Local Development Framework Consultation

1.10

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.

We wrote to you by email on 7 April (copy attached) to put forward our objections to the
above proposals. We have received no response and can find no material change in
formulating.the Land Allocation Proposals for the South of Kendal to be submitted for
Inspection as shown under the above plan references. As far as we can see, our
objections, which we know are shared by numerous local residents, have been set
aside and not heeded in carrying out the 'consultation' exercise.
It is our understanding that, under the revised planning regulations recently published,
the views of local residents should to be fully taken into account in determining planning
strategy. As local residents, we have had great difficulty in finding anyone to whom we
have spoken in Kendal who supports South Lakeland District Council's current Land
Allocations policy for the town -we venture to guess that the number and strength of
the objections received by the Council similarly demonstrates a lack of local support.

In our view, the only sound way in which the Council can satisfy itself that it has fully
taken into account the views of local residents is by means of a referendum. In the
absence of such an exercise, and given the level of objections and general disquiet, in
our view the proposals are fundamentally unsound.

Together with a number of other residents Iwrote to you some short time ago, as part of
the previous 'consultation exercise', to express opposition to the Council's proposals for
the development of the south side of Kendal. I would appear our concerns have been
substantially ignored and the Council appears to be pressing ahead with its original
plans in this regard with little or no change. I am also very surprised that the Council has
chosen to keep to a path which, seemingly, ignores the recommondation of the
independent inspector who ruled against similar development plans for the south side of
Kendal some years ago.
You refer to 'consultations' being undertaken at the present time( However, everyone I
have spoken to in my locality of the town has expressed either concern
and/or opposition to the Council's proposals. I fail to understand how the wishes of the
majority of local residents and council taxpayers can be properly taken into account and
respected in the absence any plan to hold an inclusive local plebiscite. Indeed, I can
find no proposals for conducting such an exercise. Wrthout a clear expression of
views in favour of these proposals from the people of Kendal, I am opposed to you
proposals and strongly object to their imposition.

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - M41KM KENDAL SOUTH OF LUMLEY ROAD

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.

We share the generally expressed view that.SLDC has failed toplace sufficient
emphasis on the development ofbrown field and other. more suitable land in the town in
preference to .unspoiled green field sites, especially those set beyond the historic .
boundaries of the town.
We will try to be brief as we can in stating our strong objections to the Land Allocations
Policy for the South of Kendal:
• Detrimental Visual Impact on the Southern Approach to the Town
The pleasing visual appearance of the southern approach to Kendal affirms the
qualities and amenities that it provides as an historic, pleasant market town of
character. This is of great importance in maintaining the town's attraction to
tourists (the foremost industry in Lakeland) and also to suitable prospective new
employers. (This view was, as we understand it, upheld in 1996 when plans for
the development of the land in question were rejected by the Independent
Inspector appointed at that time to review the proposals).
It is, we suggest, incumbent upon SLDC to explain why this ruling is no longer
valid. In our view, the Council has failed to do so and, in this respect, the present
proposals are unsound ..
Short Term ism Preferred to Sound Strategic Planning
Provision for business growth is currently concentrated in the business parks and
areas in the area of Shap Road where there is room for expansion without the
need to designate a green field site. The proposed Land Allocation to the South
of Kendal is green field and situated in a wider area that is, apart from a couple of
hotels and a garage, exclusively residential. In planning terms, a more sound
approach would have been to concentrate on extending the orbital by-pass road
from Plumgarths to Shap Road, thus relieving an over-congested town already
suffering from poor access and unacceptable levels of air pollution, especially in
Lowther Street at the centre (SLDC should be able to provide the data in support
this conclusion).
It would appear that in selecting the southern side of Kendal for concentrated
housing and commercial development, SLDC may have been influenced by short
term cost implications and expediency, rather than sound strategic long term
planning considerations.
Detrimental Effect of Poor Traffic Management Proposals
Residents to the south of Kendal already suffer as a consequence of difficult and
potentially dangerous traffic flows on the main Milnthorpe Road entering and
leaving the town. Mobile safety cameras are regularly sited in this area in
recognition of a growing and concerning problem. With the increasing frequency
and prolonged nature of the traffic queues, the build up (particularly a peak
commuting times) often stretches back to the A591 dual carriageway, thus
heightening safety concerns. When the near side of the main road is congested
and the other far side is less so, cars from adjoining roads can only gain access
to the far side with the consideration of other motorists already on the main road.
However, upon moving forward across the main road, the site lines of the joining
motorists are impaired -the dangers are self-evident and the subject of
increasing concern.
The proposals to enable further intense development, without any clear traffic
impact and management plan to provide safe access and relieve an already
congested main road are unsound and should not be approved.
In summary, we consider the current Land Allocations Proposals to be
unsound for the reasons explained above. We object to the proposals and
request that our objections be put before the Inspector to be appointed to
review their soundness.


Much more care should be taken, in my view, to respect the integrity of existing
residential areas so as to retain their existing character and to avoid an unsuitable mix
of high density residences and/or commercial development. In addition, the southern
approach to the town is one of its most attractive features and the plans to develop the
area between Lumley Road and Hellsington Laithes, in the manner proposed, would
have a deleterious effect on the amenities for all the reasons explained later in this
email

Turning now to my specific objections to the proposals to develop the south side of Kendal,
these can be state as follows:


• the currently attractiveness of the southern approach to Kedal will not be enhanced
by the Council's proposals, rather it will be rendered less attractive, house values will
diminish, and this will lead to less people choosing Kendal as their location of choice
• the mix of commercial property, and inclusion of high density housing, will have a
particularly deleterious effect on the area and its existing residents
• the rising elevation of the site will contribute the unsuitability of development with the
new buildings overlooking existing properties
1 • the traffic flow into Kendal along Milnthorpe road is already:congested, especially at
commuting times, and the proposed development will exacerbate an already difficult
and dangerous situation
I intend to monitor further announcements by the Council closely\ and with a great deal of
concern. I trust, on further consideration, the present proposal to develop the south side of
Kendal will either be abandoned or substantially amended to take account fully the
concerns and objections of a great many of the residents of the town, including those of
myself and my wife as expressed in this email.

LA1.6 Strategic Employment Sites - E4M KENDAL LAND AT SCROGGS WOOD, MILNTHORPE ROAD

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.

We share the generally expressed view that.SLDC has failed toplace sufficient
emphasis on the development ofbrown field and other. more suitable land in the town in
preference to .unspoiled green field sites, especially those set beyond the historic .
boundaries of the town.
We will try to be brief as we can in stating our strong objections to the Land Allocations
Policy for the South of Kendal:
• Detrimental Visual Impact on the Southern Approach to the Town
The pleasing visual appearance of the southern approach to Kendal affirms the
qualities and amenities that it provides as an historic, pleasant market town of
character. This is of great importance in maintaining the town's attraction to
tourists (the foremost industry in Lakeland) and also to suitable prospective new
employers. (This view was, as we understand it, upheld in 1996 when plans for
the development of the land in question were rejected by the Independent
Inspector appointed at that time to review the proposals).
It is, we suggest, incumbent upon SLDC to explain why this ruling is no longer
valid. In our view, the Council has failed to do so and, in this respect, the present
proposals are unsound ..
Short Term ism Preferred to Sound Strategic Planning
Provision for business growth is currently concentrated in the business parks and
areas in the area of Shap Road where there is room for expansion without the
need to designate a green field site. The proposed Land Allocation to the South
of Kendal is green field and situated in a wider area that is, apart from a couple of
hotels and a garage, exclusively residential. In planning terms, a more sound
approach would have been to concentrate on extending the orbital by-pass road
from Plumgarths to Shap Road, thus relieving an over-congested town already
suffering from poor access and unacceptable levels of air pollution, especially in
Lowther Street at the centre (SLDC should be able to provide the data in support
this conclusion).
It would appear that in selecting the southern side of Kendal for concentrated
housing and commercial development, SLDC may have been influenced by short
term cost implications and expediency, rather than sound strategic long term
planning considerations.
Detrimental Effect of Poor Traffic Management Proposals
Residents to the south of Kendal already suffer as a consequence of difficult and
potentially dangerous traffic flows on the main Milnthorpe Road entering and
leaving the town. Mobile safety cameras are regularly sited in this area in
recognition of a growing and concerning problem. With the increasing frequency
and prolonged nature of the traffic queues, the build up (particularly a peak
commuting times) often stretches back to the A591 dual carriageway, thus
heightening safety concerns. When the near side of the main road is congested
and the other far side is less so, cars from adjoining roads can only gain access
to the far side with the consideration of other motorists already on the main road.
However, upon moving forward across the main road, the site lines of the joining
motorists are impaired -the dangers are self-evident and the subject of
increasing concern.
The proposals to enable further intense development, without any clear traffic
impact and management plan to provide safe access and relieve an already
congested main road are unsound and should not be approved.
In summary, we consider the current Land Allocations Proposals to be
unsound for the reasons explained above. We object to the proposals and
request that our objections be put before the Inspector to be appointed to
review their soundness.


Let me say, at the outset, that I have the greatest misgivings in regard to these
proposals which, as it seems to me, have the capacity to change the unique 'Character
of Kendal for the worse and to impact adversely on the attractiveness of the town to
those of us who live here now and others who may wish to consider living in the town in
thefuture.

Much more care should be taken, in my view, to respect the integrity of existing
residential areas so as to retain their existing character and to avoid an unsuitable mix
of high density residences and/or commercial development. In addition, the southern
approach to the town is one of its most attractive features and the plans to develop the
area between Lumley Road and Hellsington Laithes, in the manner proposed, would
have a deleterious effect on the amenities for all the reasons explained later in this
email.

Strategically, the response, for a town such as Kendal, to additioal land allocation should, I believe, firstly, to ensure additional land for commercial development is located
in areas where such development already exists and secondly, to ensure residential
development is not mixed unnecessary with commercial development and thirdly, to ensure
residential development is in keeping and harmony with existing housing stock. These
principles do not appear to have been adopted and followed in the current proposals.

Turning now to my specific objections to the proposals to develop the south side of Kendal,
these can be state as follows:


• the currently attractiveness of the southern approach to Kedal will not be enhanced
by the Council's proposals, rather it will be rendered less attractive, house values will
diminish, and this will lead to less people choosing Kendal as their location of choice
• the mix of commercial property, and inclusion of high density housing, will have a
particularly deleterious effect on the area and its existing residents
• the rising elevation of the site will contribute the unsuitability of development with the
new buildings overlooking existing properties
1 • the traffic flow into Kendal along Milnthorpe road is already:congested, especially at
commuting times, and the proposed development will exacerbate an already difficult
and dangerous situation
I intend to monitor further announcements by the Council closely\ and with a great deal of
concern. I trust, on further consideration, the present proposal to develop the south side of
Kendal will either be abandoned or substantially amended to take account fully the
concerns and objections of a great many of the residents of the town, including those of
myself and my wife as expressed in this email.

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Kendal sites

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.

Let me say, at the outset, that I have the greatest misgivings in regard to these
proposals which, as it seems to me, have the capacity to change the unique 'Character
of Kendal for the worse and to impact adversely on the attractiveness of the town to
those of us who live here now and others who may wish to consider living in the town in
thefuture.
Much more care should be taken, in my view, to respect the integrity of existing
residential areas so as to retain their existing character and to avoid an unsuitable mix
of high density residences and/or commercial development. In addition, the southern
approach to the town is one of its most attractive features and the plans to develop the
area between Lumley Road and Hellsington Laithes, in the manner proposed, would
have a deleterious effect on the amenities for all the reasons explained later in this
email.

Strategically, the response, for a town such as Kendal, to additional land allocation should, I believe, firstly, to ensure additional land for commercial development is located
in areas where such development already exists and secondly, to ensure residential
development is not mixed unnecessary with commercial development and thirdly, to ensure
residential development is in keeping and harmony with existing housing stock. These
principles do not appear to have been adopted and followed in the current proposals.

LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - M2M-mod KENDAL LAND EAST OF BURTON ROAD

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.

Let me say, at the outset, that I have the greatest misgivings in regard to these
proposals which, as it seems to me, have the capacity to change the unique 'Character
of Kendal for the worse and to impact adversely on the attractiveness of the town to
those of us who live here now and others who may wish to consider living in the town in
thefuture.

Strategically, the response, for a town such as Kendal, to additioal land allocation should, I believe, firstly, to ensure additional land for commercial development is located
in areas where such development already exists and secondly, to ensure residential
development is not mixed unnecessary with commercial development and thirdly, to ensure
residential development is in keeping and harmony with existing housing stock. These
principles do not appear to have been adopted and followed in the current proposals.

LA1.8 Local Employment Sites - All Kendal sites

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.

Let me say, at the outset, that I have the greatest misgivings in regard to these
proposals which, as it seems to me, have the capacity to change the unique 'Character
of Kendal for the worse and to impact adversely on the attractiveness of the town to
those of us who live here now and others who may wish to consider living in the town in
thefuture.

Strategically, the response, for a town such as Kendal, to additioal land allocation should, I believe, firstly, to ensure additional land for commercial development is located
in areas where such development already exists and secondly, to ensure residential
development is not mixed unnecessary with commercial development and thirdly, to ensure
residential development is in keeping and harmony with existing housing stock. These
principles do not appear to have been adopted and followed in the current proposals.

0.0 Whole Document

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.

I would find it helpful to know when the assumptions in the localldevelopment plan
which inform the proposal for land allocations were formulated. Have these assumptions
been revised and reassessed since the economic events of Octbber 2008 to take
account fully of the much more subdued outlook for growth facing the world economy in
general and the UK economy in particular? The assumptions in regards to housing
demand in the area appear to me to have been overstated in current economic
climate. Moreover, the allocation of land is insufficiently sensitive to the needs and
preferences of existing residents.

LA1.4 Broad Locations for New Housing

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.

Let me say, at the outset, that I have the greatest misgivings in regard to these proposals which, as it seems to me, have the capacity to change the unique character of Kendal for the worse and to impact adversely on the attractiveness of the town to those of us who live here now and others who may wish to consider living in the town in the future.

Much more care should be taken, in my view, to respect the integrity of existing residential areas so as to retain their existing character and to avoid an unsuitable mix of high density residences and/or commercial development. In addition, the southern approach to the town is one of its most attractive features and the plans to develop the area between Lumley Road and Hellsington Laithes, in the manner proposed, would have a deleterious effect on the amenities for all the reasons explained later in this email.

Strategically, the response, for town such as Kendal, to additional land allocation should, I believe, firstly, to ensure additional land for commercial development is located in areas where such development already exists and secondly, to ensure residential development is not mixed unnecessary with commercial development and thirdly, to ensure residential development is in keeping and harmony with existing housing stock. These principles do not appear to have been adopted and followed in the current proposals.

Please notify me