3 responses from Mr Stephen Downham (Individual)
1. Mr Stephen Downham (Individual) : 26 Apr 2012 13:38:00
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
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
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.
We have previously detailed the company's objection to the proposed development of E31 M
for industrial use.
We are now questioning the soundness of its inclusion in the Land Allocations Development
Plan Document (DPD) on the following grounds.
Not Justified
The DPD enjoys very little support within the local community with many residents and
pressure groups openly questioning the need for such large scale developments. There is
widespread resentment that the allocation is being imposed on the community and the many
representations made in the consultation process have been ignored.
E31 M is in a rural setting adjacent to the River Kent and a much appreciated walking area
accessible to town residents.
It is the only suitable location for a canal marina and is an integral part of the plan for the
restoration of the canaL This is an important proposed amenity which has been SLDC policy
for many years and cannot be ignored.
The importance of this site for a canal marina has already been highlighted by the Canal
Trust. If the site was used for industrial development, the only suitable site for a canal marina
in Kendal would be lost.
Not consistent with national policy
The E31 M site is a prime example of green belt and its inclusion in the plan will go against
the principles and intent of the new planning regulations that were announced on 27 March
2012. It would be much better to develop the many brown field sites in Kendal and not
contribute to urban sprawl and destroy this much loved rural area on the edge of the town.
I make this submission on behalf of the Board of Directors of Helme Lodge Homes &
Gardens Ltd. The board of directors is an elected body that represents the views of
all the residents that live in the 33 dwellings on the estate.
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
2. Mr Stephen Downham (Individual) : 26 Apr 2012 13:54:00
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.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R97 /MN34# KENDAL SOUTH OF NATLAND BECK FARM
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
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.
This objection is site specific and we question the soundness of its inclusion in the
Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) on the grounds of it not being
justified, not being effective and not being consistent with national policy. We have
previously objected to the proposed housing development to the south of Natland
Mill Beck Farm on the grounds of the hugely negative impact it would have on a
popular and much loved amenity area enjoyed by many walkers and cyclists. We
have also objected to the accompanying destruction of the parkland setting to the
grade 2 listed Helme Lodge.
Any site inclusion in the DPD must clearly be commercially viable for the proposed
development to be effective. There are difficult and highly expensive access issues
associated with the development of this site, which question its viability.
Access onto Natland Road would require a new road bridge and slip road in order to
preserve the line of the Kendal to Lancaster canal for redevelopment. The restoration of the
canal as an important new amenity has been SLDC policy for many years and cannot be
ignored. The development would also affect a magnificent line of beech trees that follow the
route of the canal. The alternative access from Natland Mill Beck Lane also presents significant problems. Any vehicle access from the lane would require an expensive road widening scheme, probably with a footpath. The serious environmental and safety issues and the loss of amenity value of a popular route for walkers and cyclists associated with such a scheme have already been highlighted by many residents supported by Kendal Civic Society and others.
Both access options would necessitate an extremely expensive infrastructure investment
and would be a serious handicap to any developer before finally committing to a
development scheme when there are far less expensive and easier sites available for
building. We therefore question its commercial viability. There are already examples of other developments within Kendal, where developers have misjudged the commercial viability and have been unable to complete projects. We believe this may be another such case but if the development work starts it will destroy a precious rural setting.
Not consistent with national policy
The R97M site is a prime example of green belt and its inclusion in the plan will go against
the principles and intent of the new planning regulations that were announced on 27 March
2012. It would be much better to develop the many brown field sites in Kendal and not
contribute to urban sprawl and destroy this much loved rural area on the edge of the town.
Approval for the development of R97M would also represent a departure from the
Sustainable Development Principles as detailed in Paragraphs 2-4 on page 15 of the Core
Strategy Document adopted on 201
h November 2010. In particular Paragraph 4 states "There
is a need to safeguard the essential character and appearance of those buildings and sites
that make a positive contribution to the special architectural or historic interest of the area,
including the numerous conservation areas and listed buildings, whilst encouraging the
appropriate re-use of buildings or sites which are causing harm". Further consideration
should be given to the associated destruction of the original parkland setting to the Grade 2
Listed Helm Lodge that this development would necessitate ..
Paragraph 2 on Page 15 is equally relevant given the hugely negative impact the
development would have a much loved and popular amenity area enjoyed by many walkers
and cyclists. This states "It is vital to protect the countryside for its intrinsic beauty, diversity
and natural resources and also for its ecological, geographical, cultural and historical,
economic, agricultural, recreational and social value".
I make this submission on behalf of the Board of Directors of Helme Lodge Homes &
Gardens Ltd. The board of directors is an elected body that represents the views of
all the residents that live in the 33 dwellings on the estate.
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. Mr Stephen Downham (Individual) : 26 Apr 2012 13:56:00
Paragraph No.
1.10
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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 effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
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.
This objection is site specific and we question the soundness of its inclusion in the
Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) on the grounds of it not being
justified, not being effective and not being consistent with national policy. We have
previously objected to the proposed housing development to the south of Natland
Mill Beck Farm on the grounds of the hugely negative impact it would have on a
popular and much loved amenity area enjoyed by many walkers and cyclists. We
have also objected to the accompanying destruction of the parkland setting to the
grade 2 listed Helme Lodge.
Not Justified
The DPD enjoys very little support within the local community with many residents
and pressure groups questioning the need for such large scale developments. There
is widespread resentment that the allocation is being imposed on the community and
the many representations made in the consultation process have been ignored
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
