Local Development Framework Consultation

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R129M KENDAL SOUTH OF UNDERBARROW ROAD

No

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are NOT in general accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement

Although SLDC ‘ticked all the right boxes’ in terms of the stages of consultation in reality there were many aspects of the process which made consultation with the general public extremely difficult:

The sheer number of documents made information inaccessible to all but the most determined;

The consultation process relied heavily on the SLDC website which is difficult to use;

The submission process online was difficult to follow; the submission via email frequently simply did not work at all;

Documents held at the SLDC office in Kendal were piled in cardboard boxes and there was no indexing which again made them inaccessible to all but the most determined;

Publicity tended to be biased towards schemes for affordable housing rather than a balanced overview of the LDF and it’s implications;

Although many of the responses of local residents were recorded there is little evidence that they actually informed the decision making process but much to suggest that views were disregarded. e.g. in the case of R129M where all local residents who responded were against development the Allocation was actually increased to include R143 therefore increasing the size by over 50%.

Additionally, noting that the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) expresses a desire to address concerns about (1) consultation fatigue and (2) the prospect of site proposals emerging later in a planning process, both of these have been a feature of this consultation process and to that extent the local planning authority have had insufficient regard to the SCI.

Further, the local planning authority have had insufficient regard to the consultation process generally, by taking insufficient account of the representations of local residents which have, in the case of R103M, R129M & R143, been unanimous in their opposition to the proposals. The SCI puts much emphasis in "placing final decision-making in the hands of the public” but in the DPD, SLDC has completely failed to do this in practice.

?The DPD has not had regard to Sustainable Community Strategy:
Although the Core Strategy does have regard to the SCS as stated in the KEY ISSUES1.35 (protection of countryside; housing appropriate in scale & distribution; sympathetic to local environment; accessibility - reduction in car dependency etc; ) and in setting out in CS1.1 the KEY SUSTAINABILITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES, by subsequently allocating sites for development for example in Kendal, largely in greenfield, peripheral locations many of the principles and aspirations of the SCS and CS have been disregarded or at least contradicted.

[See CS1.1 -Numbers below refer to the Key Sustainability Development Principles]

Peripheral developments including those planned for R129M, R143 and R103M:
1 - increase dependence on cars and therefore contribute to climate change and a decline in air quality;
2 - do not protect the countryside;
3 - detract from landscape character adjacent to the LDNP;
5 - do not retain distinctive rural character by creating 21st century housing estate
6 - increase the need to travel because of distance from services;
8 - represent the last option in terms of desirability for development (after brownfield and infilling);
10- do not meet the needs of the large proportion of the population over 60 for whom more central locations with easier access is more appropriate;
11- detract from the overall attractiveness of the area, and reduce the vitality & viability of town centres by clogging them up with traffic.

The allocation of R103M, R129M, R143 ,and E33 with the proposed extension of the Development Boundary to the west of Kendal absolutely contradicts the aims of all these principles of sustainability in CS1.1


CHANGES NECESSARY:
Increased weight should be given to the representations made by local residents during the public consultation periods in 2011.
The Allocations at R129M, R143, R103M and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD.

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.

NOT JUSTIFIED
The strategy is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base:

A) Evidence of participation of the local community:
The results of consultations carried out in 2011 and prior to that have been published but it is obvious from these that little regard has been paid to the submissions put forward.

Evidence:
In the Formal consultation phase up to May14th 2011, 92.8% of those who responded to the Site R129M objected to the allocation and 1.8% (landowners and developers) were in favour, yet not only was R129M allocated but an additional plot R143 was added increasing the potential housing from 98 to 153. The only positive outcome for the objectors was perhaps an increase in the awareness of the need for mitigation.

Specific evidence supplied on the impact of slope on the consumption of fuel and consequent emissions based on measured testing in situ was not even recorded;

No regard has been paid to the concern of residents about the increase of traffic within residential areas such as Queens Rd, Kirkbarrow, Greenside, Brigsteer Rd, Vicarage Drive, Gillinggate;

The potential for damaging surface run-off at properties adjacent to R129M has not been addressed;

Concerns of residents and Friends Of the Lake District re the visual impact of sites R103m, R129M & R143 on the Lake District National Park, and potential irrevocable change in the rural landscape have been disregarded.

B) Research/fact finding: the choices made in the plan are not backed by facts that are complete and/or reliable:

1) Mistakes in the fact files and sustainability assessment:

a) Misnaming and /or inaccurate location of sites – R129M was described in the documents available for consultation as ‘South of Brigsteer Rd’ when it is in fact south of Underbarrow Rd. Even in the latest transport Study R129M is described as being off Underbarrow and Brigsteer Rds which is incorrect. R103M is variously described as Land at ‘Stonecross’ or alternatively ‘Stonebank’ and now Stainbank Green;

b) Inaccuracy in the fact files where R129M and R143 are said to achieve the best levels of accessibility to a Primary School (under 500m), Secondary school (under 1.5km), GP (under 1 km), and public transport (under 400m) all of which are inaccurate even when taken to the nearest point of the sites to these services.[ Actual distances are Primary School under 650m; Secondary School 1750 m by foot, or 2000m by car; GP 1270m, and the nearest Bus Stop is 450m, plus an additional 500m for areas within R143.] This gives a false indication of the accessibility of these allocations particularly as there is NO recognition that they are at the top of a long steep hill which effectively reduces the sustainability of these sites when considering travel. Yet they are described in the Sustainability study as “doing well”. The fact Files record similar inaccuracies for R103M where, remarkably, the western side of the site is recorded as being closer to services than the east (for example the west side is noted as being within 1 km of a GP but in fact even the most accessible easterly point is over a km)

c) Uninformed assessments of sites for example where R103M is described as “having no potential to contribute to the coalescence of settlements” but in reality joins the hamlet of Stainbank Green which has 8 residences to the already built up area of Underwood and Vicarage Park. The fact file reference to ”swallowing up farms” is again inappropriate as the last farm disappeared in 1972.

d) Observations based on site visits are inaccurate for example re R129M “One property The Ghyll, directly overlooks the site and it is important to consider it’s amenity and privacy. Two other properties back onto the site located on Greenside”. The reality is that The Ghyll and 3 other properties back onto the site, and a further 5 properties overlook the site. In all 11 properties are overlooked by the site. These mistakes suggest that no site visit was made as the direction of slope has not been appreciated.?
In the Employment Land Review (Lambert, Smith and Hampton) it is recorded that site ELA 5/278 has NO “likely impact on views” and E33 has “negligible impact on views” – which is simply incorrect as they are overlooked by the public amenity area on Kendal Fell and are clearly & easily visible from the LDNP. It also states that no mitigation is needed for either site despite the fact that they are adjacent to 2 residential properties and the in the case of E33 the Lake District National Park boundary.

f) In the latest Transport Study (Jan 2012) a potential Park & Ride scheme is placed in the middle of R129M – a site allocated for housing.

2) Incomplete evidence on the impact of traffic, and in the case of R129M & R143 , (also E33) - NO evidence of the impact of traffic.

SLDC has :
Disregarded evidence on transport provided by local residents;

Disregarded the physical geography of Kendal - in particular the influence of slope on transport choices based on research carried out by Small World Consulting Ltd which demonstrated the impact of the 1 km hill rising 75m from the centre of Kendal to the top of Greenside: it requires 5 x as much energy to cycle, and a car consumes 4 x fuel compared to a flat area .[Research based on the model from ‘Sustainability Without the Hot Air’, David Mac Kay 2009.];

Not taken the evidence provided by Transport Studies reported on in 2009, 2011, and 2012 into full account.

In addition the evidence supplied by these transport studies is incomplete and consequently not robust.

In June 2009 the Atkins Transport Study of Kendal considered the impact of Land Allocations including those for 300 houses at Stonebank Green (M39/R676/R103/R675). Sites at R129,665 and 143 were not considered in this study - therefore there is NO evidence of their potential impact on traffic. It was considered that significant development at Stonebank Green could not be supported because of the adverse effect on junctions which were already working at or over capacity, and on the “operation of the highway network” and a review of land allocations was recommended. Despite this recommendation SLDC has chosen to increase the pressure on these and other junctions by allocating R129M and R143 for residential development so increasing the number of houses to at least 342, as well as E33 for Business use.

The Junctions which would be affected by traffic flow from R103M are :
Jct 17 - Milnthorpe Rd & Vicarage Drive
Jct 18 - Milnthorpe Rd & Glebe Rd
Jct 19 - Allhallows Lane, Highgate & Lowther St
Jct 1 - Windermere Rd and Queens Rd

The Junctions which would be affected by traffic flow from R129M & R143 are:

Jct 18 - Milnthorpe Rd & Glebe Rd
Jct 19 - Allhallows Lane, Highgate & Lowther St
Jct 1 - Windermere Rd and Queens Rd

Clearly then it is Jcts 18,19 and 1 which would be put under greatest pressure by development at these sites.

In the Atkins study in 2008 Jct 18 was already overcapacity (a.m. & p.m.), and in projections to 2025 all 4 junctions would be working at overcapacity morning and evening even though the impact of R129M & R143 had not been considered. (All 4 junctions would experience overcapacity even without the LDF except for Jct 17 in the morning when delays of over 6mins were projected.)

Some mitigation was possible for Jcts 17,19 &1 but none for Jct 18.

Despite the evidence of the Atkins report, in the later Transport Study in 2011, updated in Jan 2012 Junction 17 & 18 were omitted and not considered at all. Therefore the impact of potential development at R103M, R129M, R143 and the industrial sites at Kendal Fell including E33 has not been assessed, and there is no evidence upon which to base decisions. The fact that all these developments are at the top of steep hills, a fact ignored in the sustainability assessments, means that the likelihood of traffic is increased and the deleterious effect of that traffic is increased through additional consumption of fuel, emissions, and noise on hills as opposed to flat ground.

In addition there has been no evidence presented of other key areas which would suffer adversely from the increased traffic generation created by R129M, R143, R103M & E33 -for example:
the already congested junction between Low Fellside and Allhallows Lane where large commercial vehicles which need access to the Booths site are already a hazard;
the increased traffic flow through Kirkbarrow, Queens Road, Vicarage Drive - residential areas where traffic calming gives evidence of the problems caused by through traffic;
the safety risk of introducing a new junction at the brow of a hill at Greenside to provide access to a housing estate - a risk serious enough to cause the rejection of previous planning applications, but one which is now potentially even greater given the access of commercial vehicles to the industrial area of Kendal Fell Business Park.

3) Population/housing statistics:

The data on population trends and consequent housing demand have fluctuated over the period of consultation and have lacked consistency in terms of time period and source. It is however evident that instead of basing development plans on the best possible actual figures for population trends and housing need SLDC has made an assumption that growth, which contradicts current trends, is both desirable and achievable so that the DPD has made land allocations which reflect a “vision” that South Lakeland is going to experience significant growth to 2025, rather than reality. The Core Strategy states that the present population of South Lakeland of 105000 will increase to 117000 by 2026 i.e. an increase of 11.4%(0.75% per annum) but the ONS prediction for South Lakeland for the period 2008 to 2033 is for an increase of 7.4%. (0.3% p.a.) The ONS figures (taken from Cumbria’s Population: Recent Changes and Forecasts Nov.2010) are based on the actual figures for the period 1981 to 2009 when South Lakeland experienced 9.4% growth. The ONS prediction is supported by the population structure of South Lakeland with fewer than average young and far higher than average retired people (which could be as high as 36% by 2033). This inevitably means a high death rate compared with birth rate and suggests that any real growth will be the result of inward migration. How much inward migration is there likely to be in the future now that South Lakes and Kendal in particular has lost so many of its major employers? The DPD is based on a wish to alter the population structure of the area without any evidence that this can be achieved. In the simplest terms even though the area covered by the DPD shows clear growth of older age groups and a reduction in the young, with a need for more affordable housing in an area where average income is comparatively low, the DPD sets out peripheral housing estates where the cost of housing would be inflated by the need to provide basic infrastructure and to subsidise an affordable 35% of housing. Peripheral housing estates are likely therefore to be too expensive for the first time buyer or low paid, and not suited to the needs of elderly residents for whom small properties in highly accessible locations are the best solution. Is new housing in west Kendal then to be inhabited by commuters or even second homers? Hardly a sustainable solution.

4) Assessment of landscape character:

Arguably the sustainability appraisal has under-rated the damage that could be caused on sites R103M, R129M & R143 assessing development here as having only “the potential for moderate effect on landscape character”. Consequently the local planning authority has disregarded the impact of possible development of these sites, on the important landscape value of these areas which are adjacent to the Lake District National Park ("the site, R129M, reflects the high quality of the adjacent National Park" according to the Friends of the Lake District); and on plans to extend the National Park even nearer to Kendal; the setting of the town in this rural landscape; and also the fact that the sites are described as "sensitive" by Cumbria Wildlife Trust in relation to the flora and fauna. We do not accept that mitigating features are an appropriate response to these concerns, particularly having regard to the scale of any potential future development.


C)There is little evidence that alternatives have been considered.

A decision was taken at the start that development would take place at key centres so that no thought has been given to the viability of developing a new settlement even though an potential location is available and deliverable near JCT 36 of the M6 - one which would be ideal for new industry, where the land owner is willing to sell, but has been rejected on grounds of unsustainability based on the distance from Kendal. The creation of a new small self sufficient town has not even been considered.

The alternative proposals put forward by Kendal Town Council in “Sustainable Development in Kendal” based on the Taylor Report have not been considered, and the KTC Landscape Study has been ignored.

Only “Available’ land was considered. Consequently land suitable for development which could be acquired by compulsory purchase was not included or assessed in the plan. Therefore Land Allocations are expedient and reflect the wishes of land owners and developers rather than the best solution for the town An excellent example of this is R143 which was not included as an Emerging Options Site based on a sustainability appraisal, but was then added just because the owner offered it for development.

NOT EFFECTIVE
A) The strategy is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or suitable for monitoring;

The DPD is deliverable in that land is available but not in that it provides sustainable solutions in accordance with the CSS or Core Strategy, and does not “embrace sound infrastructure planning“.

It is evident from the SLDC's response to objections made in respect of R129M, R143 & R103M that they have placed undue emphasis on possible mitigation measures as a solution to properly made concerns about the suitability of the site.

Assumptions are made that “delivery partners” will provide essential infrastructure but with no actual commitment or viable plan in place.

There is also an assumption that the “Mitigation measures” will be effective in counteracting all the unsustainable features of the DPD resulting from the peripheral development of Kendal, even though the evidence that is available suggests that this in highly unlikely.

This applies particularly to the issue of providing an infrastructure which would be effective in coping with traffic generation in Kendal to 2025. Evidence comes from studies of transport and air pollution.

At present Kendal is congested, has a significant problem with air pollution serious enough to have set up an AQMA and 75 % of traffic in the town is generated within the town. It is inevitable that if new housing is built even further from the town centre then traffic will increase irrespective of how many ‘Transport Assessments‘ are undertaken, and ‘Travel Plans’ are put in place. If the people of Kendal reject their feet and bicycles as a means of getting to work, school, or shop now, it is unrealistic to expect those who live even further out to adopt these sustainable alternatives.

All transport Studies (2009, 2011, 2012) have predicted a significant increase in traffic within Kendal even without the LDF developments, a situation which will be exacerbated by the LDF. Similarly studies of Air Quality in Kendal show that the LDF undermines the objective of a reduction in air pollution as set out in the Action Plan (2011) of the KAQSG which seeks to achieve a 48% reduction in NOx. “The current proposals in the Allocations document will not be deliverable with Kendal’s traffic capacity”.

The planned attempts to “build capacity into the road system” are unrealistic:

The fact that developers will be required to demonstrate that development will reduce, or at a minimum, have no effect on pollution levels is simply unachievable, and the raising of a levy on developers does no more than provide investment for mitigation schemes, (and increase costs to developers which will be reflected in higher house prices) but will not actually reduce pollution levels or numbers of cars on the road.

The mitigation measures proposed in the 3 Transport Studies are suggestions which seek to make the congestion situation no worse than it is at present but all of these only 2 might be in any way viable. With reference to these mitigation measures the Transport Study (Jan 1012) sets out 6 schemes:-?The first aims to improve traffic flow through changes in signalling, and the second aims for a reduction in car trips through changes in behaviour and “ sustainable transport improvement”. There are admirable plans in place for these which are in accord with the aims of CCC, the CSS, KAQSG and the Core Strategy. However achieving changes in human behaviour is notoriously difficult (witness the ongoing fight of the drivers of Kendal to retain free parking at New Road despite the best efforts of SLDC) and the aim to reduce car trips by 5%, or 10% within the Air Pollution Action Plan will do little to address the 14% increase in traffic even without the LDF as predicted by the Atkins Study in 2009.? The third suggestion involves a Park & Ride Scheme on Underbarrow Rd, which was dismissed by the Atkins Kendal Parking Study as both inappropriate as a solution to Kendal’s problems where 75% of traffic generated is internal, and also not financially viable. The suggestion in the DPD that developers could fund this project demonstrates how unrealistic the ‘plans’ of the DPD are, unless any levy is so high as to make the potential development unprofitable.?The last three schemes involve major road building programmes which would have to be funded by CCC and for which there are no plans set out by CCC in the Local Transport Plan which stresses sustainable low carbon policies. Therefore there are no achievable infrastructure plans in place for sustainable solutions to the increase of traffic which would be generated by the land Allocations of the LDF.

Similarly there is no viable infrastructure plan with regard to sewerage, provision of utilities, education and health. Examples : Ghyllside School is already oversubscribed and there is no plan for expansion.

B) The DPD does not show coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities.

Site R129M is adjacent to the Kendal Fell Business Park but with reference to this area there is only a recognition of the strategies of neighbouring authorities i.e. in addition to the Land Allocation of E33 by SLDC, there is a proposal for a Cumbria CC household waste recycling facility at SL1B , and the potential industrial development of the remaining Kendal Fell Quarry within the LDNP. Within the LDF and DPD there is no attempt to assess the impact of development of this area as a whole on: the transport network; the environment which is adjacent to and within the National Park; one of Kendal’s most important public open spaces on Kendal Fell; adjacent residential properties; the adjacent Conservation area and heritage areas. The DPD therefore ignores the potential consequences of whole-scale development in this area on one of Kendal’s most un-spoilt rural gateways and transition to the LDNP, and even underestimates the need for mitigation measures for the development of E33 alone.


2.3 Changes Necessary
1.The evidence base should be re-evaluated, reviewed, mistakes corrected and omissions considered.
The alternative of creating a new town should be assessed.
The combined impact of the Land Allocations at R129M, R143, E33, and potentially SL1B and Kendal Fell Quarry should be assessed together in terms of the generation of traffic within Kendal, the effect on air quality, and on the sensitive rural environment adjacent to the LDNP.
A viable fully costed Transport Plan for Kendal which is capable of achieving sustainable objectives should be put in place before any new development on the western side of Kendal is allowed.
R129M, R143, R103M, and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD until such time as a Transport Plan which can mitigate the effects of development is in place.
The development boundary to the west of Kendal should not be moved.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R103M-mod KENDAL STAINBANK GREEN

No

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are NOT in general accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement

Although SLDC ‘ticked all the right boxes’ in terms of the stages of consultation in reality there were many aspects of the process which made consultation with the general public extremely difficult:

The sheer number of documents made information inaccessible to all but the most determined;

The consultation process relied heavily on the SLDC website which is difficult to use;

The submission process online was difficult to follow; the submission via email frequently simply did not work at all;

Documents held at the SLDC office in Kendal were piled in cardboard boxes and there was no indexing which again made them inaccessible to all but the most determined;

Publicity tended to be biased towards schemes for affordable housing rather than a balanced overview of the LDF and it’s implications;

Although many of the responses of local residents were recorded there is little evidence that they actually informed the decision making process but much to suggest that views were disregarded. e.g. in the case of R129M where all local residents who responded were against development the Allocation was actually increased to include R143 therefore increasing the size by over 50%.

Additionally, noting that the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) expresses a desire to address concerns about (1) consultation fatigue and (2) the prospect of site proposals emerging later in a planning process, both of these have been a feature of this consultation process and to that extent the local planning authority have had insufficient regard to the SCI.

Further, the local planning authority have had insufficient regard to the consultation process generally, by taking insufficient account of the representations of local residents which have, in the case of R103M, R129M & R143, been unanimous in their opposition to the proposals. The SCI puts much emphasis in "placing final decision-making in the hands of the public” but in the DPD, SLDC has completely failed to do this in practice.

?The DPD has not had regard to Sustainable Community Strategy

Although the Core Strategy does have regard to the SCS as stated in the KEY ISSUES1.35 (protection of countryside; housing appropriate in scale & distribution; sympathetic to local environment; accessibility - reduction in car dependency etc; ) and in setting out in CS1.1 the KEY SUSTAINABILITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES, by subsequently allocating sites for development for example in Kendal, largely in greenfield, peripheral locations many of the principles and aspirations of the SCS and CS have been disregarded or at least contradicted.

[See CS1.1 -Numbers below refer to the Key Sustainability Development Principles]

Peripheral developments including those planned for R129M, R143 and R103M:
1 - increase dependence on cars and therefore contribute to climate change and a decline in air quality;
2 - do not protect the countryside;
3 - detract from landscape character adjacent to the LDNP;
5 - do not retain distinctive rural character by creating 21st century housing estate
6 - increase the need to travel because of distance from services;
8 - represent the last option in terms of desirability for development (after brownfield and infilling);
10- do not meet the needs of the large proportion of the population over 60 for whom more central locations with easier access is more appropriate;
11- detract from the overall attractiveness of the area, and reduce the vitality & viability of town centres by clogging them up with traffic.

The allocation of R103M, R129M, R143 ,and E33 with the proposed extension of the Development Boundary to the west of Kendal absolutely contradicts the aims of all these principles of sustainability in CS1.1


CHANGES NECESSARY:
Increased weight should be given to the representations made by local residents during the public consultation periods in 2011.
The Allocations at R129M, R143, R103M and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD.

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.

NOT JUSTIFIED
The strategy is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base:

A) Evidence of participation of the local community:

The results of consultations carried out in 2011 and prior to that have been published but it is obvious from these that little regard has been paid to the submissions put forward.

Evidence:

In the Formal consultation phase up to May14th 2011, the only support for R103M came from 2 developers.

No regard has been paid to the concern of residents about the increase of traffic within residential areas such as Brigsteer Rd, Vicarage Drive, Kirkbarrow, Beast Banks, Greenside, Gillinggate, Queens Rd - routes which pass 2 primary and 5 nursery schools;

The potential for damaging surface run-off at properties adjacent to R103M has not been addressed;

Concerns of residents and Friends Of the Lake District re the visual impact of sites R103M, R129M & R143 on the Lake District National Park, and potential irrevocable change in the rural landscape have been disregarded.

B) Research/fact finding: the choices made in the plan are not backed by facts that are complete and/or reliable:

1) Mistakes in the fact files and sustainability assessment:

a) Misnaming and /or inaccurate location of sites – R103M is variously described as Land at ‘Stonecross’ or alternatively ‘Stonebank’ and now Stainbank Green; R129M was described in the documents available for consultation as ‘South of Brigsteer Rd’ when it is in fact south of Underbarrow Rd. Even in the latest transport Study R129M is described as being off Underbarrow and Brigsteer Rds which is incorrect.

b) Inaccuracy in the fact files where R129M and R143 are said to achieve the best levels of accessibility ?to a Primary School (under 500m), Secondary school (under 1.5km), GP (under 1 km), and public transport (under 400m) all of which are inaccurate even when taken to the nearest point of the sites to these services.[ Actual distances are Primary School under 650m; Secondary School 1750 m by foot, or 2000m by car; GP 1270m, and the nearest Bus Stop is 450m, plus an additional 500m for areas within R143.] This gives a false indication of the accessibility of these allocations particularly as there is NO recognition that they are at the top of a long steep hill which effectively reduces the sustainability of these sites when considering travel. Yet they are described in the Sustainability study as “doing well”. The Fact Files record similar inaccuracies for R103M where, remarkably, the western side of the site is recorded as being closer to services than the east (for example the west side is noted as being within 1 km of a GP but in fact even the most accessible easterly point is over a km) and the position at the top of a long steep ascent has been ignored.

c) Uninformed assessments of sites for example where R103M is described as “having no potential to contribute to the coalescence of settlements” but in reality joins the hamlet of Stainbank Green which has 8 properties to the already built up area of Underwood and Vicarage Park. The fact file reference to ”swallowing up farms” is again inappropriate as the last farm disappeared in 1972.
?
?d) In the latest Transport Study (Jan 2012) a potential Park & Ride scheme is placed in the middle of R129M – a site allocated for housing.

2) Incomplete evidence on the impact of traffic of R103M, and in the case of R129M & R143 , (also E33) - NO evidence of the impact of traffic.

SLDC has :
Disregarded evidence on transport provided by local residents;

Disregarded the physical geography of Kendal - in particular the influence of slope on transport choices based on research carried out by Small World Consulting Ltd which demonstrated the impact of the 1 km hill rising 75m from the centre of Kendal to the top of Greenside: it requires 5 x as much energy to cycle, and a car consumes 4 x fuel compared to a flat area .[Research based on the model from ‘Sustainability Without the Hot Air’, David Mac Kay 2009.] -a study which applies equally to R103M.

Not taken the evidence provided by Transport Studies reported on in 2009, 2011, and 2012 into full account.

In addition the evidence supplied by these transport studies is incomplete and consequently not robust.

In June 2009 the Atkins Transport Study of Kendal considered the impact of Land Allocations including those for 300 houses at Stonebank Green (M39/R676/R103/R675). Sites at R129,665 and 143 were not considered in this study - therefore there is NO evidence of their potential impact on traffic. It was considered that significant development at Stonebank Green (R103M) could not be supported because of the adverse effect on junctions which were already working at or over capacity, and on the “operation of the highway network” and a review of land allocations was recommended. Despite this recommendation SLDC has chosen to increase the pressure on these and other junctions by allocating R129M and R143 for residential development so increasing the number of houses to at least 342, as well as E33 for Business use.

The Junctions which would be affected by traffic flow from R103M are :
Jct 17 - Milnthorpe Rd & Vicarage Drive
Jct 18 - Milnthorpe Rd & Glebe Rd
Jct 19 - Allhallows Lane, Highgate & Lowther St
Jct 1 - Windermere Rd and Queens Rd

The Junctions which would be affected by traffic flow from R129M & R143 are:

Jct 18 - Milnthorpe Rd & Glebe Rd
Jct 19 - Allhallows Lane, Highgate & Lowther St
Jct 1 - Windermere Rd and Queens Rd

Clearly then it is Jcts 18,19 and 1 which would be put under greatest pressure by development at these sites.

In the Atkins study in 2008 Jct 18 was already overcapacity (a.m. & p.m.), and in projections to 2025 all 4 junctions would be working at overcapacity morning and evening even though the impact of R129M & R143 had not been considered. (All 4 junctions would experience overcapacity even without the LDF except for Jct 17 in the morning when delays of over 6mins were projected.)
Some mitigation was possible for Jcts 17,19 &1 but none for Jct 18.

Despite the evidence of the Atkins report, in the later Transport Study in 2011, updated in Jan 2012 Junction 17 & 18 were omitted and not considered at all. Therefore the impact of potential development at R103M, R129M, R143 and the industrial sites at Kendal Fell including E33 has not been assessed, and there is no evidence upon which to base decisions. The fact that all these developments are at the top of steep hills, a fact ignored in the sustainability assessments, means that the likelihood of traffic is increased and the deleterious effect of that traffic is increased through additional consumption of fuel, emissions, and noise on hills as opposed to flat ground.

In addition there has been no evidence presented of other key areas which would suffer adversely from the increased traffic generation created by R103M, R129M, R143, & E33 -for example:

the already congested junction between Low Fellside and Allhallows Lane where large commercial vehicles which need access to the Booths site are already a hazard;
the increased traffic flow through Kirkbarrow, Queens Road, Vicarage Drive - residential areas where traffic calming gives evidence of the problems caused by through traffic;

3) Population/housing statistics:

The data on population trends and consequent housing demand have fluctuated over the period of consultation and have lacked consistency in terms of time period and source. It is however evident that instead of basing development plans on the best possible actual figures for population trends and housing need SLDC has made an assumption that growth, which contradicts current trends, is both desirable and achievable so that the DPD has made land allocations which reflect a “vision” that South Lakeland is going to experience significant growth to 2025, rather than reality. The Core Strategy states that the present population of South Lakeland of 105000 will increase to 117000 by 2026 i.e. an increase of 11.4% (0.75% per annum) but the ONS prediction for South Lakeland for the period 2008 to 2033 is for an increase of 7.4%. (0.3% p.a.) The ONS figures (taken from Cumbria’s Population: Recent Changes and Forecasts Nov.2010) are based on the actual figures for the period 1981 to 2009 when South Lakeland experienced 9.4% growth. The ONS prediction is supported by the population structure of South Lakeland with fewer than average young and far higher than average retired people (which could be as high as 36% by 2033). This inevitably means a high death rate compared with birth rate and suggests that any real growth will be the result of inward migration. How much inward migration is there likely to be in the future now that South Lakes and Kendal in particular has lost so many of its major employers? The DPD is based on a wish to alter the population structure of the area without any evidence that this can be achieved. In the simplest terms even though the area covered by the DPD shows clear growth of older age groups and a reduction in the young, with a need for more affordable housing in an area where average income is comparatively low, the DPD sets out peripheral housing estates where the cost of housing would be inflated by the need to provide basic infrastructure and to subsidise an affordable 35% of housing. Peripheral housing estates are likely therefore to be too expensive for the first time buyer or low paid, and not suited to the needs of elderly residents for whom small properties in highly accessible locations are the best solution. Is new housing in west Kendal then to be inhabited by commuters or even second homers? Hardly a sustainable solution.

4) Landscape Assessment:

Arguably the sustainability appraisal has under-rated the damage that could be caused on sites R103M, R129M & R143 assessing development here as having only “the potential for moderate effect on landscape character”. Consequently the local planning authority has disregarded the impact of possible development of these sites, on the important landscape value of these areas which are adjacent to the Lake District National Park ("the site, R129M, reflects the high quality of the adjacent National Park" according to the Friends of the Lake District); and on plans to extend the National Park even nearer to Kendal; the setting of the town in this rural landscape; and also the fact that the sites are described as "sensitive" by Cumbria Wildlife Trust in relation to the flora and fauna. We do not accept that mitigating features are an appropriate response to these concerns, particularly having regard to the scale of any potential future development.


C) There is little evidence that alternatives have been considered.

A decision was taken at the start that development would take place at key centres so that no thought has been given to the viability of developing a new settlement even though an potential location is available and deliverable near JCT 36 of the M6 - one which would be ideal for new industry, where the land owner is willing to sell, but has been rejected on grounds of unsustainability based on the distance from Kendal. The creation of a new small self sufficient town has not even been considered.

The alternative proposals put forward by Kendal Town Council in “Sustainable Development in Kendal” based on the Taylor Report have not been considered, and the KTC Landscape Study has been ignored.

Only “Available’ land was considered. Consequently land suitable for development which could be acquired by compulsory purchase was not included or assessed in the plan. Therefore Land Allocations are expedient and reflect the wishes of land owners and developers rather than the best solution for the town.

NOT EFFECTIVE
The strategy is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or suitable for monitoring;

The DPD is deliverable in that land is available but not in that it provides sustainable solutions in accordance with the CSS or Core Strategy, and does not “embrace sound infrastructure planning“.

It is evident from the SLDC's response to objections made in respect of R103M, R129M, & R143 that they have placed undue emphasis on possible mitigation measures as a solution to properly made concerns about the suitability of the sites.

Assumptions are made that “delivery partners” will provide essential infrastructure but with no actual commitment or viable plan in place.

There is also an assumption that the “Mitigation measures” will be effective in counteracting all the unsustainable features of the DPD resulting from the peripheral development of Kendal, even though the evidence that is available suggests that this is highly unlikely.

This applies particularly to the issue of providing an infrastructure which would be effective in coping with traffic generation in Kendal to 2025. Evidence comes from studies of transport and air pollution.

At present Kendal is congested, has a significant problem with air pollution serious enough to have set up an AQMA and 75 % of traffic in the town is generated within the town. It is inevitable that if new housing is built even further from the town centre then traffic will increase irrespective of how many ‘Transport Assessments‘ are undertaken, and ‘Travel Plans’ are put in place. If the people of Kendal reject their feet and bicycles as a means of getting to work, school, or shop now, it is unrealistic to expect those who live even further out to adopt these sustainable alternatives.

All transport Studies (2009, 2011, 2012) have predicted a significant increase in traffic within Kendal even without the LDF developments, a situation which will be exacerbated by the LDF. Similarly studies of Air Quality in Kendal show that the LDF undermines the objective of a reduction in air pollution as set out in the Action Plan (2011) of the KAQSG which seeks to achieve a 48% reduction in NOx. “The current proposals in the Allocations document will not be deliverable with Kendal’s traffic capacity”.

The planned attempts to “build capacity into the road system” are unrealistic:

The fact that developers will be required to demonstrate that development will reduce, or at a minimum, have no effect on pollution levels is simply unachievable, and the raising of a levy on developers does no more than provide investment for mitigation schemes, (and increase costs to developers which will be reflected in higher house prices) but will not actually reduce pollution levels or numbers of cars on the road.

The mitigation measures proposed in the 3 Transport Studies are suggestions which seek to make the congestion situation no worse than it is at present but all of these only 2 might be in any way viable. With reference to these mitigation measures the Transport Study (Jan 1012) sets out 6 schemes:-?The first aims to improve traffic flow through changes in signalling, and the second aims for a reduction in car trips through changes in behaviour and “ sustainable transport improvement”. There are admirable plans in place for these which are in accord with the aims of CCC, the CSS, KAQSG and the Core Strategy. However achieving changes in human behaviour is notoriously difficult (witness the ongoing fight of the drivers of Kendal to retain free parking at New Road despite the best efforts of SLDC) and the aim to reduce car trips by 5%, or 10% within the Air Pollution Action Plan will do little to address the 14% increase in traffic even without the LDF as predicted by the Atkins Study in 2009.? The third suggestion involves a Park & Ride Scheme on Underbarrow Rd, which was dismissed by the Atkins Kendal Parking Study as both inappropriate as a solution to Kendal’s problems where 75% of traffic generated is internal, and also not financially viable. The suggestion in the DPD that developers could fund this project demonstrates how unrealistic the ‘plans’ of the DPD are, unless any levy is so high as to make the potential development unprofitable.?The last three schemes involve major road building programmes which would have to be funded by CCC and for which there are no plans set out by CCC in the Local Transport Plan which stresses sustainable low carbon policies. Therefore there are no achievable infrastructure plans in place for sustainable solutions to the increase of traffic which would be generated by the land Allocations of the LDF.

Similarly there is no viable infrastructure plan with regard to sewerage, provision of utilities, education and health. Examples : Vicarage Park and Ghyllside Schools are already oversubscribed and there is no plan for expansion.

Changes Necessary
1. The evidence base should be re-evaluated, reviewed, mistakes corrected and omissions considered.
2. The alternative of creating a new town should be assessed.
3. A viable fully costed Transport Plan for Kendal which is capable of achieving sustainable objectives should be put in place before any new development on the western side of Kendal is allowed.
4. R103M, R129M, R143, and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD until such time as a Transport Plan which can mitigate the effects of development is in place.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over a 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Stainbank Green, Brigsteer Rd, Greenside, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

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)

The processes of community involvement in developing the DPD are NOT in general accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement
Although SLDC ‘ticked all the right boxes’ in terms of the stages of consultation in reality there were many aspects of the process which made consultation with the general public extremely difficult:
The sheer number of documents made information inaccessible to all but the most determined;
The consultation process relied heavily on the SLDC website which is difficult to use;
The submission process online was difficult to follow; the submission via email frequently simply did not work at all;
Documents held at the SLDC office in Kendal were piled in cardboard boxes and there was no indexing which again made them inaccessible to all but the most determined;
Publicity tended to be biased towards schemes for affordable housing rather than a balanced overview of the LDF and it’s implications;

Additionally, noting that the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) expresses a desire to address concerns about (1) consultation fatigue and (2) the prospect of site proposals emerging later in a planning process, both of these have been a feature of this consultation process and to that extent the local planning authority have had insufficient regard to the SCI.

Further, the local planning authority have had insufficient regard to the consultation process generally, by taking insufficient account of the representations of local residents which have, in the case of R103M, R129M & R143, been unanimous in their opposition to the proposals. The SCI puts much emphasis in "placing final decision-making in the hands of the public” but in the DPD, SLDC has completely failed to do this in practice.

No

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

NOT JUSTIFIED
The strategy is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base:
A) Evidence of participation of the local community:
The results of consultations carried out in 2011 and prior to that have been published but it is obvious from these that little regard has been paid to the submissions put forward.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

1.10

No

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

Although many of the responses of local residents were recorded there is little evidence that they actually informed the decision making process but much to suggest that views were disregarded. e.g. in the case of R129M where all local residents who responded were against development the Allocation was actually increased to include R143 therefore increasing the size by over 50%.

No

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

Evidence:
In the Formal consultation phase up to May14th 2011, 92.8% of those who responded to the Site R129M objected to the allocation and 1.8% (landowners and developers) were in favour, yet not only was R129M allocated but an additional plot R143 was added increasing the potential housing from 98 to 153. The only positive outcome for the objectors was perhaps an increase in the awareness of the need for mitigation.
Specific evidence supplied on the impact of slope on the consumption of fuel and consequent emissions based on measured testing in situ was not even recorded;
No regard has been paid to the concern of residents about the increase of traffic within residential areas such as Queens Rd, Kirkbarrow, Greenside, Brigsteer Rd, Vicarage Drive, Gillinggate;
The potential for damaging surface run-off at properties adjacent to R129M has not been addressed;
Concerns of residents and Friends Of the Lake District re the visual impact of sites R103m, R129M & R143 on the Lake District National Park, and potential irrevocable change in the rural landscape have been disregarded.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

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

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

The DPD has not had regard to Sustainable Community Strategy:
Although the Core Strategy does have regard to the SCS as stated in the KEY ISSUES1.35 (protection of countryside; housing appropriate in scale & distribution; sympathetic to local environment; accessibility - reduction in car dependency etc; ) and in setting out in CS1.1 the KEY SUSTAINABILITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES, by subsequently allocating sites for development for example in Kendal, largely in greenfield, peripheral locations many of the principles and aspirations of the SCS and CS have been disregarded or at least contradicted.

No

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

3) Population/housing statistics:
The data on population trends and consequent housing demand have fluctuated over the period of consultation and have lacked consistency in terms of time period and source. It is however evident that instead of basing development plans on the best possible actual figures for population trends and housing need SLDC has made an assumption that growth, which contradicts current trends, is both desirable and achievable so that the DPD has made land allocations which reflect a “vision” that South Lakeland is going to experience significant growth to 2025, rather than reality. The Core Strategy states that the present population of South Lakeland of 105000 will increase to 117000 by 2026 i.e. an increase of 11.4%(0.75% per annum) but the ONS prediction for South Lakeland for the period 2008 to 2033 is for an increase of 7.4%. (0.3% p.a.) The ONS figures (taken from Cumbria’s Population: Recent Changes and Forecasts Nov.2010) are based on the actual figures for the period 1981 to 2009 when South Lakeland experienced 9.4% growth. The ONS prediction is supported by the population structure of South Lakeland with fewer than average young and far higher than average retired people (which could be as high as 36% by 2033). This inevitably means a high death rate compared with birth rate and suggests that any real growth will be the result of inward migration. How much inward migration is there likely to be in the future now that South Lakes and Kendal in particular has lost so many of its major employers? The DPD is based on a wish to alter the population structure of the area without any evidence that this can be achieved. In the simplest terms even though the area covered by the DPD shows clear growth of older age groups and a reduction in the young, with a need for more affordable housing in an area where average income is comparatively low, the DPD sets out peripheral housing estates where the cost of housing would be inflated by the need to provide basic infrastructure and to subsidise an affordable 35% of housing. Peripheral housing estates are likely therefore to be too expensive for the first time buyer or low paid, and not suited to the needs of elderly residents for whom small properties in highly accessible locations are the best solution. Is new housing in west Kendal then to be inhabited by commuters or even second homers? Hardly a sustainable solution.

C)There is little evidence that alternatives have been considered.
A decision was taken at the start that development would take place at key centres so that no thought has been given to the viability of developing a new settlement even though an potential location is available and deliverable near JCT 36 of the M6 - one which would be ideal for new industry, where the land owner is willing to sell, but has been rejected on grounds of unsustainability based on the distance from Kendal. The creation of a new small self sufficient town has not even been considered.
The alternative proposals put forward by Kendal Town Council in “Sustainable Development in Kendal” based on the Taylor Report have not been considered, and the KTC Landscape Study has been ignored.
Only “Available’ land was considered. Consequently land suitable for development which could be acquired by compulsory purchase was not included or assessed in the plan. Therefore Land Allocations are expedient and reflect the wishes of land owners and developers rather than the best solution for the town An excellent example of this is R143 which was not included as an Emerging Options Site based on a sustainability appraisal, but was then added just because the owner offered it for development.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R129M KENDAL SOUTH OF UNDERBARROW ROAD

No

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

[See CS1.1 -Numbers below refer to the Key Sustainability Development Principles]
Peripheral developments including those planned for R129M, R143 and R103M:
1 - increase dependence on cars and therefore contribute to climate change and a decline in air quality;
2 - do not protect the countryside;
3 - detract from landscape character adjacent to the LDNP;
5 - do not retain distinctive rural character by creating 21st century housing estate
6 - increase the need to travel because of distance from services;
8 - represent the last option in terms of desirability for development (after brownfield and infilling);
10- do not meet the needs of the large proportion of the population over 60 for whom more central locations with easier access is more appropriate;
11- detract from the overall attractiveness of the area, and reduce the vitality & viability of town centres by clogging them up with traffic.
The allocation of R103M, R129M, R143 ,and E33 with the proposed extension of the Development Boundary to the west of Kendal absolutely contradicts the aims of all these principles of sustainability in CS1.1
CHANGES NECESSARY:
Increased weight should be given to the representations made by local residents during the public consultation periods in 2011.
The Allocations at R129M, R143, R103M and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD.

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.

B) Research/fact finding: the choices made in the plan are not backed by facts that are complete and/or reliable:
1) Mistakes in the fact files and sustainability assessment:
a) Misnaming and /or inaccurate location of sites – R129M was described in the documents available for consultation as ‘South of Brigsteer Rd’ when it is in fact south of Underbarrow Rd. Even in the latest transport Study R129M is described as being off Underbarrow and Brigsteer Rds which is incorrect. R103M is variously described as Land at ‘Stonecross’ or alternatively ‘Stonebank’ and now Stainbank Green;
b) Inaccuracy in the fact files where R129M and R143 are said to achieve the best levels of accessibility to a Primary School (under 500m), Secondary school (under 1.5km), GP (under 1 km), and public transport (under 400m) all of which are inaccurate even when taken to the nearest point of the sites to these services.[ Actual distances are Primary School under 650m; Secondary School 1750 m by foot, or 2000m by car; GP 1270m, and the nearest Bus Stop is 450m, plus an additional 500m for areas within R143.] This gives a false indication of the accessibility of these allocations particularly as there is NO recognition that they are at the top of a long steep hill which effectively reduces the sustainability of these sites when considering travel. Yet they are described in the Sustainability study as “doing well”.

d) Observations based on site visits are inaccurate for example re R129M “One property The Ghyll, directly overlooks the site and it is important to consider it’s amenity and privacy. Two other properties back onto the site located on Greenside”. The reality is that The Ghyll and 3 other properties back onto the site, and a further 5 properties overlook the site. In all 11 properties are overlooked by the site. These mistakes suggest that no site visit was made as the direction of slope has not been appreciated.?

f) In the latest Transport Study (Jan 2012) a potential Park & Ride scheme is placed in the middle of R129M – a site allocated for housing.

2) Incomplete evidence on the impact of traffic, and in the case of R129M & R143 , (also E33) - NO evidence of the impact of traffic.
SLDC has :
Disregarded evidence on transport provided by local residents;
Disregarded the physical geography of Kendal - in particular the influence of slope on transport choices based on research carried out by Small World Consulting Ltd which demonstrated the impact of the 1 km hill rising 75m from the centre of Kendal to the top of Greenside: it requires 5 x as much energy to cycle, and a car consumes 4 x fuel compared to a flat area .[Research based on the model from ‘Sustainability Without the Hot Air’, David Mac Kay 2009.];
Not taken the evidence provided by Transport Studies reported on in 2009, 2011, and 2012 into full account.
In addition the evidence supplied by these transport studies is incomplete and consequently not robust.
In June 2009 the Atkins Transport Study of Kendal considered the impact of Land Allocations including those for 300 houses at Stonebank Green (M39/R676/R103/R675). Sites at R129,665 and 143 were not considered in this study - therefore there is NO evidence of their potential impact on traffic. It was considered that significant development at Stonebank Green could not be supported because of the adverse effect on junctions which were already working at or over capacity, and on the “operation of the highway network” and a review of land allocations was recommended. Despite this recommendation SLDC has chosen to increase the pressure on these and other junctions by allocating R129M and R143 for residential development so increasing the number of houses to at least 342, as well as E33 for Business use.

The Junctions which would be affected by traffic flow from R129M & R143 are:
Jct 18 - Milnthorpe Rd & Glebe Rd
Jct 19 - Allhallows Lane, Highgate & Lowther St
Jct 1 - Windermere Rd and Queens Rd
Clearly then it is Jcts 18,19 and 1 which would be put under greatest pressure by development at these sites.
In the Atkins study in 2008 Jct 18 was already overcapacity (a.m. & p.m.), and in projections to 2025 all 4 junctions would be working at overcapacity morning and evening even though the impact of R129M & R143 had not been considered. (All 4 junctions would experience overcapacity even without the LDF except for Jct 17 in the morning when delays of over 6mins were projected.)
Some mitigation was possible for Jcts 17,19 &1 but none for Jct 18.
Despite the evidence of the Atkins report, in the later Transport Study in 2011, updated in Jan 2012 Junction 17 & 18 were omitted and not considered at all. Therefore the impact of potential development at R103M, R129M, R143 and the industrial sites at Kendal Fell including E33 has not been assessed, and there is no evidence upon which to base decisions. The fact that all these developments are at the top of steep hills, a fact ignored in the sustainability assessments, means that the likelihood of traffic is increased and the deleterious effect of that traffic is increased through additional consumption of fuel, emissions, and noise on hills as opposed to flat ground.
In addition there has been no evidence presented of other key areas which would suffer adversely from the increased traffic generation created by R129M, R143, R103M & E33 -for example:
the already congested junction between Low Fellside and Allhallows Lane where large commercial vehicles which need access to the Booths site are already a hazard;
the increased traffic flow through Kirkbarrow, Queens Road, Vicarage Drive - residential areas where traffic calming gives evidence of the problems caused by through traffic;
the safety risk of introducing a new junction at the brow of a hill at Greenside to provide access to a housing estate - a risk serious enough to cause the rejection of previous planning applications, but one which is now potentially even greater given the access of commercial vehicles to the industrial area of Kendal Fell Business Park.

4) Assessment of landscape character:
Arguably the sustainability appraisal has under-rated the damage that could be caused on sites R103M, R129M & R143 assessing development here as having only “the potential for moderate effect on landscape character”. Consequently the local planning authority has disregarded the impact of possible development of these sites, on the important landscape value of these areas which are adjacent to the Lake District National Park ("the site, R129M, reflects the high quality of the adjacent National Park" according to the Friends of the Lake District); and on plans to extend the National Park even nearer to Kendal; the setting of the town in this rural landscape; and also the fact that the sites are described as "sensitive" by Cumbria Wildlife Trust in relation to the flora and fauna. We do not accept that mitigating features are an appropriate response to these concerns, particularly having regard to the scale of any potential future development.

NOT EFFECTIVE
A) The strategy is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or suitable for monitoring;
The DPD is deliverable in that land is available but not in that it provides sustainable solutions in accordance with the CSS or Core Strategy, and does not “embrace sound infrastructure planning“.
It is evident from the SLDC's response to objections made in respect of R129M, R143 & R103M that they have placed undue emphasis on possible mitigation measures as a solution to properly made concerns about the suitability of the site.
Assumptions are made that “delivery partners” will provide essential infrastructure but with no actual commitment or viable plan in place.
There is also an assumption that the “Mitigation measures” will be effective in counteracting all the unsustainable features of the DPD resulting from the peripheral development of Kendal, even though the evidence that is available suggests that this in highly unlikely.

B) The DPD does not show coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities.
Site R129M is adjacent to the Kendal Fell Business Park but with reference to this area there is only a recognition of the strategies of neighbouring authorities i.e. in addition to the Land Allocation of E33 by SLDC, there is a proposal for a Cumbria CC household waste recycling facility at SL1B , and the potential industrial development of the remaining Kendal Fell Quarry within the LDNP. Within the LDF and DPD there is no attempt to assess the impact of development of this area as a whole on: the transport network; the environment which is adjacent to and within the National Park; one of Kendal’s most important public open spaces on Kendal Fell; adjacent residential properties; the adjacent Conservation area and heritage areas. The DPD therefore ignores the potential consequences of whole-scale development in this area on one of Kendal’s most un-spoilt rural gateways and transition to the LDNP, and even underestimates the need for mitigation measures for the development of E33 alone.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R103M-mod KENDAL STAINBANK GREEN

No

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

[See CS1.1 -Numbers below refer to the Key Sustainability Development Principles]
Peripheral developments including those planned for R129M, R143 and R103M:
1 - increase dependence on cars and therefore contribute to climate change and a decline in air quality;
2 - do not protect the countryside;
3 - detract from landscape character adjacent to the LDNP;
5 - do not retain distinctive rural character by creating 21st century housing estate
6 - increase the need to travel because of distance from services;
8 - represent the last option in terms of desirability for development (after brownfield and infilling);
10- do not meet the needs of the large proportion of the population over 60 for whom more central locations with easier access is more appropriate;
11- detract from the overall attractiveness of the area, and reduce the vitality & viability of town centres by clogging them up with traffic.
The allocation of R103M, R129M, R143 ,and E33 with the proposed extension of the Development Boundary to the west of Kendal absolutely contradicts the aims of all these principles of sustainability in CS1.1
CHANGES NECESSARY:
Increased weight should be given to the representations made by local residents during the public consultation periods in 2011.
The Allocations at R129M, R143, R103M and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD.

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.

B) Research/fact finding: the choices made in the plan are not backed by facts that are complete and/or reliable:
1) Mistakes in the fact files and sustainability assessment:
a) Misnaming and /or inaccurate location of sites – R129M was described in the documents available for consultation as ‘South of Brigsteer Rd’ when it is in fact south of Underbarrow Rd. Even in the latest transport Study R129M is described as being off Underbarrow and Brigsteer Rds which is incorrect. R103M is variously described as Land at ‘Stonecross’ or alternatively ‘Stonebank’ and now Stainbank Green;

The fact Files record similar inaccuracies for R103M where, remarkably, the western side of the site is recorded as being closer to services than the east (for example the west side is noted as being within 1 km of a GP but in fact even the most accessible easterly point is over a km)
c) Uninformed assessments of sites for example where R103M is described as “having no potential to contribute to the coalescence of settlements” but in reality joins the hamlet of Stainbank Green which has 8 residences to the already built up area of Underwood and Vicarage Park. The fact file reference to ”swallowing up farms” is again inappropriate as the last farm disappeared in 1972.

2) Incomplete evidence on the impact of traffic, and in the case of R129M & R143 , (also E33) - NO evidence of the impact of traffic.
SLDC has :
Disregarded evidence on transport provided by local residents;
Disregarded the physical geography of Kendal - in particular the influence of slope on transport choices based on research carried out by Small World Consulting Ltd which demonstrated the impact of the 1 km hill rising 75m from the centre of Kendal to the top of Greenside: it requires 5 x as much energy to cycle, and a car consumes 4 x fuel compared to a flat area .[Research based on the model from ‘Sustainability Without the Hot Air’, David Mac Kay 2009.];
Not taken the evidence provided by Transport Studies reported on in 2009, 2011, and 2012 into full account.
In addition the evidence supplied by these transport studies is incomplete and consequently not robust.
In June 2009 the Atkins Transport Study of Kendal considered the impact of Land Allocations including those for 300 houses at Stonebank Green (M39/R676/R103/R675). Sites at R129,665 and 143 were not considered in this study - therefore there is NO evidence of their potential impact on traffic. It was considered that significant development at Stonebank Green could not be supported because of the adverse effect on junctions which were already working at or over capacity, and on the “operation of the highway network” and a review of land allocations was recommended. Despite this recommendation SLDC has chosen to increase the pressure on these and other junctions by allocating R129M and R143 for residential development so increasing the number of houses to at least 342, as well as E33 for Business use.
The Junctions which would be affected by traffic flow from R103M are :
Jct 17 - Milnthorpe Rd & Vicarage Drive
Jct 18 - Milnthorpe Rd & Glebe Rd
Jct 19 - Allhallows Lane, Highgate & Lowther St
Jct 1 - Windermere Rd and Queens Rd

Clearly then it is Jcts 18,19 and 1 which would be put under greatest pressure by development at these sites.

Some mitigation was possible for Jcts 17,19 &1 but none for Jct 18.
Despite the evidence of the Atkins report, in the later Transport Study in 2011, updated in Jan 2012 Junction 17 & 18 were omitted and not considered at all. Therefore the impact of potential development at R103M, R129M, R143 and the industrial sites at Kendal Fell including E33 has not been assessed, and there is no evidence upon which to base decisions. The fact that all these developments are at the top of steep hills, a fact ignored in the sustainability assessments, means that the likelihood of traffic is increased and the deleterious effect of that traffic is increased through additional consumption of fuel, emissions, and noise on hills as opposed to flat ground.
In addition there has been no evidence presented of other key areas which would suffer adversely from the increased traffic generation created by R129M, R143, R103M & E33 -for example:
the already congested junction between Low Fellside and Allhallows Lane where large commercial vehicles which need access to the Booths site are already a hazard;
the increased traffic flow through Kirkbarrow, Queens Road, Vicarage Drive - residential areas where traffic calming gives evidence of the problems caused by through traffic;
the safety risk of introducing a new junction at the brow of a hill at Greenside to provide access to a housing estate - a risk serious enough to cause the rejection of previous planning applications, but one which is now potentially even greater given the access of commercial vehicles to the industrial area of Kendal Fell Business Park.

4) Assessment of landscape character:
Arguably the sustainability appraisal has under-rated the damage that could be caused on sites R103M, R129M & R143 assessing development here as having only “the potential for moderate effect on landscape character”. Consequently the local planning authority has disregarded the impact of possible development of these sites, on the important landscape value of these areas which are adjacent to the Lake District National Park ("the site, R129M, reflects the high quality of the adjacent National Park" according to the Friends of the Lake District); and on plans to extend the National Park even nearer to Kendal; the setting of the town in this rural landscape; and also the fact that the sites are described as "sensitive" by Cumbria Wildlife Trust in relation to the flora and fauna. We do not accept that mitigating features are an appropriate response to these concerns, particularly having regard to the scale of any potential future development.

NOT EFFECTIVE
A) The strategy is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or suitable for monitoring;
The DPD is deliverable in that land is available but not in that it provides sustainable solutions in accordance with the CSS or Core Strategy, and does not “embrace sound infrastructure planning“.
It is evident from the SLDC's response to objections made in respect of R129M, R143 & R103M that they have placed undue emphasis on possible mitigation measures as a solution to properly made concerns about the suitability of the site.
Assumptions are made that “delivery partners” will provide essential infrastructure but with no actual commitment or viable plan in place.
There is also an assumption that the “Mitigation measures” will be effective in counteracting all the unsustainable features of the DPD resulting from the peripheral development of Kendal, even though the evidence that is available suggests that this in highly unlikely.

B) The DPD does not show coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities.
Site R129M is adjacent to the Kendal Fell Business Park but with reference to this area there is only a recognition of the strategies of neighbouring authorities i.e. in addition to the Land Allocation of E33 by SLDC, there is a proposal for a Cumbria CC household waste recycling facility at SL1B , and the potential industrial development of the remaining Kendal Fell Quarry within the LDNP. Within the LDF and DPD there is no attempt to assess the impact of development of this area as a whole on: the transport network; the environment which is adjacent to and within the National Park; one of Kendal’s most important public open spaces on Kendal Fell; adjacent residential properties; the adjacent Conservation area and heritage areas. The DPD therefore ignores the potential consequences of whole-scale development in this area on one of Kendal’s most un-spoilt rural gateways and transition to the LDNP, and even underestimates the need for mitigation measures for the development of E33 alone.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - E33 KENDAL LAND AT BOUNDARY BANK

The DPD has not had regard to the Sustainable Community Strategy

[See CS1.1 -Numbers below refer to the Key Sustainability Development Principles]
Peripheral developments including those planned for R129M, R143 and R103M:
1 - increase dependence on cars and therefore contribute to climate change and a decline in air quality;
2 - do not protect the countryside;
3 - detract from landscape character adjacent to the LDNP;
5 - do not retain distinctive rural character by creating 21st century housing estate
6 - increase the need to travel because of distance from services;
8 - represent the last option in terms of desirability for development (after brownfield and infilling);
10- do not meet the needs of the large proportion of the population over 60 for whom more central locations with easier access is more appropriate;
11- detract from the overall attractiveness of the area, and reduce the vitality & viability of town centres by clogging them up with traffic.
The allocation of R103M, R129M, R143 ,and E33 with the proposed extension of the Development Boundary to the west of Kendal absolutely contradicts the aims of all these principles of sustainability in CS1.1
CHANGES NECESSARY:
Increased weight should be given to the representations made by local residents during the public consultation periods in 2011.
The Allocations at R129M, R143, R103M and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD.

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.

In the Employment Land Review (Lambert, Smith and Hampton) it is recorded that site ELA 5/278 has NO “likely impact on views” and E33 has “negligible impact on views” – which is simply incorrect as they are overlooked by the public amenity area on Kendal Fell and are clearly & easily visible from the LDNP. It also states that no mitigation is needed for either site despite the fact that they are adjacent to 2 residential properties and the in the case of E33 the Lake District National Park boundary.

2) Incomplete evidence on the impact of traffic, and in the case of R129M & R143 , (also E33) - NO evidence of the impact of traffic.
SLDC has :
Disregarded evidence on transport provided by local residents;
Disregarded the physical geography of Kendal - in particular the influence of slope on transport choices based on research carried out by Small World Consulting Ltd which demonstrated the impact of the 1 km hill rising 75m from the centre of Kendal to the top of Greenside: it requires 5 x as much energy to cycle, and a car consumes 4 x fuel compared to a flat area .[Research based on the model from ‘Sustainability Without the Hot Air’, David Mac Kay 2009.];
Not taken the evidence provided by Transport Studies reported on in 2009, 2011, and 2012 into full account.
In addition the evidence supplied by these transport studies is incomplete and consequently not robust.

In June 2009 the Atkins Transport Study of Kendal considered the impact of Land Allocations including those for 300 houses at Stonebank Green (M39/R676/R103/R675). Sites at R129,665 and 143 were not considered in this study - therefore there is NO evidence of their potential impact on traffic. It was considered that significant development at Stonebank Green could not be supported because of the adverse effect on junctions which were already working at or over capacity, and on the “operation of the highway network” and a review of land allocations was recommended. Despite this recommendation SLDC has chosen to increase the pressure on these and other junctions by allocating R129M and R143 for residential development so increasing the number of houses to at least 342, as well as E33 for Business use.

Despite the evidence of the Atkins report, in the later Transport Study in 2011, updated in Jan 2012 Junction 17 & 18 were omitted and not considered at all. Therefore the impact of potential development at R103M, R129M, R143 and the industrial sites at Kendal Fell including E33 has not been assessed, and there is no evidence upon which to base decisions. The fact that all these developments are at the top of steep hills, a fact ignored in the sustainability assessments, means that the likelihood of traffic is increased and the deleterious effect of that traffic is increased through additional consumption of fuel, emissions, and noise on hills as opposed to flat ground.
In addition there has been no evidence presented of other key areas which would suffer adversely from the increased traffic generation created by R129M, R143, R103M & E33 -for example:
the already congested junction between Low Fellside and Allhallows Lane where large commercial vehicles which need access to the Booths site are already a hazard;
the increased traffic flow through Kirkbarrow, Queens Road, Vicarage Drive - residential areas where traffic calming gives evidence of the problems caused by through traffic;
the safety risk of introducing a new junction at the brow of a hill at Greenside to provide access to a housing estate - a risk serious enough to cause the rejection of previous planning applications, but one which is now potentially even greater given the access of commercial vehicles to the industrial area of Kendal Fell Business Park.

B) The DPD does not show coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities.
Site R129M is adjacent to the Kendal Fell Business Park but with reference to this area there is only a recognition of the strategies of neighbouring authorities i.e. in addition to the Land Allocation of E33 by SLDC, there is a proposal for a Cumbria CC household waste recycling facility at SL1B , and the potential industrial development of the remaining Kendal Fell Quarry within the LDNP. Within the LDF and DPD there is no attempt to assess the impact of development of this area as a whole on: the transport network; the environment which is adjacent to and within the National Park; one of Kendal’s most important public open spaces on Kendal Fell; adjacent residential properties; the adjacent Conservation area and heritage areas. The DPD therefore ignores the potential consequences of whole-scale development in this area on one of Kendal’s most un-spoilt rural gateways and transition to the LDNP, and even underestimates the need for mitigation measures for the development of E33 alone.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Kendal sites

No

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

This applies particularly to the issue of providing an infrastructure which would be effective in coping with traffic generation in Kendal to 2025. Evidence comes from studies of transport and air pollution.
At present Kendal is congested, has a significant problem with air pollution serious enough to have set up an AQMA and 75 % of traffic in the town is generated within the town. It is inevitable that if new housing is built even further from the town centre then traffic will increase irrespective of how many ‘Transport Assessments‘ are undertaken, and ‘Travel Plans’ are put in place. If the people of Kendal reject their feet and bicycles as a means of getting to work, school, or shop now, it is unrealistic to expect those who live even further out to adopt these sustainable alternatives.
All transport Studies (2009, 2011, 2012) have predicted a significant increase in traffic within Kendal even without the LDF developments, a situation which will be exacerbated by the LDF. Similarly studies of Air Quality in Kendal show that the LDF undermines the objective of a reduction in air pollution as set out in the Action Plan (2011) of the KAQSG which seeks to achieve a 48% reduction in NOx. “The current proposals in the Allocations document will not be deliverable with Kendal’s traffic capacity”.
The planned attempts to “build capacity into the road system” are unrealistic:
The fact that developers will be required to demonstrate that development will reduce, or at a minimum, have no effect on pollution levels is simply unachievable, and the raising of a levy on developers does no more than provide investment for mitigation schemes, (and increase costs to developers which will be reflected in higher house prices) but will not actually reduce pollution levels or numbers of cars on the road.
The mitigation measures proposed in the 3 Transport Studies are suggestions which seek to make the congestion situation no worse than it is at present but all of these only 2 might be in any way viable. With reference to these mitigation measures the Transport Study (Jan 1012) sets out 6 schemes:-?The first aims to improve traffic flow through changes in signalling, and the second aims for a reduction in car trips through changes in behaviour and “ sustainable transport improvement”. There are admirable plans in place for these which are in accord with the aims of CCC, the CSS, KAQSG and the Core Strategy. However achieving changes in human behaviour is notoriously difficult (witness the ongoing fight of the drivers of Kendal to retain free parking at New Road despite the best efforts of SLDC) and the aim to reduce car trips by 5%, or 10% within the Air Pollution Action Plan will do little to address the 14% increase in traffic even without the LDF as predicted by the Atkins Study in 2009.? The third suggestion involves a Park & Ride Scheme on Underbarrow Rd, which was dismissed by the Atkins Kendal Parking Study as both inappropriate as a solution to Kendal’s problems where 75% of traffic generated is internal, and also not financially viable. The suggestion in the DPD that developers could fund this project demonstrates how unrealistic the ‘plans’ of the DPD are, unless any levy is so high as to make the potential development unprofitable.?The last three schemes involve major road building programmes which would have to be funded by CCC and for which there are no plans set out by CCC in the Local Transport Plan which stresses sustainable low carbon policies. Therefore there are no achievable infrastructure plans in place for sustainable solutions to the increase of traffic which would be generated by the land Allocations of the LDF.
Similarly there is no viable infrastructure plan with regard to sewerage, provision of utilities, education and health. Examples : Ghyllside School is already oversubscribed and there is no plan for expansion.
2.3 Changes Necessary
1.The evidence base should be re-evaluated, reviewed, mistakes corrected and omissions considered.
The alternative of creating a new town should be assessed.
The combined impact of the Land Allocations at R129M, R143, E33, and potentially SL1B and Kendal Fell Quarry should be assessed together in terms of the generation of traffic within Kendal, the effect on air quality, and on the sensitive rural environment adjacent to the LDNP.
A viable fully costed Transport Plan for Kendal which is capable of achieving sustainable objectives should be put in place before any new development on the western side of Kendal is allowed.
R129M, R143, R103M, and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD until such time as a Transport Plan which can mitigate the effects of development is in place.
The development boundary to the west of Kendal should not be moved.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.4 - Kendal Sites

No

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

This applies particularly to the issue of providing an infrastructure which would be effective in coping with traffic generation in Kendal to 2025. Evidence comes from studies of transport and air pollution.
At present Kendal is congested, has a significant problem with air pollution serious enough to have set up an AQMA and 75 % of traffic in the town is generated within the town. It is inevitable that if new housing is built even further from the town centre then traffic will increase irrespective of how many ‘Transport Assessments‘ are undertaken, and ‘Travel Plans’ are put in place. If the people of Kendal reject their feet and bicycles as a means of getting to work, school, or shop now, it is unrealistic to expect those who live even further out to adopt these sustainable alternatives.
All transport Studies (2009, 2011, 2012) have predicted a significant increase in traffic within Kendal even without the LDF developments, a situation which will be exacerbated by the LDF. Similarly studies of Air Quality in Kendal show that the LDF undermines the objective of a reduction in air pollution as set out in the Action Plan (2011) of the KAQSG which seeks to achieve a 48% reduction in NOx. “The current proposals in the Allocations document will not be deliverable with Kendal’s traffic capacity”.
The planned attempts to “build capacity into the road system” are unrealistic:
The fact that developers will be required to demonstrate that development will reduce, or at a minimum, have no effect on pollution levels is simply unachievable, and the raising of a levy on developers does no more than provide investment for mitigation schemes, (and increase costs to developers which will be reflected in higher house prices) but will not actually reduce pollution levels or numbers of cars on the road.
The mitigation measures proposed in the 3 Transport Studies are suggestions which seek to make the congestion situation no worse than it is at present but all of these only 2 might be in any way viable. With reference to these mitigation measures the Transport Study (Jan 1012) sets out 6 schemes:-?The first aims to improve traffic flow through changes in signalling, and the second aims for a reduction in car trips through changes in behaviour and “ sustainable transport improvement”. There are admirable plans in place for these which are in accord with the aims of CCC, the CSS, KAQSG and the Core Strategy. However achieving changes in human behaviour is notoriously difficult (witness the ongoing fight of the drivers of Kendal to retain free parking at New Road despite the best efforts of SLDC) and the aim to reduce car trips by 5%, or 10% within the Air Pollution Action Plan will do little to address the 14% increase in traffic even without the LDF as predicted by the Atkins Study in 2009.? The third suggestion involves a Park & Ride Scheme on Underbarrow Rd, which was dismissed by the Atkins Kendal Parking Study as both inappropriate as a solution to Kendal’s problems where 75% of traffic generated is internal, and also not financially viable. The suggestion in the DPD that developers could fund this project demonstrates how unrealistic the ‘plans’ of the DPD are, unless any levy is so high as to make the potential development unprofitable.?The last three schemes involve major road building programmes which would have to be funded by CCC and for which there are no plans set out by CCC in the Local Transport Plan which stresses sustainable low carbon policies. Therefore there are no achievable infrastructure plans in place for sustainable solutions to the increase of traffic which would be generated by the land Allocations of the LDF.
Similarly there is no viable infrastructure plan with regard to sewerage, provision of utilities, education and health. Examples : Ghyllside School is already oversubscribed and there is no plan for expansion.
2.3 Changes Necessary
1.The evidence base should be re-evaluated, reviewed, mistakes corrected and omissions considered.
The alternative of creating a new town should be assessed.
The combined impact of the Land Allocations at R129M, R143, E33, and potentially SL1B and Kendal Fell Quarry should be assessed together in terms of the generation of traffic within Kendal, the effect on air quality, and on the sensitive rural environment adjacent to the LDNP.
A viable fully costed Transport Plan for Kendal which is capable of achieving sustainable objectives should be put in place before any new development on the western side of Kendal is allowed.
R129M, R143, R103M, and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD until such time as a Transport Plan which can mitigate the effects of development is in place.
The development boundary to the west of Kendal should not be moved.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.8 Local Employment Sites - All Kendal sites

No

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

This applies particularly to the issue of providing an infrastructure which would be effective in coping with traffic generation in Kendal to 2025. Evidence comes from studies of transport and air pollution.
At present Kendal is congested, has a significant problem with air pollution serious enough to have set up an AQMA and 75 % of traffic in the town is generated within the town. It is inevitable that if new housing is built even further from the town centre then traffic will increase irrespective of how many ‘Transport Assessments‘ are undertaken, and ‘Travel Plans’ are put in place. If the people of Kendal reject their feet and bicycles as a means of getting to work, school, or shop now, it is unrealistic to expect those who live even further out to adopt these sustainable alternatives.
All transport Studies (2009, 2011, 2012) have predicted a significant increase in traffic within Kendal even without the LDF developments, a situation which will be exacerbated by the LDF. Similarly studies of Air Quality in Kendal show that the LDF undermines the objective of a reduction in air pollution as set out in the Action Plan (2011) of the KAQSG which seeks to achieve a 48% reduction in NOx. “The current proposals in the Allocations document will not be deliverable with Kendal’s traffic capacity”.
The planned attempts to “build capacity into the road system” are unrealistic:
The fact that developers will be required to demonstrate that development will reduce, or at a minimum, have no effect on pollution levels is simply unachievable, and the raising of a levy on developers does no more than provide investment for mitigation schemes, (and increase costs to developers which will be reflected in higher house prices) but will not actually reduce pollution levels or numbers of cars on the road.
The mitigation measures proposed in the 3 Transport Studies are suggestions which seek to make the congestion situation no worse than it is at present but all of these only 2 might be in any way viable. With reference to these mitigation measures the Transport Study (Jan 1012) sets out 6 schemes:-?The first aims to improve traffic flow through changes in signalling, and the second aims for a reduction in car trips through changes in behaviour and “ sustainable transport improvement”. There are admirable plans in place for these which are in accord with the aims of CCC, the CSS, KAQSG and the Core Strategy. However achieving changes in human behaviour is notoriously difficult (witness the ongoing fight of the drivers of Kendal to retain free parking at New Road despite the best efforts of SLDC) and the aim to reduce car trips by 5%, or 10% within the Air Pollution Action Plan will do little to address the 14% increase in traffic even without the LDF as predicted by the Atkins Study in 2009.? The third suggestion involves a Park & Ride Scheme on Underbarrow Rd, which was dismissed by the Atkins Kendal Parking Study as both inappropriate as a solution to Kendal’s problems where 75% of traffic generated is internal, and also not financially viable. The suggestion in the DPD that developers could fund this project demonstrates how unrealistic the ‘plans’ of the DPD are, unless any levy is so high as to make the potential development unprofitable.?The last three schemes involve major road building programmes which would have to be funded by CCC and for which there are no plans set out by CCC in the Local Transport Plan which stresses sustainable low carbon policies. Therefore there are no achievable infrastructure plans in place for sustainable solutions to the increase of traffic which would be generated by the land Allocations of the LDF.
Similarly there is no viable infrastructure plan with regard to sewerage, provision of utilities, education and health. Examples : Ghyllside School is already oversubscribed and there is no plan for expansion.
2.3 Changes Necessary
1.The evidence base should be re-evaluated, reviewed, mistakes corrected and omissions considered.
The alternative of creating a new town should be assessed.
The combined impact of the Land Allocations at R129M, R143, E33, and potentially SL1B and Kendal Fell Quarry should be assessed together in terms of the generation of traffic within Kendal, the effect on air quality, and on the sensitive rural environment adjacent to the LDNP.
A viable fully costed Transport Plan for Kendal which is capable of achieving sustainable objectives should be put in place before any new development on the western side of Kendal is allowed.
R129M, R143, R103M, and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD until such time as a Transport Plan which can mitigate the effects of development is in place.
The development boundary to the west of Kendal should not be moved.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me

I have read the guidance notes

LA1.6 Strategic Employment Sites - E4M KENDAL LAND AT SCROGGS WOOD, MILNTHORPE ROAD

No

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

This applies particularly to the issue of providing an infrastructure which would be effective in coping with traffic generation in Kendal to 2025. Evidence comes from studies of transport and air pollution.
At present Kendal is congested, has a significant problem with air pollution serious enough to have set up an AQMA and 75 % of traffic in the town is generated within the town. It is inevitable that if new housing is built even further from the town centre then traffic will increase irrespective of how many ‘Transport Assessments‘ are undertaken, and ‘Travel Plans’ are put in place. If the people of Kendal reject their feet and bicycles as a means of getting to work, school, or shop now, it is unrealistic to expect those who live even further out to adopt these sustainable alternatives.
All transport Studies (2009, 2011, 2012) have predicted a significant increase in traffic within Kendal even without the LDF developments, a situation which will be exacerbated by the LDF. Similarly studies of Air Quality in Kendal show that the LDF undermines the objective of a reduction in air pollution as set out in the Action Plan (2011) of the KAQSG which seeks to achieve a 48% reduction in NOx. “The current proposals in the Allocations document will not be deliverable with Kendal’s traffic capacity”.
The planned attempts to “build capacity into the road system” are unrealistic:
The fact that developers will be required to demonstrate that development will reduce, or at a minimum, have no effect on pollution levels is simply unachievable, and the raising of a levy on developers does no more than provide investment for mitigation schemes, (and increase costs to developers which will be reflected in higher house prices) but will not actually reduce pollution levels or numbers of cars on the road.
The mitigation measures proposed in the 3 Transport Studies are suggestions which seek to make the congestion situation no worse than it is at present but all of these only 2 might be in any way viable. With reference to these mitigation measures the Transport Study (Jan 1012) sets out 6 schemes:-?The first aims to improve traffic flow through changes in signalling, and the second aims for a reduction in car trips through changes in behaviour and “ sustainable transport improvement”. There are admirable plans in place for these which are in accord with the aims of CCC, the CSS, KAQSG and the Core Strategy. However achieving changes in human behaviour is notoriously difficult (witness the ongoing fight of the drivers of Kendal to retain free parking at New Road despite the best efforts of SLDC) and the aim to reduce car trips by 5%, or 10% within the Air Pollution Action Plan will do little to address the 14% increase in traffic even without the LDF as predicted by the Atkins Study in 2009.? The third suggestion involves a Park & Ride Scheme on Underbarrow Rd, which was dismissed by the Atkins Kendal Parking Study as both inappropriate as a solution to Kendal’s problems where 75% of traffic generated is internal, and also not financially viable. The suggestion in the DPD that developers could fund this project demonstrates how unrealistic the ‘plans’ of the DPD are, unless any levy is so high as to make the potential development unprofitable.?The last three schemes involve major road building programmes which would have to be funded by CCC and for which there are no plans set out by CCC in the Local Transport Plan which stresses sustainable low carbon policies. Therefore there are no achievable infrastructure plans in place for sustainable solutions to the increase of traffic which would be generated by the land Allocations of the LDF.
Similarly there is no viable infrastructure plan with regard to sewerage, provision of utilities, education and health. Examples : Ghyllside School is already oversubscribed and there is no plan for expansion.
2.3 Changes Necessary
1.The evidence base should be re-evaluated, reviewed, mistakes corrected and omissions considered.
The alternative of creating a new town should be assessed.
The combined impact of the Land Allocations at R129M, R143, E33, and potentially SL1B and Kendal Fell Quarry should be assessed together in terms of the generation of traffic within Kendal, the effect on air quality, and on the sensitive rural environment adjacent to the LDNP.
A viable fully costed Transport Plan for Kendal which is capable of achieving sustainable objectives should be put in place before any new development on the western side of Kendal is allowed.
R129M, R143, R103M, and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD until such time as a Transport Plan which can mitigate the effects of development is in place.
The development boundary to the west of Kendal should not be moved.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

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

This applies particularly to the issue of providing an infrastructure which would be effective in coping with traffic generation in Kendal to 2025. Evidence comes from studies of transport and air pollution.
At present Kendal is congested, has a significant problem with air pollution serious enough to have set up an AQMA and 75 % of traffic in the town is generated within the town. It is inevitable that if new housing is built even further from the town centre then traffic will increase irrespective of how many ‘Transport Assessments‘ are undertaken, and ‘Travel Plans’ are put in place. If the people of Kendal reject their feet and bicycles as a means of getting to work, school, or shop now, it is unrealistic to expect those who live even further out to adopt these sustainable alternatives.
All transport Studies (2009, 2011, 2012) have predicted a significant increase in traffic within Kendal even without the LDF developments, a situation which will be exacerbated by the LDF. Similarly studies of Air Quality in Kendal show that the LDF undermines the objective of a reduction in air pollution as set out in the Action Plan (2011) of the KAQSG which seeks to achieve a 48% reduction in NOx. “The current proposals in the Allocations document will not be deliverable with Kendal’s traffic capacity”.
The planned attempts to “build capacity into the road system” are unrealistic:
The fact that developers will be required to demonstrate that development will reduce, or at a minimum, have no effect on pollution levels is simply unachievable, and the raising of a levy on developers does no more than provide investment for mitigation schemes, (and increase costs to developers which will be reflected in higher house prices) but will not actually reduce pollution levels or numbers of cars on the road.
The mitigation measures proposed in the 3 Transport Studies are suggestions which seek to make the congestion situation no worse than it is at present but all of these only 2 might be in any way viable. With reference to these mitigation measures the Transport Study (Jan 1012) sets out 6 schemes:-?The first aims to improve traffic flow through changes in signalling, and the second aims for a reduction in car trips through changes in behaviour and “ sustainable transport improvement”. There are admirable plans in place for these which are in accord with the aims of CCC, the CSS, KAQSG and the Core Strategy. However achieving changes in human behaviour is notoriously difficult (witness the ongoing fight of the drivers of Kendal to retain free parking at New Road despite the best efforts of SLDC) and the aim to reduce car trips by 5%, or 10% within the Air Pollution Action Plan will do little to address the 14% increase in traffic even without the LDF as predicted by the Atkins Study in 2009.? The third suggestion involves a Park & Ride Scheme on Underbarrow Rd, which was dismissed by the Atkins Kendal Parking Study as both inappropriate as a solution to Kendal’s problems where 75% of traffic generated is internal, and also not financially viable. The suggestion in the DPD that developers could fund this project demonstrates how unrealistic the ‘plans’ of the DPD are, unless any levy is so high as to make the potential development unprofitable.?The last three schemes involve major road building programmes which would have to be funded by CCC and for which there are no plans set out by CCC in the Local Transport Plan which stresses sustainable low carbon policies. Therefore there are no achievable infrastructure plans in place for sustainable solutions to the increase of traffic which would be generated by the land Allocations of the LDF.
Similarly there is no viable infrastructure plan with regard to sewerage, provision of utilities, education and health. Examples : Ghyllside School is already oversubscribed and there is no plan for expansion.
2.3 Changes Necessary
1.The evidence base should be re-evaluated, reviewed, mistakes corrected and omissions considered.
The alternative of creating a new town should be assessed.
The combined impact of the Land Allocations at R129M, R143, E33, and potentially SL1B and Kendal Fell Quarry should be assessed together in terms of the generation of traffic within Kendal, the effect on air quality, and on the sensitive rural environment adjacent to the LDNP.
A viable fully costed Transport Plan for Kendal which is capable of achieving sustainable objectives should be put in place before any new development on the western side of Kendal is allowed.
R129M, R143, R103M, and E33 should be removed from the LA DPD until such time as a Transport Plan which can mitigate the effects of development is in place.
The development boundary to the west of Kendal should not be moved.

YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination

Because I have been asked to represent the views of over 100 local residents in the western part of Kendal including Greenside, Underbarrow Rd, Brigsteer Rd, Stainbank Green, Beast Banks and neighbouring areas.

Please notify me