2 responses from Mr Geoff Thompson (Individual)
1. Mr Geoff Thompson (Individual) : 17 Apr 2012 09:51:00
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.
LA2.6 Land South of Natland Beck Farm
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
See comments in section 2.3 below
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.
Land off Natland Mill Beck Lane, Kendal…R97M-mod/part MN34-mod
1 It is extremely disappointing that SLDC pursues a Development Strategy of `a dispersed pattern of new development` around the edge of Kendal (para 3.9). This is contrary both to its own Corporate Plan and Core Strategy. The Corporate Plan seeks to protect the local environment in circumstances where, as in the case of the area R97M-mod, part of MN34mod, that land positively contributes to the character and appearance of Kendal. The Core Strategy seeks to achieve ` a superb high quality natural and built environment` which,in my view, is undermined by a significant allocation of land to housing at the periphery. The high quality landscape setting of Kendal should be protected as a non-negotiable element in the Plan as suggested in para 3.6 `
Under the heading of `Local factors influencing the location of development`….`Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road`. Such an approach is from the Natland Road and the former canal.
2 The land proposed at Natland Mill Farm is prominent and of parkland character with significant trees within the site and to the periphery. The number of houses and the size of land take proposed would be visually intrusive and have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the area to an unacceptable and harmful degree.
3 It seems that too little encouragement in the use of Brownfield land (required by the NPPF) exists. It will always be more attractive to a developer to develop Greenfield land but the Council has to put the needs of Kendal before the demands/profit of developers. Development of Brownfield Land can be deliverable if the Council has the will to do it. For example, the Council should be proactive it bringing land forward that has remained vacant/under-used in Kendal for significant periods of time , such as ;
*the former `K`shoes employment site off Natland Road
*the former Webbs Garden Centre Land off Burneside Road
*the unsold flats over `K-Village` Retail Site
*the empty Public Houses eg The Bowman, The Feathers
*public utility land used essentially for storage eg off Parkside Road
4 Development within the existing built envelope does not have to lead to town cramming as existing amenity space can be protected. Appropriate redevelopment of land would complement the historic pattern of high density development within the core of Kendal.
5 However, if the Inspector considers that the need for the development outweighs the significant harm to the locality then Policy LA 2.6 is too imprecise. The Policy should require the preparation of a Planning Design Brief for the site. That brief should :
*Require vehicular access only from Natland Road. The appearance and character of Natland Mill Beck Lane as a ;
* rural,
* unlit,
* single width carriageway with no throughway,and with
* no footpath should be preserved.
Only access by foot and cycle to the site from Natland Mill Beck Lane should be allowed. This is in order that the character referred to above and the special features of the mill leat with its edging limestone blocks and the oak trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders are safeguarded as , in my view, any widening of the Lane would, in addition, unacceptably encroach upon the land designated as amenity open space. It is insufficient in the policy to call merely for `the submission and approval of a Transport Assessment`.
*Specify which trees/hedgerows are to be protected and what type and nature of landscaping should be incorporated into the development.
*Limit the height of any new development to 2 storey to respect the surrounding rural nature of the land and the sensitivity of this edge of town site. Here the town should seek a `soft` landscape edge rather than one that is `hard`, urban and uncompromising.
*Indicate the future for the existing farm buildings/land as the proposed development would render them redundant by isolating farm land from the working buildings.
6 In view of the inconsistency of the Council in allocating land for housing near Natland Mill Beck Lane with its own policies and objectives, the Inspector is urged to find this proposal unsound. The Inspector is urged to give greater weight to the importance of safeguarding land of high landscape importance to Kendal than that applied by the Council by rejecting housing on land at R97M-mod/part MN34-mod.
G F Thompson BA, Dip TP, MRTPI( Rtd), DMS
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.
If necessary to clarify points raised.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr Geoff Thompson (Individual) : 16 May 2012 14:35:00
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 - R97 /MN34# KENDAL SOUTH OF NATLAND BECK FARM
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
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.
Land off Natland Mill Beck Lane, Kendal…R97M-mod/part MN34-mod
1 It is extremely disappointing that SLDC pursues a Development Strategy of `a dispersed pattern of new development` around the edge of Kendal (para 3.9). This is contrary both to its own Corporate Plan and Core Strategy. The Corporate Plan seeks to protect the local environment in circumstances where, as in the case of the area R97M-mod, part of MN34mod, that land positively contributes to the character and appearance of Kendal. The Core Strategy seeks to achieve ` a superb high quality natural and built environment` which,in my view, is undermined by a significant allocation of land to housing at the periphery. The high quality landscape setting of Kendal should be protected as a non-negotiable element in the Plan as suggested in para 3.6 `
Under the heading of `Local factors influencing the location of development`….`Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the surrounding landscape and the need to achieve urban edges which maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the town when viewed from key approaches by road`. Such an approach is from the Natland Road and the former canal.
2 The land proposed at Natland Mill Farm is prominent and of parkland character with significant trees within the site and to the periphery. The number of houses and the size of land take proposed would be visually intrusive and have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the area to an unacceptable and harmful degree.
3 It seems that too little encouragement in the use of Brownfield land (required by the NPPF) exists. It will always be more attractive to a developer to develop Greenfield land but the Council has to put the needs of Kendal before the demands/profit of developers. Development of Brownfield Land can be deliverable if the Council has the will to do it. For example, the Council should be proactive it bringing land forward that has remained vacant/under-used in Kendal for significant periods of time , such as ;
*the former `K`shoes employment site off Natland Road
*the former Webbs Garden Centre Land off Burneside Road
*the unsold flats over `K-Village` Retail Site
*the empty Public Houses eg The Bowman, The Feathers
*public utility land used essentially for storage eg off Parkside Road
4 Development within the existing built envelope does not have to lead to town cramming as existing amenity space can be protected. Appropriate redevelopment of land would complement the historic pattern of high density development within the core of Kendal.
5 However, if the Inspector considers that the need for the development outweighs the significant harm to the locality then Policy LA 2.6 is too imprecise. The Policy should require the preparation of a Planning Design Brief for the site. That brief should :
*Require vehicular access only from Natland Road. The appearance and character of Natland Mill Beck Lane as a ;
* rural,
* unlit,
* single width carriageway with no throughway,and with
* no footpath should be preserved.
Only access by foot and cycle to the site from Natland Mill Beck Lane should be allowed. This is in order that the character referred to above and the special features of the mill leat with its edging limestone blocks and the oak trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders are safeguarded as , in my view, any widening of the Lane would, in addition, unacceptably encroach upon the land designated as amenity open space. It is insufficient in the policy to call merely for `the submission and approval of a Transport Assessment`.
*Specify which trees/hedgerows are to be protected and what type and nature of landscaping should be incorporated into the development.
*Limit the height of any new development to 2 storey to respect the surrounding rural nature of the land and the sensitivity of this edge of town site. Here the town should seek a `soft` landscape edge rather than one that is `hard`, urban and uncompromising.
*Indicate the future for the existing farm buildings/land as the proposed development would render them redundant by isolating farm land from the working buildings.
6 In view of the inconsistency of the Council in allocating land for housing near Natland Mill Beck Lane with its own policies and objectives, the Inspector is urged to find this proposal unsound. The Inspector is urged to give greater weight to the importance of safeguarding land of high landscape importance to Kendal than that applied by the Council by rejecting housing on land at R97M-mod/part MN34-mod.
G F Thompson BA, Dip TP, MRTPI( Rtd), DMS
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.
If necessary to clarify points raised.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
