2 responses from Dr Roger Crawley (Individual)
1. Dr Roger Crawley (Individual) : 11 Apr 2012 14:48:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.6 Strategic Employment Sites - E4M KENDAL LAND AT SCROGGS WOOD, MILNTHORPE ROAD
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1. Introduction
1.1 I submit the following comments as a coherent critique, rather than as separate statements in the formula preferred by SLDC in its Consultation Response Form, because both sites and issues in land allocation are related subjects and need to be considered in the context of the overall purpose of the South Lakeland Development Framework and its evidence base. Furthermore, these comments and observations on the Land Allocations Emerging Options of the Core Strategy of South Lakeland District Council (notably sites E31M and E4M) augment the succession of statements I have made to the local authority
since 200 I on the expansion of the Kendal urban area to the south of its existing Local Plan Development boundary. My previous statements include comments made in a paper in 2001 (your ref. 333) relating to South Lakeland Local Plan Alteration, September 2000; in May 2008 relating to Core Strategy Preferred Options; and in February 2009 relating to Preferred Options. Although certain of my previous comments were made in the context of PPS12 (2004), which has since been replaced by PPS12: Local Spatial Planning (2008), the planning issues are essentially the same. For example, there is an overriding obligation on Core Strategies 'to produce a vision [my emphasis] for the future of places', and 'to translate this vision into ... land allocations' (PPS12: 2.1), because 'Spatial planning plays a central role in the overall task of place shaping [my emphasis] ... ' (2.3), and 'provides a means of safeguarding the area's
environmental assets ... (2.6).
1.2 The substantive issue of the appropriateness of Kendal's expansion
southwards in the Kent valley, within the overall context of the shape and
setting of the Town, has been neglected, in my view, in deciding the suitability
of land allocation for development in both the Preferred and Emerging Options
planning procedures. Although options for development southwards are listed
in the SLDC Kendal Fact File, notably sites to the south of Helm Lodge (R104),
the Roman Fort at Watercrook (E31 and EN30), Scroggs Wood (E4 and EN37),
Helsington Laithes (RN132 and EN38), and Burton Road (M2M), at no stage
has the obligatory overview been taken of the implications of such expansion in
terms of place shaping and vision. Indeed, it appears from the options listed
and from the emerging choices (E31M, E4M, and M2M), that it is a foregone
conclusion that Kendal will expand its urban area southwards whatever the
consequences to the surrounding environment.
1.3 As I make my comments and observations, it will become apparent that the
options listed and subsequently chosen as emerging have been considered in
isolation, with the emphasis upon an overriding determinant - the percentage
allocation for Kendal to meet Core Strategy employment land demands - than on
an incumbent Core Strategy and Structure Plan responsibility to 'protect' and
'sustain' existing special environments, and to create 'an overall vision which
sets out how the area and the places within it should develop' (PPS 12: 4.1 ). As
a former landscape plarmer, I find it astonishing that the Emerging Options
consultation document, after stating (p.23) that among the 'Key local factors
influencing the location of new development in Kendal are;
Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the
need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and
appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail from
important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout
Scar I Brigsteer Road;'
should then proceed to select options E31M and E4M in the Kent valley as sites
for employment development. How can the selection of these two options be
consistent or sound with the following 'Main implications for the DPD' given in
the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report: Land Allocations (October 2012):
'Culture and Heritage' (p. 16): 'Land Allocations DPD must take account of
how the location of or type of development proposed on sites could compromise
or provide benefits to heritage, historical, cultural and archaeological features,
buildings, events and environment/settings.'
'Biodiversity and Geodiversity' (p. 17): 'Plans and strategies must not have any
significant negative impact on any sites that are protected by SAC or SPA
designation'.
'Landscape' (p. 18): 'Land allocations DPD must consider how the location and
dimensions, as well as likely development type, of sites could detract from or
improve the landscape and the setting of features and settlements.'
I hope that my comments will show that both E31M and E4M in particular
seriously compromise, and detract from, the features of their landscape,
environment and setting. The Kendal Fact File, in its preliminary assessment of
these options mentions numerous negative impacts and constraints, and the
range of associated mitigation measures. If so much negative evidence and so
much mitigation compromise the choice of these options, why were they made
and permitted to reach this stage, especially E4M which was not considered as a
preferred option. Such potential harm across a spectrum of environmental assets
is contrary to the planning obligations set out in PPS9: Biodiversity and
Geological Conservation 2005; PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment
2010; and PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004) under The
Countryside (5-131), 15: 'Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the
quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible,
enhanced etc.' The points I make below will argue that the Landscape
Character, Heritage Value, Environmental Importance, and Recreational
Significance of the countryside of the Kent valley corridor south of Kendal call
for its protection as open green field space where the spatial planning safeguards
the area's enviromnental assets. Significantly, 'The River Kent Green Corridor'
is already identified under Green Spaces and Open Spaces in Emerging
Options (p. 36).
1.4 During the course of the Core Strategy deliberations much has been made of the
status of Kendal as the Gateway to the Lakes. The majority of visitors to the
Lake District National Park, and to Kendal itself, arrive from the south, whether
by road or rail. The Kent valley countryside lying between Helsington Barrows
and Scout Scar on the west and The Helm on the east creates this gateway
entrance. If the gateway identity of Kendal is to be respected then attention
should be given to how any future development of the town on the south is
likely to affect this identity, especially negatively. This matter has yet to be
seriously discussed in the evidence-based documents. The significance of this
omission will accrue as I draw attention to other shortcomings in respect of
consideration given to the italicised headings listed above.
I. 5 Furthermore, only passing reference (Emerging Options, p. 21) has been given
in the Land Allocation process to the implications of future development to the
proposal for a southern extension to the Lake District National Park, which
is recommended in Lakes to Dales: Landscape Designation Project Consultation
Document (Natural England, 2009, pp. 16-17). The extension covers the Lyth
Valley as far as the outskirts of Levens, the karst ground of Helsington Barrows
adjacent to Scout Scar, and the Brigsteer environs south to Sizergh Fell and
Sizergh Castle. The recommendation notes that, 'The Helsington Barrows and
Sizergh Fell ridge is a key feature into the area and forms part of the southern
gateway to the Lakes.' It also emphasises that, 'This area is very sensitive to
further urban, road or large-scale development, which would adversely affect its
landscape quality and tranquillity.' Once designated, as is likely, this extension
will bring the national park boundary closer to Kendal, and give proper
recognition to the quality of the landscape on the western side of the Kent valley
corridor.
2. Landscape Character
2 .1. The landscape character of the Kent valley corridor is based on Technical Paper
5: Landscape Character of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan
2001-16, and on Policy E36 of the Structure Plan: Landscapes of County
Importance. In my previous comments (27/05/08 attached) on the Core
Strategy Preferred Options, I emphasised the distinctiveness of the convergence
of a number of landscape types ( 5 in all) in the corridor between The Helm and
Scout Scar (2008 / p4) and noted that an earlier study had recognised this fact1
This convergence accentuates the landscape importance of the corridor and adds
to the significance of the Drumlin Field Landscape of County Importance
designation that had previously been recognised in the Kent valley (see below).
I also emphasised the significance of what is currently a very definitive arboreal
edge to the southern margins of the town in the vicinity of the River Kent (2008
/ p.4, and enclosed map), an edge which includes the linear belt of Scroggs
Wood from the river to the A6. The gateway to Kendal, therefore, is not only
impressive for a range of landscape types set closely together but also for the
fact that development has not breached the definitive edge to the town on the
south and intruded into the visual field of the gateway countryside.
2.2. SLDC will know that E31M has a controversial history as a site for employment
development. It was rejected as such by a planning inspector in 1988 in his
review of objections to a South Westmorland Local Plan2 When it was
included again in the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006 in 2000, it was eventually
rejected after consultation, a review by another inspector, and a site visit by the
Planning Committee. In May 2001, a 'Revised Plan showing that the
employment allocation has been removed, the development boundary realigned
and the area designated as County Landscape' was issued3 It is an example of
unsoundness in planning practice that this site should resurface again after being
considered inappropriate in the past. How 'could [E31M] be considered a
logical extension of Natland Road Employment Area [Clarks]', (Emerging
Options, p. 34), with such a history of refusal? And why should the nearby area
(R49 and R536), currently designated as employment land within the
development plan boundary, and which has remained derelict for over ten years,
continue to be unused when it lies between two functioning employment zones?
My comments of 27/05/2008 refer in detail to the reasons why development at
E31M contravenes many of the clauses in Core Strategy policies CS7.4, CS8.1,
CS8.2, and CS8.6, reasons that continue to prevail and which are reiterated here.
2.3. With respect to site E4M, the South Lakeland Housing and Emplovment Land
Search recognises (p. 56) that 'Scroggs Wood forms a strong boundary to the
town and [that] development to the south of this would be highly visible in the
wider landscape and should, therefore, not be permitted.' A similar emphatic
conclusion was reached in 1988 by a planning inspector, who also recognised
the importance of Scroggs Wood as part of the definitive edge to the town;
'Open farmland and Scroggs Wood form an ideal visnal edge to the built up area
made all the more important by the open views afforded from the bypass'4 The
emergence of the huge site at E4M (17.9Ha) as a potential location for
employment shows that the advice of the land search specialists and a previous
planning inspector have been disregarded; that the Core Strategy policies cited
above in respect of E31M have not been applied with due soundness to E4M by
SLDC; that SDLC has decided to breach the definitive southern edge of the
town and extend the urban area into what the Structure Plan and the Land
Search recognise is countryside of special importance; and that the concept of a
gateway approach to Kendal is considered irrelevant by SLDC to the future
identity of the town. And yet, in the SLDC Kendal Fact File (p. 117), with
respect to the rejection of site EN38, it is unreservedlyrecognised:
'However, the key constraint is the likely impact of development for landscape
character and it is considered [that] strategic employment uses in this location
would significantly harm the landscape [my emphasis]. In view of this, it is
considered [that] any development in this location would have [a] significant
adverse impact on existing views from adjacent surrounding area and alter
the existing character of the area by introducing an urban landscape
incongruous to the rural landscape setting [my emphasis]. In this context it is
considered an inappropriate location for new development.'
Incredibly, the adjacent site at E4M across the A6, to which the same arguments
apply, is not dismissed as an 'inappropriate location'. This is manifestly
illogical and is certainly not sound planning practice. And only a biased or
incompetent assessment, such as that made by the NWDA Study, could
conclude, 'that with an appropriate landscape scheme this site [E4M] has the
capacity to absorb development without being unduly prominent within the
landscape' (p.l19 Kendal Fact File). The site will always be prominent in the
Kent valley when seen from The Helm, and in the gateway approaches to
Kendal, as the planning inspector noted in 1988. This example of inconsistency
displays a total lack of soundness of the kind I cited in my previous
communication (2008, pp.4-5).
2.4 With respect to CS7.4, development at E4M will not be 'of a scale in keeping
with its surroundings'; and will be 'detrimental to the character [and]
appearance of the landscape'. Any detailed and thorough assessment of the
prominence in the landscape of the E4M site, which consists of two large
pasture fields elevated above the flood plain of the river and which slope
upwards to the A6, should reveal that the emergence of this option is a major
visual and physical assault on the character and heritage assets of the local
landscape. Any development would sit in the landscape on elevated ground
between two high shapely drumlins that currently attract the eye in views from
the east - the one at Prizet and the one above Helsington Laithes close to the
town's urban area. The two fields are prominently visible from the whole length
of The Helm ridge, and development here would intrude starkly into views from
this ridge across the Kent valley towards the limestone scenery of Helsington
Barrows and the distant Lakeland peaks. From the Friends of the Lake District
gate mid-way along the ridge-wall until the trig-point at The Helm summit, the
views across the site are in a direct line with the distant prospect of the Langdale
Pikes. Any development would intrude markedly into the middle-distance
prospect ofHelsington Barrows, which has considerable visual integrity, notably
for its curved outline as it falls away to the Brigsteer Road. From the Helm trigpoint,
the large and impressive meander that encloses the site of the Roman Fort
at Watercrook, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), would be dominated by
any development across the river against Scroggs Wood. This is clearly an
example where a heritage site - perhaps because it does not have a visible ruin -
has been dismissed with only an apologetic 'need to carefully consider' its
relevance to the case in hand Kendal Fact File (p. 121 ), even though the
meander is a dominant feature in the landscape. The two fields adjacent to
Scroggs Wood are also visible from the east at Oxenholme railway station, and
from trains in their approach to, and departure from, the station.
2.5 A proper assessment of the visual impact in the Kent valley landscape of future
development at E4M should have noted how dramatic an intrusion this site
would be because of its size, its very open location, and particularly its raised
position above the flood plain. Such a large intrusive development would
seriously reduce, not maintain or enhance, the quality of the surrounding
landscape and its assets, and show that SLDC has contempt for its own 'key
local factor' in selecting sites quoted above (p.l ). It should also be obvious to
the local planning authority that the two large fields of E4M are visible from the
northern edge of the National Trust property on Scout Scar (the open larch
wood), and from various points along the higher stretches of Helsington
Barrows all the way to the Mushroom. The site at E31M is equally as
prominent from this westerly direction. Both sites are visible in the approach to
Kendal via the Brigsteer Road, the A591, and the A6, and if developed would
make a mockery of the concept of a gateway entrance to the town which is,
currently, a dramatic feature of its identity on its southern margin. The Core
Strategy obligation to safeguard environmental assets should attach greater
importance to a margin which consists of features that are of County Landscape
Importance (the Drumlin Field), of potential national park status (Helsington
Barrows), of heritage significance (the Roman Fort and the Sattnry), of
European Special Area of Conservation status (the River Kent), and which
includes an historical thoroughfare (the Lancaster Canal) that is programmed to
be restored as yet another impressive approach to Kendal from the south.
3. Heritage Value
3.1 The site of the Roman Fort, ALAVANA, at Watercrook (SD5190) is an English
Heritage Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), a heritage asset which derives
significance not only from its strategic location within a large meander of the
River Kent but also from associated field features and its setting within the
valley, notably its visual relationship with the distinctive eminence of The Helm.
To date, the position of the fort's civil settlement has not been located in the
landscape. However, a local specialist in Roman history believes that the flat
ground lying to the south of Watercrook lane between the footpath to Hawes
Bridge and the river was the fort's training area, and that the nearby low mound
(topped with a hedge), which has a symmetrical indentation, supported the
temple platform from where both training instructions were given and allegiance
to the emperor practiced. 5 A cemetery for the fort has yet to be located but may
exist between the Sattnry and the river. The fort and its associated field features
are one of the Roman heritage sites visited by students from John Moores
University, Liverpool, and from local schools, in field excursions. It is possible
that the Sattnry (SD51559029), a conical knoll , as well as the temple mound,
may have served as look-out points for the fort for views down-river. Similarly,
in Roman times there may have been a strategic connection between the fort and
The Helm. ALA V ANA, which probably housed a legionary cohort, may have
been associated with a Roman road running from Low Borrow Bridge (near
Tebay), the site of another fort, over Whinfell via Patton Bridge and Mealbank
to Kendal. The Roman associations of the fields at Watercrook between the
River Kent and the old course of the Lancaster Canal, therefore, render this
whole area a landscape of heritage and archaeological significance, a degree of
importance that has been given cursory attention in the selection of emerging
sites for development, especially in respect of Core Strategy policy CS8.6.
3.2 The inclusion of emerging options E31M and E4M in such close proximity to
the Roman fort and its heritage setting7 is, in my view, contrary to the planning
stipulations in PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment 2010, and the Core
Strategy policies CS8. 6 and CS8.2. The evidence base of the significance of the
whole area is lacking in detail. The Local Development Framework has not
given adequate consideration to 'the character of the [historic] environment and
[the] area's sense of place' (Policy HE3 of PPS5). Development at both sites
will detract from the heritage setting and harm its sense of place.
3.3 The absence of few visual signs of the Lancaster Canal at Watercrook has also
caused the historical importance of this missing waterway to be overlooked. As
I pointed out in my statement of 2008 (p. 3), development at E31M should not
be considered in isolation when Area Action Plans for the restoration of the
canal are in the offing (Paper 2001 and Comments 2008, p. 4). PPS12: 5.5
emphasises that, 'Area Action Plans can assist in producing a consensus as to
the right strategy for an area and how it might be implemented' (a consideration
that is being compromised by the selection of E31M). If, as seems likely in due
course, the canal is restored to Canal Head in Kendal, eventually providing a
waterway entrance into the town from the south, the heritage value of the
section of landscape from Natland to Watercrook will acquire even greater
significance.
3.4 Currently, there are views of E4M and E31M from the canal towpath between
Crow Park Bridge (over the canal) near Natland and Watercrook lane. Not far
from Crow Park towards Kendal, any development on the elevated ground at
E31M will be discerned directly ahead against the poplar/cypress screen that
presently conceals Clarks' warehouses (with Kendal Castle clearly visible in the
background), and is likely to interfere with views of the castle. From this
direction, the castle is a prominent feature at the moment in the approach from
the south whether walking or (as in the future) by boat along a restored canal. In
the progress to the next canal bridge at Natland Hall, the site at E4M can be seen
against the backdrop of the Helsington Laithes drumlin. Once passed this
bridge, the canal is elevated on an embankment and E4M is starkly visible
against the drumlin with Scroggs Woods seen as the present edge to the town.
This gateway approach to Kendal is very impressive, with views ofHelsington
Barrows to the west, The Helm to the east, and Benson Knott on Hay Fell to the
north above Kendal.
3.5 Conversely, development on the elevated ground at E31M will obliterate the
impressive views towards Prizet over the Drumlin Field County Landscape for
walkers and future canal users leaving the town, a landscape that is rightly
described as 'peaceful' at the moment by the Kendal Fact File (p. 123). It
should be obvious that the course of the old Lancaster Canal between
Watercrook and Crow Park is in a landscape 'sensitive to change' and, as such,
should be 'protected' (PPS12: 5.4) in anticipation of its future Area Action Plan.
4. Environmental Importance
4.1 The River Kent SSSI, (along its entire length including its tributaries), is
protected under the European Habitats Directive (1979) as a Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), and under the European Birds Directive (1992) as a
Special Protection Area (SPA), the raison d'etre for these designations being
biodiversity. The peacefulness of the stretch of the river at Watercrook is very
evident from the clear calling of oyster catchers (Haematopus ostralegus) and
curlews (Numenius arquata) in spring and summer, both of which birds breed
locally, among numerous other birds for which the Kent is important. The
interaction between the riverine habitats and the openness of the flood-plain
landscape make this part of the Kent valley valuable, not only for breeding
biodiversity and for bird migration (notably waxwing I Bombycilla garrulous),
but also for its peaceful sense of place, a condition that is currently rural,
scenically and ecologically. Development on this south side of Kendal will
inevitably detract from this condition and harm both the scenery and the
ecology. Erosion of green-field sites by urban sprawl, especially those where
biodiversity is recognised to exist, should not be countenanced lightly- if it is to
be countenance at all within such close proximity to a SAC and SPA. Even
Policy E35 of the Structure Plan: 'Areas and Features of nature conservation
interests other than those of national and international importance' recognises
the significance of 'Landscape features of major importance for fauna and flora,
which are essential for migration dispersal and genetic exchange'. Scroggs
Wood would fall into this category without its international status, for it contains
Spindle (Euonymus europaeus), an ancient woodland arboreal indicator species,
as well as being an integral feature for bird migration in the Kent valley. Its
specific inclusion within the River Kent SAC and SPA enhances the wood's
importance to such a high level that even with the requisite buffer zone of 100
metres called for in the legislation, the intrusion of noise, lighting, and increased
human activity associated with employment development at the huge E4M site
would seriously undermine the existing environmental integrity of the wood,
and the quietude of the nearby weir. Mitigation measures will not alleviate the
harm that development will cause, and will not be consistent with Core Strategy
policy CS8.4.
4.2. Neither the ecological, nor the structural, significance of arboreal edges at
Watercrook seems to have been adequately appreciated in the consideration of
E4M and E31M as sites for development. Once arboreal edges are established,
as is the case with the belt of trees extending from Helm Lodge (mature beech),
down Watercrook lane between its ancient hedge and Clarks warehouse
(poplar/cypress screen), along the steeply incised river-bank (oak/ash), and then
across the river against the treatment works with its planted screen and the bankside
trees (willow/alder/ash/sycamore), linking with the riverine section of
Scroggs Wood, the part they play in local ecology is often under-valued. For
example, the old beech trees opposite Clarks, and the broadleaves beside the
river Kent between Natland Mill Beck and Watercrook Lane, may be the bat
roost referred to by SLDC in Core Strategy: Preferred Options (Table 3, p. 134).
E31M and its associated utilities will affect this habitat. 8 Currently, these
arboreal edges, as habitats, are open on the south to the ecology of the Kendal
gateway entrance countryside, an openness that is scenically as well as
ecologically critical, and also of recreational importance to the local community.
The significance of these open edges against impressive countryside has not
received the close attention it deserves, as in the case of Core Strategy policies
CS8.1 and CS8.2.
4.3 The importance of Ancient Woodland and of Networks of Natural Habitats is
stressed in PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation 2005. Together, the
habitats of Scroggs Wood, the River Kent and its flood plain, the course of the
Lancaster Canal, and the arboreal edges make the Watercrook area one of
considerable ecological importance. This importance, as I have emphasised, has
not been given the attention called for by PPS9 in the selection of options E31M
and E4M. The European Habitats Directive, under which the River Kent SAC
and SPA are protected, attaches particular emphasis on the need to safeguard the
integrity of such areas. It is incumbent on both national and local authorities to
ensure that an 'appropriate assessment' is made to determine that development
will not have a negative impact upon this 'integrity'. The European legislation
has consistently set the bar for 'appropriate assessment' extremely high - that is
to say, very small impacts can damage the 'integrity' of European sites of
conservation. I contend that E4M, in particular, will cause deterioration in
'integrity' if allowed to proceed.
5. Recreational Significance
5.1 Both sides of the River Kent flood plain at Watercrook are enjoyed by the
public. The river is a favourite fishing ground for the Kent Anglers Association.
The vicinity of the weir is a popular location for families to engage with the
bird-life of the river, to experience the vicissitudes of its flow, and to enjoy the
impressive surrounding scenery. Kayak clubs and trainee groups use this
location regularly as a launch-place for trips downstream to Hawes Bridge.
Development at E4M will transform completely the current open character of
this experience. Footpaths follow either bank of the river, into and out of
Kendal, the weir location and the lay-by on Watercrook lane being popular
parking places for walkers. Development at E4M and at E31M will completely
diminish the sense of detachment from the Kendal urban area currently enjoyed
by these recreationists. This is enjoyment of the local landscape and its heritage
assets at the micro-level which, when linked with that at the macro-level of The
Helm, Scout Scar and Helsington Barrows, and the gateway entrance, points up
the varied importance of the Watercrook countryside and that of the Kent valley
corridor to the community of Kendal and its visiting tourists. Both E4M and
E31M will be visible to walkers from the riverside and canal footpaths, as well
as from the higher paths that descend into the valley from Briggs House Farm
and High House, the Brigsteer Road, and Helsington Barrows. I contend that
the omission of a proper assessment of this recreational significance is another
example of a lack of sound planning in the selection of emerging options E31M
and E4M. Perhaps SLDC has forgotten the commitment it made in the Local
Plan of2006 (Section 1.54):
'The Local Planning Authority recognises the crucial importance of building
substantial green "lungs" and open spaces into a strategic plan for the area. It
would protect a broad swathe of the riverside at Watercrook and the site of
the old Roman fort and expect these areas to be dedicated for public use
[my emphases].'
Core Strategy policy CS8.1 shonld allow for this earlier commitment to be
respected.
6. Conclusion
6.1 As in the Local Plan of 2006, Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy addresses the
importance of Green Gaps, especially where they: 'Contribute to maintaining a
settlement's identity, landscape setting and character; Comprise predominantly
open land maintaining an "open" aspect; [and] Where possible afford
recreational and biodiversity opportunities.' The existing countryside of the
Kent valley corridor due south of Kendal contributes to both the identities and
settings of the town and of Natland. The wider Kent valley corridor itself, as I
have discussed, affords both recreational and biodiversity opportunities. Once
the green aspect and the heritage assets of this countryside are encroached upon,
and the southern edge of Kendal breached, where will development end? What
is the planning vision for this currently 'open space', 'green-field space', and
'green corridor'? These two vital questions have yet to be addressed in the Core
Strategy, an omission that is not only serious but unsound in planning terms. As
I have emphasised, PPS12 places critical importance upon the concept of vision
in spatial planning and Core Strategies. PPS12: 4.14 also recognises that, 'Core
Strategies represent [or should if the evidence base is sound and credible] a
considerable body of work and are intended to endure and give a degree of
certainty to communities and investors'. Without a clear and justifiable vision
for the future of the countryside on the edge of south Kendal 'certainty' is, as
yet, far from being clarified. The Inspector's Report 2010 of the Core Strategy
emphasises the special need for a 'Clarification of [the] site appraisal process
and [the] criteria for employment land selection'9 In particular, the Inspector's
Report notes the 'reservations [which exist] about the possible landscape impact
of new development of scale on the setting of the town .... '. 10 In my view, these
reservations remain valid for the Watercrook area.
6.3 The emerging options E4M and E31M give cause for concern because they
have tacitly been given clearance as acceptable, despite the glaring
inconsistency in the arguments that select the former when EN38 is considered
'an inappropriate location for new development', and the lengthy history of
refusal for the latter. It should be understood and stated by SLDC in its Core
Strategy Land Allocations that these two employment sites set a precedent for
expansion of the Kendal urban area on the south of its existing development
plan boundary, a precedent that has profound planning implications for the
future place-shaping and identity of the town, as well as the integrity of the
'The River Kent Green Corridor'.
6.3 It has come to my notice that Environmental Impact Assessments have not yet
been carried out for any of the emerging options. My comments should have
argued successfully that both E4M and E31M are inappropriate locations for
new development. If these options progress any further, both should come
within The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 1999 (currently under revision) and will require the completion of
an environmental statement. When complete, I am sure that the statements will,
in each case, justifY and uphold the comments I have made here.
6.4 Lastly, as the derelict brown-field site on Natland Road, bordered by the River
Kent and Natland Mill Beck, reveals, certain unused land already zoned for
employment functions remains vacant. There is no reference in the Core
Strategy evidence-based documents to a recent survey of the number, size and
location of vacant units in the existing industrial and business estates in Kendal.
My occasional visits to these estates, even before the current economic
downturn, made it obvious to me that a considerable number of units are unused.
This factor should have been taken into account in determining: a) the current
employment capacity; b) the current spare employment capacity; and c) the
demand for futnre employment capacity. This information should be critical to
any planning decisions about where to locate future employment development.
With respect to the evidence base for employment land needs, the Inspector's
Report 2010 notes that, 'The tension between evidence and policy intent is
regrettable'. 12
6.4 It is a prerequisite of Local Development Framework proposals that when land
allocations have been confirmed they will be scrutinised by a planning
inspector. Now that E4M and E31M have been selected (2012) as sites for
futnre development, I am sure that an inspector will be severely critical of the
planning judgements and the evidence base that has allowed these two sites to
be included as emerging options. I hope that the failures in Soundness which I
have identified in each case will provide sufficient grounds for their exclusion
from the Land Allocations DPD.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
To provide further information if necessary
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Dr Roger Crawley (Individual) : 11 Apr 2012 14:52:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - E31M KENDAL LAND SOUTH OF K SHOES, NATLAND ROAD
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
1. Introduction
1.1 I submit the following comments as a coherent critique, rather than as separate statements in the formula preferred by SLDC in its Consultation Response Form, because both sites and issues in land allocation are related subjects and need to be considered in the context of the overall purpose of the South Lakeland Development Framework and its evidence base. Furthermore, these comments and observations on the Land Allocations Emerging Options of the Core Strategy of South Lakeland District Council (notably sites E31M and E4M) augment the succession of statements I have made to the local authority
since 200 I on the expansion of the Kendal urban area to the south of its existing Local Plan Development boundary. My previous statements include comments made in a paper in 2001 (your ref. 333) relating to South Lakeland Local Plan Alteration, September 2000; in May 2008 relating to Core Strategy Preferred Options; and in February 2009 relating to Preferred Options. Although certain of my previous comments were made in the context of PPS12 (2004), which has since been replaced by PPS12: Local Spatial Planning (2008), the planning issues are essentially the same. For example, there is an overriding obligation on Core Strategies 'to produce a vision [my emphasis] for the future of places', and 'to translate this vision into ... land allocations' (PPS12: 2.1), because 'Spatial planning plays a central role in the overall task of place shaping [my emphasis] ... ' (2.3), and 'provides a means of safeguarding the area's
environmental assets ... (2.6).
1.2 The substantive issue of the appropriateness of Kendal's expansion
southwards in the Kent valley, within the overall context of the shape and
setting of the Town, has been neglected, in my view, in deciding the suitability
of land allocation for development in both the Preferred and Emerging Options
planning procedures. Although options for development southwards are listed
in the SLDC Kendal Fact File, notably sites to the south of Helm Lodge (R104),
the Roman Fort at Watercrook (E31 and EN30), Scroggs Wood (E4 and EN37),
Helsington Laithes (RN132 and EN38), and Burton Road (M2M), at no stage
has the obligatory overview been taken of the implications of such expansion in
terms of place shaping and vision. Indeed, it appears from the options listed
and from the emerging choices (E31M, E4M, and M2M), that it is a foregone
conclusion that Kendal will expand its urban area southwards whatever the
consequences to the surrounding environment.
1.3 As I make my comments and observations, it will become apparent that the
options listed and subsequently chosen as emerging have been considered in
isolation, with the emphasis upon an overriding determinant - the percentage
allocation for Kendal to meet Core Strategy employment land demands - than on
an incumbent Core Strategy and Structure Plan responsibility to 'protect' and
'sustain' existing special environments, and to create 'an overall vision which
sets out how the area and the places within it should develop' (PPS 12: 4.1 ). As
a former landscape plarmer, I find it astonishing that the Emerging Options
consultation document, after stating (p.23) that among the 'Key local factors
influencing the location of new development in Kendal are;
Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the
need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and
appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road and rail from
important viewpoints such as Kendal Castle, The Helm, Kendal Fell and Scout
Scar I Brigsteer Road;'
should then proceed to select options E31M and E4M in the Kent valley as sites
for employment development. How can the selection of these two options be
consistent or sound with the following 'Main implications for the DPD' given in
the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report: Land Allocations (October 2012):
'Culture and Heritage' (p. 16): 'Land Allocations DPD must take account of
how the location of or type of development proposed on sites could compromise
or provide benefits to heritage, historical, cultural and archaeological features,
buildings, events and environment/settings.'
'Biodiversity and Geodiversity' (p. 17): 'Plans and strategies must not have any
significant negative impact on any sites that are protected by SAC or SPA
designation'.
'Landscape' (p. 18): 'Land allocations DPD must consider how the location and
dimensions, as well as likely development type, of sites could detract from or
improve the landscape and the setting of features and settlements.'
I hope that my comments will show that both E31M and E4M in particular
seriously compromise, and detract from, the features of their landscape,
environment and setting. The Kendal Fact File, in its preliminary assessment of
these options mentions numerous negative impacts and constraints, and the
range of associated mitigation measures. If so much negative evidence and so
much mitigation compromise the choice of these options, why were they made
and permitted to reach this stage, especially E4M which was not considered as a
preferred option. Such potential harm across a spectrum of environmental assets
is contrary to the planning obligations set out in PPS9: Biodiversity and
Geological Conservation 2005; PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment
2010; and PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004) under The
Countryside (5-131), 15: 'Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the
quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible,
enhanced etc.' The points I make below will argue that the Landscape
Character, Heritage Value, Environmental Importance, and Recreational
Significance of the countryside of the Kent valley corridor south of Kendal call
for its protection as open green field space where the spatial planning safeguards
the area's enviromnental assets. Significantly, 'The River Kent Green Corridor'
is already identified under Green Spaces and Open Spaces in Emerging
Options (p. 36).
1.4 During the course of the Core Strategy deliberations much has been made of the
status of Kendal as the Gateway to the Lakes. The majority of visitors to the
Lake District National Park, and to Kendal itself, arrive from the south, whether
by road or rail. The Kent valley countryside lying between Helsington Barrows
and Scout Scar on the west and The Helm on the east creates this gateway
entrance. If the gateway identity of Kendal is to be respected then attention
should be given to how any future development of the town on the south is
likely to affect this identity, especially negatively. This matter has yet to be
seriously discussed in the evidence-based documents. The significance of this
omission will accrue as I draw attention to other shortcomings in respect of
consideration given to the italicised headings listed above.
I. 5 Furthermore, only passing reference (Emerging Options, p. 21) has been given
in the Land Allocation process to the implications of future development to the
proposal for a southern extension to the Lake District National Park, which
is recommended in Lakes to Dales: Landscape Designation Project Consultation
Document (Natural England, 2009, pp. 16-17). The extension covers the Lyth
Valley as far as the outskirts of Levens, the karst ground of Helsington Barrows
adjacent to Scout Scar, and the Brigsteer environs south to Sizergh Fell and
Sizergh Castle. The recommendation notes that, 'The Helsington Barrows and
Sizergh Fell ridge is a key feature into the area and forms part of the southern
gateway to the Lakes.' It also emphasises that, 'This area is very sensitive to
further urban, road or large-scale development, which would adversely affect its
landscape quality and tranquillity.' Once designated, as is likely, this extension
will bring the national park boundary closer to Kendal, and give proper
recognition to the quality of the landscape on the western side of the Kent valley
corridor.
2. Landscape Character
2 .1. The landscape character of the Kent valley corridor is based on Technical Paper
5: Landscape Character of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan
2001-16, and on Policy E36 of the Structure Plan: Landscapes of County
Importance. In my previous comments (27/05/08 attached) on the Core
Strategy Preferred Options, I emphasised the distinctiveness of the convergence
of a number of landscape types ( 5 in all) in the corridor between The Helm and
Scout Scar (2008 / p4) and noted that an earlier study had recognised this fact1
This convergence accentuates the landscape importance of the corridor and adds
to the significance of the Drumlin Field Landscape of County Importance
designation that had previously been recognised in the Kent valley (see below).
I also emphasised the significance of what is currently a very definitive arboreal
edge to the southern margins of the town in the vicinity of the River Kent (2008
/ p.4, and enclosed map), an edge which includes the linear belt of Scroggs
Wood from the river to the A6. The gateway to Kendal, therefore, is not only
impressive for a range of landscape types set closely together but also for the
fact that development has not breached the definitive edge to the town on the
south and intruded into the visual field of the gateway countryside.
2.2. SLDC will know that E31M has a controversial history as a site for employment
development. It was rejected as such by a planning inspector in 1988 in his
review of objections to a South Westmorland Local Plan2 When it was
included again in the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006 in 2000, it was eventually
rejected after consultation, a review by another inspector, and a site visit by the
Planning Committee. In May 2001, a 'Revised Plan showing that the
employment allocation has been removed, the development boundary realigned
and the area designated as County Landscape' was issued3 It is an example of
unsoundness in planning practice that this site should resurface again after being
considered inappropriate in the past. How 'could [E31M] be considered a
logical extension of Natland Road Employment Area [Clarks]', (Emerging
Options, p. 34), with such a history of refusal? And why should the nearby area
(R49 and R536), currently designated as employment land within the
development plan boundary, and which has remained derelict for over ten years,
continue to be unused when it lies between two functioning employment zones?
My comments of 27/05/2008 refer in detail to the reasons why development at
E31M contravenes many of the clauses in Core Strategy policies CS7.4, CS8.1,
CS8.2, and CS8.6, reasons that continue to prevail and which are reiterated here.
2.3. With respect to site E4M, the South Lakeland Housing and Emplovment Land
Search recognises (p. 56) that 'Scroggs Wood forms a strong boundary to the
town and [that] development to the south of this would be highly visible in the
wider landscape and should, therefore, not be permitted.' A similar emphatic
conclusion was reached in 1988 by a planning inspector, who also recognised
the importance of Scroggs Wood as part of the definitive edge to the town;
'Open farmland and Scroggs Wood form an ideal visnal edge to the built up area
made all the more important by the open views afforded from the bypass'4 The
emergence of the huge site at E4M (17.9Ha) as a potential location for
employment shows that the advice of the land search specialists and a previous
planning inspector have been disregarded; that the Core Strategy policies cited
above in respect of E31M have not been applied with due soundness to E4M by
SLDC; that SDLC has decided to breach the definitive southern edge of the
town and extend the urban area into what the Structure Plan and the Land
Search recognise is countryside of special importance; and that the concept of a
gateway approach to Kendal is considered irrelevant by SLDC to the future
identity of the town. And yet, in the SLDC Kendal Fact File (p. 117), with
respect to the rejection of site EN38, it is unreservedlyrecognised:
'However, the key constraint is the likely impact of development for landscape
character and it is considered [that] strategic employment uses in this location
would significantly harm the landscape [my emphasis]. In view of this, it is
considered [that] any development in this location would have [a] significant
adverse impact on existing views from adjacent surrounding area and alter
the existing character of the area by introducing an urban landscape
incongruous to the rural landscape setting [my emphasis]. In this context it is
considered an inappropriate location for new development.'
Incredibly, the adjacent site at E4M across the A6, to which the same arguments
apply, is not dismissed as an 'inappropriate location'. This is manifestly
illogical and is certainly not sound planning practice. And only a biased or
incompetent assessment, such as that made by the NWDA Study, could
conclude, 'that with an appropriate landscape scheme this site [E4M] has the
capacity to absorb development without being unduly prominent within the
landscape' (p.l19 Kendal Fact File). The site will always be prominent in the
Kent valley when seen from The Helm, and in the gateway approaches to
Kendal, as the planning inspector noted in 1988. This example of inconsistency
displays a total lack of soundness of the kind I cited in my previous
communication (2008, pp.4-5).
2.4 With respect to CS7.4, development at E4M will not be 'of a scale in keeping
with its surroundings'; and will be 'detrimental to the character [and]
appearance of the landscape'. Any detailed and thorough assessment of the
prominence in the landscape of the E4M site, which consists of two large
pasture fields elevated above the flood plain of the river and which slope
upwards to the A6, should reveal that the emergence of this option is a major
visual and physical assault on the character and heritage assets of the local
landscape. Any development would sit in the landscape on elevated ground
between two high shapely drumlins that currently attract the eye in views from
the east - the one at Prizet and the one above Helsington Laithes close to the
town's urban area. The two fields are prominently visible from the whole length
of The Helm ridge, and development here would intrude starkly into views from
this ridge across the Kent valley towards the limestone scenery of Helsington
Barrows and the distant Lakeland peaks. From the Friends of the Lake District
gate mid-way along the ridge-wall until the trig-point at The Helm summit, the
views across the site are in a direct line with the distant prospect of the Langdale
Pikes. Any development would intrude markedly into the middle-distance
prospect ofHelsington Barrows, which has considerable visual integrity, notably
for its curved outline as it falls away to the Brigsteer Road. From the Helm trigpoint,
the large and impressive meander that encloses the site of the Roman Fort
at Watercrook, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), would be dominated by
any development across the river against Scroggs Wood. This is clearly an
example where a heritage site - perhaps because it does not have a visible ruin -
has been dismissed with only an apologetic 'need to carefully consider' its
relevance to the case in hand Kendal Fact File (p. 121 ), even though the
meander is a dominant feature in the landscape. The two fields adjacent to
Scroggs Wood are also visible from the east at Oxenholme railway station, and
from trains in their approach to, and departure from, the station.
2.5 A proper assessment of the visual impact in the Kent valley landscape of future
development at E4M should have noted how dramatic an intrusion this site
would be because of its size, its very open location, and particularly its raised
position above the flood plain. Such a large intrusive development would
seriously reduce, not maintain or enhance, the quality of the surrounding
landscape and its assets, and show that SLDC has contempt for its own 'key
local factor' in selecting sites quoted above (p.l ). It should also be obvious to
the local planning authority that the two large fields of E4M are visible from the
northern edge of the National Trust property on Scout Scar (the open larch
wood), and from various points along the higher stretches of Helsington
Barrows all the way to the Mushroom. The site at E31M is equally as
prominent from this westerly direction. Both sites are visible in the approach to
Kendal via the Brigsteer Road, the A591, and the A6, and if developed would
make a mockery of the concept of a gateway entrance to the town which is,
currently, a dramatic feature of its identity on its southern margin. The Core
Strategy obligation to safeguard environmental assets should attach greater
importance to a margin which consists of features that are of County Landscape
Importance (the Drumlin Field), of potential national park status (Helsington
Barrows), of heritage significance (the Roman Fort and the Sattnry), of
European Special Area of Conservation status (the River Kent), and which
includes an historical thoroughfare (the Lancaster Canal) that is programmed to
be restored as yet another impressive approach to Kendal from the south.
3. Heritage Value
3.1 The site of the Roman Fort, ALAVANA, at Watercrook (SD5190) is an English
Heritage Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), a heritage asset which derives
significance not only from its strategic location within a large meander of the
River Kent but also from associated field features and its setting within the
valley, notably its visual relationship with the distinctive eminence of The Helm.
To date, the position of the fort's civil settlement has not been located in the
landscape. However, a local specialist in Roman history believes that the flat
ground lying to the south of Watercrook lane between the footpath to Hawes
Bridge and the river was the fort's training area, and that the nearby low mound
(topped with a hedge), which has a symmetrical indentation, supported the
temple platform from where both training instructions were given and allegiance
to the emperor practiced. 5 A cemetery for the fort has yet to be located but may
exist between the Sattnry and the river. The fort and its associated field features
are one of the Roman heritage sites visited by students from John Moores
University, Liverpool, and from local schools, in field excursions. It is possible
that the Sattnry (SD51559029), a conical knoll , as well as the temple mound,
may have served as look-out points for the fort for views down-river. Similarly,
in Roman times there may have been a strategic connection between the fort and
The Helm. ALA V ANA, which probably housed a legionary cohort, may have
been associated with a Roman road running from Low Borrow Bridge (near
Tebay), the site of another fort, over Whinfell via Patton Bridge and Mealbank
to Kendal. The Roman associations of the fields at Watercrook between the
River Kent and the old course of the Lancaster Canal, therefore, render this
whole area a landscape of heritage and archaeological significance, a degree of
importance that has been given cursory attention in the selection of emerging
sites for development, especially in respect of Core Strategy policy CS8.6.
3.2 The inclusion of emerging options E31M and E4M in such close proximity to
the Roman fort and its heritage setting7 is, in my view, contrary to the planning
stipulations in PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment 2010, and the Core
Strategy policies CS8. 6 and CS8.2. The evidence base of the significance of the
whole area is lacking in detail. The Local Development Framework has not
given adequate consideration to 'the character of the [historic] environment and
[the] area's sense of place' (Policy HE3 of PPS5). Development at both sites
will detract from the heritage setting and harm its sense of place.
3.3 The absence of few visual signs of the Lancaster Canal at Watercrook has also
caused the historical importance of this missing waterway to be overlooked. As
I pointed out in my statement of 2008 (p. 3), development at E31M should not
be considered in isolation when Area Action Plans for the restoration of the
canal are in the offing (Paper 2001 and Comments 2008, p. 4). PPS12: 5.5
emphasises that, 'Area Action Plans can assist in producing a consensus as to
the right strategy for an area and how it might be implemented' (a consideration
that is being compromised by the selection of E31M). If, as seems likely in due
course, the canal is restored to Canal Head in Kendal, eventually providing a
waterway entrance into the town from the south, the heritage value of the
section of landscape from Natland to Watercrook will acquire even greater
significance.
3.4 Currently, there are views of E4M and E31M from the canal towpath between
Crow Park Bridge (over the canal) near Natland and Watercrook lane. Not far
from Crow Park towards Kendal, any development on the elevated ground at
E31M will be discerned directly ahead against the poplar/cypress screen that
presently conceals Clarks' warehouses (with Kendal Castle clearly visible in the
background), and is likely to interfere with views of the castle. From this
direction, the castle is a prominent feature at the moment in the approach from
the south whether walking or (as in the future) by boat along a restored canal. In
the progress to the next canal bridge at Natland Hall, the site at E4M can be seen
against the backdrop of the Helsington Laithes drumlin. Once passed this
bridge, the canal is elevated on an embankment and E4M is starkly visible
against the drumlin with Scroggs Woods seen as the present edge to the town.
This gateway approach to Kendal is very impressive, with views ofHelsington
Barrows to the west, The Helm to the east, and Benson Knott on Hay Fell to the
north above Kendal.
3.5 Conversely, development on the elevated ground at E31M will obliterate the
impressive views towards Prizet over the Drumlin Field County Landscape for
walkers and future canal users leaving the town, a landscape that is rightly
described as 'peaceful' at the moment by the Kendal Fact File (p. 123). It
should be obvious that the course of the old Lancaster Canal between
Watercrook and Crow Park is in a landscape 'sensitive to change' and, as such,
should be 'protected' (PPS12: 5.4) in anticipation of its future Area Action Plan.
4. Environmental Importance
4.1 The River Kent SSSI, (along its entire length including its tributaries), is
protected under the European Habitats Directive (1979) as a Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), and under the European Birds Directive (1992) as a
Special Protection Area (SPA), the raison d'etre for these designations being
biodiversity. The peacefulness of the stretch of the river at Watercrook is very
evident from the clear calling of oyster catchers (Haematopus ostralegus) and
curlews (Numenius arquata) in spring and summer, both of which birds breed
locally, among numerous other birds for which the Kent is important. The
interaction between the riverine habitats and the openness of the flood-plain
landscape make this part of the Kent valley valuable, not only for breeding
biodiversity and for bird migration (notably waxwing I Bombycilla garrulous),
but also for its peaceful sense of place, a condition that is currently rural,
scenically and ecologically. Development on this south side of Kendal will
inevitably detract from this condition and harm both the scenery and the
ecology. Erosion of green-field sites by urban sprawl, especially those where
biodiversity is recognised to exist, should not be countenanced lightly- if it is to
be countenance at all within such close proximity to a SAC and SPA. Even
Policy E35 of the Structure Plan: 'Areas and Features of nature conservation
interests other than those of national and international importance' recognises
the significance of 'Landscape features of major importance for fauna and flora,
which are essential for migration dispersal and genetic exchange'. Scroggs
Wood would fall into this category without its international status, for it contains
Spindle (Euonymus europaeus), an ancient woodland arboreal indicator species,
as well as being an integral feature for bird migration in the Kent valley. Its
specific inclusion within the River Kent SAC and SPA enhances the wood's
importance to such a high level that even with the requisite buffer zone of 100
metres called for in the legislation, the intrusion of noise, lighting, and increased
human activity associated with employment development at the huge E4M site
would seriously undermine the existing environmental integrity of the wood,
and the quietude of the nearby weir. Mitigation measures will not alleviate the
harm that development will cause, and will not be consistent with Core Strategy
policy CS8.4.
4.2. Neither the ecological, nor the structural, significance of arboreal edges at
Watercrook seems to have been adequately appreciated in the consideration of
E4M and E31M as sites for development. Once arboreal edges are established,
as is the case with the belt of trees extending from Helm Lodge (mature beech),
down Watercrook lane between its ancient hedge and Clarks warehouse
(poplar/cypress screen), along the steeply incised river-bank (oak/ash), and then
across the river against the treatment works with its planted screen and the bankside
trees (willow/alder/ash/sycamore), linking with the riverine section of
Scroggs Wood, the part they play in local ecology is often under-valued. For
example, the old beech trees opposite Clarks, and the broadleaves beside the
river Kent between Natland Mill Beck and Watercrook Lane, may be the bat
roost referred to by SLDC in Core Strategy: Preferred Options (Table 3, p. 134).
E31M and its associated utilities will affect this habitat. 8 Currently, these
arboreal edges, as habitats, are open on the south to the ecology of the Kendal
gateway entrance countryside, an openness that is scenically as well as
ecologically critical, and also of recreational importance to the local community.
The significance of these open edges against impressive countryside has not
received the close attention it deserves, as in the case of Core Strategy policies
CS8.1 and CS8.2.
4.3 The importance of Ancient Woodland and of Networks of Natural Habitats is
stressed in PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation 2005. Together, the
habitats of Scroggs Wood, the River Kent and its flood plain, the course of the
Lancaster Canal, and the arboreal edges make the Watercrook area one of
considerable ecological importance. This importance, as I have emphasised, has
not been given the attention called for by PPS9 in the selection of options E31M
and E4M. The European Habitats Directive, under which the River Kent SAC
and SPA are protected, attaches particular emphasis on the need to safeguard the
integrity of such areas. It is incumbent on both national and local authorities to
ensure that an 'appropriate assessment' is made to determine that development
will not have a negative impact upon this 'integrity'. The European legislation
has consistently set the bar for 'appropriate assessment' extremely high - that is
to say, very small impacts can damage the 'integrity' of European sites of
conservation. I contend that E4M, in particular, will cause deterioration in
'integrity' if allowed to proceed.
5. Recreational Significance
5.1 Both sides of the River Kent flood plain at Watercrook are enjoyed by the
public. The river is a favourite fishing ground for the Kent Anglers Association.
The vicinity of the weir is a popular location for families to engage with the
bird-life of the river, to experience the vicissitudes of its flow, and to enjoy the
impressive surrounding scenery. Kayak clubs and trainee groups use this
location regularly as a launch-place for trips downstream to Hawes Bridge.
Development at E4M will transform completely the current open character of
this experience. Footpaths follow either bank of the river, into and out of
Kendal, the weir location and the lay-by on Watercrook lane being popular
parking places for walkers. Development at E4M and at E31M will completely
diminish the sense of detachment from the Kendal urban area currently enjoyed
by these recreationists. This is enjoyment of the local landscape and its heritage
assets at the micro-level which, when linked with that at the macro-level of The
Helm, Scout Scar and Helsington Barrows, and the gateway entrance, points up
the varied importance of the Watercrook countryside and that of the Kent valley
corridor to the community of Kendal and its visiting tourists. Both E4M and
E31M will be visible to walkers from the riverside and canal footpaths, as well
as from the higher paths that descend into the valley from Briggs House Farm
and High House, the Brigsteer Road, and Helsington Barrows. I contend that
the omission of a proper assessment of this recreational significance is another
example of a lack of sound planning in the selection of emerging options E31M
and E4M. Perhaps SLDC has forgotten the commitment it made in the Local
Plan of2006 (Section 1.54):
'The Local Planning Authority recognises the crucial importance of building
substantial green "lungs" and open spaces into a strategic plan for the area. It
would protect a broad swathe of the riverside at Watercrook and the site of
the old Roman fort and expect these areas to be dedicated for public use
[my emphases].'
Core Strategy policy CS8.1 shonld allow for this earlier commitment to be
respected.
6. Conclusion
6.1 As in the Local Plan of 2006, Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy addresses the
importance of Green Gaps, especially where they: 'Contribute to maintaining a
settlement's identity, landscape setting and character; Comprise predominantly
open land maintaining an "open" aspect; [and] Where possible afford
recreational and biodiversity opportunities.' The existing countryside of the
Kent valley corridor due south of Kendal contributes to both the identities and
settings of the town and of Natland. The wider Kent valley corridor itself, as I
have discussed, affords both recreational and biodiversity opportunities. Once
the green aspect and the heritage assets of this countryside are encroached upon,
and the southern edge of Kendal breached, where will development end? What
is the planning vision for this currently 'open space', 'green-field space', and
'green corridor'? These two vital questions have yet to be addressed in the Core
Strategy, an omission that is not only serious but unsound in planning terms. As
I have emphasised, PPS12 places critical importance upon the concept of vision
in spatial planning and Core Strategies. PPS12: 4.14 also recognises that, 'Core
Strategies represent [or should if the evidence base is sound and credible] a
considerable body of work and are intended to endure and give a degree of
certainty to communities and investors'. Without a clear and justifiable vision
for the future of the countryside on the edge of south Kendal 'certainty' is, as
yet, far from being clarified. The Inspector's Report 2010 of the Core Strategy
emphasises the special need for a 'Clarification of [the] site appraisal process
and [the] criteria for employment land selection'9 In particular, the Inspector's
Report notes the 'reservations [which exist] about the possible landscape impact
of new development of scale on the setting of the town .... '. 10 In my view, these
reservations remain valid for the Watercrook area.
6.3 The emerging options E4M and E31M give cause for concern because they
have tacitly been given clearance as acceptable, despite the glaring
inconsistency in the arguments that select the former when EN38 is considered
'an inappropriate location for new development', and the lengthy history of
refusal for the latter. It should be understood and stated by SLDC in its Core
Strategy Land Allocations that these two employment sites set a precedent for
expansion of the Kendal urban area on the south of its existing development
plan boundary, a precedent that has profound planning implications for the
future place-shaping and identity of the town, as well as the integrity of the
'The River Kent Green Corridor'.
6.3 It has come to my notice that Environmental Impact Assessments have not yet
been carried out for any of the emerging options. My comments should have
argued successfully that both E4M and E31M are inappropriate locations for
new development. If these options progress any further, both should come
within The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 1999 (currently under revision) and will require the completion of
an environmental statement. When complete, I am sure that the statements will,
in each case, justifY and uphold the comments I have made here.
6.4 Lastly, as the derelict brown-field site on Natland Road, bordered by the River
Kent and Natland Mill Beck, reveals, certain unused land already zoned for
employment functions remains vacant. There is no reference in the Core
Strategy evidence-based documents to a recent survey of the number, size and
location of vacant units in the existing industrial and business estates in Kendal.
My occasional visits to these estates, even before the current economic
downturn, made it obvious to me that a considerable number of units are unused.
This factor should have been taken into account in determining: a) the current
employment capacity; b) the current spare employment capacity; and c) the
demand for futnre employment capacity. This information should be critical to
any planning decisions about where to locate future employment development.
With respect to the evidence base for employment land needs, the Inspector's
Report 2010 notes that, 'The tension between evidence and policy intent is
regrettable'. 12
6.4 It is a prerequisite of Local Development Framework proposals that when land
allocations have been confirmed they will be scrutinised by a planning
inspector. Now that E4M and E31M have been selected (2012) as sites for
futnre development, I am sure that an inspector will be severely critical of the
planning judgements and the evidence base that has allowed these two sites to
be included as emerging options. I hope that the failures in Soundness which I
have identified in each case will provide sufficient grounds for their exclusion
from the Land Allocations DPD.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
To provide further information if necessary
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me