Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

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

No

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 processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

The proposed allocation should be deleted ... see separately submitted grounds of objection and associated appendices for the reasons why this change is considered to be necessary in oder to make the DPD legally compliant.
[See attached document]
[Note: SOLEK submission also supported by petition containing 138 signatures]

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 proposed allocation should be deleted ... see separately submitted grounds of objection and associated appendices for the reasons why this change is considered to be necessary in oder to make the DPD sound.
[see attached document] - Text below -

OBJECTION TO THE SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL LAND ALLOCATIONS DPD
PROPOSED HOUSING ALLOCATION, LAND BETWEEN CASTLE GREEN ROAD AND
SEDBERGH ROAD, KENDAL (R121M - mod)
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF SOLEK (SAVE OUR LANDSCAPE EAST KENDAL)
I refer to my detailed objection to the proposed allocation of Site R121M for
residential development, submitted on behalf of SOLEK on 14 April 2011, and also to
my further submission dated 8 September 2011.
In my original submission I concluded that the perceived benefits of developing Site
R121M, in terms of seeking to meet the aspirations of the Core Strategy, could not
possibly outweigh the substantial harm that would be caused to the landscape
character of the area, the potential loss of the biodiversity value of the site and the
almost certain adverse impacts upon drainage and flooding. Whilst it is
acknowledged that in the revised DPD, the proposed site (Policy LA2.3) has been
reduced in both area and indicative capacity, it nevertheless remains a significantly
harmful proposed allocation for 60 new dwellings.
Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act provides that the purpose of the forthcoming
examination is to determine whether the DPD:
(a) satisfies the legal requirements relating to its preparation; and
(b) is sound.
This submission on behalf of SOLEK is to be read alongside those made by the Green
Spaces Committee and Kendal Town Council (which includes the following
documents - ‘Sustainable Development in Kendal’ and the ‘Kendal Local Level
Landscape Character Assessment’).
For the following reasons, I am of the opinion that allocation R121M-mod (and thus
Policy LA2.3) of the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD does not
satisfy the legal requirements relating to its preparation, and that it is unsound.
THE TEST OF LEGAL COMPLIANCE
The DPD in this respect has not had regard to national policy and does not conform
generally with the adopted Core Strategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy (at the
date of this submission the RSS has not yet been abolished).
The Core Strategy was adopted on 20 October 2010 and the DPD states (in
paragraph 2.21) that sites will not be allocated if their development would be a clear
breach of its policies. All of the sites proposed in the DPD should therefore have
been assessed against a range of detailed criteria including landscape and
settlement considerations, including the potential impact of development on
landscape and views, and local and wider community views, including those
expressed through Community engagement and through Parish Plans and the
Sustainable Community Strategy. Allocations should also not impact upon protected
site or species, or exacerbate flood risk.
Landscape Impact:
The fields that comprise the proposed allocation have an important role to play in
influencing the essential landscape character of the setting of this part of Kendal in
as much that they bring agricultural land right to the established developed edge of
the town. They are particularly important in this respect in that they mark the
transition between the town, the steeper, more wooded ground to the south and the
east, and the strong physical feature of the West Coast Main Line railway. Were this
site to be developed, the visual and perceptual link to the agricultural landscape
would become eroded, and the important juxtaposition of pasture and urban area
would be significantly diluted and degraded.
In order to fully understand the landscape objection to the proposed allocation it is
necessary to know a little about its ‘planning history’. Site R121M-mod is comprised of
parts of 2 former sites, R56 and R141, and all of former Site R121.
In the Councils 1996 Deposit Local Plan, R56 was put forward as a potential housing
allocation. This was because it was excluded from the County Landscape Area, and
was therefore regarded as acceptable “infill”. Both of these arguments were
strongly rejected by the Inspector following the subsequent Public Inquiry. He noted
that the land provided a visually important link between the open land west of
Castle Green Road, and the higher slopes of the hillside to the east, and concluded
that “notwithstanding its omission from the Landscape Character designation I
believe that the allocation site has a visual quality of some considerable local
importance which outweighs the very small contribution which it can make to the
housing land need”
The Council in their current assessment of R56 (Kendal Fact File – Appendix 1) note
that the site merges with Site R141, and provides a visual break in the built form of
urban development between the Castle Green Hotel and its grounds (and the
cluster of buildings just to the north on the A684) and the main urban area of Kendal.
The site provides views up to the woodland beyond site R141 and this is in an
important feature to consider in the context of assessing site suitability i.e. impact of
development on landscape setting and visual amenity/views.
Site R121 is wholly within the currently proposed allocation. In correspondence
dated 14 December 1999, it was confirmed by the County Council’s Landscape
Officer that this site merited a similar level of protection as Site R141 to the south,
which was then designated as a County Landscape Area. In the District Council’s
submission to the 1997 Local Plan Inquiry, in attempting to justify the allocation of Site
R56, it was stated that the development of Sites R121 and R141 would be unduly
prominent.
The Kendal Fact File further states that there is a need to think carefully about
potential adverse visual impact of developing R56 and R121, on views and
landscape character/setting, and under the heading ‘comments’ records that the
sites have many constraints and large scale public opposition. Cumbria Council
state that the sites should only be considered if a strategic allocation is required, and
following a landscape character assessment to determine its suitability (60 houses is
not considered to be a strategic allocation).
The Core Strategy states in Paragraph 9.3 that the visual character of South
Lakeland’s landscape, seascape, townscape is highly valued by residents and visitors
and that high priority must be given to the protection, conservation and
enhancement of this landscape character. Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 (Protection
and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character) then states that
proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character landscape types identified in relevant settlement studies and
local evidence, and should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities
and local distinctiveness of the area, distinctive settlement character and the
pattern of distinctive features such as hedges, walls, traditional buildings, woodlands,
hay meadows, wetlands … and their function as ecological corridors for wildlife.
Notwithstanding the recent publication of the NPPF, at the date of this submission,
the Regional Spatial Strategy (and the retained Cumbria and Lake District Joint
Structure Plan Policies) have not yet been abolished.
Policy EM1 of the Regional Strategy for the NW of England (Integrated Enhancement
and Protection of the Region’s Environmental Assets), states that the Region’s
environmental assets should be identified, protected, enhanced and managed,
recognising the need to deliver an integrated approach to conserving and
enhancing the landscape, natural environment, historic environment and woodlands
of the region. Priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites,
features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural
environment and historic environment importance, and the following should be
taken into account:
“Policy EM1(A): Plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should identify, protect,
maintain and enhance natural, historic and other distinctive features that
contribute to the character of landscapes and places within the North West.
They should be informed by and recognise the importance of: detailed
landscape character assessments and strategies, which local authorities should
produce, set in the context of the North West Joint Character Area Map. These
will be used to identify priority areas for the maintenance, enhancement and/or
restoration of that character and will under-pin and act as key components of
criteria-based policies in LDFs.”
Retained Policy E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (Landscape
Character) states that development and land use change should be compatible
with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types and
sub types, and that all proposals will be assessed in relation to:
1. Locally distinctive natural or built features,
2. Visual intrusion or impact,
3. Scale in relation to the landscape and features,
4. The character of the built environment,
5. Public access and community value of the landscape,
6. Historic patterns and attributes,
7. Biodiversity features, ecological networks and semi-natural habitats, and
8. Openness, remoteness and tranquillity.
Having regard to the significant harm that would be caused to the landscape setting
of Kendal, the allocation of this site would conflict with the provisions of the Core
Strategy, and is therefore not legally compliant.
Community Views:
The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general
accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). This states, under
the heading of Commitment, that the District Council is committed to early and
ongoing community engagement in the planning process - to make sure the needs
and aspirations of the community and stakeholders are taken fully into account in
the documents and decisions which help shape development and protect South
Lakeland's outstanding environment and culture.
Whist the consultation process itself is not being criticised, it is however considered
that its findings are not being given sufficient weight. Kendal Town Council are
strongly opposed to the allocation. So are the Friends of the Lake District (Cumbria
CPRE), who noted in their initial response that the site is located upon rising land and
forms part of the undeveloped valley side surrounding Kendal, glimpses of which
evoke the strongly rural feel identified by local people as a key characteristic of the
town. They therefore concluded that the development of the site would result in a
detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting
and character of Kendal, and would raise conflict with both extant Development
Plan Policy and the PPS7 presumption of protecting the countryside for its intrinsic
character and beauty.
As well as the objections to the allocation from the Town Council and the Friends of
the Lake District, approximately 150 individual objections (and a petition containing
nearly 300 signatures were also submitted to the Council. This can be contrasted
with just 2 submissions in support.
Having regard to the widespread local opposition, the allocation of the site does not
comply with the SCI, and is therefore not legally compliant.
Protected Species:
A survey of the local area was undertaken by Derek A Whitcher Ltd (www.whitcherwildlife.
co.uk/) in late April/May 2008, on behalf of Network Rail. The pond in the
adjacent field was found to be home to Great Crested Newts (one of only 2 colonies
in Kendal) , a species protected by virtue of the provisions of Section 9 of the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly
kill, injure, take, or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to places of shelter
or protection used by them, including their breeding ponds and their surrounding
terrestrial habitats. Great Crested Newts typically require a 500 m “emergence zone”
around their breeding pond, consisting of permanently damp, unmaintained land.
This is essential to provide young newts with a source of food and shelter.
Since the 2008 survey the topography of the area has changed markedly, with flood
water from the original breeding pond to the south having eroded a large gully
running north-west into the proposed allocation. This created a number of subsidiary
ponds, which are now becoming vegetated, and it is therefore very likely that newts
will be making use of these, and extending the size of their colony. Newts are now
regularly being found in the gardens of Rowan Tree Crescent and Oak Tree Road,
and a potential linked colony has recently been discovered in the vicinity of Broom
Close (to the north of Sedbergh Road).
Policy CS8.1 of the Core Strategy (Green Infrastructure) states species and habitats
will be protected where biodiversity is affected by development; and Policy CS8.4
(Biodiversity and Geodiversity) states that all new development should protect,
enhance and restore the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings;
and that proposals that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on nationally,
sub-regional, regional and local designated site and non-protected sites that are
considered to have geological and biodiversity value, will not be permitted unless
the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the
site and the wider network of natural habitats. The attached document “Updated
Biodiversity Information” illustrates the potential areas of Great Crested Newt habitat,
the majority of which would be destroyed should the proposed allocation be
developed (see separately submitted Appendix 2).
On this basis the allocation of this site would conflict with the provisions of the Core
Strategy, and is therefore not legally compliant.
Flood Risk:
The proposed allocation currently absorbs a significant amount of rainfall, and the
streams which flow through the site flood on a regular basis. The fields above and to
the east of the railway line are noticeably waterlogged due to the presence of a
spring just below the woodland half way up ‘The Greyhound’, and water from this
finds its way into a cistern in the field opposite Broom Close, which is also fed from the
Broom Close Pond and its catchment. In addition to this there is a second spring in
the field immediately below the railway line, south of the Greyhound bridge. These
various sources of water combine to form a small beck which flows towards Oak Tree
Road, and then south and west towards Castle Green Road, before which it also
picks up ground water from the ponds behind Castle Green Farm. Residents on Oak
Tree Road already complain of flooding from this watercourse following periods of
heavy rain and any development of this site is likely to increase the speed and
amount of run-off, leading to a possible increased risk of flooding in the vicinity and
elsewhere
Policy CS8.8 of the Core Strategy (Development and Flood Risk) states that new
development will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it would not have
a significant impact on the capacity of an area to store floodwater, that measures
required to manage any flood risk can be implemented. The attached document
“Preliminary Expert Report – Sept 2011” concludes that there appear to be a number
of significant uncertainties with respect to potential flood risk (see separately
submitted Appendix 3).
On this basis the allocation of this site would conflict with the provisions of the Core
Strategy, and is therefore not legally compliant.
THE TEST OF SOUNDNESS
The DPD is this respect is not justified because 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.
In order to inform their objections to the “Emerging Options DPD” Kendal Town
Council commissioned Galpin Landscape Architects to undertake a Kendal Local
Level Landscape Character Assessment (“LCA”). This detailed piece of work seeks to
establish how the various open spaces that currently exist round the periphery of
Kendal add value to the lives of its residents, and provides an evidence base and
methodology so that decisions can be made on development sites transparently,
openly, and in accordance with the wishes of the residents of the town as a whole.
The LCA defines the character and potential significance of the open spaces being
promoted through the DPD on the basis of their “functionality”. Each unit has been
assessed against its capacity to supply benefits with regard to access, historic
environment, biodiversity, recreation, visual amenity, flood storage, economic
productivity etc. through using simple measures such as agricultural land grade,
presence or absence of historic monuments/finds, quality of habitat, presence of
species, flood risk data, all of which were obtained from existing publicly available
datasets.
The site falls within a slightly larger area of land identified in the LCA as “D3” and
classified as “Drumlin Pasture” with hedgerows, dry stone walls and occasional trees.
The LCA concludes that this land is of medium/high sensitivity due to its biodiversity
and rural environment, and that it has limited scope for development. In their
response to the Emerging Options DPD consultation, and using the results of the LCA,
Kendal Town Council noted the high sensitivity and low capacity of the site. It was
the only one of the then 19 Emerging Options to receive such a conclusive rating,
clearly confirming its complete unsuitability as a potential housing site.
The brief for the undertaking of the LCA was developed with input from the Council ’s
officers, and it was fully anticipated by the Town Council that once completed the
LCA would form part of the DPD evidence base. It is therefore extremely
disappointing to note that the Council have now decided that the LCA “is an
independent piece of work undertaken on behalf of Kendal Town Council and does
not form part of SLDC’s landscape evidence base”.
In my opinion this leaves a gap in the evidence base, undermining the process used
for the selection of sites in and around Kendal. In this respect it is particularly
pertinent to note that Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy states that proposals for
development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive
character landscape types identified in relevant settlement studies and local
evidence. The LCA is precisely the type of “local evidence” envisaged by this policy,
and it is therefore requested that the appointed Inspector takes full account of its
findings.
Because of the Council’s failure to have regard to the LCA, the proposed allocation
is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and is therefore unsound.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that any allocation of land to the east of the town, between Castle Green
and Sedbergh Road, was not originally envisaged by the Council (see plan at
Appendix 1 to this submission). The Council’s subsequent decision to ignore the
Page 8 of 9
‘planning history’ of the site, the significant landscape impact of its development, its
biodiversity value and flood risk implications – and more importantly the wishes of the
Town Council and local residents is not legally compliant, and renders the allocation
unsound.
The Council should be placing a much greater emphasis on the need to maintain,
and wherever possible enhance, the visual amenities and landscape setting of the
town. Kendal’s future prosperity depends upon it being able to attract employment,
based on the “quality of life” on offer, and the area’s scope for sustainable tourism.
In order to ensure that these objectives are able to be delivered it is requested that
the appointed Inspector removes allocation R121M-mod from the Land Allocations
DPD.

UPDATED BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION - SDLC Proposed Final Land Allocations, Kendal, Area R121M – ON50 & RN30
The aerial photograph of Figure 1 illustrates the general layout of this site, for comparison with the line drawing maps provided by
SDLC which do not clearly indicate elevation or landscape.
This proposal identifies a Biodiversity issue (linked to the colony of Great Crested Newts which have been previously been identified
by several surveys). These have concentrated attention on the large pond shown to the South in Figure 1 below, next to the
northern access road to the Castle Green Hotel; this is explicitly marked in Figure 2.
Since these surveys it is evident that the habitat has changed markedly, perhaps exacerbated by major surface water incursion and
poor drainage. Flooding from the large pond on the higher ground to the South has caused water erosion to create a large gulley
which runs North-West towards the field previously annotated as R56 that abuts Castle Green Road. The gulley forms a large
conduit and has created and maintains further subsidiary ponds in this area. These feature extensive water vegetation, reeds etc.
Figure 2 shows the location of previously identified pond (Blue), the new gulley (Red) and current extended (Green) pond areas.
Advice from licensed naturalists is that Great Crested Newts are highly likely to make use of newer ponds and so extend the size of
the colony. The final proposed plans for R121M rely upon the use of a significant part of the previously noted R56 field for new
road access. This takes the form of a link road to the major new development of 60 properties on the prominent high ground to the
East from the existing terminus of the narrow Oak Tree Road. This was also the case for a previous proposal which involved an
increased incursion into the green space by creating an access directly from Castle Green Road. It is clear from this figure that
either access mode would have a major impact on the extended pond habitats for the colony of Great Crested Newts.
Advice from licensed naturalists is that the Great Crested Newts will occupy habitat with the respect to the ponds that they use.
Guidance from Natural England is that they will occupy suitable unconstrained land as habitat to a distance of up to 500m from the
ponds. Figure 3 illustrates the 500m habitat extent, as constrained by major obstacles walls etc.
As a protected species in the UK with the highest level of protection, it is a criminal offence to interfere with the habitat of the Great
Crested Newt. Hence the suggestion that the residual spaces surrounding R121M may be assigned for ‘Open Public Access’ may
well be tantamount to encouraging the public to break the law.

[Note: SOLEK submission also supported by petition containing 138 signatures]

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Although I have indicated that I wish to participate, should the Inspector consider SOLEK's appearence at the oral examination to be beneficial, in oder to increase his understanding of the concerns expressed in this submission, it will be a member of the SOLEK Committee who would appear.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

1.9

No

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general accordance of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

COMMUNITY VIEWS:

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are not in general
accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) . This states, under
the heading of Commitment, that the District Council is committed to early and
ongoing community engagement in the planning process - to make sure the needs
and aspirations of the community and stakeholders are taken fully into account in
the documents and decisions which help shape development and protect South
Lakeland's outstanding environment and culture.
Whilst the consultation process itself is not being criticised, it is however considered
that its findings are not being given sufficient weight. Kendal Town Council are
strongly opposed to the allocation. So are the Friends of the Lake District (Cumbria
CPRE), who noted in their initial response that the site is located upon rising land and
forms part of the undeveloped valley side surrounding Kendal, glimpses of which
evoke the strongly rural feel identified by local people as a key characteristic of the
town. They therefore concluded that the development of the site would result in a
detrimental impact upon the character of the open countryside, and the setting
and character of Kendal, and would raise conflict with both extant Development
Plan Policy and the PPS7 presumption of protecting the countryside for its intrinsic
character and beauty.
As well as the objections to the allocation from the Town Council and the Friends of
the Lake District, approximately 150 individual objections (and a petition containing
nearly 300 signatures were also submitted to the Council. This can be contrasted
with just 2 submissions in support.
Having regard to the widespread local opposition, the allocation of the site does not
comply with the SCI, and is therefore not legally compliant.
[Note: SOLEK submission also supported by petition containing 138 signatures]

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Although I have indicated that I wishto participate, should the Inspector consider SOLEK's appearance at the oral examination to be beneficial, in order to increase his understanding of the concerns expressed in this submission, it will be a member of the SOLEK Committee who would appear.

Please notify me