Local Development Framework Consultation

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R121M-mod KENDAL EAST OF CASTLE GREEN ROAD

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.

The DPD is not consistent with national policy.

May i begin by saying that I am very disappointed that the Government Inspector will not be reading my earlier submissions, as (like many other residents) I have spent a lot of time and effort in preparing them. I feel it necessary to refuse to fill in the latest SLDC form because of its impenetrable jargon and many residents feel that it is totally baffling.

I have already pointed out in my earlier submissions the devastating impact that this
development would have on such a beautiful landscape, on the Great Crested Newts' terrestrial
habitats, on the biodiversity of the area, the serious impact of flooding, and the increase of traffic
and air pollution. I believe that SDLC's land allocations plan is 'unsound ' for various reasons:

It is important to remind you that Great Crested Newts are strictly protected under the Wildlife &
Countryside Act 1981. It is currently an offence under both UK and European Legislation to
intentionally or recklessly kill, injure, take, or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to
places of shelter or protection used by them, this includes their breeding ponds as well as
terrestrial habitats. Eight months of the year adult Great Crested Newts live out of the pond
and live in the landscape and its surrounds. They range over a wide area in search of shelter,
prey, and new breeding sites. They have been spotted in gardens on Oak Tree Road and
Rowan Tree Crescent indicating a wildlife corridor which covers a wide area.

In certain circumstances the presence of Great Crested Newts within 500 metres of a
proposed development can result in severe planning constraints and considerable
expense to progress building projects. The impact of a housing development would mean a
loss of the terrestrial habitat, particularly those close to the breeding pond can be very
damaging. The main effect of habitat loss is reduction in population size, through reduced
refuge opportunities leading to exposure to predators or harsh conditions, and unsuccessful
hibernating populations may go extinct where there is a major loss of terrestrial habitat.

The OS map that SDLC are currently working with is wrong and unreliable as it shows the
pond as much smaller than in reality (see photograph 1). The pond runs along the length of the
field {R677) and is much larger than on the OS map (see Goog!e Earth photograph 2}. This soft
marsh area from the pond overspills into fields R56 and particularly R141. R141, in particular,
has a soft marsh area which extends from the pond in the north end, well into R141 (see
photographs 3 and 4). This soft marsh area is an extension of the pond and is used by the
Great Crested Newts as an Emergence Zone, and is vital to their survival and existence. The
pond has long been established and is shown on an 1867 Kendal map, making it 145 years old,
and is likely to be older.

Before applying for planning permission, an appraisal of the impact of development on the Great
Crested Newt population is required. The Inspector should request a correct map from the LPA,
correctly labelled plan/diagram, (including also the old established orchard at the top of R56).

The LPA should also provide the Inspector with a supplementary map showing the extent of the
original site, R56, R141, R121, R677K, R676KE (with contours).

In the South Lakeland Core Strategy DPD, Inspector's Report August 2010, he stated:
Biodiversity and Geodiversity. The aims of policy CS8.4 to protect
the extensive and wide ranging Biodiversity and Geodiversity value of
the area are widely supported. However, Cumbria County Council
pointed to the need for policy to refer explicitly to the evolving
Cumbria Biodiversity Action Plan. The latter includes the need to
protect but also to restore and enhance valued habitats and
features. The District Council agreed and a series of agreed changes
are proposed. This would be consistent with National Policy and
International obligations.

R56 has a group of mature fruit trees that must have been an orchard at one time; it is still a
significant landscape feature, especially in Spring when the trees are in blossom. There is still
vestiges of a stone wall surrounding this orchard suggesting that it must have been protected
(see photograph 5). The beauty of the site is unquestionable (see photographs 6 & 7). It is
there for everyone to enjoy whether walking or driving in or out of town. We need green spaces
like this for our sense of well-being and for our sense of being uplifted by what we visually see.
Historically, Kendal is a market town nestled in a valley with surrounding fells, agricultural land
and woodlands, which makes it extremely attractive for its inhabitants and visitors alike. It is
important that Kendal does not lose areas of natural beauty like this, that it retains its classical
rural 'market town' character without endless housing sprawl

SLDC also accepted the Gillespie Report as sound, but it was unsound due to the fact that
certain gardens on Sedbergh Road were included and put forward as proposals/allocations for
consultation, as was the field with the pond (R677K).

The first time that the Planner responsible for developments in Kendal set foot on the site, was
on 22nd July 2011 and that was because I telephoned Damian Law to invite him to meet Solek
committee members and show him around the site. Astonishingly, as I have stated, this was the
first time that he had walked and looked at the landscape in detail. He had viewed the site from
the road previously. This beggars belief! How can a planner make such a major decision (that
will destroy a beautiful site forever), in such a cavalier fashion. This is in direct opposition to
what is stated in the DPD dated 30th September, 2008:

Policy EM 1: Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region's Assets
The Region's environmental assets should be identified, protected, enhanced and
managed. Recognises the need to deliver an integrated approach to conserving
and enhancing the landscape, natural environment, historic environment and
woodlands of the region.
Plans and strategies should define spatial objectives and priorities for conservation
restoration and enhancement as appropriate, and provide area-based guidelines
to direct decisions and. target resources. These will be founded on a sound
understanding of the diversity, distinctiveness, significance and sensitivity of the
region's environmental assets, and informed by sub-regional environmental
frameworks.

This all sounds very worthy and well thought out. But in reality SLDC is clearly making
uninformed and unsound decisions as they are blatantly unfamiliar with the R121 M site.
SLDC choose to ignore previous planning history, advice given by the Government Inspector in
1997, to ignore SOLEK members, to ignore what the local residents wish, and to ignore the
Report from Friends of the Lake District (CPRE) as part of their evidence base (March/April
2011). The Friends of the Lake District stated that R121M should not be developed, that being
in conflict with RSS Policy Em1, saved Structure Plan Policy E37, Core Strategy Policy 8.2 and
PPS7. And again SLDC choose to ignore the Kendal level Local Landscape Report
commissioned by Kendal Town Council as further evidence base.

The site has been put forward by the strategy team but has not been put before the relevant
planning committees for assessment (common to all sites). Indeed R121M was judged so
negatively for development in SLDC's original site notes that it was astounding to see "it put
forward for development (Land Allocations Development Plan Document).

In recent correspondence with the Right Honourable Greg Clark MP (Planning Minister),
regarding the draft National Planning Policy Framework he states:

In the draft, the Coalition Government is totally committed to protecting our natural
and historic environment. Planning decisions should not only protect, but,
wherever possible, enhance biodiversity and improve people's access to our
natural heritage. The framework explicitly attaches great importance to Green Belts
in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and checking the
unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. It also directly states that local plans
should minimise adverse effects on the local or natural environment. Further, it
safeguards national protection such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
Sites of Special Scientific Interest, as well as ensuring measures which protect
wildlife, biodiversity, cultural heritage and which tackle light pollution. It also
proposes a new designation for communities to protect local green areas of
particular importance to them.
Before the last election, the Conservatives promised to empower local people to "specify what
kind of development and use of land they want to see in their areas". From the high volume of
opposition letters to house building on green-field sites on SLDC's website, it is crystal clear what
the local community want. Approximately 400 people were against the development of R 121M
and 2 in favour. According to the Westmorland Gazette, the official line expressed by SLDC is
that they disregard objections from residents who are affected by the developments. This
admission is quite extraordinary. Why ask us to send in submissions if they are going to ignore
us? Surely community involvement means listening, debating and even modifying plans. The
overall majority want to save our green-field sites because they are so special, environmentally,
historically and culturally, as well as of intrinsic value to our health and wellbeing. As Greg Clark
MP states in his letter "National Planning Policy will help ensure that planning decisions reflect
local communities' vision of their future".

May I draw your attention to the Inspector's Report written in 1997, and referring to this area,
made clear points that are just as valid today. He stated that:
The allocation site has a visual quality of some importance in the local
landscape which outweighs the very small contribution which it can make
to the housing land need.

Any argument that there is already existing developments at Oak Tree Road/Rowan Tree
Crescent with landfill between the farmstead conversions at Castle Green Lane (formally Castle
Green Farm), the Inspector finds unconvincing. The older traditional buildings with rural
character blend into the landscape, but the houses at Oak Tree Road appear a "visually
intrusive -element in the rising landscape".

Subsequently he concludes:
The allocation site (R56) provides an important visual buffer between these
distinct locations and that the sites’ value in landscape terms is sufficient
to outweigh its value as a housing allocation.

Taking the past findings into consideration further possible development into the fields beyond
would be even more visually intrusive for an Inspector with concerns. But SLDC have refused
to take into account the previous planning history and landscape designations of the site. Their
Core Strategy policies on green infrastructure, green corridors, watercourses and open spaces
(CS8.1) and landscape settlement character (CS8.2) are not being adhered to.
SLDC's Local Plan 2006 stated that 'development of higher hillsides further east (of R56} w01.1\d
be unduly prominent' Section 6.3 Visual Amenity. And R121 and R141 were deemed worthy
of County Landscape designation in 1999. The Kendal Local Level Landscape Character
Assessment commissioned by Kendal Town Council on 4th April 2011, corroborates all the
points I have made above. K.T.C. has supported the view that R121M should not be developed.
R121M was identified as of medium/high sensitivity due to its biodiversity and rural environment,
and that it would be adversely affected by development. Again SLDC did not accept as part of
their evidence base the independent Landscape Character Assessment (Galpin Landscape
Architect). The brief was looked at and approved by the Strategy Team Manager. Galpin stated
that of the 19 possible development sites in Kendal R 121M was the most sensitive (high) in
landscape terms and with low capacity for development .

Another glaring example of SLDC's insensitive and erratic approach to planning of R121M is
their indecisiveness as to where the road should be built. The road (with lighting etc.) will come
from Oak Tree Road or from Castle Green Road, which will scar this most highly sensitive area
(R56 and R 141) in order to allow access to R 121, which was worthy of County Landscape
designation in 1999. A road through here would have a devastating impact on the Great
Crested Newts' terrestrial habitats . SLDC would be acting illegally as this would contravene
the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations
1994 (as amended). Also Oak Tree Road was their preferred option as regards access to the
site (Highways access/safety (Appendix 8 page 11 0), but unbelievably no-one had measured the
width of Oak Tree Road. The last survey of Castle Green Road was done three years ago.
Traffic on Castle Green Road in the last three years has changed dramatically and for the
worse, as it is heavily congested. How can SLDC allow this development to go ahead when
they are also breaking the law regarding air quality? Air pollution is a major problem in Kendal
and monitoring has shown that there are high levels of Nitrogen Dioxide across the town due to
road traffic emissions. Air pollution from road vehicles causes the most damage to health.
Nitrogen dioxide affects asthmatics and reduces the lung defences against infection.
Rachel Shaw (Environmental Protection Officer, SDLC) informed the Kendal Town Council on
the 5th September, 2011, that there was an action plan in place, but it was more like a wish list.
Surely this is a contradiction in terms and clearly suggests that nothing is being done to reduce
air pollution. This admission shows that SDLC are acting illegally and have not been sufficiently
robust in tackling this major problem. They have failed miserably to reduce levels of Nitrogen
Dioxide, in fact, in the last three years it has got much worse. Rachel Shaw also admitted that
150 households located in the most polluted areas of Kendal are at serious risk. SDLC have
failed to consider the well-being and health of existing residents
In the light of this exposure, SLDC must seriously reconsider this development at R1 M1, which
potentially means 60 cars, possibly 1 00 plus. The increase of cars along Castle Green Lane
and Parkside Road will significantly exacerbate the already high levels of Nitrogen Dioxide. This
development of housing will also significantly alter flows or speeds on already busy, congested
roads and increase the volume of traffic, causing bottlenecks and tailbacks. An extract from
SDLC document "Kendal Transport Study (Jan 15) pdf

"6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement
schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions
would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience
congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This
situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic".

The Council has failed to implement an infrastructure delivery plan, a transport plan or an air
quality plan to meet the scale of developments proposed. The vision (South Lakeland Core
Strategy) states that in "2025 Kendal will.. .. was a pipe-dream in 2010 and 2 years later still is a
pipe-dream and we have no concrete ideas as to how we will get there.

SLDC summarily dismissed the Town Council's views about the importance of the approaches
to Kendal (2009). They also dismissed the Town Council's submission (Sustainable
Development in Kendal) based (2011) on the Taylor Review. The Planner whom we met on
22nd July 2011 to show around the site, had not heard of Taylor. The Greater Norwich
Development Plan Partnership has serious legal difficulties because they had failed to look
at/assess properly alternative approaches/strategies. SLOG's response is unsound, and
illustrates poor or little strategic thinking, and the land allocations were originally done before the
Core Strategy was in place. The CCC Local Area Committee recommended, (with no votes
against) that SLDC adopt an approach similar to that of Taylor and The Town Council. In their
strategy document back in April 2008, SLDC did not indicate the land between Castle Green
Road and the Sedbergh Road area for development.
It is also important to point out that that the number of houses needed in South Lakeland is now
running annually at 205 and not 400 (Strategic Housing Market Assessment - October 2011 ),
and there has been no appropriate adjustment to this fact. Councillor Peter Thornton (Portfolio
Holder for Housing) mentioned in his 'webchat' with the Westmorland Gazette (22nd March ~
2011 ), the non-availability of sites in this area, but surely the opposite is true -that there is an 2-
over-availability of sites. As Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr. Thornton was asked if it was true
that there are 1,000 properties lying empty in Kendal, to which he replied:
" I don't have the exact figures with me but I know that there are too
many empty homes in our area ... but the large number of empty
homes at present is due to the slump in the housing market and
limited availability of finance".
And when asked if the new K Village apartments were lying empty, he stated:
" (I am) not sure of the situation with the new K Village apartments but
if some are empty it will be because the market is flat at the
moment."
Considering this new complex cost a staggering one hundred million pounds and has proved to
be a white elephant, you would expect Mr. Thornton to have found out exactly how many empty
properties are lying empty in Kendal. By his own admissions, he does not know or at the very
least uncertain. This is another example of the unsoundness of SLOG's development plan. The
DPD is not justified because it is not founded on a credible evidence base. Before they begin
to allow developers to build on green-field sites, they need to do proper research. There are
enough empty houses and brownfield sites to satisfy much of the demand.
Because of the huge outcry nationally against building on green-field sites the Government has
beaten a remarkable retreat from its attempt to dismantle the planning system. The protection
for the countryside is back. Planning is to 'encourage' the use of brownfield land as one of its
'core principles'. I would like to know what other options SLDC have explored to meet the
considerable affordable housing needs. This approach will not deliver the numbers, which are
dependent on the total number of houses built. What sustainability strategies are in place to
accommodate 2,000 proposed dwellings just in Kendal over the next 15 years?
In the new planning law there are also measures included such as protection for the 'historic
environment' and sites of special scientific interest and stronger provisions against building on
flood-prone land. House-builders and supermarkets already hold large land banks. ln fact,
there is no 'need' to build on green-field sites anywhere in Britain. There is merely a 'demand'
from those wishing to profit from it. It is environmental and cultural insanity to open up our
green-field sites to developers.
But it would appear that SLDC are more interested in promoting the private interests of
developers. Added to this, the Localism Bill will for the first time allow Councils to give weight to
financial incentives for development, including money the Government is now offering them for
building new homes. How can we build more homes when we have one of the worst recessions
since the 1930's, and in particular, the lack of credit for mortgages (as Mr. Thornton
corroborated in his webchat).
Are SLDC prepared to take on board the impact of flooding if this development goes ahead?
This development will cause a tremendous amount of run-off as well as an impact on the Stock
Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme. Why is the flooding status within the evidence sections of the
consultation documentation inaccurate, giving same status on land known to flood as land that
doesn't? The R121M flood status is completely inaccurate and assessment of the Stock Beck
Flood Scheme impact is not included as part of flood assessment. How can residents make
informed decisions with this type of inaccuracy? The Environment Agency in July 2010
expressed their concern that drainage and flooding was an issue here.
As The Westmorland Gazette reported on 6th February, 2006:
Back in 2004, river and watercourse levels rocketed leading to standing
water and roads into Kendal became paralysed with gridlocked traffic,
while many minor roads were impassable. Riverside areas of Kendal
were minutes away from being declared a Severe Flooding Risk the
second highest state of alert. The Environment Agency admitted it was
the closest they had ever come to evacuation. Flooding in Kendal nearly
reached the point of "imminent danger to life and properties". And who
could forget the devastating floods in Cockermouth.
All other land potentially flowing into the Stock Beck Flood Alleviation system has been
removed, so why not this one? The residents of Oak Tree Road, Rowan Tree Crescent and
Sedbergh Road know only too well the flooding of water housed in and coming off the fields (see
photographs 8 & 9, flooding from R56 on to Castle Green Lane). Winter rainfall predictions up
to 2080 show a marked increase. It is vitally important that before this site can be approved on
flooding grounds the LPA should be required to carry out the recommendations contained in the
Preliminary Expert Report made by Professor Robert Jackson CEng CWEM FICE FCIWEM
MAE, who is a leading hydrology expert.

In conclusion, I formally oppose the development of R121M because SLDC has not provided
itself with enough detailed, costed and co-ordinated information to put it forward seriously for
development. SLOG's development plan is totally unsound, unjustified and unsustainable.
They are guilty of non-involvement and non-engagement with the local community who feel that
there has been a lack of meaningful dialogue as far as Kendal is concerned. All sorts of
obstacles have been put in place to confuse and frustrate residents, e.g. initial insistence on
computer use, the difficulty of forms, the need to keep an eye on the website, the difficulty to
understand the technical language of the latest form etc. '

Finally, I refer to Greg Clark's (Planning Minister) approach to reform of planning laws:
To empower communities to have more say in how their areas
are developed. Our reforms to the planning system take on this
challenge. They enshrine the local plan produced by local people
as the keystone of the planning system.
As far as SLDC are concerned they have failed to communicate and engage with the local
community. I personally have had no feedback .or dialoue with them, nor with Damian Law the
planning officer I took around the site. Questions I have raised abouf the landscape, the bio
diversity (especially the Great Crested Newts' terrestrial habitats), flooding, air pollution, traffic
and highways have not been addressed. I doubt that even my latest submission will be read or
shown to the Government Inspector, as I have been informed that SLDC will show the Inspector
submissions that they choose. This is blatantly unfair and undemocratic and for that reason I
would like to speak at the next round of this consultation.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Kendal sites

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

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.

SLDC summarily dismissed the Town Council's views about the importance of the approaches
to Kendal (2009). They also dismissed the Town Council's submission (Sustainable
Development in Kendal) based (2011) on the Taylor Review. The Planner whom we met on
22nd July 2011 to show around the site, had not heard of Taylor. The Greater Norwich
Development Plan Partnership has serious legal difficulties because they had failed to look
at/assess properly alternative approaches/strategies. SLOG's response is unsound, and
illustrates poor or little strategic thinking, and the land allocations were originally done before the
Core Strategy was in place. The CCC Local Area Committee recommended, (with no votes
against) that SLDC adopt an approach similar to that of Taylor and The Town Council. In their
strategy document back in April 2008, SLDC did not indicate the land between Castle Green
Road and the Sedbergh Road area for development.
It is also important to point out that that the number of houses needed in South Lakeland is now
running annually at 205 and not 400 (Strategic Housing Market Assessment - October 2011 ),
and there has been no appropriate adjustment to this fact. Councillor Peter Thornton (Portfolio
Holder for Housing) mentioned in his 'webchat' with the Westmorland Gazette (22nd March ~
2011 ), the non-availability of sites in this area, but surely the opposite is true -that there is an 2-
over-availability of sites. As Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr. Thornton was asked if it was true
that there are 1,000 properties lying empty in Kendal, to which he replied:
" I don't have the exact figures with me but I know that there are too
many empty homes in our area ... but the large number of empty
homes at present is due to the slump in the housing market and
limited availability of finance".
And when asked if the new K Village apartments were lying empty, he stated:
" (I am) not sure of the situation with the new K Village apartments but
if some are empty it will be because the market is flat at the
moment."
Considering this new complex cost a staggering one hundred million pounds and has proved to
be a white elephant, you would expect Mr. Thornton to have found out exactly how many empty
properties are lying empty in Kendal. By his own admissions, he does not know or at the very
least uncertain. This is another example of the unsoundness of SLOG's development plan. The
DPD is not justified because it is not founded on a credible evidence base. Before they begin
to allow developers to build on green-field sites, they need to do proper research. There are
enough empty houses and brownfield sites to satisfy much of the demand.
Because of the huge outcry nationally against building on green-field sites the Government has
beaten a remarkable retreat from its attempt to dismantle the planning system. The protection
for the countryside is back. Planning is to 'encourage' the use of brownfield land as one of its
'core principles'. I would like to know what other options SLDC have explored to meet the
considerable affordable housing needs. This approach will not deliver the numbers, which are
dependent on the total number of houses built. What sustainability strategies are in place to
accommodate 2,000 proposed dwellings just in Kendal over the next 15 years?

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

LA1.4 Broad Locations for New Housing

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

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.

SLDC summarily dismissed the Town Council's views about the importance of the approaches
to Kendal (2009). They also dismissed the Town Council's submission (Sustainable
Development in Kendal) based (2011) on the Taylor Review. The Planner whom we met on
22nd July 2011 to show around the site, had not heard of Taylor. The Greater Norwich
Development Plan Partnership has serious legal difficulties because they had failed to look
at/assess properly alternative approaches/strategies. SLOG's response is unsound, and
illustrates poor or little strategic thinking, and the land allocations were originally done before the
Core Strategy was in place. The CCC Local Area Committee recommended, (with no votes
against) that SLDC adopt an approach similar to that of Taylor and The Town Council. In their
strategy document back in April 2008, SLDC did not indicate the land between Castle Green
Road and the Sedbergh Road area for development.
It is also important to point out that that the number of houses needed in South Lakeland is now
running annually at 205 and not 400 (Strategic Housing Market Assessment - October 2011 ),
and there has been no appropriate adjustment to this fact. Councillor Peter Thornton (Portfolio
Holder for Housing) mentioned in his 'webchat' with the Westmorland Gazette (22nd March ~
2011 ), the non-availability of sites in this area, but surely the opposite is true -that there is an 2-
over-availability of sites. As Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr. Thornton was asked if it was true
that there are 1,000 properties lying empty in Kendal, to which he replied:
" I don't have the exact figures with me but I know that there are too
many empty homes in our area ... but the large number of empty
homes at present is due to the slump in the housing market and
limited availability of finance".
And when asked if the new K Village apartments were lying empty, he stated:
" (I am) not sure of the situation with the new K Village apartments but
if some are empty it will be because the market is flat at the
moment."
Considering this new complex cost a staggering one hundred million pounds and has proved to
be a white elephant, you would expect Mr. Thornton to have found out exactly how many empty
properties are lying empty in Kendal. By his own admissions, he does not know or at the very
least uncertain. This is another example of the unsoundness of SLOG's development plan. The
DPD is not justified because it is not founded on a credible evidence base. Before they begin
to allow developers to build on green-field sites, they need to do proper research. There are
enough empty houses and brownfield sites to satisfy much of the demand.
Because of the huge outcry nationally against building on green-field sites the Government has
beaten a remarkable retreat from its attempt to dismantle the planning system. The protection
for the countryside is back. Planning is to 'encourage' the use of brownfield land as one of its
'core principles'. I would like to know what other options SLDC have explored to meet the
considerable affordable housing needs. This approach will not deliver the numbers, which are
dependent on the total number of houses built. What sustainability strategies are in place to
accommodate 2,000 proposed dwellings just in Kendal over the next 15 years?

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

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

No

SLDC summarily dismissed the Town Council's views about the importance of the approaches
to Kendal (2009). They also dismissed the Town Council's submission (Sustainable
Development in Kendal) based (2011) on the Taylor Review. The Planner whom we met on
22nd July 2011 to show around the site, had not heard of Taylor. The Greater Norwich
Development Plan Partnership has serious legal difficulties because they had failed to look
at/assess properly alternative approaches/strategies. SLOG's response is unsound, and
illustrates poor or little strategic thinking, and the land allocations were originally done before the
Core Strategy was in place. The CCC Local Area Committee recommended, (with no votes
against) that SLDC adopt an approach similar to that of Taylor and The Town Council. In their
strategy document back in April 2008, SLDC did not indicate the land between Castle Green
Road and the Sedbergh Road area for development.
It is also important to point out that that the number of houses needed in South Lakeland is now
running annually at 205 and not 400 (Strategic Housing Market Assessment - October 2011 ),
and there has been no appropriate adjustment to this fact. Councillor Peter Thornton (Portfolio
Holder for Housing) mentioned in his 'webchat' with the Westmorland Gazette (22nd March ~
2011 ), the non-availability of sites in this area, but surely the opposite is true -that there is an 2-
over-availability of sites. As Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr. Thornton was asked if it was true
that there are 1,000 properties lying empty in Kendal, to which he replied:
" I don't have the exact figures with me but I know that there are too
many empty homes in our area ... but the large number of empty
homes at present is due to the slump in the housing market and
limited availability of finance".
And when asked if the new K Village apartments were lying empty, he stated:
" (I am) not sure of the situation with the new K Village apartments but
if some are empty it will be because the market is flat at the
moment."
Considering this new complex cost a staggering one hundred million pounds and has proved to
be a white elephant, you would expect Mr. Thornton to have found out exactly how many empty
properties are lying empty in Kendal. By his own admissions, he does not know or at the very
least uncertain. This is another example of the unsoundness of SLOG's development plan. The
DPD is not justified because it is not founded on a credible evidence base. Before they begin
to allow developers to build on green-field sites, they need to do proper research. There are
enough empty houses and brownfield sites to satisfy much of the demand.
Because of the huge outcry nationally against building on green-field sites the Government has
beaten a remarkable retreat from its attempt to dismantle the planning system. The protection
for the countryside is back. Planning is to 'encourage' the use of brownfield land as one of its
'core principles'. I would like to know what other options SLDC have explored to meet the
considerable affordable housing needs. This approach will not deliver the numbers, which are
dependent on the total number of houses built. What sustainability strategies are in place to
accommodate 2,000 proposed dwellings just in Kendal over the next 15 years?

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

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

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

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.

SLDC summarily dismissed the Town Council's views about the importance of the approaches
to Kendal (2009). They also dismissed the Town Council's submission (Sustainable
Development in Kendal) based (2011) on the Taylor Review. The Planner whom we met on
22nd July 2011 to show around the site, had not heard of Taylor. The Greater Norwich
Development Plan Partnership has serious legal difficulties because they had failed to look
at/assess properly alternative approaches/strategies. SLOG's response is unsound, and
illustrates poor or little strategic thinking, and the land allocations were originally done before the
Core Strategy was in place. The CCC Local Area Committee recommended, (with no votes
against) that SLDC adopt an approach similar to that of Taylor and The Town Council. In their
strategy document back in April 2008, SLDC did not indicate the land between Castle Green
Road and the Sedbergh Road area for development.
It is also important to point out that that the number of houses needed in South Lakeland is now
running annually at 205 and not 400 (Strategic Housing Market Assessment - October 2011 ),
and there has been no appropriate adjustment to this fact. Councillor Peter Thornton (Portfolio
Holder for Housing) mentioned in his 'webchat' with the Westmorland Gazette (22nd March ~
2011 ), the non-availability of sites in this area, but surely the opposite is true -that there is an 2-
over-availability of sites. As Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr. Thornton was asked if it was true
that there are 1,000 properties lying empty in Kendal, to which he replied:
" I don't have the exact figures with me but I know that there are too
many empty homes in our area ... but the large number of empty
homes at present is due to the slump in the housing market and
limited availability of finance".
And when asked if the new K Village apartments were lying empty, he stated:
" (I am) not sure of the situation with the new K Village apartments but
if some are empty it will be because the market is flat at the
moment."
Considering this new complex cost a staggering one hundred million pounds and has proved to
be a white elephant, you would expect Mr. Thornton to have found out exactly how many empty
properties are lying empty in Kendal. By his own admissions, he does not know or at the very
least uncertain. This is another example of the unsoundness of SLOG's development plan. The
DPD is not justified because it is not founded on a credible evidence base. Before they begin
to allow developers to build on green-field sites, they need to do proper research. There are
enough empty houses and brownfield sites to satisfy much of the demand.
Because of the huge outcry nationally against building on green-field sites the Government has
beaten a remarkable retreat from its attempt to dismantle the planning system. The protection
for the countryside is back. Planning is to 'encourage' the use of brownfield land as one of its
'core principles'. I would like to know what other options SLDC have explored to meet the
considerable affordable housing needs. This approach will not deliver the numbers, which are
dependent on the total number of houses built. What sustainability strategies are in place to
accommodate 2,000 proposed dwellings just in Kendal over the next 15 years?

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

LA1.8 Local Employment Sites - All Kendal sites

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

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.

SLDC summarily dismissed the Town Council's views about the importance of the approaches
to Kendal (2009). They also dismissed the Town Council's submission (Sustainable
Development in Kendal) based (2011) on the Taylor Review. The Planner whom we met on
22nd July 2011 to show around the site, had not heard of Taylor. The Greater Norwich
Development Plan Partnership has serious legal difficulties because they had failed to look
at/assess properly alternative approaches/strategies. SLOG's response is unsound, and
illustrates poor or little strategic thinking, and the land allocations were originally done before the
Core Strategy was in place. The CCC Local Area Committee recommended, (with no votes
against) that SLDC adopt an approach similar to that of Taylor and The Town Council. In their
strategy document back in April 2008, SLDC did not indicate the land between Castle Green
Road and the Sedbergh Road area for development.
It is also important to point out that that the number of houses needed in South Lakeland is now
running annually at 205 and not 400 (Strategic Housing Market Assessment - October 2011 ),
and there has been no appropriate adjustment to this fact. Councillor Peter Thornton (Portfolio
Holder for Housing) mentioned in his 'webchat' with the Westmorland Gazette (22nd March ~
2011 ), the non-availability of sites in this area, but surely the opposite is true -that there is an 2-
over-availability of sites. As Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr. Thornton was asked if it was true
that there are 1,000 properties lying empty in Kendal, to which he replied:
" I don't have the exact figures with me but I know that there are too
many empty homes in our area ... but the large number of empty
homes at present is due to the slump in the housing market and
limited availability of finance".
And when asked if the new K Village apartments were lying empty, he stated:
" (I am) not sure of the situation with the new K Village apartments but
if some are empty it will be because the market is flat at the
moment."
Considering this new complex cost a staggering one hundred million pounds and has proved to
be a white elephant, you would expect Mr. Thornton to have found out exactly how many empty
properties are lying empty in Kendal. By his own admissions, he does not know or at the very
least uncertain. This is another example of the unsoundness of SLOG's development plan. The
DPD is not justified because it is not founded on a credible evidence base. Before they begin
to allow developers to build on green-field sites, they need to do proper research. There are
enough empty houses and brownfield sites to satisfy much of the demand.
Because of the huge outcry nationally against building on green-field sites the Government has
beaten a remarkable retreat from its attempt to dismantle the planning system. The protection
for the countryside is back. Planning is to 'encourage' the use of brownfield land as one of its
'core principles'. I would like to know what other options SLDC have explored to meet the
considerable affordable housing needs. This approach will not deliver the numbers, which are
dependent on the total number of houses built. What sustainability strategies are in place to
accommodate 2,000 proposed dwellings just in Kendal over the next 15 years?

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

1.9

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.

All sorts of
obstacles have been put in place to confuse and frustrate residents, e.g. initial insistence on
computer use, the difficulty of forms, the need to keep an eye on the website, the difficulty to
understand the technical language of the latest form etc. '

Finally, I refer to Greg Clark's (Planning Minister) approach to reform of planning laws:
To empower communities to have more say in how their areas
are developed. Our reforms to the planning system take on this
challenge. They enshrine the local plan produced by local people
as the keystone of the planning system.
As far as SLDC are concerned they have failed to communicate and engage with the local
community. I personally have had no feedback .or dialoue with them, nor with Damian Law the
planning officer I took around the site.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

1.10

No

The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

All sorts of
obstacles have been put in place to confuse and frustrate residents, e.g. initial insistence on
computer use, the difficulty of forms, the need to keep an eye on the website, the difficulty to
understand the technical language of the latest form etc. '

Finally, I refer to Greg Clark's (Planning Minister) approach to reform of planning laws:
To empower communities to have more say in how their areas
are developed. Our reforms to the planning system take on this
challenge. They enshrine the local plan produced by local people
as the keystone of the planning system.
As far as SLDC are concerned they have failed to communicate and engage with the local
community. I personally have had no feedback .or dialoue with them, nor with Damian Law the
planning officer I took around the site.

NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination