Response from Mr. Giles Archibald (Individual)
1. Mr. Giles Archibald (Individual) : 14 Oct 2012 21:55:00
Please add your response below: (Limit 3000 words)
I have four site specific comments on the response of the SLDC council officers to the questions raised by the Inspector, and one general comment. My site specific comments relate to R129M + R143, R129M, R129 and R143.
Site related:
1. The response is incorrect in stating no hazard exists.
2. The response does not mention the significant traffic congestion which will result.
3. The response does not mention the further deterioration in air quality. NSCA " Development Control Planning for Air Quality" 2006 Paragraph 3.14 refers.
4. To say there is 'little community support' for the proposals is to understate the level of opposition.
General:
I would further comment that the options chosen do not represent the most appropriate strategy in the circumstances.
No Hazard exists:
The proposed developments will be in downhill proximity to a landfill, now known to contain hazardous waste. It is mentioned that 'these sites have known potential contamination constraints'. This may relate to the landfill. However, the health effects related to such landfill proximity are not mentioned in the assessment.
Traffic:
The CCC transport study dated January 2012 clearly sets out the negative impact on key junctions already at overcapacity in peak hours. Given the topography and distance, the new properties on R129 and R143 are most likely to be heavy users of car transport. The junction of Glebe Road and Milnthorpe road was not included in the CCC study. It is a junction that is already heavily overcrowded at peak hours ( 1/2 hr waits are experienced). It will be much more heavily used if R143 and R129 are developed. While this point applies to many sites it is particularly relevant to these sites and should have been mentioned.
Air Quality:
Kendal has several areas that are already over the EU limit. Air quality and traffic congestion are linked. The expected increase in congestion will worsen the situation. It is particularly important for these sites as they will feed considerably more traffic into Lowther Street, one of the affected areas. The guidance of NSCA is clear. ( As cited above.) Yet this is not mentioned as a factor in the assessment.
Support:
As an elected representative I have called on many of the residents in the ward I represent to discuss this issue. I have found almost no support for the development, and considerable opposition due to the traffic congestion, noise, concerns over flooding, air quality, and visual impact. The use of the phrase 'little community support' is a misleading representation of the reaction these proposals have provoked.
General:
Finally this is not the most appropriate strategy. The Taylor report - reflected in the submissions of the Kendal Town Council - has clearly set out an optimal approach to future planning in the area.
Giles Archibald KTC and SLDC councillor for the Fell ward. October 14 2012
