2 responses from Mr Michael Haygarth (Individual)
1. Mr Michael Haygarth (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 09:15:00
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 residents of Valley Drive 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!
There is no adequate consideration of the brownfield sites that were alternatively proposed.
Transport Study. Currently a work in progress with no actual facts in place.
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.
I believe that RN117M should be withdrawn from the plan because due consideration has not been given to the effect that this development would have on this area of green space. There has been limited consultation feedback about this site.
Previous site history confirms that this site has been withdrawn on two separate occasions in the past due to access and the impact on visual amenity within the area.
a) May 1979 Application Reference Number 5/79/0237.
b) May 1988 Application Reference Number 5/87/1717
Despite the facts issued that the land at the top of the field which is adjacent to Millennium Wood would not spoil the visual effect from the castle. The lower section of the field on the proposed land would still be visible from the castle and would have a disastrous effect on all the houses situated in close proximity to the EAST of this field.
Issues that have not been addressed and further clarification are required as follows:-
Proximity of overhead cables which cross the proposed site. Further investigation required.
Sewerage/Drainage Issues
Sewerage facilities are running at maximum levels.
Drainage issues on the proposed site have been noted within the fact file extract detailed below:
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. However, there is no certainty over the future investment by United Utilities on water/sewerage challenges.
Inadequate road infrastructure.
Kendal Transport Plan review should be in place now with actual facts and nothing has been clearly defined.
Traffic Issues
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).
Access to this site would be an absolute nightmare for the residents who live in close proximity and also the entrance to this site which would have to be accessed via the cul-de-sacs on Valley Drive. This would cause serious traffic issues on the fast road which is currently used as a rat run to avoid the town centre.
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.
Highways access/safety
Appendix 8 Page 178 Emerging Options (Final Version)
Mitigation measures will be required
Based on the above information these issues have not been properly assessed. Therefore, I have to say that this important issue of safety must be deemed as UNSOUND!
General Overivew of the site RN117M
This land is designated as "Public Open Space". There is bridleway and a public footpath which is in constant use by locals and tourists alike. A very popular recreational land away from the busy road that Valley drive has become. Road access would have to cross third party land to enter the site incidentally owned by (Russell Armer Developments)! Comments within the DPD have simply stated rerouted and access over TP land has been noted within the DPD. However there is no actual plan in place on how this would be implemented.
Intrusion of privacy to the many adjoining properties to the EAST of this site. The potential for visual/privacy intrusion not to mention the extra noise and pollution that this would have over the area.
The land is not flat as described in the fact file but is steep and sloping in nature incorporating drumlins which may constrain development or require unsightly retaining structures. Local elevation of the land provides potential for development to intrude into existing views.
Currently used as farmland for cattle and sheep
Over subscribed facilities
There are currently no school places, doctors and dental surgeries within close proximity of this site are running at full capacity. Information must be backed up with correct facts.
CONCLUSION: Based on all the above findings, this area has not been properly assessed. It has been earmarked as an easy option with no thought to the overall issues and the damage that this will cause to the surrounding landscape. SLDC are not consulting or responding adequately.
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.
In practice this suggested site does not lend itself to the additional development and the heavy traffic increase that this will bring. Where is the justification or soundness in this plan? I feel that no thought has been made with regard to the infrastructure problems in general and therefore feel in addition to the lack of consultation and insufficient information the soundness is brought into question.
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. Mr Michael Haygarth (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 10:19:00
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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
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 residents of Valley Drive 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!
There is no adequate consideration of the brownfield sites that were alternatively proposed.
Transport Study. Currently a work in progress with no actual facts in place.
United Utilities. No certainty over future investment.
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.
I believe that RN117M should be withdrawn from the plan because due consideration has not been given to the effect that this development would have on this area of green space. There has been limited consultation feedback about this site.
Previous site history confirms that this site has been withdrawn on two separate occasions in the past due to access and the impact on visual amenity within the area.
a) May 1979 Application Reference Number 5/79/0237.
b) May 1988 Application Reference Number 5/87/1717
Despite the facts issued that the land at the top of the field which is adjacent to Millennium Wood would not spoil the visual effect from the castle. The lower section of the field on the proposed land would still be visible from the castle and would have a disastrous effect on all the houses situated in close proximity to the EAST of this field.
Issues that have not been addressed and further clarification are required as follows:-
Proximity of overhead cables which cross the proposed site. Further investigation required.
Sewerage/Drainage Issues
Sewerage facilities are running at maximum levels.
Drainage issues on the proposed site have been noted within the fact file extract detailed below:
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. However, there is no certainty over the future investment by United Utilities on water/sewerage challenges.
Inadequate road infrastructure.
Kendal Transport Plan review should be in place now with actual facts and nothing has been clearly defined.
Traffic Issues
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).
Access to this site would be an absolute nightmare for the residents who live in close proximity and also the entrance to this site which would have to be accessed via the cul-de-sacs on Valley Drive. This would cause serious traffic issues on the fast road which is currently used as a rat run to avoid the town centre.
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.
Highways access/safety
Appendix 8 Page 178 Emerging Options (Final Version)
Mitigation measures will be required
Based on the above information these issues have not been properly assessed. Therefore, I have to say that this important issue of safety must be deemed as UNSOUND!
General Overivew of the site RN117M
This land is designated as "Public Open Space". There is bridleway and a public footpath which is in constant use by locals and tourists alike. A very popular recreational land away from the busy road that Valley drive has become. Road access would have to cross third party land to enter the site incidentally owned by (Russell Armer Developments)! Comments within the DPD have simply stated rerouted and access over TP land has been noted within the DPD. However there is no actual plan in place on how this would be implemented.
Intrusion of privacy to the many adjoining properties to the EAST of this site. The potential for visual/privacy intrusion not to mention the extra noise and pollution that this would have over the area.
The land is not flat as described in the fact file but is steep and sloping in nature incorporating drumlins which may constrain development or require unsightly retaining structures. Local elevation of the land provides potential for development to intrude into existing views.
Currently used as farmland for cattle and sheep
Over subscribed facilities
There are currently no school places, doctors and dental surgeries within close proximity of this site are running at full capacity. Information must be backed up with correct facts.
CONCLUSION: Based on all the above findings, this area has not been properly assessed. It has been earmarked as an easy option with no thought to the overall issues and the damage that this will cause to the surrounding landscape. SLDC are not consulting or responding adequately
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.
In practice this suggested site does not lend itself to the additional development and the heavy traffic increase that this will bring. Where is the justification or soundness in this plan? I feel that no thought has been made with regard to the infrastructure problems in general and therefore feel in addition to the lack of consultation and insufficient information the soundness is brought into question.
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
