensure they are taken into account, noting that the inspector will no doubt be swamped with information.

Please notify me