Local Development Framework Consultation

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Burton-in-Kendal sites

No

Response by Mrs V Holland
I wish to voice my concerns regarding the Land Allocations Development Plan for
Burton-in-Kendal
I consider the suggestion that there should be another 146 dwellings built to be more
than excessive.
In fact I do not think that it is necessary for any more to be built as it has been stated in
the past that Burton is unsnstainable .
We have lost yet another shop and it is now a round trip of I 0 miles to the nearest
Chemist, Bank, Butchers and Supermarket
This number of houses would also exacerbate the parking problems at school start and
finish times. I have on one occasion counted in excess of 40 cars parked in and around
the school area. More houses would mean more cars at that time. It is an accident just
waiting to happen. Also would the school have to be extended yet again to make room
for more pupils.
There is a lot of discussion regarding affordable houses. If these are urgently needed I
cannot understand why some enterprising builder has not purchased the Royal Hotel site
to build there.
Perhaps it is because you could presume that the people who could afford these houses
cannot afford the ever rising fuel costs to get to work in places such as Lancaster and
Kendal.
Also with the Lib Dems planning to remove free parking on the New Road in Kendal
there is even less incentive to live out of the working area.
There is only one bns per hour but the times are not compatible to working hours yet
another reason why it makes travelling to work difficult from the outlying villages.
I would urge the SLDC to reconsider and leave our village as a village and not allow it
to become one third larger.

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R76M BURTON-in-KENDAL EAST OF HUTTON CLOSE

No

Response by Mr D Holland

I wish to record my objections to the SOUTH LAKELAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK,
LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAND DOCUMENT (DPD).
INCORPORATING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROPOSALS MAP PROPOSED SUBMISSION
DOCUMENTS.
Nothing has changed since I sent my letter of objection on the llth April20ll re outline
planning of the land Ret; R76M {part ofR76) I therefore object the above on the following
grounds;
l. The land lies outside the area of the present Local Plan.
2. A government 'W'hite Paper siated that Burton is not sustainable.
Indicating that the local school and the village amenities are insufficient
3. The gradient onto the main road is steep where the road meets the highway and is
therefore an unsafe access onto a busy road.
4. The land is mairJy surrounded by bungalows and a development of many houses on a
sloping site would create a false urban impression and destroy the feathered approach
from the north. ·
5. After a village collection for the Queen's Jubilee the Parish Council erected a
viewpoint at tl1e entrance to Slape Lane. This viewpoint lias a panorama plaque
showing and naming the mountains, also the village church and its' frontage. If the
development is passed the church would no longer be seen and the viewpoipt made
incorrect.
6. The pedestrian access to the viiiage is toially inadequate. A mother with a pram has to
leave the pavement at certain places and frequently enter onto the road to gain access
to the village.
7. The proposed pedestrian access to the village via the Bridleway is fraught with
danger. Vehicles pass along Vicarage Lane at great speed, many of them huge tractors
and heavy farm machinery.
8. The area is designated as County Landscape and outline planning has been refused as
per reference; SL/2005/1243.
9. Over development will ruin the rural nature of our community and spoil the
landscape. Our local roads, sewerage, drains, parking and other services will not cope
and as for banks and surgeries, there are none.
We me all being urged to help save the planet by reducing our "carbon footprint" but by
ruining our villages with extra housing will only enlarge the footprint as most families will
have to have at least one car for work purposes and many will have two cars also for work,
shopping, school runs etc. A couple living in Burton with both working, one say in Lancaster
and the other one in Kendal, will iravei 200 miles each week just going to and from work
alone.
Is this going to help the planet?
With fuel prices such as they are this is not affordable for the families with low income.
Surely it is better to build houses nearer to the towns so that public transport can be used
instead of cars.
I also concur with the report in the Burton in Kendal Parish Council Quarterly News Letter
Spring2012. See page 2.

The proposed growth of Bumm-in-Kendal village by a tlilrd
runs counter to the policies established in the Core Strategy and
the DPD. The Core Strategy paragraph 2.24 states that:
"Extensions to Local Service Centres will be pursued only when
there is clear local need for development and significant
environmental impacts can be avoided, and once previously
developed land has been utilised. The amount of development
in each of the Local Service Centres will be dependent on the
environmental capacity, ~isting siu, role and infrastructure
provision of the seulement, and supporting identified local need
(utilising the findings of ltlrish Plans and Local Housing
Needs Surveys)."
The proposed developments in Burton-in-Kendal far exceed
any needs identified in the Parish Plan or tile Cumbria Rural
Housing Trust Survey both of which identified a need for a
limited amount of affordable lwusing for local occupancy. The
2004 Housing Needs Survey found a requirement for 12
affordable homes and the 2009 survey found a need for 14
affordable llomes.
TIU! DPD lias been through a lengthy development which has
considered alternative sites but tile plan lias relied on
encouraging demand led development to fitnd affordable
housing need. No alternatives to tl1is tnodel have been seriously
considered for Burton-in-Kendal.
Even allowing for this development model, an indicative figure
of 146 new houses, to wllich must be added the 16 houses
whiclt have been given planning permissum aJ tiU! Royal Hotel
site. would result in over 50 affordable /tomes which is far
greater than the measured housing med for the village. The ltlrish
Council suspect that the DPD has been developed on the basis of
how many houses can be built in Burton-in-Kendal to help meet
the District Cou11cil's perceived overallmed, rather than a proper
approach to planning in tile village based on local need as required
by tile Core Strategy.
The ltlrisll Com~eil propose tl1at to meet the measured local
affordable housing tU!ed a phased development of the southern half
of site MN26 supported by limited infilling at smaller sites sr~ell as
already approved at the old Royal Hotel tiJould more tllan meet the
requirement a11d would be more in keeping with the existing scale
atul needs of the village. Importantly, this would mea11 that site
RN226/227 wllicli has very poor access and R76M wlticlt has a
very adverse visual impact, poor access to t/U! village facilities and
is strongly opposed by residents, could botlt be removed from the
plan.