Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

0.0 Whole Document

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

[Note: this submission is supported by signed statements from 198 residents]

TOG REPRESENTATIONS ON LAND ALLOCATIONS DPD

1 Introduction

The Triangle Opposition Group (TOG) is a residents' group formed to oppose the development of the 'Oxenholme Green Triangle' a designated green gap bordered by Oxenholme Road, Oxenholme Village, Burton Road and the Oaks Estate. South
Lakeland District Council (SLDC) is proposing development of a significant part of the green gap through a large housing estate of 100 dwellings (RN133M) and a business park (M2M). It must also be recognised that a further part of this vulnerable greenfield site (ON1) has already received planning permission for outdoor sports facilities with associated car parks and clubhouse, permission recently extended for a further three years.

TOG's submission is supported by 198 residents and proformas giving authority to TOG to represent them at the Independent Evaluation are attached for information.

While TOG agrees with the Green Spaces submission that the whole DPD should be referred back to the Council for further consultation and negotiation with residents' groups, there are specific areas of unsoundness and lack of legal compliance in respect of sites RN133M and M2M that we outline below.

Lack of Legal Compliance
2.1 Alternatives to the Plan
A recent High Court ruling referred back to the Greater Norwich Development Plan Partnership part of their plan for new homes, on the grounds that alternatives had not been properly assessed. Similar considerations arise with the South Lakeland DPD.

For the Kendal area a viable, popular and well-researched alternative set of proposals was submitted by Kendal Town Council in their document "Sustainable Development in Kendal".
These plans, based on the recommendations of the wellrespected Taylor Review (Chapter 2: Living, Working Market Towns), were rejected out of hand by SLDC.

For the Oxenholme Triangle there has been a similar lack of serious examination of alternatives to the development of this site. We were encouraged by SLDC councillors and officers to suggest alternative sites to the ones we opposed. This we did by proposing the use of sites M40# and Rl40# opposite the ASDA superstore. We believed that these sites had many fewer disadvantages than the Triangle sites including: minimal impact on other houses, access on to the main A65, minimal impact on coalescence, more positive sustainability appraisal than the Triangle sites and less impact on the landscape character. We were also aware that at least part of this area had been offered for sale in recent times.

It is quite clear that SLDC did not undertake more than a cursory re-examination of our suggested alternatives and merely repackaged information on file on these sites. For example the availability of these sites is described in the settlement fact files as "probably in private and/or multiple ownership"! At no stage did the Council seek to involve the local residents in a discussion about the relative merits of the alternative sites.

Indeed it has been clear from a very early stage that the Council had predetermined its view on the development of the Triangle sites, irrespective of the outcome of the various consultative stages. This was confirmed in an e-mail from our ward councillor Brenda Gray, who is also Vice-Chairman of the Council, on 24 June 2011, well before the consultation exercise had been completed, in which she states, unequivocally and with no room for nuances: " I have talked again to the SLDC development plan officers. It is apparent from every angle that this area of land should be included as potential sites for development".

2.2 Lack of Conformity with Core Strategy
The DPD proposals are not in conformity with the Core Strategy, specifically CS8.1 (Green Infrastructure) and CS8.2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character). There are many references in the LDF documents to the need to avoid compromising identified green gaps and the need to avoid coalescence between Kendal and Oxenholme. The council's own assessment in Appendix 5 to the Kendal Fact File of the Oxenholme-Kendal Green Gap is that the main point of risk of coalescence exists along Oxenholme Road. This is precisely where the proposed housing estate RN133M and the separate rugby club development will be situated.

The Inspector's Report on the South Lakeland Local Plan in 1996 covered exactly the same issue in rejecting inclusion of this site (2.155-2.159): "the allocation now proposed would extend housing development along Oxenholme Road to within about 100m of the railway line .... (leaving) only a narrow strip of land (essentially the railway embankment) separating it from Oxenholme. This would not, in my judgement, be capable of fulfilling the purpose of green gaps ... " Similarly in 6.10 of the same report: " I cannot accept that the elevation of the embankment and the trees which run alongside, would in themselves, provide a plausible green gap between the two settlements".

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 DPD is not consistent with national policy.

[Note: this submission is supported by signed statements from 198 residents]

3 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. For site RN133M, 231 responses to the consultation were received of which 230 were opposed. For site M2M, 246 out of 248 responses were opposed. Instead of taking account of this opposition and discussing with TOG (and other residents' groups) possible alternative ways of meeting affordable housing need and employment sites, the Council in fact amended the plans at the last minute to increase the area of the housing estate and to
bring forward the development of this site from Phase 2 to Phase 1. There was no justification from the consultation exercise to make these changes, which seem to have been based solely on the views of the landowner. As noted above, the alternative sites suggested by TOG were rejected without any consultation with us.

3.2 Confusion over Green Gap and Coalescence

SLDC evidence files are incoherent and contradictory as the Council tries to justify a decision which effectively closes the green gap between Oxenholme and Kendal along Oxenholme Road, in contravention of the core strategy.

In seeking to refute our arguments on these matters in Appendix 8 of the Kendal Emerging Options Consultation Stage report the Council states " The Council considers that the land does not function as a green gap in the context of Adopted Core Strategy Policy CS8.2". However there is then a lengthy assessment of the "Oxenholme-Kendal Green Gap" in appendix 5 of the Kendal fact file dated February 2012. It is either a green gap or not and
clearly the decision at the emerging options stage was taken on the basis of incorrect advice from officers.

3.3 Sustainability Appraisal Inappropriate for Site RN133M

The sustainability appraisal for site RN 133M has been carried forward from the original proposal of site RN 133, a site of less than half the size. RN133 was 2.94 hectares, this was increased at emerging options stage to RN133M at 4.87 hectares which was then increased again before the DPD was published by incorporating parts of RN301 M to a final size of 5.97 hectares. It is completely inappropriate for a sustainability appraisal based on a much smaller site to be used to justify this development.

In fact the final site RN133M now has more in common with site R120 which SLDC acknowledges had one of the worst sustainability 'scores' in the whole Kendal area.

3.4 Site History

The Triangle has been the subject of three previous public inquiries in 1988, 1996 and 2003 all of which found against proposals for development. In rejecting an employment site {of slightly smaller scale) in the same proposed area as M2M in 2003, the Inspector stated "the development of the site would also be significantly visually intrusive, especially from the popular recreational area of the Helm and it would result in unacceptable erosion of the designated Green Gap between Kendal and Oxenholme". The Inspector flatly rejected the Council's evidence on sustainable development, landscape character and coalescence between Oxenholme and Kendal, all of which remain very relevant to the current proposals.

It is highly regrettable that SLDC did not disclose this information in its consultation documentation, nor did it take this evidence into account in taking decisions at the emerging options stage. In its response to our comprehensive evidence on this matter SLDC merely states: "Noted, however changing circumstances need to be taken into account". There is no description of any changes whatsoever since 2003 that might justify overturning the decision then.

The highly relevant Inspector's Report from 1996 on the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006, referred to above, was also omitted from the material evidence.

4 Unsoundness (Not Effective)

The Council has failed to come up with an infrastructure delivery plan or a transport plan to meet the scale of developments proposed.

4.1 Transport

The transport study, with initial modelling results, is very much work in progress and the Executive Summary states that "overall the level of congestion resulting from the LDF
development is not fully mitigated by any of the improvement schemes". On this basis alone the DPD should be referred back as unsound. We have argued that the existing road network, particularly the narrow Oxenholme Road cannot bear any extra traffic from the proposed developments. This is borne out in the study where some of the worst congestion problems are already experienced at Junction 21 (the Burton Road/Oxenholme Road junction) and would also occur at Oxenholme Road/Kendal Parks if the DPD proposals were implemented.

4.2 Other Infrastructure

An infrastructure delivery plan was promised as long ago as the summer of 2011 and we were given to believe it would definitely accompany the published DPD. Instead a "position statement" has been published which gives no answers to pressing questions such as:
• Air Quality (where Kendal is already breaching the law)
• Sewerage (where the system is already under strain)
• Education Places (particularly pressure on primary school places)
• Flooding ( there are acknowledged surface flooding risks in respect of the Triangle)
• Primary care health facilities (where some practices are full)

The DPD should not be approved until a viable infrastructure delivery plan is in place on all these issues, otherwise piecemeal developments, without a mitigating strategy, will have an adverse impact on quality of life for all Kendal residents.

5 Conclusion

South Lakeland District Council has formulated a DPD based on outdated housing targets and discredited planning policies. Despite a lengthy consultation process which provided
alternative ideas, it has refused to alter its approach except around the margins. Its stubbornness and tunnel-vision has led it to ignore any alternative perspectives, to contravene its own green spaces strategies and to ignore any evidence which does
not fit the mould it set before consultation took place. Little priority has been given to resolving the transport and infrastructure issues thrown up by such large scale development.

If the Council fails to take heed of these submissions, TOG requests the Inspector to refer back the DPD for further consideration and negotiation with TOG and other relevant organisations, both on the overall approach and the specific issues related to sites M2M and RN133M.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

We represent 198 residents who have given us written authority to represent them at the Independent Evaluation.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - RN133M KENDAL WEST OF OXENHOLME 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.

[Note: this submission is supported by signed statements from 198 residents]

TOG REPRESENTATIONS ON LAND ALLOCATIONS DPD


1 Introduction

The Triangle Opposition Group (TOG) is a residents’ group formed to oppose the development of the ‘Oxenholme Green Triangle’ a designated green gap bordered by Oxenholme Road, Oxenholme Village, Burton Road and the Oaks Estate. South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) is proposing development of a significant part of the green gap through a large housing estate of 100 dwellings (RN133M) and a business park (M2M).

TOG’s submission is supported by 198 residents and proformas giving authority to TOG to represent them at the Independent Evaluation are attached for information.

While TOG agrees with the Green Spaces submission that the whole DPD should be referred back to the Council for further consultation and negotiation with residents’ groups, there are specific areas of unsoundness and lack of legal compliance in respect of sites RN133M and M2M that we outline below.

2 Lack of Legal Compliance

2.1 Alternatives to the Plan

A recent High Court ruling referred back to the Greater Norwich Development Plan Partnership part of their plan for new homes, on the grounds that alternatives had not been properly assessed. Similar considerations arise with the South Lakeland DPD.

For the Kendal area a viable, popular and well-researched alternative set of proposals was submitted by Kendal Town Council in their document “Sustainable Development in Kendal”. These plans, based on the recommendations of the well-respected Taylor Review (Chapter 2: Living, Working Market Towns), were rejected out of hand by SLDC.

For the Oxenholme Triangle there has been a similar lack of serious examination of alternatives to the development of this site. We were encouraged by SLDC councillors and officers to suggest alternative sites to the ones we opposed. This we did by proposing the use of sites M40# and RI40# opposite the ASDA superstore. We believed that these sites had many fewer disadvantages than the Triangle sites including: minimal impact on other houses, access on to the main A65, minimal impact on coalescence, more positive sustainability appraisal than the Triangle sites and less impact on the landscape character. We were also aware that at least part of this area had been offered for sale in recent times.

2.2 Lack of Conformity with Core Strategy

The DPD proposals are not in conformity with the Core Strategy, specifically CS8.1 (Green Infrastructure) and CS8.2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character). There are many references in the LDF documents to the need to avoid compromising identified green gaps and the need to avoid coalescence between Kendal and Oxenholme. The council’s own assessment in Appendix 5 to the Kendal Fact File of the Oxenholme-Kendal Green Gap is that the main point of risk of coalescence exists along Oxenholme Road. This is precisely where the proposed housing estate RN133M and the separate rugby club development will be situated.

The Inspector’s Report on the South Lakeland Local Plan in 1996 covered exactly the same issue in rejecting inclusion of this site (2.155-2.159): “the allocation now proposed would extend housing development along Oxenholme Road to within about 100m of the railway line ….(leaving) only a narrow strip of land (essentially the railway embankment) separating it from Oxenholme. This would not, in my judgement, be capable of fulfilling the purpose of green gaps…” Similarly in 6.10 of the same report: “ I cannot accept that the elevation of the embankment and the trees which run alongside, would in themselves, provide a plausible green gap between the two settlements”.

3 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. For site RN133M, 231 responses to the consultation were received of which 230 were opposed. For site M2M, 246 out of 248 responses were opposed. Instead of taking account of this opposition and discussing with TOG (and other residents’ groups) possible alternative ways of meeting affordable housing need and employment sites, the Council in fact amended the plans at the last minute to increase the area of the housing estate and to bring forward the development of this site from Phase 2 to Phase 1. There was no justification from the consultation exercise to make these changes, which seem to have been based solely on the views of the landowner. As noted above, the alternative sites suggested by TOG were rejected without any consultation with us.

3.2 Confusion over Green Gap and Coalescence

SLDC evidence files are incoherent and contradictory as the Council tries to justify a decision which effectively closes the green gap between Oxenholme and Kendal along Oxenholme Road, in contravention of the core strategy.

In seeking to refute our arguments on these matters in Appendix 8 of the Kendal Emerging Options Consultation Stage report the Council states “ The Council considers that the land does not function as a green gap in the context of Adopted Core Strategy Policy CS8.2”. However there is then a lengthy assessment of the “Oxenholme-Kendal Green Gap” in appendix 5 of the Kendal fact file dated February 2012. It is either a green gap or not and clearly the decision at the emerging options stage was taken on the basis of incorrect advice from officers.

3.3 Sustainability Appraisal Inappropriate for Site RN133M

The sustainability appraisal for site RN 133M has been carried forward from the original proposal of site RN 133, a site of less than half the size. RN133 was 2.94 hectares, this was increased at emerging options stage to RN133M at 4.87 hectares which was then increased again before the DPD was published by incorporating parts of RN301M to a final size of 5.97 hectares. It is completely inappropriate for a sustainability appraisal based on a much smaller site to be used to justify this development.

In fact the final site RN133M now has more in common with site R120 which SLDC acknowledges had one of the worst sustainability ‘scores’ in the whole Kendal area.

3.4 Site History

The Triangle has been the subject of three previous public inquiries in 1988, 1996 and 2003 all of which found against proposals for development. In rejecting an employment site (of slightly smaller scale) in the same proposed area as M2M in 2003, the Inspector stated “the development of the site would also be significantly visually intrusive, especially from the popular recreational area of the Helm and it would result in unacceptable erosion of the designated Green Gap between Kendal and Oxenholme”. The Inspector flatly rejected the Council’s evidence on sustainable development, landscape character and coalescence between Oxenholme and Kendal, all of which remain very relevant to the current proposals.

It is highly regrettable that SLDC did not disclose this information in its consultation documentation, nor did it take this evidence into account in taking decisions at the emerging options stage. In its response to our comprehensive evidence on this matter SLDC merely states: “Noted, however changing circumstances need to be taken into account”. There is no description of any changes whatsoever since 2003 that might justify overturning the decision then.

The highly relevant Inspector’s Report from 1996 on the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006, referred to above, was also omitted from the material evidence.

4 Unsoundness (Not Effective)

The Council has failed to come up with an infrastructure delivery plan or a transport plan to meet the scale of developments proposed.

4.1 Transport

The transport study, with initial modelling results, is very much work in progress and the Executive Summary states that “overall the level of congestion resulting from the LDF development is not fully mitigated by any of the improvement schemes”. On this basis alone the DPD should be referred back as unsound. We have argued that the existing road network, particularly the narrow Oxenholme Road cannot bear any extra traffic from the proposed developments. This is borne out in the study where some of the worst congestion problems are already experienced at Junction 21 (the Burton Road/Oxenholme Road junction) and would also occur at Oxenholme Road/Kendal Parks if the DPD proposals were implemented.

4.2 Other Infrastructure

An infrastructure delivery plan was promised as long ago as the summer of 2011 and we were given to believe it would definitely accompany the published DPD. Instead a “position statement” has been published which gives no answers to pressing questions such as:

Air Quality (where Kendal is already breaching the law)
Sewerage (where the system is already under strain)
Education Places (particularly pressure on primary school places)
Flooding ( there are acknowledged surface flooding risks in respect of the Triangle)
Primary care health facilities (where some practices are full)

The DPD should not be approved until a viable infrastructure delivery plan is in place on all these issues, otherwise piecemeal developments, without a mitigating strategy, will have an adverse impact on quality of life for all Kendal residents.

5 Conclusion

South Lakeland District Council has formulated a DPD based on outdated housing targets and discredited planning policies. Despite a lengthy consultation process which provided alternative ideas, it has refused to alter its approach except around the margins. Its stubbornness and tunnel-vision has led it to ignore any alternative perspectives, to contravene its own green spaces strategies and to ignore any evidence which does not fit the mould it set before consultation took place. Little priority has been given to resolving the transport and infrastructure issues thrown up by such large scale development.

If the Council fails to take heed of these submissions, TOG requests the Inspector to refer back the DPD for further consideration and negotiation with TOG and other relevant organisations, both on the overall approach and the specific issues related to sites M2M and RN133M.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

see first response

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - M2M-mod KENDAL LAND EAST OF BURTON 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.

[Note: this submission is supported by signed statements from 198 residents]

TOG REPRESENTATIONS ON LAND ALLOCATIONS DPD


1 Introduction

The Triangle Opposition Group (TOG) is a residents’ group formed to oppose the development of the ‘Oxenholme Green Triangle’ a designated green gap bordered by Oxenholme Road, Oxenholme Village, Burton Road and the Oaks Estate. South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) is proposing development of a significant part of the green gap through a large housing estate of 100 dwellings (RN133M) and a business park (M2M).

TOG’s submission is supported by 198 residents and proformas giving authority to TOG to represent them at the Independent Evaluation are attached for information.

While TOG agrees with the Green Spaces submission that the whole DPD should be referred back to the Council for further consultation and negotiation with residents’ groups, there are specific areas of unsoundness and lack of legal compliance in respect of sites RN133M and M2M that we outline below.

2 Lack of Legal Compliance

2.1 Alternatives to the Plan

A recent High Court ruling referred back to the Greater Norwich Development Plan Partnership part of their plan for new homes, on the grounds that alternatives had not been properly assessed. Similar considerations arise with the South Lakeland DPD.

For the Kendal area a viable, popular and well-researched alternative set of proposals was submitted by Kendal Town Council in their document “Sustainable Development in Kendal”. These plans, based on the recommendations of the well-respected Taylor Review (Chapter 2: Living, Working Market Towns), were rejected out of hand by SLDC.

For the Oxenholme Triangle there has been a similar lack of serious examination of alternatives to the development of this site. We were encouraged by SLDC councillors and officers to suggest alternative sites to the ones we opposed. This we did by proposing the use of sites M40# and RI40# opposite the ASDA superstore. We believed that these sites had many fewer disadvantages than the Triangle sites including: minimal impact on other houses, access on to the main A65, minimal impact on coalescence, more positive sustainability appraisal than the Triangle sites and less impact on the landscape character. We were also aware that at least part of this area had been offered for sale in recent times.

3 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. For site RN133M, 231 responses to the consultation were received of which 230 were opposed. For site M2M, 246 out of 248 responses were opposed. Instead of taking account of this opposition and discussing with TOG (and other residents’ groups) possible alternative ways of meeting affordable housing need and employment sites, the Council in fact amended the plans at the last minute to increase the area of the housing estate and to bring forward the development of this site from Phase 2 to Phase 1. There was no justification from the consultation exercise to make these changes, which seem to have been based solely on the views of the landowner. As noted above, the alternative sites suggested by TOG were rejected without any consultation with us.

3.2 Confusion over Green Gap and Coalescence

SLDC evidence files are incoherent and contradictory as the Council tries to justify a decision which effectively closes the green gap between Oxenholme and Kendal along Oxenholme Road, in contravention of the core strategy.

In seeking to refute our arguments on these matters in Appendix 8 of the Kendal Emerging Options Consultation Stage report the Council states “ The Council considers that the land does not function as a green gap in the context of Adopted Core Strategy Policy CS8.2”. However there is then a lengthy assessment of the “Oxenholme-Kendal Green Gap” in appendix 5 of the Kendal fact file dated February 2012. It is either a green gap or not and clearly the decision at the emerging options stage was taken on the basis of incorrect advice from officers.

3.4 Site History

The Triangle has been the subject of three previous public inquiries in 1988, 1996 and 2003 all of which found against proposals for development. In rejecting an employment site (of slightly smaller scale) in the same proposed area as M2M in 2003, the Inspector stated “the development of the site would also be significantly visually intrusive, especially from the popular recreational area of the Helm and it would result in unacceptable erosion of the designated Green Gap between Kendal and Oxenholme”. The Inspector flatly rejected the Council’s evidence on sustainable development, landscape character and coalescence between Oxenholme and Kendal, all of which remain very relevant to the current proposals.

It is highly regrettable that SLDC did not disclose this information in its consultation documentation, nor did it take this evidence into account in taking decisions at the emerging options stage. In its response to our comprehensive evidence on this matter SLDC merely states: “Noted, however changing circumstances need to be taken into account”. There is no description of any changes whatsoever since 2003 that might justify overturning the decision then.

The highly relevant Inspector’s Report from 1996 on the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006, referred to above, was also omitted from the material evidence.

4 Unsoundness (Not Effective)

The Council has failed to come up with an infrastructure delivery plan or a transport plan to meet the scale of developments proposed.

4.1 Transport

The transport study, with initial modelling results, is very much work in progress and the Executive Summary states that “overall the level of congestion resulting from the LDF development is not fully mitigated by any of the improvement schemes”. On this basis alone the DPD should be referred back as unsound. We have argued that the existing road network, particularly the narrow Oxenholme Road cannot bear any extra traffic from the proposed developments. This is borne out in the study where some of the worst congestion problems are already experienced at Junction 21 (the Burton Road/Oxenholme Road junction) and would also occur at Oxenholme Road/Kendal Parks if the DPD proposals were implemented.

5 Conclusion

South Lakeland District Council has formulated a DPD based on outdated housing targets and discredited planning policies. Despite a lengthy consultation process which provided alternative ideas, it has refused to alter its approach except around the margins. Its stubbornness and tunnel-vision has led it to ignore any alternative perspectives, to contravene its own green spaces strategies and to ignore any evidence which does not fit the mould it set before consultation took place. Little priority has been given to resolving the transport and infrastructure issues thrown up by such large scale development.

If the Council fails to take heed of these submissions, TOG requests the Inspector to refer back the DPD for further consideration and negotiation with TOG and other relevant organisations, both on the overall approach and the specific issues related to sites M2M and RN133M.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

LA1.9 Green Gaps between - KENDAL and OXENHOLME

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.

[Note: this submission is supported by signed statements from 198 residents]

It must also be recognised that a further part of this vulnerable greenfield site (ON1) has already received planning permission for outdoor sports facilities with associated car parks and clubhouse, permission recently extended for a further three years.

2.2 Lack of Conformity with Core Strategy

The DPD proposals are not in conformity with the Core Strategy, specifically CS8.1 (Green Infrastructure) and CS8.2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character). There are many references in the LDF documents to the need to avoid compromising identified green gaps and the need to avoid coalescence between Kendal and Oxenholme. The council’s own assessment in Appendix 5 to the Kendal Fact File of the Oxenholme-Kendal Green Gap is that the main point of risk of coalescence exists along Oxenholme Road. This is precisely where the proposed housing estate RN133M and the separate rugby club development will be situated.

The Inspector’s Report on the South Lakeland Local Plan in 1996 covered exactly the same issue in rejecting inclusion of this site (2.155-2.159): “the allocation now proposed would extend housing development along Oxenholme Road to within about 100m of the railway line ….(leaving) only a narrow strip of land (essentially the railway embankment) separating it from Oxenholme. This would not, in my judgement, be capable of fulfilling the purpose of green gaps…” Similarly in 6.10 of the same report: “ I cannot accept that the elevation of the embankment and the trees which run alongside, would in themselves, provide a plausible green gap between the two settlements”.

3.2 Confusion over Green Gap and Coalescence

SLDC evidence files are incoherent and contradictory as the Council tries to justify a decision which effectively closes the green gap between Oxenholme and Kendal along Oxenholme Road, in contravention of the core strategy.

In seeking to refute our arguments on these matters in Appendix 8 of the Kendal Emerging Options Consultation Stage report the Council states “ The Council considers that the land does not function as a green gap in the context of Adopted Core Strategy Policy CS8.2”. However there is then a lengthy assessment of the “Oxenholme-Kendal Green Gap” in appendix 5 of the Kendal fact file dated February 2012. It is either a green gap or not and clearly the decision at the emerging options stage was taken on the basis of incorrect advice from officers.

3.4 Site History

The Triangle has been the subject of three previous public inquiries in 1988, 1996 and 2003 all of which found against proposals for development. In rejecting an employment site (of slightly smaller scale) in the same proposed area as M2M in 2003, the Inspector stated “the development of the site would also be significantly visually intrusive, especially from the popular recreational area of the Helm and it would result in unacceptable erosion of the designated Green Gap between Kendal and Oxenholme”. The Inspector flatly rejected the Council’s evidence on sustainable development, landscape character and coalescence between Oxenholme and Kendal, all of which remain very relevant to the current proposals.

It is highly regrettable that SLDC did not disclose this information in its consultation documentation, nor did it take this evidence into account in taking decisions at the emerging options stage. In its response to our comprehensive evidence on this matter SLDC merely states: “Noted, however changing circumstances need to be taken into account”. There is no description of any changes whatsoever since 2003 that might justify overturning the decision then.

The highly relevant Inspector’s Report from 1996 on the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006, referred to above, was also omitted from the material evidence.


5 Conclusion

South Lakeland District Council has formulated a DPD based on outdated housing targets and discredited planning policies. Despite a lengthy consultation process which provided alternative ideas, it has refused to alter its approach except around the margins. Its stubbornness and tunnel-vision has led it to ignore any alternative perspectives, to contravene its own green spaces strategies and to ignore any evidence which does not fit the mould it set before consultation took place. Little priority has been given to resolving the transport and infrastructure issues thrown up by such large scale development.

If the Council fails to take heed of these submissions, TOG requests the Inspector to refer back the DPD for further consideration and negotiation with TOG and other relevant organisations, both on the overall approach and the specific issues related to sites M2M and RN133M.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

see first response

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

1.9

No

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

[Note: this submission is supported by signed statements from 198 residents]

It is quite clear that SLDC did not undertake more than a cursory re-examination of our suggested alternatives and merely repackaged information on file on these sites. For example the availability of these sites is described in the settlement fact files as “probably in private and/or multiple ownership”! At no stage did the Council seek to involve the local residents in a discussion about the relative merits of the alternative sites.

Indeed it has been clear from a very early stage that the Council had predetermined its view on the development of the Triangle sites, irrespective of the outcome of the various consultative stages. This was confirmed in an e-mail from our ward councillor Brenda Gray, who is also Vice-Chairman of the Council, on 24 June 2011, well before the consultation exercise had been completed, in which she states, unequivocally and with no room for nuances: “ I have talked again to the SLDC development plan officers. It is apparent from every angle that this area of land should be included as potential sites for development”.

3 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. For site RN133M, 231 responses to the consultation were received of which 230 were opposed. For site M2M, 246 out of 248 responses were opposed. Instead of taking account of this opposition and discussing with TOG (and other residents’ groups) possible alternative ways of meeting affordable housing need and employment sites, the Council in fact amended the plans at the last minute to increase the area of the housing estate and to bring forward the development of this site from Phase 2 to Phase 1. There was no justification from the consultation exercise to make these changes, which seem to have been based solely on the views of the landowner. As noted above, the alternative sites suggested by TOG were rejected without any consultation with us.

5 Conclusion

South Lakeland District Council has formulated a DPD based on outdated housing targets and discredited planning policies. Despite a lengthy consultation process which provided alternative ideas, it has refused to alter its approach except around the margins. Its stubbornness and tunnel-vision has led it to ignore any alternative perspectives, to contravene its own green spaces strategies and to ignore any evidence which does not fit the mould it set before consultation took place. Little priority has been given to resolving the transport and infrastructure issues thrown up by such large scale development.

If the Council fails to take heed of these submissions, TOG requests the Inspector to refer back the DPD for further consideration and negotiation with TOG and other relevant organisations, both on the overall approach and the specific issues related to sites M2M and RN133M.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

see first response

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

1.10

No

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

[Note: this submission is supported by signed statements from 198 residents]

3 Unsoundness (not justified on evidence base)

3.1 Consultation

The consultation exercise has been a farce. Great expense has been incurred on glossy documentation and presentations but no account has been taken of public views. For site RN133M, 231 responses to the consultation were received of which 230 were opposed. For site M2M, 246 out of 248 responses were opposed. Instead of taking account of this opposition and discussing with TOG (and other residents’ groups) possible alternative ways of meeting affordable housing need and employment sites, the Council in fact amended the plans at the last minute to increase the area of the housing estate and to bring forward the development of this site from Phase 2 to Phase 1. There was no justification from the consultation exercise to make these changes, which seem to have been based solely on the views of the landowner. As noted above, the alternative sites suggested by TOG were rejected without any consultation with us.

5 Conclusion

South Lakeland District Council has formulated a DPD based on outdated housing targets and discredited planning policies. Despite a lengthy consultation process which provided alternative ideas, it has refused to alter its approach except around the margins. Its stubbornness and tunnel-vision has led it to ignore any alternative perspectives, to contravene its own green spaces strategies and to ignore any evidence which does not fit the mould it set before consultation took place. Little priority has been given to resolving the transport and infrastructure issues thrown up by such large scale development.

If the Council fails to take heed of these submissions, TOG requests the Inspector to refer back the DPD for further consideration and negotiation with TOG and other relevant organisations, both on the overall approach and the specific issues related to sites M2M and RN133M.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

see first response

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

0.0 Whole Document

No

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

[Note: this submission is supported by signed statements from 198 residents]

4.2 Other Infrastructure

An infrastructure delivery plan was promised as long ago as the summer of 2011 and we were given to believe it would definitely accompany the published DPD. Instead a “position statement” has been published which gives no answers to pressing questions such as:

Air Quality (where Kendal is already breaching the law)
Sewerage (where the system is already under strain)
Education Places (particularly pressure on primary school places)
Flooding ( there are acknowledged surface flooding risks in respect of the Triangle)
Primary care health facilities (where some practices are full)

The DPD should not be approved until a viable infrastructure delivery plan is in place on all these issues, otherwise piecemeal developments, without a mitigating strategy, will have an adverse impact on quality of life for all Kendal residents.

5 Conclusion

South Lakeland District Council has formulated a DPD based on outdated housing targets and discredited planning policies. Despite a lengthy consultation process which provided alternative ideas, it has refused to alter its approach except around the margins. Its stubbornness and tunnel-vision has led it to ignore any alternative perspectives, to contravene its own green spaces strategies and to ignore any evidence which does not fit the mould it set before consultation took place. Little priority has been given to resolving the transport and infrastructure issues thrown up by such large scale development.

If the Council fails to take heed of these submissions, TOG requests the Inspector to refer back the DPD for further consideration and negotiation with TOG and other relevant organisations, both on the overall approach and the specific issues related to sites M2M and RN133M.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

see first response

Please notify me