Response from Mr K A Lasbury (Individual)
1. Mr K A Lasbury (Individual) : 22 Apr 2013 09:26:00
Please add your response below, quoting the main modification reference number: (limit 3000 words)
SLDC Local Development Framework Land Allocation DPD
Response to the April 2013 consultation from Kevin Lasbury CBE CEng FCIHT
I note your restriction that comments on this latest consultation must only relate to the published updated Schedule of Main Modifications. That constraint is unacceptable as it attempts to deny the public the opportunity to comment on the raft of documents that supposedly support the Council’s current position.
For various reasons, I have only been able to skim the contents of this latest vast volume of material. I do however have the following comments/observations/objections which may or may not be comprehensive and may or may not be added to when I appear at the Hearing whenever it is reconvened.
Main Modifications
From the Table of updated proposed Main Modifications I have the following comments:
MM001. It remains wrong, and thus entirely unsound to exclude allocation of land within Canal Head from this document and to use a specific Local Plan to deal with such an extensive, and potentially intensive, development in the heart of the town. Canal Head will/would generate traffic volumes which would have a dramatic impact on the infrastructure of the whole of Kendal. This is being ignored in the documents purporting to support the Land Allocation Document (CCC Traffic Study etc). But, last year an Inspector felt able to reject an application for a site on Shap Road because of potential conflict with one possible element within Canal Head, which, even now has no formal status in public.
MM002. This policy states “...proposals can be approved...secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in South Lakeland”. The evidence being used by the Council in support of the Document, when assessed in detail, actually demonstrates that the impact of the proposals for Kendal fail to achieve this policy. The resulting congestion and air quality consequences will have an increasingly adverse effect on the economic viability of, and the environment within, Kendal.
MM024. This modification appears to bring forward the Land Allocation in site R170M, Land north of Laurel Gardens, when elsewhere within the documents are references to a later timescale to allow United Utilities to upgrade their waste water infrastructure.
MM028. Brief for land north of Laurel Gardens. This modification (together with MM024 above) suggests an unhealthy drive to speed development of this site in contravention of all supporting evidence on the capacity of the waste water infrastructure and the uncertainties surrounding the delivery of enhanced capacity. Hardly a month goes by that United Utilities are not on site dealing with problems associated with the outfall from the Briery Meadows development into the sewage system. It is obvious that any further development affecting this part of the network cannot go forward until after this capacity constraint has been physically resolved. Another example of the unsoundness of the Council’s approach to this site.
Having seen in MM034 reference to the importance of visual impact on Route 6 of the National Cycle Route in Natland Road, it is clearly an omission in respect of this site which will also have a potentially adverse impact on this route – Burneside Road forms part of Route 6 also.
My comments in respect of MM028 do not indicate an acceptance of the suitability of this site. I maintain my position that safe access cannot be achieved to this site.
OTHER COMMENTS
I believe that it is appropriate to comment on the supporting documents published in the last few weeks despite the constraints imposed within this latest consultation.
Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
What a disappointing document this is. It does nothing to convince me that any in depth thought has been given since the Hearing was suspended in November 2012. No doubt, due to the volume of material produced, a lot of work has been undertaken but it has produced nothing of any substance.
However, the following illustrate without any doubt that the entire plan in respect of Kendal is undeliverable and thus totally unsound.
Kendal Highway Infrastructure. The proposals here do not vary from those considered in November. After meeting with CCC and SLDC at the Inspector’s request in November, I prepared a comprehensive paper which fully demonstrates the inadequacy of the highway proposals to cater for the development proposed and challenges much of the assessment methodology. This paper was forwarded to the Programme Officer on 19th November 2012 and I intend presenting it to the resumed Hearing.
I am astounded that his latest document states categorically that the Allocations DPD is not reliant on the Kendal Northern Development Route being delivered. This mischievously ignores the huge development proposed within the centre of Kendal and the impact the Canal Head will have on the entire urban area. Doing so has to be entirely unsound and illogical planning practice. In doing so, you totally ignore the conclusions of the County Council traffic assessments .
The comprehensive package of “sustainable traffic improvements” is insufficient, to deliver the significant reduction in vehicular movements assumed within the CCC Traffic Improvement Report. The County Council themselves acknowledge that this figure is taken from a literature review. Additionally, experience, on a daily basis, of the performance of the “sustainable infrastructure” in place within the town now, shows how inadequate they are to encourage modal shift. For example, Pelican crossing response times to pedestrian demand are exceptionally long. And the components of the crossings designed to ensure efficient operation of these crossings invariably fail to work.
United Utilities. There are severe capacity constraints within the United Utilities network, not least the foul sewer system in North Kendal. There is no guarantee that UU can deliver the enhancement needed. The only certainty they have given is that they will bid for the funds in competition with all other demands and pressures across the entire North West. A Plan based on such a position cannot have any degree of confidence.
Schools in Kendal. The report is contradictory in that it states in several locations that one or two new primary schools will be needed in Kendal at a cost of somewhere between £2 and 3 million (Table 25) and yet in para 2.170 the document states “there is no need to allocate land to accommodate additional new school provision”.
Hospitals. Para 2.234 only partially, and somewhat inaccurately, describes the hospital shortfall in the area and contains no indication of the ability of those hospitals to accommodate the consequences of the additional development. Everyone living within the area is fully aware of, and concerned about, the limited access to primary health provision here now. The lack of formal confirmation of additional capacity within the Plan timescale again confirms that it is unsound.
Section 106 Contributions/Community Infrastructure Levy. Many vague comments are made about funding the infrastructure needed through these mechanisms. The County Council state they have no funds for capital highway works; the County Council needs £££s for additional educational facilities; and there are many other areas where such funding could be needed. I have raised several times the question about the scale of financial demands on each potential development, including, of course, the need to fund a significant affordable house percentage. I suspect those demands will far exceed the figure (£1500) used by the consultant within the Viability Study. If that is the case, then the viability of many more development sites must be in doubt.
Recent evidence from a planning application in Kendal, which has been referred to Appeal, fully supports this contention.
Two alternatives result:- Either the developments are not viable because of the financial demands, which means they do not proceed;
Or, in order to secure the development, the Council compromises on its demands. This, either does not achieve the affordable house component driving this whole exercise, or does not secure the appropriate contribution to the infrastructure consequences of the development.
Both of which result in yet further reasons why the entire proposals in respect of Kendal are UNSOUND.
Highways Study Main Evidence Report produced by Aecom
I do not accept the consultant’s interpretation of the application of the two Standards used for ensuring safe access to development sites – Manual for Streets and Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
The definition of the highways to which the two Manuals apply is clearly defined in para 2.2.1 of Manual of Streets – “A clear distinction can be drawn between streets and roads. Roads are essentially highways whose main function is accommodating the movement of motor traffic. Streets are typically lined with buildings and public spaces, and while movement is still a key function, there are several others, of which the place function is the most important”
The consultant’s interpretation clearly diverges from this clear and precise definition and thus casts considerable doubt over the reliability of the entire document.
I will go further in a paper on this at the resumed hearing (originally drafted for the resumed November Hearing and forwarded to the Programme Officer on 19th November 2012)
Site R170M
I have always maintained that access from Burneside Road cannot be achieved safely in accordance with highway design standards. I notice that CCC have proposed tinkering with highway channel alignments, narrowing the carriageway, introducing traffic calming on Burneside Road and the consultant suggests extending the 30 mph limit throughout the rural section to Burnside.
However the conclusion within the Report that this access can be safely achieved is wrongly founded and does not consider the proposed access in context of the route as a whole (which incidentally is part of the National Cycle Network).
The proposal to introduce a secondary access into Briarigg is unacceptable, even if restricted to emergency use. It would remove an invaluable formal play area for the local children. Any access through this site could not be policed and would inevitably be abused. The highway layout within the Briery Meadows estate, and the junction between Briarigg and Burneside Road are not suitable for additional traffic. Such a secondary access is not mentioned in Main Modification 028.
I maintain my position that R170M should be removed from the Land Allocation on the grounds that safe access cannot be achieved.
K A Lasbury CBE CEng FCIHT
21 April 2013