2 responses from Miss Caroline Hodgson (Individual)
1. Miss Caroline Hodgson (Individual) : 15 Apr 2012 19:48:00
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
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
The views/responses of the resident's have not been taken into account.
All responses for RN117M on the original documentation were completely ignored. Several of these responses were not even listed/noted on the website so the number of responses reflected on the site are not correct!
Kendal Town Council's assessment and comments in the main have been ignored.
There is no adequate consideration of the brown field sites that were alternatively proposed.
There have been too many political issues which have impacted on the overall strategic plans.
The DPD should not be approved until a viable infrastructure delivery plan is in place.
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.
The resident's of Valley Drive consider that the process has been UNSOUND for the following reasons and would like this site to be removed.
The proposed build at RN117M is not sustainable and will put a huge strain on resources that are already an issue in this built up area. Valley Drive is already used as an access route to avoid the town centre for people living in other areas of town and through to Oxenholme. The increase in traffic that any new development will bring will have a serious affect on the quality of life of the people who already live here.
If only these plans were for the benefit of those who actually already live in this vicinity and not about other people making money i.e. Cumbria County Council (land owners) and developers (Russell Armer access rights)! This site has been selected as an easy option with not much thought put into the constraints and issues surrounding the proposed space. There are a lot of undocumented issues which have not been thought through.
The land in question site reference RN117M West of Valley Drive is the only green space left between the Castle Estate and Kendal Parks (Oxenholme) it is classed as Public Open Space. I am astounded that this site has been put forward as a proposed site for the building of initially 72 houses and then revised to incorporate 60 houses (far too many for such a small area). This site has been previously rejected on two separate occasions as noted below.
Site History
Site RN117M has a history of previously being proposed on two separate occasions neither of which came to fruition.
a) May 1979 Application Reference Number 5/79/0237.
Reason Refused on a number of criteria
Petition raised over 140 objections. (This was the majority of all home owners at the time this Valley Drive development was in its infancy.
b) May 1988 Application Reference Number 5/87/1717
Withdrawn by Cumbria County Council
Access issues and the loss of Green Space were listed as the reasons for the removal of this site. These factors are still the same today so why is this site being proposed yet again? There are alternative brownfield sites in and around Kendal which are much more suitable and do not impose on the visual amenity of the surrounding area.
Traffic Issues
No infrastructure plans have been devised to deal with this level of development (e.g. tackling traffic congestion,
Very poor restricted road access/traffic generation
Access to site via existing cul-de-sacs. Transport Statement required. Cumbria County Council (Officer Comments November 2011).
Extract taken from Kendal LDF Transport Study – Jan 2012
4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. One of these junctions is within the Valley Drive area.
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Extract taken from Kendal Fact File - February 2012
Page 166
Highways Issues:
No information.
Sewage and water issues. Flood Zone 1
LA DPD Appendix 1B Page 119 states surface water issues only.
Contra to these findings this site does flood on a regular occurrence and residents gardens to the EAST hold a lot of water after heavy rainfall.
Proximity of overhead electric power cables which cross the proposed site. Further investigation required.
The council has failed to come up with an infrastructure delivery plan, a transport plan or an air quality plan to meet the scale of the development proposed. Based on the above information issues have not been properly assessed and do not pass the SOUNDNESS test!
Visual Amenity
The response from SLDC in the Emerging Options is generally answered as “Taken into Account or Noted”. This type of response is not justified and further clarification is required.
Issues were that development on this elevated site would be prominent to the local residents whose homes and gardens face the proposed site. Also, it would be prominent in the landscape and the loss of visual amenity would apply.
As an elevated site, the buildings would be highly visible not only from the neighboring properties to the EAST which back onto the proposed site but also from properties on the edge of the Castle Estate and Parkside road. The impact would be visually intrusive on a much wider scale then originally documented. This does need to be taken into account and has been completely ignored.
In particular distinctive drumlin landform.
Only one drumlin has been mentioned within the site survey and is noted in the fact file as follows: Protect the distinctive character of the drumlin and avoid the siting of development on its crest/flanks but instead utilise it as open space.
In respect to any future development on this proposed land the description of the land in the DPD in incorrect.
The land is not flat and is steep in nature incorporating drumlins which may constrain development or require unsightly retaining structures. This would have a significant impact on the visual amenity/privacy issues of the residents to the EAST of this land.
This green space has been and still is used by the local farming community for decades (for the grazing of both cows and sheep). Silage is cut here several times throughout the year) so it is already an active working part of the town.
Public Footpath/Bridleway crosses the land
The fact that there is a public footpath and a bridleway that run through this site has simply been brushed aside with comments like rerouted and noted. Friends of the Lake District have also noted issues on this subject which have been largely ignored.
Over subscribed schools and doctors surgeries
There are currently no school places or patient/dentist places available within the immediate vicinity. To say that this area is close to all amenities must be backed up by correct figures. The comments are not justified in the fact files and do not reflect the correct numbers.
CONCLUSION: Considering that there is insufficient information in the public domain which allows estimates of the impact of this development on the existing infrastructure one must conclude that this development proposal must be judged UNSOUND!
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.
The residents of Valley Drive need further clarification on the current outstanding issues that have not been fully addressed with the LA DPD.
There are too many examples of particular concerns being dismissed as “noted or taken into account”, without any explanation of the reason for dismissal.
The DPD should not be approved until a viable infrastructure delivery plan is in place together with a transport plan, and an air quality plan to meet the scale of the development proposed.
Based on the above information the issues have not been properly assessed and do not pass the SOUNDNESS test!
I do hope the Inspector will take time to visit this site. This will enable this person to clarify the uncertainty surrounding the unrealistic comments which have been stated within the DPD with reference to this site.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Miss Caroline Hodgson (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 10:12:00
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 - RN117M KENDAL WEST OF VALLEY DRIVE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
The views/responses of the resident's have not been taken into account. All responses for RN117M on the original documentation were completely ignored. Several of these responses were not even listed/noted on the website so the number of responses reflected on the SLDC website are not correct!
There is no adequate consideration of the brown field sites that were alternatively proposed.
Kendal Town Council's assessment and comments in the main have been ignored.
There have been too many political issues which have impacted on the overall strategic plans.
The DPD should not be approved until a viable infrastructure delivery plan is in place.
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.
The resident's of Valley Drive consider that the process has been UNSOUND for the following reasons and would like this site to be removed.
The proposed build at RN117M is not sustainable and will put a huge strain on resources that are already an issue in this built up area. Valley Drive is already used as an access route to avoid the town centre for people living in other areas of town and through to Oxenholme. The increase in traffic that any new development will bring will have a serious affect on the quality of life of the people who already live here.
If only these plans were for the benefit of those who actually already live in this vicinity and not about other people making money i.e. Cumbria County Council (land owners) and developers (Russell Armer access rights)! This site has been selected as an easy option with not much thought put into the constraints and issues surrounding the proposed space. There are a lot of undocumented issues which have not been thought through.
The land in question site reference RN117M West of Valley Drive is the only green space left between the Castle Estate and Kendal Parks (Oxenholme) it is classed as Public Open Space. I am astounded that this site has been put forward as a proposed site for the building of initially 72 houses and then revised to incorporate 60 houses (far too many for such a small area). This site has been previously rejected on two separate occasions as noted below.
Site History
Site RN117M has a history of previously being proposed on two separate occasions neither of which came to fruition.
a) May 1979 Application Reference Number 5/79/0237.
Reason Refused on a number of criteria
Petition raised over 140 objections. (This was the majority of all home owners at the time this Valley Drive development was in its infancy.
b) May 1988 Application Reference Number 5/87/1717
Withdrawn by Cumbria County Council
Access issues and the loss of Green Space were listed as the reasons for the removal of this site. These factors are still the same today so why is this site being proposed yet again? There are alternative brownfield sites in and around Kendal which are much more suitable and do not impose on the visual amenity of the surrounding area.
Traffic Issues
No infrastructure plans have been devised to deal with this level of development (e.g. tackling traffic congestion,
Very poor restricted road access/traffic generation
Access to site via existing cul-de-sacs. Transport Statement required. Cumbria County Council (Officer Comments November 2011).
Extract taken from Kendal LDF Transport Study – Jan 2012
4.2.2 In total 13 junctions are indicated to have a maximum RFC greater than or equal to 90% in the 2010 base year, in either the AM or PM peak period. One of these junctions is within the Valley Drive area.
Junction 22: Parkside Road / Valley Drive priority junction
Extract taken from Kendal Fact File - February 2012
Page 166
Highways Issues:
No information.
Sewage and water issues. Flood Zone 1
LA DPD Appendix 1B Page 119 states surface water issues only.
Contra to these findings this site does flood on a regular occurrence and residents gardens to the EAST hold a lot of water after heavy rainfall.
Proximity of overhead electric power cables which cross the proposed site. Further investigation required.
The council has failed to come up with an infrastructure delivery plan, a transport plan or an air quality plan to meet the scale of the development proposed. Based on the above information issues have not been properly assessed and do not pass the SOUNDNESS test!
Visual Amenity
The response from SLDC in the Emerging Options is generally answered as “Taken into Account or Noted”. This type of response is not justified and further clarification is required.
Issues were that development on this elevated site would be prominent to the local residents whose homes and gardens face the proposed site. Also, it would be prominent in the landscape and the loss of visual amenity would apply.
As an elevated site, the buildings would be highly visible not only from the neighboring properties to the EAST which back onto the proposed site but also from properties on the edge of the Castle Estate and Parkside road. The impact would be visually intrusive on a much wider scale then originally documented. This does need to be taken into account and has been completely ignored.
In particular distinctive drumlin landform.
Only one drumlin has been mentioned within the site survey and is noted in the fact file as follows: Protect the distinctive character of the drumlin and avoid the siting of development on its crest/flanks but instead utilise it as open space.
In respect to any future development on this proposed land the description of the land in the DPD is incorrect.
The land is not flat and is steep in nature incorporating drumlins which may constrain development or require unsightly retaining structures. This would have a significant impact on the visual amenity/privacy issues of the residents to the EAST of this land.
This green space has been and still is used by the local farming community for decades (for the grazing of both cows and sheep). Silage is cut here several times throughout the year) so it is already an active working part of the town.
Public Footpath/Bridleway crosses the land
The fact that there is a public footpath and a bridleway that run through this site has simply been brushed aside with comments like rerouted and noted. Friends of the Lake District have also noted issues on this subject which have been largely ignored.
Over subscribed schools and doctors surgeries
There are currently no school places or patient/dentist places available within the immediate vicinity. To say that this area is close to all amenities must be backed up by correct figures. The comments are not justified in the fact files and do not reflect the correct numbers.
CONCLUSION: Considering that there is insufficient information in the public domain which allows estimates of the impact of this development on the existing infrastructure one must conclude that this development proposal must be judged UNSOUND!
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.
The residents of Valley Drive need further clarification on the current outstanding issues that have not been fully addressed with the LA DPD.
There are too many examples of particular concerns being dismissed as “noted or taken into account”, without any explanation of the reason for dismissal.
The DPD should not be approved until a viable infrastructure delivery plan is in place together with a transport plan, and an air quality plan to meet the scale of the development proposed.
Based on the above information the issues have not been properly assessed and do not pass the SOUNDNESS test!
I do hope the Inspector will take time to visit this site. This will enable this person to clarify the uncertainty surrounding the unrealistic comments which have been stated within the DPD with reference to this site.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
