Local Development Framework Consultation

I shall be grateful if you will take this as a further representation from myself to be considered by the Inspector.

I, no doubt like many other “lay” members of the public, am totally overwhelmed by the vast quantities of documents you are publishing, some of which appear to be creeping out without any notification e.g. Cumbria County Council’s Transport Improvements Report dated September 2012.

I believe that my comments comply with your latest instructions and only refer to the recently published documents to which the latest consultation process applies, although it has been necessary to refer back to my previous responses.

Of necessity, I have to restrict myself to considering only two documents:-
Document Ex 023 Matter 03 Kendal; and
Cumbria County Council’s Transport Improvements Report dated September 2012 (which may or may not fall within the documents to which this consultation applies).

Document Ex 023 Matter 03 Kendal

Paragraph 3.1.3 states that the CCC Kendal Transport Study and LDF Transport Improvements Study show that the allocated sites can be serviced by the necessary provision of highway infrastructure through a programme of junction improvements and sustainable transport measures. It goes on that these are considered small scale in cost and will be funded through S106 agreements until the Community Infrastructure Levy is adopted.

This is clearly a gross misrepresentation, as neither Study document contain clear and indisputable evidence that the consequences of the proposed additional developments could be accommodated satisfactorily by the Kendal infrastructure as amended by such a limited scale of improvements, as I will demonstrate below .

Additionally, the “mythical” Canal Head development appears to have such weight with the District Council that, despite no formal application having been lodged, it can be treated as a given when making a decision in respect of an existing planning application. In which case, I draw your attention to para 6.1.4 of the CCC Transport Study which states that “Scheme 5 is required if the Canal Head is included (Scheme 5 being defined in para 5.1.1 of that document as Scheme 1 – the junction improvements; plus Scheme 2 - the sustainable transport package; plus Scheme 3 - the Park and Ride site; plus Scheme 4 – the link between Dowker’s Land and Lowther Street; plus the Kendal Northern Relief Road).
Even then the Transport Study concludes in para 6.1.6 - “Furthermore, even with the implementation of these improvement schemes, it is important to note that a large proportion of the key junctions would continue to operate above capacity, and therefore experience congestion and extensive queuing in the 2022 base situation. This situation would be compounded by the LDF development traffic.”

I will comment further on the CCC Improvements Study below.

This paper goes on to state “These measures will also help to offset any adverse impacts for air quality within the current Kendal Air Quality Management Area. The junction capacity improvements when combined with an effective package of sustainable transport measures will mitigate the proposed allocations by ensuring congestion would be at a level equal to that which would be generated without the allocations (taking into account natural growth).” Again this assertion is disputable and not supported by evidence. Neither does it go far enough in addressing the fundamental issue that air quality in Kendal, before or after any improvement breaches nationally recommended levels.

Turning briefly away from traffic and highway infrastructure, para.3.1.7 states “ In terms of access to necessary provision of schools, as evidenced in the Infrastructure Report (EvTO5 page 17), additional school capacity will need to be provided to support the delivery of allocated sites in Kendal. Cumbria County Council has assessed the potential impact of the proposed Kendal housing in terms of effect on school capacity in Kendal (Ex027A). Any additional provision established within Kendal to cope with the projected rise in pupil numbers would be subject to a full consultation and political approval. Developer contributions will be essential in delivering this necessary infrastructure.”
I (as I am sure others have) have challenged the impact of the development proposals on the educational sector. However it is only now that the full scale of shortfall has been established by the CCC report contained in Ex 027A. This demonstrates that SLDC have not ensured the deliverability of the infrastructure needed to support their proposals as they have been developed but, as with traffic impacts, have had to scurry around after the event in an attempt to prove the soundness of their case.

Ex027A does not do that however as it:-
confirms the need for extensive schooling provision;
at sites which have yet to be determined, despite this being a comprehensive District wide Development Plan;
would require developer funding (along with all other financial demands on the developers - highway, sewer, affordable housing percentage etc); and
by referring to the need for political approval, it confirms that there is not a clear commitment to deliver this extra capacity by the County Council – a prerequisite of a sound Plan.


CCC Transport Improvements Report - September 2012

This document is extremely detailed, which is perhaps designed to support the assertion that it is a definite assessment of the improvements needed to accommodate the developments proposed in Kendal. It is informed by the Transport Study produced in January 2012. However it ignores several projects assessed within the January Study. I can find no reference within the Improvements Report to the Park and Ride site or to the three large capital projects considered, including northern and southern relief roads.

It is therefore disingenuous to claim that this latest Improvements Report details the entirety of the highway infrastructure changes required to accommodate the impact of large development growth in Kendal. I have raised several concerns about the original report, which I will not repeat here. This latest report contains even further major issues that need to be discussed.

I am very surprised (perhaps I should not be at this stage in the process) to note the comments made in paras 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 about two further housing developments which could accommodate about 600 dwellings. Para 2.15 includes the following – “An additional 600 dwellings would result in an additional 360 trips in each peak period, or two percent of all trips across the network, so it is therefore considered that the effects of this difference would not be significant”. Bearing in mind the conclusions within both reports that much of the network will remain under considerable stress and working well over capacity, it is simply not acceptable to consider a figure (on the low side anyway) of 360 trips to be “not significant”. To relate the increased figure to the overall number of trips in the town is also unacceptable as it fails to address the impact these additional trip would have on particular junctions, many of which cannot be adequately improved, as acknowledged within the report.

For simplicity, I will look only at the comments made in respect of three junctions – Sandes Avenue/ Blackhall Road, Windermere Road/Burneside Road and Lowther Street/Highgate. No doubt there would be similar comments in respect of the others included within the report.

Windermere Road/ Burneside Road Junction.
The report states that nothing is needed at this junction. It ignores entirely that fact that this junction is often totally prejudiced by congestion from the Sandes Avenue/Blackhall Road junction . Even when that is not the case, para 3.8.4 cannot be correct in stating that the impact of LDF development traffic on this junction is minimal.
Site R170M itself would generate about 160 peak hour vehicular movements, many of which would use this junction; as would a high proportion of traffic generated from the developments proposed in Burneside and the Hallgarth area.

Sandes Avenue/Blackhall Road Junction
This is the major junction in north Kendal. All traffic entering the town from the north has to pass through it, as does all traffic from the southern part of Kendal destined for the industrial/commercial areas to the north. There are a relatively high percentage of HGV movements through this junction.
The junction is the cause of major peak hour congestion for southbound traffic with peak hour (and random inter peak) queues stretching into Stricklandgate, and through the Windermere Road/Burneside Road signalised junction. Congestion also occurs on Sandes Avenue from the east (i.e. from Station Road direction).

Para 3.2.3 of the report states “Although the junction currently utilises UTC to coordinate with nearby signal controlled crossings, improvements to capacity are likely to be minor”.

The only improvement considered and detailed for this junction is to increase queuing/stacking space within Blackhall Road. Somewhat worryingly the Report makes no reference to the effect this improvement could have on the access to the “prestigious” Canal Head development which, if ever formally proposed, would cross the river and form a major new junction at the existing New Road/Blackhall Road junction.

No improvements appear to have been assessed for the approaches from Windermere Road or on Sandes Avenue from the East. None are proposed.

The improvement proposed for this junction will make no difference whatsoever to the congestion on this major access to the town and to the industrial areas. Yet in Table 3.43 the report claims this improvement “mitigates LDF traffic”. In this regard a look at the impact of traffic from site R170M (only) demonstrates the inadequacy and unsoundness of the conclusion of this report. As stated above, Site R170M would generate about 160 peak hour traffic movements, a high proportion of which would have to travel though the Windermere Road approach to this Sandes Avenue junction adding further to the already unacceptable congestion in this part of the town.

This cursory consideration demonstrates that to be an unsound position.

Section 7 of the Report deals with Air Quality and the extent of the Air Quality Management Area can be seen from the map at Para 7.1.1. The Management Area includes the Sandes Avenue approach to this junction from Windermere Road and part of Stricklandgate – links where traffic numbers would increase but which would gain no benefit whatsoever from the improvement proposed. However the report misleadingly states in Table 7.3 that the improvement will have a beneficial effect on air quality.

Lowther Street/ Highgate Junction.

The section of the Report on this junction is almost sufficient within itself to confirm the complete inadequacy and unsoundness of the entire LDF process. It states that this is the most congested junction in town, that congestion will get worse with LDF traffic and nothing can be done to improve the situation.
MOVA is recommended. But with high pedestrian and heavy traffic demands from all arms that will not have any beneficial effect in the peak hours.
It must be remembered here that air quality is poor in Lowther Street and Highgate in the vicinity of the junction and the LDF traffic can only exacerbate the problem, despite the experiment currently underway with revolutionary paving blocks.

Major Infrastructure Projects

The January Traffic study considered three large infrastructure projects, mentioned briefly above. It would seem that projects such as these may be the only way to provide some mitigation of the air quality and congestion impacts within the town. The Dowker’s Lane/ Lowther Street Link is one possibility to secure some improvement at the Lowther Street junction, although how deliverable and effective it would be must be open to question.
Similarly some more realistic congestion relief could possibly be achieved at this and other major junctions if the Relief Roads were pursued, although the Traffic Study concluded in para 6.1.5 that they would only offer marginal benefits to the performance of junctions in Kendal and their cost effectiveness (i.e. deliverability) was open to question.

But these projects have no formal status with the delivery organisation and would have to pass through many development, planning and budgetary processes before they could be delivered and make a contribution to “accommodating the LDF generated traffic”
I stated in my previous submissions that the planning and development processes large schemes such as these have to follow mean that they are not deliverable within the timeframe of the LDF.

Conclusion

These two documents again demonstrate the unsoundness of the process undertaken by SLDC and the non deliverability of acceptable infrastructure to support the LDF development proposals within the timeframe of the Plan. On that basis, I contend, again, that the LDF is unsound.

As I said in my first paragraph I hope this email is passed to the Inspector for his consideration. I realise that much of the above is detailed; and that the Inspector has considerable pressure on his time. However it would seem that much is being asked of him by the production and publication of reports such as these which contain such erroneous assertions.