Response from Mr and Mrs John and Helen Stafford (Individual)
1. Mr and Mrs John and Helen Stafford (Individual) : 10 May 2012 09:37:00
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R121M-mod KENDAL EAST OF CASTLE GREEN 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.
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.
I would like to inform you of my objection to the development ofland
adjacent to Castle Green Lane and Oak Tree Road (R121M)
I believe that the impact upon biodiversity, flooding and the landscape
would be such that the proposals cannot be considered to be sound
and goes against all previous assessments.
Protected species such as Great Crested Newts are known to require land
of around 500 metres surrounding their ponds for feeding and
hibernation. The biodiversity evidence base states that
"The greatest threat to them in Cumbria is the destruction of their ponds
and surrounding terrestrial habitat."
The proposals to develop (R121M) would degrade most of the land and
the pond.
The map underestimates the size of the pond which is worrying as it
suggests that the research done to date has not been thorough or accurate
enough and serves as another indication that the proposals are not sound.
The land feeds into the Stock Beck catchment, which has been shown to
be prone to flooding and has required a flood alleviation scheme to be
introduced. Developing this land would exacerbate this flooding problem
and could well undermine all the work that has gone before. This would
have serious implications on nearby properties and as yet no proper
consideration has been given to how this would be dealt with. All other
land draining into the Stock Beck catchment has been removed from
consideration; it is perplexing that R121M is still being put forward.
The land itself has been put forward for county landscape designation in
1999 and a Kendal Town Council Commissioned report called The
Landscape Character Assessment (GALPIH), which SLDC have chosen
to ignore states that R121M was the most sensitive in landscape terms of
all the nineteen possible development sites in Kendal and had a low
capacity for development. Furthermore SLDC local plan 2006 stated that
"Developments of higher hillsides further east (ofR56) would be unduly
prominent"
I believe the proposals are therefore unsound and that any problems and
contradictory evidence has not been given proper consideration before
their advancement.
Indeed it is very telling that the planner responsible did not even step foot on the site until 22 July 2011 and that was at the residents invitation.
