Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R170M-mod KENDAL NORTH OF LAUREL GARDENS

No

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

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.

Site R170M Middle Sparrowmire I'
This site has also been referred to,· in various documents, as The Todds I
and Land north of Laurel Gardens
I
Green Gap.
In 1996 the land now denoted as site R170M had already been designated as
part of a· Green Gap by SLDC. In his report, at that time, on the public
enquiry into South Lakeland Local Plan 2006 the inspector, Patrick T
Whitehead, said in his Inspectors Conclusions, and in answer to Mr. F
Downham, whose objection requested that site R170M should be removed ·
from the Green Gap.
Inspectors Conclusions:
6.9 The objection by Mr Downham is not concerned with. the provision of a
green gap, but the extent ofthat gap. It is argued that the green gap, as
shown in the Consultation draft of the Plan, follows a public footpath
running between substantial hedges, a clearly defmed 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/and".
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 reasoried justification make 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 ofthe 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 those reasons I believe
that, where a green gap is seen as necessary, it is more important that the
whole gap between settlements should be designated as green gap than that ·
the 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.
Where, in his conclusions, the Inspector states that "what is unacceptable
now, will most probably be unacceptable at the end of the Plan period"
and that the Plan should "engender a degree of public confidence that the
separation secured will not at some future time, be lightly squandered"
he makes a point which will ring true to most of the 98% of3000
respondents who were against the LA DPD and even more so to the
394voterswho were against the inclusion of site R170M in the LADPD at
the last round of consultations.
Paragraph 20 of the well respected Taylor Report is also heavily critical of
building on land such as site Rl70M Middle Sparrowmire stating that ·
houses will be built "on exactly the land of most value to the existing
community"
In the doeumentSouth Lakeland Local Plan 2006, SLDC state:"
In these "Green Gaps" development will not be permitted unless:"
(b) ·"It does not cause significant harm to the open.character of the ''Green
Gap" area;" The development of site R170M will cause significant harm to
this open first rate agricultural land.
SLDC's Local Development Framework, Core Strategy states that Green
Gaps "Contribute to maintaining a settlement's identity, landscape setting
and character.'' "Compromise predominantly open land maintaining an
'open' aspect." And "Where possible afford recreational and biodiversity
opportunities". Site Rl 70 M Middle Sparrowmire ·fulfills all these conditions
and to include it in the LA DPD is both unsound and totally against the
spirit of the Local DevelopmentFramework.
As SLDC has made no apparent effort to justify their inclusion of site
R170M in the. present LA DPD or outline their thought processes and
reasons for doing so I would ask them to do so before the document is
subject to a Public Enquiry.
I am convinced that, in view of the above, the decision to include site
R170M in the LA DPD is unsound.
Traffic.
The proposed entrance to site R170M from the C class Burneside Road,
opposite the entrance to the popular Carus Green Golf Club and onto a bend
will be a junction with severely limited visibility, in both directions, and
restricted visibility, for drivers on Burneside Road, of standing traffic .
waiting to turn in to the new development. This, along with the additional
traffic on an, in places, narrow road which is heavily used by school children
and pedestrians as well as commercial vehicles will create an unnecessarily
hazardous highway.
The additional traffic generated by the development of Middle Sparrowmire
and the other proposed sites in Bumeside will add to the, already
unacceptable, and worsening, traffic congestion and pollution at the
Wmdermere Road/Burneside Road junction and consequently onto the other
unacceptable"Red Junctions" in the market town of Kendal. The SLDC
commissioned Atkins Report also considered this development
inappropriate; these facts make the development of site R170MMiddle
Sparrowmire unsound and also raises the question. Why commission a
report and:tben ignore it?
Sewerage.•
By delaying the proposed starting date for the development of site R170M
SLDC have acknowledged that the sewers which would serve the. site, and
the proposed sites in the village ofBurneside, are already at full capacity and
all too often overflowing. There .is also a plan to separate the ''run oft" water
fromroofs, roads and drives frorrithe foul water drain system. The task of
increasing the capacity of the foul water sewers and providing a new system
for the "run off1 water would require an immense financial investmentfor
which United Utilities will have to apply for funding and it is hard to
imagine this funding being readily available in the present fmancial
situation. Furthermore the cost of a civil engineering project on this scale
would surely add such an amount to the cost of each home as to make them
unaffordable and undeliverable. This again makes the inclusion of site
R170M in the LA DPD unsound . .
Flooding.
The north east corner of site R170M has a history of flooding; there are also
several springs and' other boggy areas on the proposed site. The Environment
Agency commented, when advising against the use of this site, that it has
"Surface water issues, due to limited capacity of the water course on the
eastern boundary and inadequate culvert capacity''.
Several houses close to the north east comer of the site have flooded in
recent years, a phenomenon which has only occurred since Briery Meadows
was built.
The proposed. separate "run off' drainage scheme will also add to the
flooding problems in the nearby River Kent, . ·
All the above points are either adding cost, or making the site unsuitable for
building, and therefore making its inclusion in the LA DPD unsound and
undeliverable;
Kendal Town Council's "Response to Consultation" April2011.
In this considered and thoughtful document Kendal Town Council,
representing the people of Kendal, point out, on page 8, that the 2009 SLDC
commissioned Atkins report, Kendal Transport Assessment stated "the
existing highway network plus proposed .improvements would just about
accommodate the. forecast levels oftraffic provided three sites were
removed" KTC then point. out that. The Todds west ofBurneside Road was
one of the three sites and was not temoved.KTC then point out, on page 12, ·
that site R170M Land North of Laurel Gardens has major problems under
their dependency headings of Traffic, Hydro and Sewer. Another example of
commissioning. a report and then ignoring it, and again highlighting the
unsoundness of site R170M's inclusion in the LA DPD.
General Comments.
We are being told by Councilors who are promoting this housing .plan that it
is the right plan for South Lakeland. I would question this. by saying that
they have only considered land which is readily available to develop, that is
to say, land where the owner is already a developer or a willing vendor. This
indicates to me that SLDC have not taken a wider view and considered
reasonable alternative options, where housing development would be of
the greatest benefit to the population of South Lakeland, and where such
developments would cause the least traffic congestion, pollution, visual
intrusion, destruction of green gaps and prime agricultural land. This "easy
option" approach to the LA DPD brings into question the legal compliance
and soundness of the whole document.
I ask that I may both appear and speak at any public hearing or enquiry which may be called.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

To communicate the depth of feeling against the LA DPD and SLDC's high handed treatment of the local population.