2 responses from Mr Robert Boyd (Individual)
1. Mr Robert Boyd (Individual) : 13 Apr 2012 16:29:00
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 - R129M KENDAL SOUTH OF UNDERBARROW ROAD
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
The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community 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.
1) Only land which has been confirmed as available by landowners was considered for the allocations, so suitable land which could be made available by compulsory purchase has not been included or assessed in the plan. The plan cannot therefore be considered as complete reflection of suitable sites throughout the area.
2) Alternative suggestions such as those put forward by Kendal Town Council have been ignored.
3) The plan lacks conformity to the Core Strategy with regard to brown field site targets- now even more important with regard to the recently published National Planning Framework Document
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.
1) The consultation for R129M resulted in 3 replies supporting the site and 79 responses against. It would appear the concerns of the objectors were ignored and the comments from the supporters resulted in the allocation being increased from one which had 98 houses on to one which is now has 153. So it looks like one of the objectives of the consultation was to get more landowners to put forward allocation suggestions, rather than achieve a consensus for a joined up plan for 2025.
2) The addition of R143 to R129 following the second phase of consultation now has the has the National Park boundary going abutting it, and although the document says that the environmental impact can be mitigated by screening it will take a miracle for this site not to be seen from footpaths to Scouts Scar or the A591.
3) The final Transport Assessment was not available when the plan was put to Council on 18th January , so it cannot have been taken into account when they took the decision. If it had been available, they would have learned that the overall level of congestion in the town will not be fully mitigated even with the use of the various "improvement schemes" ,which appeared from nowhere in the January version after they had not been mentioned in either of the two earlier assessments. It is obvious that traffic generated from R129, E33 and the Stainbank Green allocation will put pressure on the Town Hall Junction, Queens Rd, Glebe Rd and Vicarage Drive . In addition it will put a significant strain on Greenside Green which will become a large traffic island .
4) R129 and R103m allocations will put severe pressure on Ghyllside School which is already oversubscribed.
5) A substantial area of R129 comes within a 250 metre radius of the capped tip at Kendal Fell. The plan states that an"investigation on potential contamination may be necessary". I would of thought that at the very least a contamination survey should be included in the development brief as well as a risk assessment regarding the siting of 153 houses in the environs of a capped tip.
Summarising, the plan regarding R129M is unsound because of the above reasons and imparticularly because it does not provide a viable plan for the infrastructure of traffic, sewerage, health and education in such a way to join together the individual allocations and result in a smooth running town with a healthy future.
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
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr Robert Boyd (Individual) : 14 Apr 2012 13:47:00
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 - E33 KENDAL LAND AT BOUNDARY BANK
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 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.
E33 is a relatively small employment site allocation between 0.93 ha and 1.03 ha depending on which evidence document is used. It consists of a hived off part of a field above the existing business park/waste transfer station. This site is in such a position that any development will give adverse visual aspects from the paths leading to Scouts Scar. There are also issues with access from the Boundary Bank site.
The unsoundness of including this site in the plan is further exacebated by other proposals being suggested by Cumbria County Council and the Lake District National Park Planners; the LDNP allocating the quarry basin for waste management purposes and Cumbria with proposal SL1B suggesting the fell site for the relocation of the household waste recycling centre from canal head.
Situated above Kendal ,the quarry site is opposite the housing allocation R129M on the Underbarrow Road. It is a complicated site from the traffic point of view with vehicles over 7.5tonnes having to use private access to the A591. However smaller vehicles would access the Kendal road system and put stress on the same junctions that R129M affects ie TownHall,Queens Road etc.
I understand from council officers that the affects from proposed developments at Kendal Fell were not taken into account by any of the Kendal Traffic Assessments.
The developments at Kendal Fell are currently unsound with regard to the new National Planning Framework Document which require all local planning authorities working together collaboratively to meet infrastructure and other requirements.
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.
I think this is an important complicated site which could have strategic consequences for the neighbourhood, if there is not a plan developed between the three authorities involved.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me