Local Development Framework Consultation

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

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 DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.

[The following submission should be read in conjunction with the attached appendices - see attached file)

Please find below my response to the possible inclusion of land off Castle Green Lane for development, and also my/our serious concerns about the unsoundness of the proposals put forward by SLDC for the rest of South Lakes, and Kendal in particular.

I am writing as an individual and also as a committee member of SOLEK (Save Our
Landscape East Kendal).

We consider that the DPD, with reference to Rl2lm and in general, is not justified because:
• Key decisions are not supported by a sufficiently wide evidence base.
• The LPA has not taken on board some very important evidence. \
• Sufficient site preparation has not been undertaken.
• It has failed to provide the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.
• Landscape and other policies (flooding and biodiversity) are not being adhered to.

The DPD is also not effective in that
• It is not deliverable, because it does not have a robust, realistic and sound infrastructure delivery plan.

Whilst I/we recognise that SLDC has been gradually reducing the size of this site, I will continue to argue very strongly that the site R121M should be removed totally from all consideration for development.



Additional Initial Information/Documentation Required

• I would ask that SLDC provide you with a supplementary map showing the extent of the original site- R56, R141, R121, R677K, R676KE (with separate field designations and contours).
• I would also ask that you and we be provided with a site map that gives some clear indication as to where the diagonal boundary line crosses R56 and R141, an explanation as to why it is a straight line to the top comer of R141 and not one respecting the serious topographical, landscape, flooding, biodiversity and access problems.
• The site map continues to misrepresent the size of the pond(s), the gulley, the water course and the reed beds in R677K, R56 and R141 and the LPA should be asked to provide a corrected and correctly labelled plan/diagram, (including also the orchard at the top of R56). Appendix 6 shows it better, but this representation is well out of date.

Background Information

SLDC Strategic Documentation (2008)

Significantly in April 2008 there was NO indication in the LDF document of that date that this part of Kendal was viewed as an area of potential growth (Appendix 1). This was a strategic document put out by SLDC for comment, and highlighted that, although they saw potential expansion in most directions for Kendal, they did not consider the Castle Green area as suitable for expansion- on sound planning grounds, one must assume.

I would request that this document be used as part of the LPA's evidence base, as it is unsound to exclude it.

Planning History (1997)

SLDC refuses to consider ANY previous planning decisions, and thereby acts in an unreasonable and unsound manner. Matters should be judged on their merits.

In 1997 R56 was put forward for development as part of the local process at the
'deposit stage' but later rejected by the Inspector at the Local Plan Inquiry. The main findings at the Local Inquiry (Appendix 2) were that:

1. "This is a visually important link between the open land west of Castle
Green Lane and the higher slopes of the hillside to the east."
2. "The land is not an infill site. The Oak Tree Road/Rowan Tree Crescent development is already a visually intrusive element in the rising landscape, whilst to the south, the development is quite different; the ten or so houses are traditional cottages and conversions based on a farmstead. They blend into a landscape, which has a rural character quite different from that of Oak Tree Road/Rowan Tree Crescent some
200m to the north."
3. "The allocation site provides an important visual buffer between these distinct locations, particularly to the observer leaving Kendal southwards."
The Inspector concluded that, "the site's value in landscape terms is sufficient to
outweigh its value as a housing allocation. I believe that the allocation site has a visual quality of some considerable importance in the local landscape, which outweighs the very small contribution, which it can make to the housing land need."

SLDC states that 'Changing circumstances need to be taken into account. Past planning decisions may no longer be relevant in context of Adopted Core Strategy and current evidence base' (Appendix 8. Kendal Emerging Options Consultation Stage 1 Page Ill)

There has been no information or explanation as to why this policy shift has taken place. One is left to presume that pressure from developers and landowners for this site, together with convenience, have outweighed logic and sound planning criteria. Nothing has changed in this and the following two sections to warrant a volte-face!

I would request that this document be used as part of the LPA's evidence base, as it is unsound and unreasonable to exclude it.

Local Plan (2006)

And in the Local Plan 2006, SLDC had conceded, that '(the) development of higher hillsides further east would be unduly prominent.' - Section 6.3 Visual Amenity. The hillsides are no less prominent now, and this raising of the building line and roof height, especially at the top of the site, would be incredibly visually intrusive.

I would request that this information be used as part of the LPA's evidence base, as it is unsound and unreasonable to exclude it

County Landscape Designation

R141 had already been designated as worthy of County Landscape status, and
in 1999 I wrote to SLDC's Head of Economy and Development at the time, Richard Greenwood, (Appendix 3), indicating that I would like to see the rest of the prominent land (later R121and R676KE) included within the county landscape boundary- the argument being that this field et al met the criteria, and were continuous with the adjacent county landscape area.

In 2000 I received confirmation of my request (Appendix 4). A few years later I was kindly shown the letter for the first time and the map that had come back from Mike Smith (Appendix 5)- but it showed R121 and R676KE, as expected, but not R56, as had been intended too (cf. the inspector's decision)! Richard certainly intended that the land at the back of Rowan Tree Crescent be included- a fact that he recently confirmed! Had we seen this map earlier we would have raised the issue then.

Nothing of significance in the background and information I have outlined above has changed since 1997. And certainly the quality of the land and how it is perceived has not changed. Interestingly, because of the threat to it, people have probably come to notice it much more as a crucial part of Kendal's setting. So much so, that there were
200 people, very few of whom would be too directly affected, at the public meeting held at Castle Park School in March 2011, attended by the Strategy Team Manager and at which SOLEK was formed.

I would ask that this designation be used as part of the LPA's evidence base, as it is
unsound to exclude it.

The three sub-sections above are important comparators, and should be part of any serious land evaluation. To fail to use them is a very serious example of unsound practice.

The site had/has never been thoronghly and accurately assessed or evidenced. Gillespies Report
The Gillespies Report was not sound as far as their Site 8 was concerned. It had serious errors, for example gardens on Sedbergh Road were put forward as proposals/allocations for consultation, as was the field with the pond in it (677K).

Originally (and apparently based on Google Earth) there were to be 253 dwellings according to Gillespies- on a more extended site, then 147 on a slightly smaller site. Then at a public meeting the Strategy Team Manager said fewer because of the nature of the land, and finally 60 dwellings now appear on the only field(s) left (R121).

A further and more accurate re-assessment needed to take place. Gillespies should be seen as an unsound basis on which to incorporate this site originally.

Previous assessments

At previous stages there were so many concerns and issues raised by so many
different bodies, including SLDC that it was almost impossible to believe that Rl21M was still in the list of proposed sites- cf. Appendix 7. The Enviromnent Agency, the SLDC Enviromnent Protection Officer, Cumbria County Council, United Utilities, Kendal Town Council and so on.

Likewise, the site visit analysis for Rl41, as found in SLDC's consultation on emerging options -Kendal, raised serious concerns. But despite what was said, part ofR141 was still included for development- cf. Appendix 8.

The site was going to be included, whatever. However, based on the evidence provided, the judgement made was totally unsound.

Planners

The first time that the planner responsible for developments in Kendal set foot on the site was 22 July 20II -and that was because he was invited by SOLEK to look round. He had merely viewed this complex site from the road previously. It cannot be seen properly from the road.

For SOLEK the meting we had with the same planner on 20 February 2012 was most unsatisfactory, because we were unable to glean very little detail from him. We did learn from him, however, that suddenly there was a possibility of Oak Tree Road being opened up for access onto the site. Please see below for the follow-up.

(And incidentally, these same planners had been using three different development
boundaries to work from, and it had been necessary for us to point out the only validated one - Appendix I0).

Policy LA2.3 Land East of Castle Green Road (Appendix 11)

This indicates what needs to be done before development takes place. Since this is
such a sensitive site and since it can be seen that insufficient, quality preparatory work has been done, the site should be withdrawn from the final document now, because it
is not viable, and its non-viability and non-deliverability will become even more apparent later. This 'document' allays none of our fears.

Land assembly and development/mitigation costs connected directly and indirectly with R121M would make it unreasonable, unrealistic and unfeasible as a potential site for development.

Access/Highways

There is a total lack of preparation and detail (unsoundness) in these recommendations, especially for such a sensitive site.

For example, SLDC claims to have liaised with the Local Highways Authority (Highways access/safety- Kendal Emerging Options Stage 1 - Appendix 8 Page 110), but in a chance conversation with Keith Masser, CCC Highways Dept (21 February 2012) we discovered that they hadn't even measured the width of Oak Tree Road-their preferred option for access onto the site. (Incidentally there are all sorts of problems with it, including its width, as it so happens). It was astounding to discover that discussions were having to take place mid­ February 2012!

(The last highways survey of the Castle Green Road area was done 3 years ago, I believe, and neither Atkins (Appendix 9) nor the developers and planners in 1997 even suggested opening up the end of Oak Tree Road for vehicular access).

An access road (with lighting etc.) would cross this most sensitive area (R56 and Rl41) in order to allow access to Rl21, which was worthy of County Landscape designation in 1999, and has subsequently been judged as highly sensitive by CPRE (cf. later) and Galpin (cf. later).

Sound evidence/recommendations not taken into account (Landscape/General!

Kendal Town Council (2009)

Kendal Town Council supported the view that 'Rl21M' should not be developed (2009), because of the importance and sensitivity of the approaches to Kendal, and the importance of Kendal retaining its tradition as a 'market town nestling in a valley'. (Document(s) are available on the Kendal Town Council web-site).

I would ask that this submission help to inform and be part of the LPA's evidence base, as it is unsound not to take it into consideration.

Friends of the Lake District (CPRE)

SLDC did not accept the report from the Friends of the Lake District (CPRE) as part of their
evidence base (March/Apri12011). The latter stated that 'R121M should not be developed,
that being in conflict with RSS Policy EM!, saved Structure Plan Policy E37, Core Strategy
Policy 8.2, and PPS7)'.(cf. Appendix 12).

I would ask that the value of this report be reconsidered. It should carry far greater weight in the landscape assessment process. It would be unsound not to adopt it as part of the evidence base. And the conclusions match very much the following.

The Town Council Landscape Character Assessment (Galpin)

Kendal Town Council undertook a landscape character assessment (The Galpin Report) in order to provide SLDC with additional site information at a local level and to help them with their land allocations (05 April2011). Amongst many findings it highlighted that landscape quality within and without the LDNPA is a movable feast.

More importantly, however, it stressed the importance of not developing this particular tract of land (R121M)- with its highly sensitive landscape and limited capacity for development (Appendix 13)- the most sensitive of the 19 proposed sites for Kendal. I have included the information for Castle Green (K3) as well, since it is very appropriate to juxtapose the information on these two sites and stress the overall quality of the whole area. The recommendations of the Town Council are based on sound evidence and should be taken into consideration as evidence! (cf. Appendix 14, and the full document is available on the Kendal Town Council web-site).

However, SLDC did not accept this document as part of their evidence base, and we happened to come across mention of it in Kendal Emerging Options Consultation Stage I - Appendix 8 Page ll4.

This independent Landscape Character Assessment was commissioned by the Town Council. The brief was looked at, modified and approved by the Strategy Team Manager. The Town Council had made it known that they wished the report to be accepted as part of SLDC's evidence base, so had involved the Strategy Manager in order to ensure that the brief was objective and would be acceptable , as evidence, to SLDC. This was communicated to the Strategy Team Manager.

The LPA should be required to adopt this Landscape Character Assessment as part of their evidence base, as it is unsound not to do so.

Sustainable Development in Kendal- Town Council (April2011)

SLDC swiftly and summarily dismissed the Town Council's submission- Sustainable Development in Kendal- based on the Taylor Review. The Kendal planner had not heard of Taylor until22 July 2011, when it was mentioned to him by members of the SOLEK committee when they showed him round this site.

Taylor illustrated how best to tackle the difficulties faced by market towns, which seemingly needed to be expanded. Rather than add faceless suburbs, create urban and unsustainable sprawl and destroy the integrity and uniqueness of a market town, one should develop other settlements to a position of viability and sustainability and/or create a new settlement from scratch and plan it in such a way that it is sustainable, would co-incidentally and significantly reduce the infrastructure problems that would be insurmountable in the market town itself and be less unpalatable to many more residents- (Taylor Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing-July 2008).

The Greater Norwich Development Plan Partnership had serious legal difficulties because
they had failed to look at/assess properly alternative approaches/strategies, and SLDC have certainly failed to look seriously at alternative ways of meeting their perceived building needs.

In general terms SLDC's response to their planning issues would appear reactive, piecemeal and rushed, and shows little or no strategic thinking. Furthermore, it needs stressing that the land allocations were originally in train before the Core Strategy was in place.

I would ask that the Town Council approach be adopted.

Cumbria County Council Local Area Committee

The CCC Local Area Committee recommended, (with no votes against) that SLDC adopt an approach similar to that of Taylor and The Town Council.

I would ask that this information be used to inform the LPA's evidence base.

Policies not being adhered to:

Core strategy policies on green infrastructure, green corridors, watercourses and open spaces (CS8.1) and landscape and settlement character (CS8.2) and others are not being adhered to.

Mike Hyde, our consultant, will develop this area in particular. He has already responded to the two previous land allocation proposals, and will be doing so again, but separately to this response.

The quality of our natural landscape should be 'improved and enhanced.' It should certainly not be compromised, irrevocably changed or destroyed. We must do our utmost to ensure a worthy inheritance for our children and our grandchildren.

I would ask that this be referred back to the LPA.

Isues of Biodiversity:

There are particular concerns over the fact that there is a Great Crested Newt (GCN) colony in the pond in R677K. I have already advised that the LPA provide you with a corrected map showing the size of the. pond and the fact that it and the reed beds now extend into R56 and Rl41.

Great Crested Newt colonies need a distance of 500 meters from their pond for food, habitation, hibernation etc. and they can move typically up to 800 meters/1 km. 'The greatest threat to them in Cumbria is the destruction of their ponds and surrounding terrestrial habitat.' (The Biodiversity Evidence Base (2008)- Appendix 9 Page 35)

The great crested newt is strictly protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.)- Regulations 1994 (as amended). Capturing, disturbing, injuring and killing newts is prohibited, as is damaging or destroying their breeding sites and resting places (Natural England Interim Guidance 2007).

SLDC should already have undertaken a full and proper survey of the GCN colony, the reed beds and the outlying habitats. They are already found in gardens in Oak Tree Road and Rowan Tree Crescent.
We have recently discovered that there is also a colony of GCNs in the pond in Broom Close, which is just the other side of the Old Sedbergh Road (Appendix 5 map) and which needs to be indicated on any new map that SLDC should be providing you with.

SLDC should not be permitted to break this vital green corridor.

The one minute read/index to the LDF is very informative. Under biodiversity it says the number of species in each allocation is an estimate and then states: "For each site proposed for allocation, an ecological survey will be required at detailed planning application stage, to inform appropriate mitigation, enhancement or compensation measures"

The LPA should have carried out all the necessary work at this stage, and not leave it until it is too late to save a site that should be saved (cf. Appendix II again). The same applies to all of our other concerns!

Overall, we believe that the LPA is not adhering to Core Strategy policies and other legal requirements.

Drainage and Flooding

SLDC have not given sufficient consideration to these issues: existing streams; the current flooding issues for houses backing onto the site; the volume and speed of additional run-off caused by building on the land; the importance of R121 to act as a wet sponge even in the summer; the five springs in Rl21 that open up in heavy rain; the run-off from the railway line and above; the existing road drainage problems on Castle Green Road/Lane; a previoushistory of back-up flooding in Ann Street and the view of SLDC's own officers etc.

SLDC recognises publicly that flooding on the eastern side of Kendal is a very serious problem, and all other land potentially flowing into the very expensive Stock Beck Flood
Alleviation system has been removed. So why compromise the scheme with this additional risk? Why would Cumbria County Council want to take on the risks, the responsibilities and the cost?

Only people who live in this part of town fully appreciate the volume of water housed in and coming off these fields.

Climate change, the likelihood of 5-day flash floods and winter rainfall predictions up to 2080 showing marked increases are further reasons to indicate the inappropriateness of this land being developed.

SLDC already recognises that the work would need to be carried out at a level above PPS25. Flood and drainage mitigation costs would be astronomical.
And with other necessary mitigation measures and infrastructure costs, this site is unviable and undeliverable.

The LPA should be required to accept the Preliminary Expert Report by Professor Robert Jackson as part of their evidence base- September 2011 (Appendix 15). Not to do so would be unsound.

There is sufficient already to require the LPA to withdraw the site from its DPD.

Infrastructure

Extract from SLDC document "Kendal Transport Study (Janl2) pdf":
"6.1.6 Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate
above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022
base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic."

'The existing highway network would not be able to accommodate the proposed levels of LDF development without significant increases in congestion'. No amount of mitigation will be fully successful.

SLDC has failed to come up with an infrastructure delivery plan, a transport plan or an air quality plan to meet the scale of developments proposed. Statements of intent are not acceptable at this stage.

In a similar vein the vision (South Lakeland Core Strategy) states that 'in 2025 Kendal will....... was a pipe-dream in 2010, and 2 years later it still is a pipe-dream. We have no plans as to how it will be achieved (Appendix 16).

One of the reasons for the Town Council to follow Taylor was that there would be no other obvious way to deal with the existing and future infrastructure problems. More of the same is not a solution.

What is needed is a cumulative delivery plan that is realistic, detailed and as accurately costed as possible. Until we have that the DPD should not be accepted.

Well-being and Health


Where is the consideration for the well-being and health of current and future residents? If this DPD is accepted, then the infrastructure problems will cause environmental harm. There will be a serious deterioration in the quality of the but by other people living in the area, tourists and visitors. (We will also see the loss of amenities such as sledging and apple scrumping in Rl21M). The feel-good factor in our lives will be lessened. And what sustainability plans are in place to ensure that Kendal can indeed accommodate these extra 2,000 dwellings over the next 12 or so years? The DPD should be withdrawn on these grounds too.

Community Involvement and Engagement:

Approx 400 people were against the development of R121M and 2 in favour

Conclusion:

SLDC have continued to include the land behind Oak Tree Road and Rowan Tree Crescent in their land allocations. They have reduced the size of the development for very sound reasons, but we believe that they should, for the very same sound reasons, remove the site totally.

Had they hitherto looked at the site in greater detail and with greater care and objectivity on sound planning grounds and used all of the evidence available to them, they would never have put the site forward. The land may be available, but it does not mean it is deliverable.

We also feel that they should not indiscriminately develop the many other sites at the edge of the town- in line with Town Council proposals.

SLDC have taken the easy option, and failed to carry out strategic planning, by, for example, not being effectively pro-active in negotiation with landowners and not going down the possible route of compulsory land purchase.

Bury Green Party submitted that their Draft Publication Core Strategy was unsound and unsustainable. 'It is not based on proper consultation at the preparation stage of the process with Township Forums and local residents. It is unsustainable in terms of transport, flood risk, carbon emission/climate change and wild life links and corridors. It is in breach of both national and local government material policies with regards to the Green Belt.'

How similar to the situation in Kendal, and with respect to R121M!

I or one of the committee members of SOLEK would wish to take part in the oral examination, and we would speak with the backing of 136 residents, who have given SOLEK the authority to speak on their behalf should they not wish to speak for themselves (Appendix 17).

I would also kindly request that you visit the site for yourself, please.

[Submission supported by petition signed by 136 residents]

1.9

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.

- Community involvement means listening, and even modifying plans!

- Minimal changes have been made in general since the first set of land allocations proposed.

- A lack of meaningful dialogue as far as Kendal is concerned- with anybody.

- The number of official bodies / organisations, whose views have had no sway

- The SLDC website is the only means of finding out what is going on. They claim library use is possible, but you never know which version is available to work on there or elsewhere.

- Not everybody has a computer or feels competent to use it, especially in our part of
town that has many older residents.

- Updates and additional material can appear on the website at any time.

- The initial insistence on replies online. I challenged this with the Strategy Team
Manager, and written responses were to be accepted.

- Originally on the form there was a 500 word limit. That was rescinded.

0.0 Whole Document

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.

- Political and planner intransigence. Their inability to revisit, for example, the number of dwellings needed in light of the fact that the figure is now running annually at 205 and not 400 (Strategic Housing Market Assessment - October 2011). There has been
No appropriate / public adjustment to this fact.

- Only the informed minority respond.

- Difficulty/near impossibility of working on data themes, and not on site-specific material.

- The sheer volume of material that you should really consult before responding this time.

- This undemocratic process has been highlighted by the fact that this and all other sites have been put forward by the Strategy Team, but have not been put before the relevant planning committees for assessment.

1.10

No

The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.

- The official line expressed by SLDC (The Portfolio Holder and the Strategy Team Manager) is that they disregard objections from residents who are affected by the developments (cf. Westmorland Gazette and meetings). At least residents know the area and its problems, so they should, at least, be listened to.

- The Kendal Planner consulted only our consultant's document before corning to see us last July, and that hardly inspires confidence that ordinary residents will be listened to.