Local Development Framework Consultation

An increase in traffic along Neddy Hill , which has no pavement and a blind corner at the bottom of the hill, is potentially dangerous due to the foot traffic [including schoolchildren] presently utilising the road particularly prior to 9am and after 3pm. As My family are potentially affected by this proposal I must object on the grounds of public safety which would in my opinion be put at risk by increasing the traffic using the road to get to/from any proposed 'industrial' area on/around Station Lane, without any corresponding pavement down Neddy Hill.

Regarding the housing additions - what need is there? Burton certainly does not merit an increase in housing provision particularly after the granting of planning permission and building works in Boon Town - unless there is a need and said housing complements the demographics of the area.

Should you require any further information please feel free to contact me.

The proposed site off Cockshott Lane for lighth industry is clearly not suitable - we do not want more traffic thorugh the village and three other access roads are too narrow. . I am not happy about the idea of houses to the north of the playing field but accept we do need to find roon for small scale development to meet local needs.

Oppose

There is ample room for employment developements around Quarry lane/ Sandside Road, plus the quarray site itself in due course. These areas could also be considered for housing developments

3.39 - 3.43 PO2 - Rural Areas - Introduction

Preferred Option page 46

Oppose

1.The draft results of the Housing Needs Survey do not reveal any requirment for affordable housing in Bardsea.
2.There is no requirment for more development for sale at market value. There are 5 existing houses and a building plot for sale within 50 mtrs of the post office, and have been for more than 12 months.
3.Most residents in Bardsea do not want new development on green fields outside the present development boundary which has served Bardsea well since the Orchard estate was built, and will continue to do so.
4.Those isolated comments coming back from the Housing Needs Survey suggesting development of green fields behind the Braddylls and alongside the Malt Kiln most probably come from the owners of that land who have tried in the past to get planning approval and failed.
5.To remove the present boundary will facilitate new applications on those sites.
6.Why should the present boundary be abandoned when there is no demonstrated demand for more housing? Is there a hidden agenda? The meeting at Gleaston did not reveal all that is going on - evidenced by the reply to the question about brown field sites!
7.The safeguards proposed by the preferred option will not be effective, they havn't worked in the past.If the present boundary is taken away applications will follow. We are not satisfied that S.L.D.C. will be able to resist them. Even if they do, there will be appeals and we all know what happens next - objectors are not told about the appeal hearing and the is no further right of appeal. Bingo! Once one field is developed the case is lost and we are straight into the creeping paralysis of planning.
8.We seem to be heading towards a one size fits all situation. That may be convenient but there is no justification for it and no reason why different rules apply in different localities.
9.S.L.D.C. promotes itself as a tourist destination. Is that why 4000 people want to come and live here? You can't keep building more houses in small villages to satisfy the demand. Such a policy will result in the destruction of the very reason why people want to come, but it might do wonders for chief officer's salaries!
10. Finally what is sustainabiliy? It seems to be the current planning buzz-word. If it means preserving local services then it didn't work when the size of the village was virtually doubled when the Orchard estate was built. It is still seen as something separate, known locally as 'the reservation' and the post office is still going to close and the bus service cease to operate

Preserve the existing development boundary around Bardsea and adopt Option 2.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

I oppose the proposal for development to the East of Natland for the following reasons:1). that the area proposed is on “green” agricultural land and not “brown field development.2). That the area proposed equates to two thirds the area of the existing village and as such would have a significant effect on the characteristic of Natland.3). That the topographical nature of the proposed area is mainly higher than that of the surrounding developed village and as such would dominate the local scene.4). The views from the Helm are significant to the local setting and such a development would drastically affect the characteristics of the area and reduce the environmental benefits.5). The local infrastructure is not capable of sustaining such expansion: - the feeder roads are single track and the additional traffic would be a specific danger to pedestrians travelling to the Primary School of within the village. - I believe that the sewerage facilities are at maximum and other utilities would require significant upgrade, which would intern require additional disruption.
6). The landscape surrounding Natland that has previously been an essential characteristic of the local plans will be irrevocably changed for the worse.

Remove the proposals to develop around Natland and particularly to the East as referenced in Option 3, Paragraph 6, on page 123. Or list it as no-potential due to the aforesaid reasons.

The sue of “brown field” development sites for housing as listed in the Canal head proposals are preferable.

3.17 The Preferred Option - PO1 - Locational Strategy

Page 37 "Policies will protect Green Gaps between individual settlements"

Oppose

The LDF document states quite clearly that "Policies will protect Green Gaps between individual settlements". Yet on table 3, page 133 of the Core Strategy Document(hard copy) under column 1, preferred direction of growth, that North West Kendal Land between Burneside Rd. and Railway Line(locally known as Sparrowmire),is a preferred option for growth. This is despite in column 2 under suitability clearly designated green gap. This contradicts the Location Strategy therefore the credibility of the document. Green Gaps are either sacrosanct or not

No objection at all to the principle of Green Gaps. If stated that they will be protected and North West Kendal is according to table on page 133 "Green Gap" then clearly under the criteria it should not be developed.

If North West Kendal is "Green Gap" then it shold be preserved for agricultural use only.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

3.69 - 3.78 PO4 - Balanced Housing Market - You Told us That & Introduction

Page 59; Para 3.70

Oppose

The proposed building figure from RSS has been significantly increased by SDLC to cover the extra perceived requirements for affordable housing. This impacts significantly on both Kendal and Ulverston. The extra housing proposed for Kendal of 3784 seems to approach and exceed saturation point on what is essentially a compact market town lacking the infrastructure for modern large scale development. Where are the studies for the extra impact on schooling, health provision, sewerage and drainage and last but not least traffic? Kendal's narrow streets and limited river crossings are unable to cope with existing traffic. The recent press reports of motorists stranded in Westmoreland Shopping Centre car park due to the volume of traffic in Blackhall street testify to this.

Reduce housing development to a manageable level,which can be proven not to put more strain on already stretched infrastructure. particularly in Kendal,

To keep Kendal's Market town attractiveness, brownfield site building should take priority. New developments should have easy access to the M6 so that there is no convergent gridlock.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Alternative options : Options 1 - 3

Option 3, page124,para 16

Oppose

Hallgarth estates are not "19th Century" but clearly 20th Century (post war). The "access bridge" referred to is not newly built but strengthened and would be doubtful for taking two way vehicular traffic. The area to the west of the railway line,locally known as Sparrowmire is designated "greengap" under SDLC's own plan. Building on this proposed land would virtually join Kendal with Burneside via "The Todds". Vehicular traffic both towards the Kendal bottleneck and Burneside (to avoid it) would be substantially increased.

Delete para 16 "North West Kendal" as an option. Leave the land as greengap as formerly identified and for agricultural use.

Either greengaps are important or not. This land serves as a green buffer between Kendal and Burneside. Look for better preferably brown site alternatives.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

PO11, page 127 paras 1; 5,6,7

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

The aims of 5,6 and 7 are very laudable but will attract (hopefully) tourists and shoppers to the area who in many cases have no option but to come by car. This seems to be inconsistent with the unprecedented growth of proposed new residential properties which if not sited very carefully, if not scaled back markedly, could result in gridlock. This might discourage the very visitors Kendal is trying to attract. Expansion in a restricted old market town with Kendal's topography is very difficult.

A scale down of proposed housing and then very carefully situated on a brown field site first option.

Either delete paras 5,6 and 7 which i wholeheartedly support or radically re-think para1.

Adopted by the District Council

4.12 - 4.23 Policy Context and Justification

Table 3, Page133, para 1 (North West Kendal)

Oppose

The table states quite clearly that the North West Kendal option (Land between Burneside Road and Railway Line) is allocated as a green gap site. These should be the last sites considered, not the preferred options. There has also been a history of drainage problems on the adjacent Briery Meadows Development, to the extent that United Utilities have still not adopted the drains and sewers after 7 years. I believe the existing housing was scaled back due to NRA's concern of flooding. A development of 225 houses on the above land with sewers and drains "tacked on" to the Briery Meadows development would not in my opinion improve things. Much is made of loss of view amenity in other preferred options but not apparently for residents of Burneside road or Laurel Gardens. This also contrasts with a bizarre argument on page 125, para22 which states that the "large detached houses" here "feels very private" as some sort of justification of no preferred option in South West Kendal. The section under Achievability states "Environmental quality will drive demand and values". How will this put affordable homes (50% proposed) in the range of the very people who need them? Are there safeguards in place to ensure affordable homes stay affordable?

Delete para 1.Page 133, North West Kendal

I have spent a great deal of time trying to digest and understand the most detailed and voluminous document (which is quite hazy in parts) I have ever had to comment on, and am still trying to wade through your website. Would you agree it is fair to only give council tax payers about six weeks to give you cogent feedback when a possible four planning officers paid for by hard pressed council tax payers, have spent two years (or more) conceiving and composing this as a full time job. I am doing my best to respond but this takes days to absorb everything. Could the deadline not be extended for another two weeks? Part of the six weeks has also included two bank holiday periods.

1.Re. Woodhouse Lane

If you were to observe to narrow lane and the traffic that already exists ,particularly when the Dallam School is using the playing fields, you would realise that it is impossible to pass at many points and even more cars would make it worse on a regular basis.

2. If affordable housing were to become reality, it would be necessary for owners to have at least one car as there are no facilities in the village- and with the ever- increasing cost of fuel , no work, no shops, an over-subscribed school the need to travel ,hardly makes life affordable and goes nowhere to improving the carbon footprint.


Re. Heversham site of Dallam School.

Do get your facts correct as to present ownership and their plans for the future use.

Excessive Development

It appears that to build up to 79 new dwellings in a village of only 220 houses, this would be a gross over- development.

As you are now prepared to consider using Green Belt Land , why not look at areas suitable for a whole new village where you can start with a clean sheet and build in shops ,schools etc. instead of attempting to add on bits to areas which are already pleasant places in which to reside.

4.46 - 4.51 PO13 - Grange-Over-Sands Functional Area 2025 - You Told Us and Introduction

OPTION 3 ALTERNATIVE DIRECTIONS OF GROWTH, PART 8 EAST CARTMEL- PIT FARM/ ORCHARD CLOSE
ALSO TBLE 5 (PAGE 161) NO.4 EAST CARTMEL-LAND TO WEST OF PIT FARM

Oppose

Firstly may I comment that ,without specifics it is difficult to form a considered opinion- but the "ball -park" amount of housing we are led to believe is being considered is 50-80 on this site alone.Official line is 12.5 hectares over Grange, Cartmel and Allithwaite sites, which is ?? many houses.We DID ask how many but were reffered to official line.someone must know!
The options state that The proposed site would be hidden on two sides by existing houses -those along Haggs lane which back onto it , and the bungalows, and Orchard Close along the other side. But the development wouldn't be low visual impact to any of these residents whose current outlook is onto open fields to Hampsfell.Nor to anyone travelling to Cartmel from Grange where the village is clearly visible as one descends.Orchard Close still sticks out like the proverbial "sore thumb" even after 15 years of greenery growing to soften it.
As all the residents of Orchard Close who live along the field boundary are aware, it floods! The original beck is piped until further along but water still collects in this area at the lower end of the field, and even in summer there are "boggy" gardens.This would surely not be suitable to build upon.
The idea of access via Orchard Close is far from ideal - what is currently a quiet cul-de-sac will be turned into a busy throughfare for all traffic for 50 + houses - that's potentially 100 cars funneled into a bottle neck exit,leading onto Aynsome Road ,which is barely 2 cars width -less depending on consideration of people parking. Try getting out of there at School time , or race days- there's little visibility and not much room, add to that the lack of pavement room past CE Primary School - which involves having to walk on the road with a pushchair.
If access is through Orchard Close this would mean that 8 parking spaces where lost for existing residents. Spaces are already in short supply .
Bus access is listed as a + for suitability - this is not a specific to this site , as the bus route runs along Haggs lane, down causeway to Clogger beck & on to Cark & vice Versa & is accessible at most points on demand along this route.
Traditionally Orchard Close children have been able to play safely (usually in company of other village children !) on this quiet cul-de-sac, with no danger of through traffic. There is a community atmosphere and everyone is aware of where kids live. I have grown -up children who played out & a 2 year old who I hope will be able to continue to enjoy this safe haven.

The impact of such a large amount of houses would be too great upon one area. Could smaller numbers (single figures) be considered over more sites? Access through Orchard Close is a no-no. Too dangerous and already overstretched access. If that site was deemed necessary could access not be made from further along Aynsome road. Could the whole site be situated in a dedicated area , not tagged onto existing housing .

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025

PO13 Grange-over-sands
East Cartmel
Pit farm - Orchard Close

Oppose

Am further opposing the proposed 80 houses between Pit Farm and Orchard Close because of the scale of the plan. A significantly smaller scaled-down version MAY be workable , but only if in keeping with character of the village, and I mean single figures perhaps over several sites not one huge one. Because as far as Cartmel is concerned 80 more houses would be a massive proportion of a village that has approx 220 permanent dwellings , that's Not including the holiday houses.A smaller development would have a negligible impact on existing residents and infrastructure.

S.L.D.c need to reconsider the definition of LOCAL housing ,if we are having to consider from as far afield as Lancaster , Barrow and Penrith then is the "local" housing even required? How many people are actually on the housing waiting list.
The affordable housing needs to be just that, affordable! Not an opportunity to make a nice profit after a few years.Would any of the social housing have "right-to buy" ? Perhaps had the council not sold off its housing stock we wouldn't be in the postion of now having to build more! The housing on Orchard Close can never be bought by tenants, they will always remain rented to locals.

Scale it down. Small developments. Limit local housing to locals.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

building of low cost housing on Burneside Road sparromire fields

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

Adding more traffic to an already impossible junction( burneside road:windermere road) traffic choosing to go over Horcop or past the police station to try avoid queueing.

Building more houses on south side of town with good motorway links and access to all sides of kendal without having to take traffic through town

Figure 24 Ulverston Functional Area Strategy. Page 145. Housing.

Oppose

The infrastructure around Ulverston is already overworked. An extra 1000 plus houses around the preferred area would be an absolute nightmare.
The educational establishments are all but failing with the number of children already attending.
The access to Croftlands Junior School is already dangerous and to put more traffic there will increase the risk of children being injured.
UVHS cannot possibly take any more children without expanding even further and then there will be more children walking to school with the extra risk of injury from even more traffic from the extra 1000 plus houses proposed.
The intention is to close Dale Street School and merge with SJB. There will not be enough school places and the risk of even more OFSTED failures will be greatly increased if you cram more and more children into less and less space. More children and the same number of teachers WILL mean that the childrens' education will suffer.
The area being considered is prone to flooding and has been for many years.
Will the health authority be able to handle the extra number of people. What about the hospital? There are already serious waiting lists!
There will be extra starin put on the health centre and the medical staff there.
We already have a shortage of NHS dentists in the town and struggle to attract new ones. How are all the "new" people going to be accommodated?
There will be greater pressures on United Utilities to maintain the sewerage system and the water supplies.
Bringing more people into a town that has a declining number of employment opportunities seems a little remiss wherever you put the houses. The town itself is struggling to maintain retail outlets. (Then of course another fine idea is to put a small supermarket in the town to shut the rest of the retail food outlets).
To build more houses at the top of Croftlands means an improvement in public transport will have to be implemented.
Consider the carbon footprint for the extra vehicles travelling the school runs.
Selection seems to be based on the willingness of one farmer to sell his land. Have the other farmers whos land you want to take off them been considered or approached? I believe not!
What about the affordable housing? Surely that should be in a place where it is easier for the occupants to access the town not on the furthest part away from the general amenities where they will have to rely on an already poor public transport system.
From a personal point of view it seems to me that the council did the absolute minimum to advertise this proposed development plan and tried to hide the facts.
1000 plus houses in such an area is a gross overdevelopment and should not be allowed!
The dangers to the local children, travelling to and from school while all the extra construction traffic is around is going to be increased.
Then of course there is all the extra dust, noise and nuisance to the residents already living in the area.
If the farmer sold some of his land at the driving range. Would he still be allowed to breed pheasants so close to the new housing?

There are better places in town and on the edges where development would improve the area rather than destroy more green belt land. Look to these areas

Adopted by the District Council

Po 12 Ulverston Functional area 2025 Page 145 . Housing 'Preferred options'

Oppose

The unbelievable numbers of houses planned would put a huge strain on the already stretched local resources.The local health centre will sruggle to cope with such huge increases in numbers and it is almost impossible to find an NHS dentist in the town at present.UVHS and Croftlands schools would see large increases in traffic, raising serious safety issues for the children that attend. UVHS is unable to cope with the current numbers.
The areas suggested are known to flood and access to this area would be restricted to Mountbarrow Lane (also prone to flooding). Large increases in the volume of traffic which would use Croftlands Estate would make it very dangerous for the young children who currently live and play in the area.The number of people this huge increase in housing would bring to the area would only cause further promblems with regard to employment.
The number of houses planned is far to large and it seems the 'Preferred Option' is really the easy option.There are areas in Ulverston that would benifit from re-development that would not use areas of 'Green Land' but such a large number of houses is ridiculous.
Developements of this size make obscene amounts of money for those who are involved but they are at the expense of the local community who would benefit more from a sensible approach with realistic numbers in areas that would see a development as an improvement to areas of neglect. These areas should be closer to the local amenities and aimed at people who really do need 'Affordable Housing'.
The proposed location will encourage the building of houses that are beyond the grasp of the very people that 'Affordable Housing' is supposed to help onto the property ladder. Bearing in mind jobs will be at a 'premium' with so many potential 'employees rushing to the town !!'

Brown belt land within the already defined boundaries of the town.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO14 - Milnthorpe Functional Area 2025

PO14 Milnthorpe Functional Area 2025
Figure 30: Milnthorpe Functional Area Key Diagram

Oppose

1. My first comment would be to question whether we really need 790 new houses in the Milnthorpe functional area. Has this been identified as a requirement, or does it just fit conveniently into Government requirements to meet their pledge to build three million new homes by 2020?

2. Milnthorpe is described as a ‘Medieval market town’. It may have been a town in medieval times, but by today’s standards it is just a large village. Plans for Milnthorpe appear to increase the village by two thirds of it current size, which would completely change its whole character.

3. One of the main purposes of the proposed plan seems to be to provide more ‘affordable’ housing for local families. The document does not mention where the occupants of the new housing would find employment. Lack of jobs is in itself one of the reasons why many of our young families are having to leave the area.

4. There is a new supermarket included within the development of Milnthorpe, but clearly 790 new houses would need far more local services than that. The shops in Milnthorpe are sufficient for current needs, but some of those are very crowded at peak times. Doctors and dentists in Milnthorpe are already stretched. It is unlikely that they could cope with 790 more households to look after.

5. The plan to build nearly 80 new houses in Heversham seems disproportionate to the size of the village as it would increase the village by about twenty-five percent of its current size. It is not clear if it is proposed to build all the houses on one site, or to split it over the three proposed options.

6. A development of 80 houses would be totally out of character with the village as it would be much larger than any of the estates already established in Heversham. It would also spoil the rural and historic view of the village from all around.

7. Heversham itself has very few facilities and services to offer. There is a primary school and a regular bus service but no shop, doctor, dentist, post office or bank.

8. Three potential sites for development have been identified in Heversham (3a, 3b and 4 on the map of the Milnthorpe Functional Area). As a resident of the village I can say that these would be access issues for all three of these sites, as access would either be directly onto the A6 or onto narrow and/or winding single-track roads.

9. I cannot really see that the proposed houses are necessary as the so-called ‘affordable’ houses will still be beyond the reach of the people they are intended to house as I understand that an annual household income of at least £26,000 would be required to purchase them. This is well in excess of the average salary in this area.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

I write to you as someone who has already registered my comments on the Local Development Framework.
I should like to draw you attention to the article on page 2 of the Gazette dated Friday 30th May which tells of the fate of motorists trapped in the multi-storey car park by the volume of traffic on Blackhall Road.
That this happened on a Wednesday, market day, and in a Bank Holiday week mean that it is not a regular occurrence.
However if the expansion of housing in SLDC along with the potential expansion in the LDNP and the YDNP take place without any remedial work on Kendal's traffic flow I am convinced that this unfortunate event will become a regular happening in Kendal. It only takes a small percentage increase in traffic to move from a normal flow to a total standstill.
If this were allowed to become the norm I foresee the collapse of Kendal as a tourist destination with all the economic woe that would cause.

I write to object to the proposal to enlarge the village by housing development as set out in your Plans
1 There is little employment in the village and inhabitants will require to drive to the economic centres of Kendal, Barrow and Lancaster thus causing an increase in co2 emissions
2 Retail centres are based in the above towns and travelling to these towns to shop will be a regular feature again increasing the carbon footprint
3 Holme is a village without the infastructure of schools,doctors surgeries,dentists,police etc and to develop it as proposed will destroy the rural ambience of the area.
4 New housing development should take place in the existing urban areas.Kendal is struggling as a centre having few major PLC employers.It is essential to create a good pool of employees in the town in order to attract investment.Development of housing in far flung rural areas will not achieve this.
5 In particular I object to the development of West Holme (Milnthorpe Road). Planning permission has already been granted in Festival Fields for a community centre and now it is being proposed as a site for housing.There appears to be a conflict of ideas.

burntbarrow

Burntbarrow

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

Access better
not interfere with anyone.

I am writing to object to the planning proposals that relate to the development of Burton in Kendal.
The residents of Burton in Kendal live in a beautiful rural location which has seen substantial change within the last 10 years with the demise of 2 local garages at opposite ends of the village subsequently transformed into housing, the introduction of 2 business parks (Clawthorpe and more recently Dalton Hall) and more recently the demise of the village playground at Boon Town to make way for housing - even after much protest and objection
The possible housing developmnent you are considering east of Morewood Drive would impact on our busy roads, past the primary school and up Morewood Drive and put children at risk due to the increased volume of traffic which is already chaotic around school opening and closing times.
The proposed development west of st James drive would have major access problems along the narrow Tanpits Lane and Station Lane.
The proposed option north of the Church would have traffic issues due to the dangerous Church Bank corner.
As there is no employment within the village, any proposed new development would result in more and more people joining the line of commuters out of the village which obviously is not good for the environment
In summary Burton in kendal is a picturesque village that could be ruined by these potential developments.




The residents of Burton in Kendal live in a beautiful rural location which has seen substantial change within the last 10 years with the demise of 2 local garages at opposite ends of the village subsequently transformed into housing, the introduction of 2 business parks (Clawthorpe and more recently Dalton Hall) and more recently the demise of the village playground at Boon Town to make way for housing - even after much protest and objection



The possible housing developmnent you are considering east of Morewood Drive would impact on our busy roads, past the primary school and up Morewood Drive and put children at risk due to the increased volume of traffic which is already chaotic around school opening and closing times.

The proposed development west of st James drive would have major access problems along the narrow Tanpits Lane and Station Lane.

The proposed option north of the Church would have traffic issues due to the dangerous Church Bank corner.



As there is no employment within the village, any proposed new development would result in more and more people joining the line of commuters out of the village which obviously is not good for the environment



In summary Burton in kendal is a picturesque village that could be ruined by these potential developments.
am writing to object to the planning proposals that relate to the development of Burton in Kendal.



The residents of Burton in Kendal live in a beautiful rural location which has seen substantial change within the last 10 years with the demise of 2 local garages at opposite ends of the village subsequently transformed into housing, the introduction of 2 business parks (Clawthorpe and more recently Dalton Hall) and more recently the demise of the village playground at Boon Town to make way for housing - even after much protest and objection



The possible housing developmnent you are considering east of Morewood Drive would impact on our busy roads, past the primary school and up Morewood Drive and put children at risk due to the increased volume of traffic which is already chaotic around school opening and closing times.

The proposed development west of st James drive would have major access problems along the narrow Tanpits Lane and Station Lane.

The proposed option north of the Church would have traffic issues due to the dangerous Church Bank corner.



As there is no employment within the village, any proposed new development would result in more and more people joining the line of commuters out of the village which obviously is not good for the environment



In summary Burton in kendal is a picturesque village that could be ruined by these potential developments.

We would like it to be registered that we strongly object to the proposed plans for the fields between Grange Fell Post Office and the access road to Spring Hill Farm.

Plans have already been passed to build new houses in the field next to Grange Fell Church. Additionally I believe that land at the very top of Grange Fell Road is ear marked for development. We strongly object to the land on Hampsfell being used for the following reasons:

Parking on Grange Fell Road has become an increasing problem in the 6 years that we have lived here. There are increasing numbers of cars parked on the roadside which prevent safe exits from driveways and adjoining roads, and for cars using Grange Fell Road, there is no-where to pull in to let other cars past. Many cars ignore the speed limit making it very dangerous. We believe that further development will only serve to exacerbate this growing problem.
We have increasing problems with flooding at the bottom of Grange Fell Road as our climate is changing. Further development will exacerbate this problem meaning that more water will flow to the bottom of the hill causing more severe flooding.
The loss of the agricultural land will be irreversible, the land supports a wide variety of wildlife and has the potential to provide valuable agricultural income to support the community.
It would be a shame to spoil this natural habitat and heritage that has been undisturbed for hundreds of years.
It is beyond our understanding why the beautiful existing Edwardian properties should be compulsory purchased and demolished. These are part of the character and heritage of Grange and to demolish them would be deplorable.
We hope that you take these issues seriously and do not go ahead with the proposed development

It states here that “Grange town centre already struggles to cope with traffic and service pressures (what are these – delivery lorries??) which many residents would agree with. However no mention appear again with any suggestions for addressing this issue despite proposals to add extra housing and business development.

Some inclusion about how to improve traffic flow through Grange, particularly on Main Street from the Duck Pond up to the roundabout at Clock Tower Hill ,taking into account pedestrian access across the road at Clock Tower Hill where it can take upto 10 minutes to get from one side to another.The recent parking bays on Main Street actually made the road narrower so that as soon as a large HGV comes down the road , the traffic in the other direction have to wait. Add to that a delivery lorry for the retailers on that road and traffic in both ways gets stuck.

It states in the Retail Study main document and here in 4.57 that there is a “qualitative and quantative need for a small supermarket” to reduce so-called “leakage” to Kendal. The reason people from Grange etc go to shop in Kendal is for a greater variety of shopping e.g. clothing, electrical, home furnishings, and cheaper, bigger choice in large chain supermarkets. In most cases people choose to live within a distance of such places knowing there is a journey of only 20 mins. These same people could if they chose live nearer to Kendal to have these facilities on their doorstep.. I cannot see how yet another small supermarket (we already have two) will stem this leakage without causing some loss of vitality to Grange( a claim made by bringing in a third supermarket) to already established businesses in the town. Lets not forget that Grange has won an award for its unique character of small food businesses and that ‘s what the visitors come for ie the tourist element which is also being promoted in this report. Grange already has 2 bakers (and bread at Spar and Coop), 3 butchers ( and meat at Spar and Coop), 1 florist – a second tried but there wasn’t enough business for two), 5 outlets competing for newspaper/magazine sales, grocery and vegetables at 3 outlets and fish supplied by 3 sources. Are we trying to make Grange another Kendal and by so doing it will no longer be Grange? And what about loss of business to Asda and Morrisons if we no longer shop there? Has it also been considered that many householders in Grange and area now opt for home delivery anyway and don’t actually drive out of Grange for the big shop. I use Tesco online as do many of my neighbours. Has this latter been factored into your retail formula?

Maybe to stem the leakage, an alternative retail outlet would be better eg a low price clothing retailer, a shoe shop or sports outlet – none of which are currently provided for in Grange and the surrounding area or a market area where smaller retailers could offer goods pertinent to locals and visitors. We could also use a cybercafé which would be used by locals and visitors.

Regarding P014 – Milnthorpe Functional Area 2025 - you state that there is
a "qualitive and quantitive need for a supermarket in Milnthorpe." On
Friday myself and some neighbours carried out a straw poll. Market stall
holders and Shops were asked if there was a need for a supermarket in
Milnthorpe. The response was a unaminous NO. Interestingly the shoppers
when asked the same question also responded with a NO. One of the
comments was "Milnthorpe needs a supermarket like it needs a hole in the
head!"

Core strategy preferred options.
Option 3 - Alternative Directions of Growth. Para 6 East Natland.
Table 3 - Detailed information on each preferred town extension etc.10 East Natland.

Oppose

Unsuitability of access to proposed development.Both Oxenholme lane and Helm lane are single track with few if any passing places other than private drives.Any increase in traffic would be both dangerous to pedestrians/cyclist/vehicle users, and cause damage to road side properties.

A large part of the proposed development would be built ontop of an area of limestone caverns. With the inherent risk to structural stability and pollution to under ground water courses and eventually into the River Kent to the west.

Natland is still very much a farming community and loss of this agricultural land threatens the viability of the farms at Natland Park and High House.

The proposed development would effectively join Natland to Oxenholme.

As joint owner of a major part of the land being proposed for development I and my family have no wish to sell.

Remove East Natland from the options list.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

building of low cost housing on Burneside Road sparromire fields

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

Adding more traffic to an already impossible junction( burneside road:windermere road) traffic choosing to go over Horcop or past the police station to try avoid queueing.

Building more houses on south side of town with good motorway links and access to all sides of kendal without having to take traffic through town.

Alternative options : Options 1 - 3

Section 4, Option 3, Paragraph 22, South West Kendal. Specifically the area between Lumley Road and Helsington Laithes.

Oppose

This area of land borders one of the main access roads to Kendal. It is a prominent steeply sloping area and currently provides visitors and commuters alike with a pleasant unspoilt welcome to the town. To build on this land would have a huge visual impact on this area; including the views from the A591, Milnthorpe Road, Lumley Road, Helsington Laithes and other existing housing and would destroy the existing natural landscape. Any development on this site would surely ruin this 'Gateway to Kendal'.

I also have concerns regarding whether the local infrastructure could support any more housing in this area. The existing waste water treatment works is not without it's problems, which could only be exacerbated by increasing the number of properties in the area. Any new entrance to the site from Milnthorpe Road could only add to additional traffic problems, on an already busy stretch of road.

I would suggest that this area of land is left unspoilt to maintain the current welcome green buffer between the busy A591 and existing developments. Areas to the north of the town have been identified for similar development, use of which would not have the same detrimental impact on a busy approach to the town and with much better local services to support the development. I would transfer the development to those areas.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Page 133, 2c. Land to the south of Lumley Road

Oppose

Achievability - The report states that this is a 'easily developable level greenfield site'. However, the site is not level; it is steeply sloping, undulating and highly visible from all sides. I believe that the site would be impossible to screen, and to develop it would have a huge, unacceptable, visual impact on this area of Kendal.

The report also states that this is 'a large site in a very attractive and accessible location'. These are two reasons to avoid developing the site - it's very attractiveness and accessibility should be valued and maintained for the benefit of all Kendal residents and visitors.

I would remove the word 'level' from the report as it is factually incorrect.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

I would like to comment on SLDC Core Strategy Preferred Options on pages 119 to 138 Para 6 East Natland and Table 3 Paragraph 10 which refers to the possibility of zoning the land to the East of Natland between Long Meadow Lane and the railway line as suitable for housing development.
I wish to oppose this proposal.
My reason for this is that any further expansion of the village boundaries will really destroy this rural village - the erosion has already begun with the Russell Armer development on Natland Road. The roads into the village are too narrow to take the current traffic without adding to the burden of another development and visually it would be very intrusive.
I find it rather worrying that Natland seems to be scooped up into the idea of the Kendal "Principal Service Centre" and hope that the intention is not to gradually swallow it up into Kendal itself as currently it is very definately a separate settlement with its own very distinctive community.
I would like to be notified when the DPDs have been submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.(both the Core Strategy and the Kendal Canal head Action Plan.)

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

We object strongly to the proposed developments of the land between Lumley Road and Helsington Laithes. It will spoil the approach into Kendal. It is very nice to see green fields and trees on the approach to Kendal. It will also make the traffic much much worse than it is already. At the present time the traffic in rush hour can be tailed back to the by pass. It would be far worse if this field was developed upon. We also object to this field being used for "High Density Housing/Employment" Whatever that may mean. We could end up with huge factories on our doorstep. When in our opinion all the facilities are at the North end of the Town. We are very concerned regarding the extra sewerage facilities that would be needed, and also the extra water. Would our drains/pipes be able to cope with all this. We doubt it very much. We have seen what has happened in other parts of the town regarding insufficient drainage etc., It can only lead to flooding. Also we understand that there is a proposed development near to Scroges Lane, we understand that this could be for housing, all the same problems would be relevant to that proposal, and we are not in favour of any proposal that would increase the traffic at this end of town. Please forward our strong objections to the Planning Department

Whilst I am in favour of selecting sites for future commercial and industrial development, it is crucial that those sites should be readilly accessible by road, both for employees and customers / suppliers.This is most certainly NOT the case for land on either side of Station Lane before the motorway bridge.
Industrial / commercial development in this area could not be sustained, and those locating there would be likely to fail. There is no chance of public transport.
Please revisit the site.
Furthermore, access at the A 6070 is extreemly perilous, and all routes are narrow, have acute bends, and are entirely unsuitable for anything other than light local traffic. Access to / from the A6 is equally poor.

The Preferred Option - PO12 - Ulverston Functional Area 2025

Page 148. Preferred direction of growth 1. South Ulverston.

Oppose

Oppose putting 1000+ houses on this site. Croftlands is already a large housing estate and it would be more like a concrete jungle.
The land is prone to flooding, and regularly floods in the fields and road near the Lancastrian pub.
Where land is undulating, building houses here would overlook bungalows.
There would be a lot more traffic on small country roads.

Use brownfield site, such as the site of the Old Tannery

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2

p182; 26, South Levens.

p182; 29; East Levens

Oppose

p182; South Levens. I agree that playing fields should not be used for development. However, I fail to understand the reasoning that development would be visible from the A590. Much of the village can be sen from the A590! p182; East Levens. This is good agricultural land where development should be avoided if there are sensible alternatives.

I would like to see the suggestions of para 26, South Levens & para 29, East Levens taken out of the report.

I would like to support warmly the move to develop affordable housing for local people, particularly for young families. I am told that there are probably enough 'brown' sites (eg former racing stables area), within the village, that could accommodate such development. Building on existing sites would help maintain the integrity of the community village ethos while encouraging integration of young families. At the same time loss of more agricultural/ green sites would be avoided. I would therefore like this alternative option to be investigated.

4.33 - 4.41 Policy Context and Justification

Page 145, figure 24
and
Page 148, table 4, row 1

Support

Regarding the ldf for Ulverston.
Following the discussion at Grange on 2nd May 2008, on behalf of my farther I can confirm that we are in favor of allowing housing to be built on the land to the south of Ulverston backing onto the Croftlands estate and adjacent to the Gascow Quarry. as highlighted on http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=54.17708,-3.090248&spn=0.00584,0.014548&t=k&z=16&msid=116273425368554218956.00044c9e00f36b50dee0a

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2

PO 16 Section 1 outlined on p 184 and shown as area 1 on the Map provided:

Oppose

P 180 Section 12, North Endmoor: I presume the reference to Summerlands should read "Low Park".
p 187 Section 1, North Endmoor:
a) I believed that the A65 and the 'Main Street' are the same - therefore reference should be to Land to "East" and not West of Main Street to conform with the location Numbered 1 on the above map.
b) As stated above, it would seem that it is residents at Low Park, not Summerlands whose views would be affected.
It could be disputed that the nearby housing developments have been 'successful' - particularly with regard to their proximity to the side of the main A65. Compounding this with a further extension alongside the A65 would seem to be similar to 'ribbon development' which I thought had long since been vetoed by rural planners. I don't believe that an access way was left in the previous developments to lead in to the proposed one, so that yet another potentially dangerous access would be required on to the A65, on one of the few places where traffic can overtake a particularly slow vehicle between the M6 motorway junction 36 and Kendal.
It certainly does nothing to enhance the cohesion of the village centre, descibed on page 177 as not being particularly 'strong'.

Reconsider options for development at this end of the village.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Recent and ongoing new housing in the village of Holme has increased the population enormously over the last few years, this level of growth cannot surely be sustained without having serious implications for the following -
Massive increases in the volume of traffic on access roads to the suggested areas as well as in and out of the village
Services under strain - can the current sewerage and power facilities cope with the extra volume of housing?
Limited facilities in the village will be stretched by the increase in population.
Demise of the green belt location which currently helps many of the houses retain that rural village feel, over developing the area, for example, to 'help join housing along Station Road to the centre of the village' would in fact have a negative effect rather than a positive benefit for the homes and residents of that particular area.
Currently the village is on the verge of becoming over developed and surely it is time to take steps protect these small pockets of England's rural landscapes with their unique blend of wildlife and beauty spots from disappearing altogether.
As a resident of the village I would be grateful if these points would be taken into serious consideration during your ongoing assessments.

Burnt Barrow site

Oppose

congestion a possibility at Quarry lane, Storth Road junction at times

Storth

Support partly

we would like to say that we are both in accord for the proposal for a dozen or so houses at Burntbarrow and a similar number in Broomkys field. This seems a happy comrimise to keep the central green setup in the middle of the village.

The Preferred Option - PO2 - Rural Areas

Page 198 South Penny Bridge Table 9

Oppose

I think that development of this field below the church would impact strongly on the landscape of the village. This field was suggested for development once previously on a local landscape plan and because of local and parish council opposition; it was removed. The parish council suggested the Ellis Wood site instead and agreed to move their playground from this area, which they later did and Ellis Wood was built. The view from the church and the church path is outstanding and enjoyed by many people. The church stands alone majesticaly and was built in this way for a purpose. To build next to the church would remove its beauty as well as losing the view of the hills.

That this preferred direction of growth is removed.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

1 It is most regrettable that Kendal is not a centre of computing (and hence of finance, insurance, administration ...). This is especially when good electronic communication now make remote working viable. But there is a critical size and Kendal hasn't made
it and will be hard to achieve now.
2 Development of these nice clean industries should be a good counterbalance to tourism.
3 Considering development of housing, I believe it is very important to make it possible for people to work within walking or cycling distance of their home. For example, more housing at Natland without more nearby work places is going to continue to be a
retirement or commuter zone. A pavement and cycle way to work zones are one important factor in encouraging this. Reducing traffic speeds (except on major roads) are also crucial to make people less scared to get out of their cars.
4 Affordable houses must not be poor quality houses - they will be in use for hundreds or years. Inefficient location and build
will cost much energy over their lifetime.
5 I understand tht some recycling must be 'exported' - but I hope not too far, like China and India. But much waste is best
recycled by burning for power, and this should happen in Kendal itself. I understand there is vocal, if ill-informed, opposition to this, but I consider it very important and you should try hard to find a site for a plant to do this.
6 I am unconvinced at the methodology of choice presented between the 3 strategic options. It all seemed confusing - and I am tempted to say confused.

cannot help but feel that providing so many houses on 42 ha of land means that the density of housing is very large which may, to some extent, be necessary to provide "affordable" housing; also where are the jobs for all these occupants - as is pointed out in the document, Kendal is now dependent on low paid jobs in the tourist industry due to the loss of value jobs over the years. Making Kendal some sort of food haven and an "arts" centre, laudable though it may be, does not strike me as being a way of providing high value jobs for our young people who are increasingly having to seek jobs away from the area. Interesting, the houses that were being built on the Webbs site have come to a full stop, presumably because they were not selling!

Does the plan to use the Brewery as part of the new university mean that Kendal will lose it's only theatre and cinema - or at the very least reduce the facility for use by the general public? If it means that the centre will become more viable with exciting and interesting productions - well done.

wish to object to the proposed development of the field behind Briery Meadows. When the existing development was approved, as I remember, the total number of houses was reduced from the original planned development because of concerns regarding additional traffic on Burneside Road. The traffic lights at the junction of Burneside Road with Windermere Road were put in place to alleviate consequential tail-backs that would occur due to this increased traffic.

I understand that there is also a development planned for land behind Croppers Mill in Burneside. The Briery Meadows proposal would increase traffic to an unacceptable level, but if you add on the Burneside village proposal, then the road will be beyond breaking point, especially at peak times. Apart from the extra traffic, there is the additional noise and pollution which concerns me a great deal. Burneside Road, and its off-shoots, is a residential area and already has to put up with the numbers of lorries using Burneside Road to access Croppers.

Along with the above concerns, I would be interested to know what infrastructure plans are in place to cope with all the extra families, ie doctors, dentists, schools, shops, not to mention parking in town when so many locals are already experiencing severe difficulties. In short, has this been thought through?

. We are opposed to the changes to our area because:· We have serious concerns about the potential for flooding of houses further down Grange Fell Road, especially as many of these houses are below the level of the road.· Grange Fell Road is narrow and steep at the apex and increased traffic would make this road dangerous for pedestrians living nearby and those wishing to access the fells.· We feel that compulsory purchases of land and property is unfair when business premises are available and not being used in the town centre itself.· This is the wrong place to build homes for the elderly population and young families and would cause an increase in car journeys with no shop or post office available without transport.· Grange is already suffering from many properties being second/holiday homes and used irregularly. Why build more homes that would inevitably blot the landscape and potentially lie empty for long periods.· Hampsfell is a popular area for walkers and development of the area would dramatically alter the landscape and would have a detrimental effect on the image of Grange Over Sands.·

Businesses would be better placed in the town centre or closer to Flookburgh where retail units already exist.Use land that isn’t as exposed and isn’t an integral part of the Grange Landscape.Grange already has, butchers, greengrocers, pharmacies and two convenience stores that serve the community well. There is no requirement for a supermarket. Major supermarkets deliver to the area.

Site 4

Access:
Access to this site from Woodhouse lane is very limited and not realistic for such a large scale build. However as I understand that land can be made available by compulsory purchase I assume that a new road could be built with access from Haveflatts Lane linking directly to the main road therefore this problem would be overcome .

Environment.
It is obvious that the building of any houses on this site would destroy the open views to the Morecambe Bay estuary, the public footpaths over this land would become simply a walkway through an housing estate. Further the noise and co2 pollution in respect of the bay would surely have an adverse effect on the wildlife which the bay supports. Indeed the building that is intended for the whole of the Morecambe Bay area will totally decimate the largely unspoiled natural beauty of this renowned area. As for the poor unfortunate ratepayers living on Woodhouse Lane there is no need to comment on the devastation that this dispraportionate large scale build would cause. Should the core strategy go ahead as planned Heversham and Leasgill would become merely a suburb of Milnthorpe, an enormous housing estate with all the social problems that we know this can present.

Infrastructure
Heversham and Leasgill have:-
no shops the nearest being more than 1.5 km away in Milnthorpe.
no doctors dentists or opticians the nearest being more than 1.5 km away in Milnthorpe.
There are schools, the primary school would certainly not be able to accommodate more pupils and certainly not as many as this large scale build would afford. The nearest schools therefore would all be more than 1.5km away in Milnthorpe, however as we have not been privy to any of the plans which surely must be in existence regarding the building of new schools roads etc I must assume that these problems would also be resolved within Leasgill or Heversham at the expense of this residential rural environment.
Employment.
There are no possibilities at present for employment in Heversham and Leasgill as this is a purely a residential village, therefore employment would need to be created for any expansion to the population and this is designated in Milnthorpe , see below.

Transport
At present a double deck bus perilously weaves its way through the narrow village and with an influx upwards of approx another 230 people all needing to get to Milnthorpe for doctors, dentists opticians etc certainly we would need extra bus services to accommodate this. Should they choose to use their own means of transport i.e.; cars (bicycles would not be a healthy option) then I point out again that the added co2 and importantly noise pollution to this rural village and surrounding area would need to be taken in to account not to mention the added traffic congestion.
Milnthorpe will have to have some very large car parks to support its expanding population !
Site 3b Leasgill

Access
This site is accessed from the narrow village road with its limited parking problems , especially at school times and also the bus that trundles dangerously through the village, hourly. Its only other access is from Princes Way an extremely fast and busy trunk road. Neither of the sites could be made more accessible and would be a dangerous option for young families. Also depending on the nature of the build any roads connecting Princes Way to the village road could create a dangerous “rat run” through the village and its surrounding country lanes.

Environment
The older properties of Heversham and Leasgill (excepting for the sixth form college house) begin at just before the church and any houses built in this area should reflect the surrounding environment. A small build on this site would be preferable to a large one which would destroy this rural residential area. Low rise housing would not intrude at this site and a careful sympathetic build could be acceptable in this part of Leasgill.

Infrastructure
The infrastructure would probably support a small number of houses built on this site, however all points made for site 4 would apply here should the build be larger than approx 10 homes.

Employment
There is no facility for employment in Leasgill except at the schools.
Transport
Any build would add to the transport problem in Leasgill and Heversham and would need careful planning to avoid more congestion especially with regards to extra parking facilities. But again this could be overcome by limiting the number of properties built on this site.

Site 3A

Access
Access to this site would have to be from the village road (old A6) or more dangerously from Princess Way at a point which is renowned for serious accidents.
Environment
Points made previously would apply here.

Infrastructure
Points made previously would apply here.

Employment
Points previously made would apply here.

Transport
Because of the dangerous access to this site traffic lights at the very least would have to be implemented this would cause congestion both on the trunk road and the village road (old A6)
Added traffic at this location would cause serious problems.

I consider that the area between Milnthorpe and Holme would cause far less devastation to the local people and environment, it is less densely populated and it is flat land making any building easier and cheaper. Access to this area could be performed much less cruelly than it will need to be for Heversham and Leasgill it is closer to Milnthorpe and to the M6 for commuters and it would also have less effect on local traffic congestion. New roads could be constructed which would be much safer than adapting the narrow village roads in Heversham and Leasgill. This is a large area where the infrastructure needed could more easily be created.

Morecambe Bay and its close surrounding area should be supported and preserved by SLDC for future generations to enjoy, enough building has already taken place in this area any more will destroy its natural peace and great beauty and most certainly will have a detrimental effect on its wildlife.

4.80 - 4.88 PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres South and East - Introduction

Oppose

The proposal to accommodate work space units on Station Lane, Burton in Kendal, is I believe a mistake for any traffic which must include HGV'S will have to pass through the village and make particularly difficult right angled turns either on to Neddy Hill or Tampits Lane. Access from the west side of the village for HGV'S is impossible given the restricted height of the canal bridge on Station Lane.

By far the best option I believe would be to allocate a site on the north side of Tarn Lane on the southerly outskirts of the village where access is unquestionably ideal.

In respect of the housing proposal I again believe that allocating a site to the east of Morewood Drive is also a mistake. The development would be visible from the west, it would take away the only "sledging hill close to the village" and would create even greater traffic problems in and around the village school.

I believe a suitable alternative would be to allocate land south of Neddy Hill - land which is in a "valley" where development would not be visible from without the village. The development of this land on a "planning gain basis" could result in a sensible one way system around the difficult and narrow Neddy Hill, Station Lane, and Tampits Lane, and the possibility of a central public car parking area.

See paragraph above.

See paragraph above.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

Comment on Option 3 Area designated 23 page 125.
I do not believe that sufficient consideration has been given to this area as the main area for commercial/industrial development in the Kendal area. Raw material deliveries and distribution of goods are mainly with the south, to and from Lancashire and beyond. Many developments in the past have been in the northern or central parts of the town with the result that much of the heavy traffic has to go through Kendal town centre. By concentrating commercial/industrial development on the south side of Kendal around the Shenstone roundabout on the A591 this would minimise traffic flow through the town. Development should centre on the roundabout area but not be limited to it. Also deliveries from this area to towns and villages within The National Park could be made without entering Kendal. It would also be an area where employees living within Kendal could travel to by walking, cycling or by local bus and those living outside Kendal and travelling by car would not need to enter Kendal town centre. The emphasis for this area should be on the heavier more industrial type to try to keep these away from other areas and preference should be given to those businesses offering well paid employment.
This area should be considered preferential for development to area desinated 15 for the reasons stated.

Comment on Option 3 Area designated 14
Completely opposed to development of the site for commercial/industrial or housing between Oxenholme Road and Burton Road between Oxenholme and the hospital. This being the most picturesque entrance to Kendal nothing should be done to detract from it. Also sufficient heavy transport already comes along the A65 through Endmoor and negotiating the poor road alignment at Crooklands Hotel.

Oppose

Alternative options : Options 1 - 3

Comment on Option 3 designated area 21
No mention is made of the last of the K Shoe sites on Natland Road. This site should not be allowed to revert to Housing as have the other sites on Natland road. It should be part of the plan that this remain designated as industrial with utilisation of the existing buildings. This would minimise disruption of the area and provide through sectionalising small business units that are suggested in the plan for the Canal Head area

wish to state my opposition to the development plans for new housing in Cartmel, Allithwaite and Grange-over-Sands for the following reasons:

1) Affordable housing is needed where jobs are available - which, on this scale, is not the case in these instances - because, as you know, employment is very limited outside the service sector; which currently is stable.

2) As is well known, in the Lake District, such development eventually benefit the second home market. The figures for Cartmel especially emphasise this sector in local housing.

3) Several of the areas identified for development breach the current guidelines, because there is agricultural land on both sides of the road/track. They will therefore involve the expansion of urban development into the open countryside, which is deleterious to landscape, ecology and amenity.

I would have written at greater length had I had more time available. I hope that you will take note of my comments - I will provide an ecological impact assessment of your
plans if you require it.

I wish to register an objection to the proposed development of light industrial units at Storth. The area in question at Four Lane Ends is entirely unsuitable for such a development. There is ample land available on Quarry lane which is already an industrial area with appropriate access and services for such units.

Point 33 - Storth - proposed development of light industry site adjacent to Cockshott Lane.

Oppose

Me and my husband currently have grazing rights on the land identified in point 33. Apart form the effect on our farming business form the loss of the land, i need to highlight the serious access problems. The lanes approaching this site are narrow and hazardous at the best of times without any additonal traffic. There is a quantity of industrial land already available in Quarray Lane and Sandside Road with much better access. There is no public transport near to this proposed site and any development would be highly visable to exisiting homes on Paddock Way.

Point 33 - Storth Site - proposed development of light inductrial site adjacent to Cockshott Lane.

Oppose

We are the current occupiers of the two fields identified.. Industrial development would reduce our income and abilty to run our farm business. We had no knowledge of development on this land. The access is toatlly unsuitable as are the roads either through Storth Viallge or over Cockshott from Beetham

would like to object to the proposed housing development in Heversham and Leasgill.

The infrastructure of these Villages is already at breaking point.

The road system cannot be enlarged to take more capacity.Woodhouse Lane which is quoted as an entry site to one of the three proposed sites of housing, is for the most part only one vehicle wide. Entry and exit from Dugg Hill is also limited and not suitable for increased volume of traffic. Parts of the main road through the villages have no footpaths or indeed room to install one.
There is little or no street lighting in most of the areas.

The sewerage system is barely able to cope with the existing dwellings.

Flooding occurs on a regular basis both on Princes Way and on the old A6 ,bus route , through the village. Plus low lying parts of Woodhouse Lane. The site proposed for development between Heversham and Leasgill is historically called a Tarn and is often under water following rain.

Public transport is available but on a limited basis.

Apart from a Public House, which is accessed across a main road, with a 50 mile per hour speed limit and no pedestrian crossing, there are no public facilities.

The Junior School is already fully subscribed, but I see no plans for the enlargemeent or building of a larger school to accommodate the new influx of residents.

This is overdevelopment of an ancient village.

As a resident of Heversham I wish to object to the proposed development scheme of Heversham and Leasgill.

Lack of facilities as listed below.
No shop, no Post Office ,no medical facilities ,very limited public transport, flooding on a regular basis of the main roads, only partial
footpaths and an already over subscribed Junior school.
No employment available in the area. So where are the jobs coming from to get the £26.000 per year needed to support the affordable homes?

I am a resident at Helsington Laithes, Kendal and I would like to make the following comments regarding future planning proposals.

Shenstone
The main problem would be the increased traffic on an already busy road.

Scroggs Wood Development
The South entrance to Kendal is the most popular way to gain access to our market town. The first impression of Kendal has to be impressive. I don't think seeing signs for Industrial Units is the first thing our visitors wish to see. Milnthorpe Road is already very dangerous at peak times. Surely building the Northern Bypass and putting units on land already prepared for this use is a better idea.

Lumley Road to Helsington Laithes
Milnthorpe Road cannot take any more traffic. Since the traffic lights have gone in at the end of Romney Road the flow of traffic has got far worse. Any proposals to build on this land would necessitate either a roundabout or traffic lights to be installed before Lumley Road where traffic already tails back on to the bypass at peak times. The services say they can cope with these added houses/industrial units. The sewage system is already at capacity, the schools are full and the amount of Ambulance that fly along Milnthorpe Road prove that our Hospital/Ambulance services cannot cope now.
The southern entrance to Kendal has always had a nice green approach to it and this is something we should be proud of and keep.

I think all 3 ideas are none starters but appreciate you have to look at all options. I hope you make the right decision otherwise Kendal will become like just any other town.

Lumley Road to Helsington Laithes
Milnthorpe Road cannot take any more traffic. Since the traffic lights have gone in at the end of Romney Road the flow of traffic has got far worse. Any proposals to build on this land would necessitate either a roundabout or traffic lights to be installed before Lumley Road where traffic already tails back on to the bypass at peak times. The services say they can cope with these added houses/industrial units. The sewage system is already at capacity, the schools are full and the amount of Ambulance that fly along Milnthorpe Road prove that our Hospital/Ambulance services cannot cope now.
The southern entrance to Kendal has always had a nice green approach to it and this is something we should be proud of and keep.

Scroggs Wood Development
The South entrance to Kendal is the most popular way to gain access to our market town. The first impression of Kendal has to be impressive. I don't think seeing signs for Industrial Units is the first thing our visitors wish to see. Milnthorpe Road is already very dangerous at peak times. Surely building the Northern Bypass and putting units on land already prepared for this use is a better idea.

Document Instructions

I would like to comment on the "preferred direction of growth" particularly regarding South Holme (page 188). Apologies that this E-mail is late, but I have had difficulties accessing the appropriate site for comments.I would appreciate your confirming that this E-mail is received by the correct department.

As a local resident,I feel development in this area would spoil the views towards Farleton Knott.The open greenfields enhance the area close to the canal, where villagers can currently enjoy the quiet walks along the canal and the wildlife which inhabits the area.The fields currently break up the surrounding developments and maintain the rural character.

Developments in this area, would increase traffic along Sheernest Lane which is a narrow lane with a weak bridge over the canal.Access on to Burton Road is already hazardous.

The watercourse which crosses the site does indeed cause flooding to this area on a regular basis, which would be exacerbated by further developments.

With all the recent developments to the village, the village itself does not require further housing. Developments would benefit people from further afield who would be commuting to local towns.Our local services such as schools and GP practices would be further stretched by further housing developments and the quality of service provision could be compromised.The volume of traffic through the village would increase, reducing the safety of pedestrians.Generally, noise and light pollution would increase with further housing.The village community spirit could be lost as proposed developments would ultimately erase the village's character and familiarity which residents currently enjoy, if the village expands further and is dominated by a new commuter belt.

We are opposed to the development plans to the east of Morewood Drive for a number of reasons as follows:
The ancient footpath known as 'kidnappers' walk' that is itself an extension of Slape Lane would be compromised. This path is a natural boundary to the east of the village and is enjoyed by many ramblers both local and visitors. There still remains a feel of being in the countryside and any development would enclose this path.
Access to the site from Vicarage Lane is difficult if not impossible.
Access along Morewood Drive would add to the existing problems; it is narrow and I would suggest already at maximum capacity.
More traffic increases the potential for an accident at the junior school on Morewood Drive.
Thank you

4.80 - 4.88 PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres South and East - Introduction

Suggested development in Burton in Kendal
1. West - industrial use
2. East - housing

Oppose

1. West - industrial. This area is not at all suitable for industrial use, even as light industry. Access to the site is very difficult - from the west the canal tunnel prohibits access by larger vehicles and from the east from Burton village there are two difficult right angle bends in the narrow road which again would hamper deliveries. There would also be the problem of increased traffic on very narrow roads. Indeed, New Road is most unsuitable for access. Mainly, however, this proposal is totally out of keeping with a rural village setting and would seriously impact on local residents.

2. East - housing. There are serious inconsistencies in your proposals: in the Suitability section you state ..."new development would be on higher land" and "access from Vicarage Lane but levels become steep". Yet in the Availability section you state it is a "level greenfield site" - it can't be both steep and level. Also the suggestion seems to be that a large area of housing would be constructed. This would dominate the village and be visually intrusive from Vicarage Lane as you state and also would be out of scale for the village and would increase traffic both on Vicarage Lane (which is very narrow at one point and has a difficult access off the A6070) and Morewood Drive which goes past the primary school and again has access problems with parents parking on the road at school times. Is there a demand for more housing in Burton? Where is the evidence? We can see that there are numerous For Sale notices in the village. Do we need more? The only need in my opinion is for some affordable houses for young locals. I doubt that this would be the development intended.

1. West - industrial: if industry is needed, which is debateable, look at the development of Home Farm at Dalton- well outside the village and easy of access. Possibly Clawthorpe Hall site could be further developed with its easy access from the A6070. Why not pursue the option of industry close to the M6 near the Service Station - easy access northbound from the motorway.

2. East - housing: scrap this idea or limit it to a small development of affordable housing in a less prominent position.

See above

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.71 - 4.72 PO15 - Kirkby Lonsdale 2025 - Introduction

Oppose

As a resident of Low Biggins and parent of children ages 11 and 8 who attend local schools I would like to make the following comments.

I am already very concerned about the general safety on the local roads in particular the A65. I feel that the area south of the A65 would not be a desirable place for affordable homes for yound families with children as it is not a safe walking route to the schools or towns amenities and would only increase the existing problems with local traffic and safety issues.

Kirkby Lonsdale is portrayed as a Historic Market Town and I feel that any new housing developments should be placed in areas which will have little impact on this aspect. The area to the south of th A65 is the most prominent position suggested and any develepment here would not blend in with the existing and look more like a New Mordern Urban Town.

The local scenery is stunningly beautiful and I would strongly urge anyone considering the position of the proposed developments to walk along the footpath from Low Biggins to Devils Bridge and try to imagine the visual impact a housing development would have on the immediate surrounding area and on areas further afield like Casterton.

The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025

Option 3 - Alternative Directions of Growth
Paragraphs 5 to 12 (Cartmel and Allithwaite)

Oppose

There are existing major housing problems in Cartmel and Allithwaite that the proposals would not address, and would probably worsen. The Option blindly considers the case for new building without examining ways of better use of existing housing. There are probably around 100 under-used holiday/second homes in the area. Ways should be found of converting these to residential accommodation for locals.

The community in Lower Allithwaite Parish (and particularly Cartmel) is under serious threat from second/holiday housing. Many houses coming onto the market (including ones that have been used previously as accommodation for locals) are being bought as second/holiday homes. This has pushed up the price of housing beyond locals' means and is resulting in "Ghost" areas for much of the time. Lower Allithwaite is an environmentally sensitive conservation area and the loss of farming land or countryside to significant development is highly undesirable. Recent experience in the area has also shown that new-build housing is likely to attractcommuters rather than local residents. This just puts more pressure on local infrastructure resources and increases road travel (particularly by private car).

SLDC must adopt a radical and bold approach to achieving improved housing availability. Although major new housing development might be an option around large towns (such as Kendal and Ulverston) it is not the answer for most rural areas. Many villages in the District have large proportions of their housing under-utilised due to its use as second/holiday homes. This pushes up prices and destroys local communities. It also has very limited benefit for the local economy. A firm policy is required to protect housing for local occupancy and to discourage second/holiday homes. Council Tax should be raised to 150% or 200% and National Government should be asked to increase Stamp Duty for such purchases. Such action would be very popular with local residents and would probably be supported by other areas (the South West, Yorkshire Dales etc) that have high levels of second homes.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Fletcher Park and Canal Head, Kendal

Oppose

With reference to the proposed building plans for Fletcher park and Canal Head areas I would like to say how appalled my husband and I are about possible access roads that might be built by widening the lane at the bottom of our garden and that of our nieghbours. I understand that this would mean compulsary purchase of a large piece of our gardens.

We have been living in this property for over 40 years and have cultivated and cared for this land for the same period. We appreciate that we have been very fortunateliving in such a loverly postion, enjoying the feeling of living in the country but also being close to town, school etc and have looked forward to the possible reopening of the Kendal Canal. The thought of the surrounding areas being completely spoilt and the fact that our property would be ruined let alone be greatly devalued is very distressing. Has anyone actually visited the area to see the impact that such a road would make.

The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025

Core Strategy Chapter 4 - Preferred Options - PO13 Grange-Over-Sands Functional Area 2025.
Page 160, Preferred Direction Of Growth: 1 North West Grange, Land Off Grange Fell Road.

Oppose

Accessibility: Report States that the area has "Good Accessibility" ? However, Grange Fell Road is a very steep and narrow residential and country road, with no footpath provision and a blind bend at the upper reaches. It can be difficult for pedestrians to ascend / descend (especially during freezing conditions)which will lead to increased car use by residents. Currently traffic flow is effectively reduced to a single track due to on street parking of vehicles, there does not appear to be any solution to this issue, and widening the road through the existing residential areas is not possible.
Development of this land and the corresponding increase in road traffic will exacerbate the already hazardous nature of Grange Fell Road.

Suitability: Development of this land will significantly blight the visual impact of the Fell End approach to Hampsfell, a popular destination for visitors to Grange. It defies belief that this area is considered as suitable for "Employment" Development. It will be completely out of keeping with the rural character of this area. Is it progress that the value of one of Grange's tourism assets will be reduced ?

Environmental: This open pasture appears to play an essential role in the drainage of rainwater run off from Hampsfell. Mixed employment and housing development here surely must have an adverse effect on this process.

Remove this section.

Development (especially for employment) will be more beneficial located in areas with suitable transport access in closer proximity to Grange town centre.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Grange Fell Road, Grange

Oppose

i am writing to strongly object to proposals to use the land adjacent to Grange Fell Road sub Post Office for the buildingof housing and work units.

Grange fell Road is narrow, twisted and steep in places. Many of the houses along the length were built without garages, before the motor car became popular, which results in large stetches of the road being used as parking for vehicles. Thebuilding of more houses would increase the volume of traffic using Grange fell Road enormously and only serve to exacerbate an already dangerous situation.

There is no longer a shop on Grange Fell Road and the days are numbered for the local post Office, which is currently only open two mornings a week. Groceries etc must therefore be carried home from grange itself. it is no mean feat to pusha buggy up Grange fell road or Fell Drive laden with child/children and shopping, something i have been all to familar with over the 20 years i have kived here. Even if the bus sevice was improved, cars would still be used to make the journey form Grange town centre and surrouding areas. The journey both to and from local primary school and Cartmel Priory Secondary School would be steep, difficult and dangerous for children. THe road to Cartmel would be very dangerous as there is no pavement and very little street lighting.

Whilst i regognise the need for affodable starter homes in the Grange area, I do question the need for work units. most of the self-employed in the Grange area either work from home or from their vehicles ( builders, plumbers, deocorators etc) and at the time of wrting there are already several small industrial sites with vacant units still waiting to be let.

i would suggest that the land currently occupied by Berner's Close Car Park and/or the land adjacent to the Memorial Playing Fields would be far more suitable for the the purpose of building starter homes. This area has the advantage of level, easy access to the town ( via the Esplanade or Kents Bank road) and is on ana lready established bus route. The playing fields are close to hand,as is the Promenade and all the facilities it has to offer - tennis, putting, bowls etc (especailly of the railway bridge can be reinstated. ) The swimming pool would also be in easy walking distance, when or if it re-opens in the near future.

i do hope you will take these comments into consideration when you are discussing your proposal. i should be most interested to be kept abreast of any developments in this matter.

Milnthorpe Functional Area

why has heversham been classed as a part of Milnthorpe when in the past they have been considered as separate villages. The distance form pu house to Milnthorpe village square is 1.5miles (2.41km)

We would like to to challenge the claim that Milnthorpe and Heversham are unified and are only 1.5m apart.

The primary link is the A6 road, which is a very dangerous singole carriageway for cyclists with a very narrow footpath, single file at some points, which is perilous for a mother with a pram and young children when visiting the local amenities.

The plan calls for 790 dwellings in the Milnthorpe functional area, 9% of the total increase in housing in the SLDC, when with 2135 we have 5.3% of the population - this is dispropportionate.

For heversham we calculate the figures - 79 new dwellings are propposed in a village with approx 220 houses (36% increase) Our calculations are based on -

The summary of Preffered Option Report requires 8800 dwellings (P2)

Re PO3 Core strategy Preffered Options - Distribution of Development Table (P56) ' Milntorpe funtional area' is to have 9% of the total required - 8800 x 9% =792
Para 3.65 (p58) states that 8% for Milnthorpe and 1% for heversham/leasegill = 79

In similar villages, this plan calles for 4-10 dwellings.

Three years ago, SLDC classified this village as 'unsustainable' in a Planning Aplication refusal as wehave no Post Office or Shops. So how can we sustain a development of this size? Where is the employment to justify this increase? or is it intended to develop a commuter village for Kendal, Lancaster, Preston and further afield.. If this is the case it raises many 'green issues' including the carbon footprint of nay development. Public transport if not good after 7pm. it would be impossible to travel back form Oxenholme station after 7pm using public transport, making a car essential. The cost of a return ticket to kendal is well over £4.


Re Option No 8 - East heversham. land to the north of Parkhouse Drive.
1. The visual effect.
the proposal will have a major impact on the views form woodhouse Lane and Heversham View Point. it is stated in the document (P164) that the views of St Anthony's Tower should be kept open and other views are taken into consideration. If this plan goes ahead our views of St Anthony's Tower and the Kent Estuary will be obscured, therefore these should also be taken into consideration. It is also stated in the plan that development of this site would have minimal effect on the landscape - we cannot agree, it will ruin one of the best views in the area, and totally spoil an idyllic rural village. It would be nothing less than environmental vandalism.
2. traffic Hazard
It s stated that this site would be off woodhouse lane. This is a narrow country lane with no footpath. Extra traffic on this lane is totally unacceptable. SLDC have recently refused planning permission for an extra entrance on a single plot so how can an entrance for a small development be approved.
3. Radon gas
THis area has high radon gas risk. We see no reference to Radon gas in the document.

4. Flooding.
During heavy rain a stream develops and flows from the rear of 'Brookfield' Woodhouse Lane, through the field to the area of the swimming pool.
5. sustainable Development Priniciples. (PO9) section 8
Requires new developments to ensure the amenity of nieghbouring properties are protected.
6. Green infrastructure.
Protection of the countryside from inappropriate developments and the retention of green gaps. the development of this site seems to directly contravene the above.

4.52 Alternative Options: Options 1-3

Option 10 East Allithwaite developement potential to the south of Fellside consolidating built developement

Support

This would be an extension of a recent developement and would have less impact on the North of the village. It would allow a less intensive developement on Templand(North)and finish off what has already been started on Greendales(East) with good acess to the site via Fellside and Greendales.

Modify existing proposal making it less intensive and include site mentioned above.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

Pages 119 to 137 The Village of Natland

Oppose

The Village of Natland is unique and this with its charm and integrity should be maintained. The green gap which it currently benefits from should be maintained and no attempt should be made to allow coalescence with its neighbours effectively changing its status from a rural setting to one of urbanisation. Any proposed large scale development would be detrimental to this rural aspect and its limited services. Given the problems experienced by other recent developments it is unlikely the infrastructure could take the strain.

In close cooperation and discussion with the Parish Council only consider the possible provision of a very very small number of affordable houses on agreed and practical sites.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

This response is set out in the form of an open letter as I feel it the best way to illustrate the key points that need to be taken into consideration in finalising the core strategy.

There are four fundamental areas where I believe the preferred options are ill conceived, have not properly reflected the needs of the area and which need to be more properly addressed in the final core strategy.

Housing need

Much has been made of need to provide an adequate supply of housing for local people and the local workforce. There has also been much comment in the press and elsewhere regarding the current imbalance in the housing market caused by second home owners.

In the absence of significant new employment in the area the strategy must address current local housing needs as its priority. This it fails to do. Comments in the recent issue of South Lakeland News identified that only 400 new affordable houses are required outside of the National Park. This need is in stark contrast to the 8,800 new homes envisaged in the preferred options paper.

Any additional housing (over and above the affordable homes) will need to be commensurate with and located near sources of new employment. I deal with employment below but all of the preferred options promote housing development in areas that would conflict with rather than support the generation of new employment.
As the strategy focusses on Kendal and other areas close to the Lake District National Park boundary and aims to build many more houses than are required by the local community, it is clearly designed to build housing for second home owners and retirees to the area. This is directly opposed to the feedback you received, and which you quote in your consultation document, and will further add to the drivers for local young people to leave the area once their education has been completed or face a future based on renting accommodation being unable to access the housing market.

In order to support local economic sustainability, new housing needs to focus on areas that will support new employment. This requires development in areas close to the main transport arteries and not in ‘green gaps’ nor between Kendal and the National Park.

If new housing is built close to the National Park boundary it will be marketed and sold as lifestyle housing and will attract second home owners and retirees who quite reasonably will be willing to pay a premium for this location. Such building will exacerbate the shortage of housing for local people by further pushing up prices. Developers will generally seek to build higher density developments with much lower prices in areas which are close to the main road links and sources of new employment. In contrast, they will generally develop low density ‘executive’ housing in other areas and if this is allowed will place further strain on the existing infrastructure. This will eventually lead to a requirement to upgrade the infrastructure on the back of an increase in the population consisting largely of economically unproductive people. This does not make economic or strategic sense.
Transport and congestion

One of the benefits of our area is that we are served by good road links to the east of Kendal principally the M6 and the A591 connecting to it. There are also good rail links at Oxenholme to the West Coast mainline. In contrast Kendal suffers from the classic traffic congestion caused by a town split by a river.

In the Kendal area, mistakes have been made recently in allowing commercial development to take place in the Shap Road area. This is the worst area for commercial development as it requires that all associated traffic passes through the town to get to the site. Future sites for commercial development need to be more readily accessible to the M6 and A590 which means on the east and south sides of Kendal.

To propose significant development in areas such as Burneside and to the west of Kendal will only exacerbate the current traffic problems. The Burneside area can currently only just support the levels of traffic related to the activities of James Cropper Limited. To build more houses in this area would increase the traffic flow either through Kendal town centre or on the single track road connecting Burneside to the A6.
The mistaken commercial development on this side of town has already become a principal driver of the case put forward by those in support of a Northern Relief Road. This project itself is aspirational, will never be delivered and would represent a ridiculous waste of resources but the proposal itself does effectively illustrate the detrimental impact that poor planning and the ill conceived development in areas such as Shap Road can have. The £30 million or so that such a scheme would cost would be much better spent on the development of a business park close to M6 which is vital to attract inward investment to the area. The core strategy must be consistent with economic development requirements which will require housing development closer to the motorway and which itself should only be built once new employment opportunities have been secured to support it.
Business and Economic Development

Tourism is without doubt the backbone of the local economy and development in the area should support this industry and not hinder it. There is however, a real danger of the area becoming far too heavily reliant upon tourism as so many of the traditional employers have moved out or shut down. In any event, the capacity of the National Park to accommodate increased tourism is finite. Therefore it is critical to the future prosperity of the area and the ability of local residents to afford housing that other employment opportunities are developed.

The area has a number of selling points for businesses looking to relocate but high among them are the transport and infrastructure links referred to above, cheap commercial rents and the lifestyle that the area affords. The preferred options paper states that ‘Kendal is seen as an employment opportunity area primarily due to its relatively good communication links including the M6 and West Coast Mainline’. It is also the case that all five of the strategic employment sites identified in the preferred options are in the area to the south and east of Kendal. As such the proposed housing development options are currently inconsistent with economic development in this area and if not corrected will significantly increase congestion and commuter miles.

I am pressing for our MP to lobby the Government, which has a stated intention to relocate Government offices out of the South East, to consider the Kendal area for relocation. I feel that attracting this type of employment to the area is crucial to its future economic development. This type of relocation will require high quality office development which would also be attractive to other relocating businesses such as call centres, shared service centres and the like. This would concentrate a high number of jobs in a small area likely to be to the east or south of Kendal and the housing development plans need to better reflect this.

Business development near to the M6 can be supported by small scale housing development on the east and south sides of Kendal, Milnthorpe, Kirkby Lonsdale and Sedbergh. The preferred options focus too heavily on Kendal as the site for housing and overlooks areas such as Milnthorpe. Smaller scale housing development balanced between each of the areas above and only built once the employment opportunities have been secured would be a far more sustainable way of providing additional housing than the options set out in the strategy.

Environment

The core strategy must protect the landscape and countryside of an area which is essential both for tourism and also part of our wider responsibilities to future generations. These interests would be served by the National Park both expanding its boundaries and attaining World Heritage status. Housing and commercial development on the fringes of the existing, or future extended boundary, run counter to these ambitions. As I noted above, there has already been an ill conceived plan for a Northern Relief Road. One only has to look at the impact on the landscape of the recently constructed High and Low Newton By-Pass to understand what a Northern Relief Road would do to Burneside and the views and tranquillity currently enjoyed from the easternmost part of the Lake District National Park.

The character of the area is one of distinct small towns and villages. This means that protecting ‘green gaps’ and indeed other greenfield sites between urban areas is critical in order to preserve the character. Accordingly, I would urge you to consider increasing the number of ‘green gaps’ rather than building on those that currently exist. I am concerned that in your preferred options you are in danger of converting Kendal from a distinct market town into something of an urban sprawl by allowing it to consume hamlets and villages which are currently distinct.

When the landscape has already suffered the necessary scarring of the M6 and A590 I do not understand why future development would not focus more on areas with ready access to these roads.

In summary, I believe that the preferred options reflect an inconsistent approach to new housing and economic development. As currently drafted they will simply build many new homes for the benefit of retirees and second home owners and risk turning the area into a glorified theme park and retirement zone. Rather than building on existing ‘green gaps’ more should be designated. I am very concerned that the proposed strategy will also lead to increased traffic congestion, irreversible environmental damage and a loss of the unique character of the area. You are proposing too many new homes and need to scale back and refine the development proposals as outlined above.

Manufacturing Industry has been reduced in this Country, over successive governments to an alarming degree and we should nurture those still remaining. The papermill in Burneside is one such unit of manufacturing industry which, over many years has provided employment for a great number of people, extended its product range and developed into entirely new markets.
Over future years this process will need to continue, whoever owns the mill.
Markets change and manufacturing industry needs to respond to changing requirements. This means new product development which in tern may require new manufacturing facilities, buildings, machines and all of these require land on which to locate them. Its not really a question of what is known 'today' or even in the next 5 or 10 years; its into the long term future that no one can possibly forsee today.
The papermill is bounded by the River Kent on 2-sides and by houses and a road on the third side.
The only room/space for expansion and real development is on the field, listed in the South Lakeland Local Development Framework, as item 8, North East Burneside in the Kendal Functional Area (PO11).
I suggest to you, that should this proposal of yours actually succeed and proceed, it would result in COMPLETE CLOSURE to any further real development of the existing site.
Such a decision on your part would be reminiscent of filling in the Kendal Canal because it had no further use; a decision now regretted.

And one further issue. I believe you minimise the sewer problem in Burneside.
The existing sewer is totally inadequate and fails to satisfy current requirements. It regularly overflows at the bottom of Steeles Row whenever there is heavy rain.
The sewer should be replaced now and no further development involving sewage discharge permitted until it has been completely rebuilt.
The SLDC, United Utilities, The Enviroment Agency and perhaps even the Health and Safety Executive must get their heads together and sort out this existing problem once and for all.
Please listen and act.

My wife and I wish to add to the objections already made in respect of the proposals for development of the land off Grange Fell Rd.

We would endorse the reasons put forward - difficult road access. Injecting business into an inappropriate rural setting. The steep slopes would mean an unsightly skyline on the edge of views which are the jewel of Grange. Looking down to the Town and the Bay from Hampsfell Fell End a magnificent panoramic scene can be enjoyed by both local residents and visitors. Development of the foreground lush fields would seriously detract from this long held pleasure.

Have other areas been considered? There is land with much more ease of access between Grange and Allithwaite . This would serve both residents and business with better communication. The development would affect the immediate community but there would be minimal impact on the tourists who visit and are such an important contributer to the local economy.

I would like to comment on the development plans for South Lakeland,
in particular the plans for Burton in Kendal.
I live on Tanpits Lane, so have a practical perspective on some of
the proposals.

Regarding the employment development site to the west of the village:
I object to this proposal due to the increase in heavy traffic that
this would bring. Access to the village from north and south is
already problematic and traffic would have to pass the primary school
and areas of the village where pavements are narrow. At the moment
pedestrians need to cross over frequently when walking from one end
of the village to the other, because there isn't a pavement running
on both sides of the road for the length of the village. I already
see parents struggling with prams and young children, particularly at
the beginning and end of the school day. This is already a hazardous
situation. In addition, if heavy traffic had to use Tanpits Lane
or Neddy Hill, then the turns from the main road into these roads are
sharp and neither have pavements on both sides of the road. An
increase in traffic would undoubtedly lead to an increase in
potential injuries to pedestrians. I do wonder why there is this
proposal when we already have a variety of units at Clawthorpe Hall,
Dalton Hall and Holme Mills. Are these existing units full to
capacity at the moment?

Regarding additional housing
This will put a strain on the local infrastructure. The primary
school is full at the moment. The local bus services, whilst
regular, do not provide a service to all needed destinations (for
instance no route goes to Kirkby Lonsdale where our secondary school
is). The village at the moment is thriving, but there is a fine
balance between this and an over stretched community. What
reassurances can you give us that additional housing would bring
additional resources to support the thriving community we have? We
have a dwindling number of shops and recreation areas (the children's
playground at Boon Town has been much reduced in size to make way for
housing). We moved to Burton 14 years ago because we wanted to live
in the countryside, not a suburb. We have contributed to the
community in a variety of ways such as being a school governor,
volunteers for village charities and we will move away if the spirit
and atmosphere of the village were to
change.
Overall I greet these proposals with great disappointment. My
impression is that local services are being cut back (look at what is
happening to Westmorland General) whilst development plans are
pushing ahead with schemes that will bring more people into the
area. There is an acute need for affordable houses for local people,
but I'm not convinced that you have found a solution in your
proposals and in fact you are penalizing the existing community in
your pursuit of this.

Alternative options : Options 1 - 3

Option 3 Number 20

Oppose

The description contained in section 20 of option 3 I find misleading and I assume the location shown on the plan is the correct one. The land should best be described as to the east of the Hospital along Oxenholme Road.
This area was considered by the Inspector looking at objections in respect of the South Lakeland Local Plan Alteration No1 (2002) when Oxenholme Road was described as unsuitable for further traffic volumes. I do not believe anything has changed to counter this view; rather the lower part of Oxenholme Road and Kendal Parks Road is increasingly used as a shortcut to avoid congestion in the town centre.

Remove the reference to this area.
Or failing that provide an accurate description of the location of the site and refer to the fact that this area has been the subject of a previous Inspector ruling

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Alternative options : Options 1 - 3

Option 3 No14 North West Oxenholme

Oppose

The development of this parcel of land for industrial/employment purposes was the principle reason for objections to the South Lakeland Local Plan Alteration No1 (2002). Those objections were upheld by the subsequent Inquiry. I can see no reason to suggest that the conditions have altered sufficiently to allow for further consideration of the same proposal.

Remove references to development of this area of land from the report

Designate the whole of the vacant land between Kendal and Oxenholme as a Green Gap

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.80 - 4.88 PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres South and East - Introduction

Preferred Options for Burton - in - Kendal page 180 paragraphs 7 and 8. Key diagram page 185.
Referring to the employment area and more housing on Morewood Drive

Oppose

Oppose employment area on grounds of traffic increase through village and difficulty of turning into Neddy Hill. Also what access is to be provided from A6 as Burton Aqueduct has severe limitations for large vehicles. How would construction vehicles reach site?

Oppose new development at the top of Morewood Drive as the road is already congested, especially with vehicles coming to the school and thoughtless parking. How will essential services cope with extra demands? Will emergency services have good access? Junction of Morewood Drive and A6070 can be difficult to egress due to vehicles parked on A6070 alongside school.

A total rethink on the suitability of the employment area regarding access.

That this employment area be placed at the West side of the motorway and Burton Aqueduct with a suitable access from the A6.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

We wish to object to the principle of further eroding green spaces for
housing or any other purpose, until every other possible area of land
has been utilised. The annexing of more farming land should be
abandoned in the light of the global food shortage. The government
needs to review the potential for this country to maximise food
production to eliminate our reliance upon imports and indeed to reduce
the impact of food supplies upon the environment through transportation
of foodstuffs.

As regards the detailed proposals for the Grange area, we agree that
'Grange should have a tourism / leisure emphasis'. We support the
regeneration of Berners Close area and the reinstatement of the
footbridge is essential (it should never have been allowed to fall into
disrepair in the first place!) We also fully support the enhancement of
the Promenade.
We do not accept that it is desirable to allow further development in
Allithwaite village. Further building on green field sites will destroy
the environment which supports the tourism industry in the Grange area.
Of the potential sites in Allithwaite, the land south of Templand Farm
is probably the best, but is not desirable. The alternatives are all
far worse, particularly any suggestion of covering the green fields to
the south of Fellside, which are seen from the main road and from many
of the houses in the village. Building in East Allithwaite would not
'consolidate built development to the east of the village it would
deasroy the green field environment between the few dwellings on Quarry
Lane and those on Fellside or between Quarry Lane and Holme Lane.

We see no justification for imposing employment use of land to the
west of Thornfield Road. This green space is vital for the local
residents and for the open aspect from the main road used by thousands
of tourists every year. The 'long mile' at Flookburgh already offers
employment opportunities as does the land adjacent to Grange and Cark
Railway Stations. These are the appropriate sites for the development
of further employment opportunities.

We trust that these views will be helpful. We would have liked to
develop our views further, but it was only a few days ago that we
realised the short time available for comment.

The Preferred Option - PO12 - Ulverston Functional Area 2025

OPTION 2 - SUPERMARKET
p141

Oppose

OPTION 2 - SUPERMARKET
A larger supermarket is not required in town as we have a good one in Booths out of town, and sufficient in town Co-op. If a large chain is put in town it will draw people away from supporting the local shops and take away the atmosphere of the market town.

The Preferred Option - PO12 - Ulverston Functional Area 2025

OPTION 3 ALTERNATIVE DIRECTIONS OF GROWTH
P142&3

Support partly

OPTION 3 ALTERNATIVE DIRECTIONS
5. NORTH WEST SWARTHMOOR & 9. SOUTH
This is a good direction for development as they have direct access to the A590 which would cope better with the traffic increase and not load it onto small roads

The Preferred Option - PO12 - Ulverston Functional Area 2025
TABLE 14 1 SOUTH ULVERSTON
OPPOSE
I OPPOSE THESE PROPOSALS FOR SEVERAL REASONS:

- THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BECOME TOO CLOSE TO BIRKRIGG COMMON WHICH IS A POPULAR LOCATION ALREADY AND I WONDER COULD IT BE HARMED ENVIROMENTALLY BY SUCH A DEVELOPMENT, ESP. PUTTING MORE PRESSURE ON IT

- I CURRENTLY HAVE A VIEW OF GREEN FIELDS OUT OF MY HOUSE, THIS IS LIKELY TO BE REPLACED BY HOUSING WHICH I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT ESPECIALLY AS I DOUBT THERE IS A COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR A REDUCTION IN VALUE OF THE HOUSE FOR THIS AND THE FACT MORE LOW COST HOUSING IS EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND WOULD ALSO REDUCE THE VALUE IN IT'S SELF.

- THERE IS NO MAJOR ROADS TO SUPPORT THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC LOAD TO THIS PLANNED HOUSING AREA PUTTING A LOT OF PRESSURE ON EXISTING SMALL ROADS.

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

Site 1 N.W. Kendal - site between Burneside Road & Railway line
Site 8 N.E. Burneside - land behind Burneside Mill

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

I have no objection in principle to the developments, however, I would make the following points:
1. Burneside Road, which in several places is restricted to a single track road due to parked vehicles, clearly cannot carry any more traffic.
2. Hollins Lane/Hall Road/Gilthwaiterigg Lane are now subject to a constant stream of two-way traffic. The A6 - A591 Northern Link road will need to be built before any further development is considered. Without this link, Kendal's already congested roads will be subjected to even more industrial and domestic traffic.
3. Hall Road will need to be widened to a two-lane road.
4. The present foul sewerage system regularly overflows in Burneside and cannot possibly cope with the proposed number of houses. This will need renewal as probably will the water supply network.
4. Surface water flooding is already a problem in the area. More structures and hard paving will increase the run-off and decrease the time of concentration. I cannot see a solution to this problem as the River Kent already bursts its banks in Burneside.
5. The increase in population will place a great deal of pressure on our local school and hospital (if the latter is retained).
6. At present buses seem to run only when no-one wants to catch them (first non-school bus is 9:04am). Substantial subsidy will be required to enable a reasonable public transport service.
7. Points 1 to 6 above lead me to the conclusion that development to the South of Kendal would seem to be the only viable option without major investment in the infrastructure to the North.
8. Should these developments take place, the "affordable" housing should be genuinely affordable for LOCAL people.
9. It would be more acceptable if the social housing could be used to reduce the existing Housing Waiting List first and not to house people from all over the rest of England (as we have seen in other instances in the area).

More emphasis should be placed on the substantial investment required for these developments to take place.

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2

East Burton in Kendal, (No 8), At end of Morewood Drive

Oppose

1) Building on a 'Greenfield site' when government policy for housing developments is to use primarily 'Brownfield sites'.

2) Ground and Surface Water drainage. At times of heavy rainfall, the current situation is the Morewood Drive road drains cannot handle the surface water, The rainwater cascades down the road sometimes flooding the road by the School entrance at the bottom of the road. Admittedly the flooding dosen't last long but any additional building above the end of the existing road could and probably would make the problem worse, more concrete, less drainage. In my view extensive work would be required on the existing drainage system to counter this situation.

3) Access is limited with only Morewwod Drive being a viable option as the road off Vicarage Lane is single track with dwellings at both sides. Also Vicarage Lane is only single track in places.
Farming traffic also uses this road extensively.

4) Because of the limited access, congestion is already a problem in the morning and afternoon due to traffic for the school. At times both sides of the road are taken up by parked cars dropping off their children in the morning or waiting for them to leave school in the afternoon. This would and does already restrict access.

5) When recently there was a house fire at the top of Morewood Drive in one of the new houses, the fire service had problems with availablity of fire hydrants, with the only one available right at the bottom of the hill by the school. This needs to be reviewed.

6) What are the target audience for these houses, there is little if any employment in the area, therefore the development must be aimed at commuters working in Kendal/Lancaster and beyond, thereby increasing car traffic, causing more pollution when the aim should be to reduce emissions not increase them. Public transport is limited to one bus service.

7) At the top of Morewood Drive above the wall there is a very well used Footpath this will need to remain, therefore restricting access for developers. It is difficult to see how it could be diverted and have it's intergrity retained.

8) In the 'Availability' section of the stratergy report it states ' Easily developable level greenfield site' It is far from level it is ridge and is very steep in places.
It also states 'Good viability will provide economies of scale and attract large developers', this in my view means a large housing development, which could only exacerbate the problems highlighted above.

1) If the development was relatively small in line with the rest of the village, with the provision of affordable homes aimed specifically at local young first time buyers then I would see more of a reason for development, but if the current way developments seem to go, which have one or two affordable houses with the rest being so called 'Executive' 4 or 5 bedroom homes , then I cannot see a need for a development.

2) To provide housing developments, which are near to good public transport links and are primarily in an area which can provide a fairly high percentage of local employment, not in areas which need primarily a car for most transport needs.

1) As one of the local public houses in Main Street has been empty for over 3 years, could this be investigated for development to provide affordable housing. It is also a 'Brownfield site'

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

publicity on development plans

Although I have already submitted comments to your office on the 28/05/08 via the council website regarding the Local Development Plan for Burton in Kendal I feel I must write to you regarding the publicity undertaken by the Council.

Neither my wife nor myself had any knowledge about the existence of the plans until the afternoon of Tuesday 27/05/08 when a neighbour informed us there was a Council exhibition on the local development plan taking place in Burton village hall, he only knew because he had seen a notice at the entrance to the car park whilst walking by.

My wife and I attended and obtained relevant information on the plan.
We had not seen a public notice displayed anywhere informing people prior to the event, (Apart from village hall car park on the day) and although your office stated the PO should have displayed a notice, the Postmaster informed me they had never received a notice or had been sent any information to display!

Members of the Burton Parish Council we spoke to were also unaware of both the exhibition and the plan and even Roger Bingham our District Councillor didn't know the exhibition was taking place.

We do not take the Westmorland Gazette so cannot comment whether an advert was placed in it, although many friends and neighbours who do read the paper didn't know of the plans and exhibition.
Clearly newspapers do not appear to be the best source for informing the public on matters such as these.

Of the many people I have spoken to in the past couple of days not one person had any idea of the plan or the exhibition. This is frankly astonishing, if adequate publicity had been provided surely someone would have known?

We feel badly let down by the South Lakeland District Council in making villagers aware of plans that may affect their environment. On matters as important as these I would at least have expected a leaflet delivered to all residences involved.
Even Roger Bingham our District Councillor had the decency to send a note on the 28/05/08 delivered to every property in Burton stating his lack of knowledge of the exhibition and a brief synopsis of the plan and guaranteeing he will keep people informed of events.
I believe as a result the consultative date for comments has been extended to the 9th june as opposed to the ludicrous short timescale of 3 days (30/05/08) from the date of the exhibition.

This has been a very ill conceived exercise in publicity and evokes concern that the Council only wishes to impart information on the plan to the least number of people possible so as to keep comments and/or objections to a minimum.

We are dismayed with action taken by the SLDC on this matter and I hope as procedures progress we will be much better informed.

We are writing to inform you of our objections to the proposed
development for Heversham/Leasgill. Our concerns are as follows:

At the moment there are numerous houses which have been for sale for a
considerable length of time. This village does not have a need for
any more houses.

There will be an increase of traffic on narrow roads that have either
no footpaths or very narrow pavements. Each dwelling will own at
least 2 cars.

Any development which includes affordable housing needs services such
as a shop,post office,frequent public transport & medical facilities.
None of which Heversham & Leasgill have.

The primary school appears to be already over subscribed.

Sewerage & drainage services are limited.

The proposed area appears to be on a flood site.

This land would be better used for agricultural purposes.

There will be more noise & intrusion on our village environment.

The character of our village will be spoilt.

Please leave our village alone.

4.46 - 4.51 PO13 - Grange-Over-Sands Functional Area 2025 - You Told Us and Introduction

4.59 - location of Pit Farm (behind Orchard Close) as site for redevelopment.

Oppose

I am in favour of low-cost housing being built in this region - my wife and I would love to be able to own our own home in Cartmel (we currently rent). However, the proposed site of Pit Farm is nothing but madness. Our garden backs onto that site and only a ditch running around the field prevents our garden from being flooded every year. The site is frequently water-logged and has been as much as 2 feet under water. Building on this site will cause all sorts of problems with regard to flooding and water run-off. The rain-water drains will almost certainly not cope.

Not only this, but access to Orchard Close is already a nightmare - the junction with the main road is blind when turning left or right and there are frequent near-misses. The increased traffic a housing development would bring (particularly when access is being suggested as through Orchard Close) is a terribly bad idea. Accidents and injuries will result.

Such a development would also place the many children that play in this currently quiet cul-de-sac at much greater risk due to the increased traffic.

Don't build there.

There is plenty of land to either end of the village, both heading out towards Aynsome Manor / Field Broughton and heading out towards Cark, that would be far better suited. This land would still provide walking distance access to all the village amenities but without any flood risk or access issues.

Figure 27 - Grange-over-Sands Functional area Strategy Diagram

Page 154,
Option 3 - Alternative Directions of Growth,
Point 9 - North Allithwaite, Figure 26 Grid ref 77 38.5
Page 161, Table 5 3. North Allithwaite, Land south of Templand Farm

Oppose

The 2 fields on the above grid reference maybe what is referred to as 'land opposite Fellside' or 'northeast of the settlement' - it is vague and I am unsure if the above cooments refer to the 2 fields.

1)If they do refer to the two fields then I am opposed to the development there because the fields are at the edge of the village and constitute open countryside.
2)Wartbarrow Lane is a country, leafy lane with stone walls and only room for a single lane. Extra traffic down the lane would be an issue, as would be the effect of more people using the lane to travel to Grange.
3)The area has excellent views up the Cartmel Valley and the houses would be sold at a high cost, eventually becoming second homes as many are in Cartmel, one of the influencing factors which has caused the need for additional housing. If built the houses must be for local occupancy only.
4)There is a public footpath that runs through the fields which is used constantly by walkers and regularly by dog walkers who find it a safer option to the roads.
5)The area would need an archaeological survey as Bronze Age urns have recently been found in Allithwaite.
6) Concern over the words 'would constitute limited rounding off' makes it feel as though the village has had a line drawn on the map to make it appear neat and tidy, not reflecting the reality of the life of the village.

I appreciate 'with some preliminary appraisal' but would like to have known who made the appraisal and what preliminary means at this stage. 'Further work will be undertaken to assess the implications on the landscape setting of the settlement'. Will the implications on the residents as well as the landscape be taken into account too? The residents of Allithwaite should be involved at each stage.

Do more to free up second homes in the area which is having a devastating effect on the availability of homes for locals and is in effect leading to the need to build on green land and change the natural, evolving growth of villages.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

1Following the meeting at the Athenaeum, I should like to express my views as follows:

Much was made of the access problems on Woodhouse Lane to which I concur but even more fundamental is that I think the scale of development proposed is out of all proportion to the size of the village of Heversham. Heversham would no longer be a small picturesque South Lakeland village for future generations to visit and enjoy. I would, on the other hand accept a smaller development of up to a dozen affordable homes.

2. The visual impact the proposed development would have is unacceptable. In particular when travelling north from Milnthorpe, the field adjacent to the A6 as you approach the village gives an open vista which would be lost.

3. When viewed from the surrounding fells and Heversham Head, the scale of this development would create a false urban environment entirely out of character with that of a South Lakeland Village.

4. Beetham is currently trying to save its post office - Heversham doesn't have one. Additional development in Beetham might provide greater catchment numbers to help them in their goal.

I write to oppose the Core Strategy Preferred Options Document PO14.

4.63 Heversham should not be considered as part of the Milnthorpe functional area. Heversham is a small Lakeland village with an identity of its own, which should be protected. It has no post office or shops and it would be necessary to walk about a mile down the very busy A6 to Milnthorpe to acess any services. This is not acceptable for small children or elderly people.

4.64 Dallam School is situated in Milnthorpe not Heversham. The boarding house is situated in Heversham. The school is in the process of moving all teaching to Milnthorpe.



As a small village, Heversham/Leasgill should only be subjected to proportionate development. The alternative Option 1 suggests growth in:

Area 8 - land behind the school. Development of this land would cause access problems from Woodhouse Lane.

Area 9 - land between Heversham and Leasgill. I agree there is opportunity for limited ribbon development opposite the Crescent.

Area 10 - land to the south of Heversham. Development of this site would have a detrimental visual impact on the village when approaching Heversham from the south.


There is, perhaps, a requiremental for a small number of affordable dwellings in the village. These could be accomodated by in-filling or ribbon development without spoiling the visual appeal of the village.
1. There is room for bungalow development at the bottom of Woodhouse Lane, just past the churchyard.
2. The existing Dallam School car park could be used for limited development.
3.As stated above, ribbon development is possible along the village road between Heversham and Leasgill

refer to the proposed development of light industry off Cockshot Lane, Storth and wish to express my concerns. This area on the edge of Storth, in a designated Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty, is totally unsuitable to commercial development. The proposed site, currently farm land, is accessed by two single lane routes with no footpaths, and no links to public transport.

The noise created by industrial units, and extra traffic caused by such a development, would totally spoil this quiet, peaceful village for all residents and is totally unnecessary when there are currently empty industrial units in the Quarry Lane area of Sandside, which would surely be a more sensible and viable area to redevelop for employment.

I would like to register my objection to this proposed development in the Local Development Framework.

South Storth

Oppose

i object to point 33, South Storth being developed for employment. This area on the edge of the village is accessed by a single track lane routes with no footpaths and no access to public transport. The noise form the commercial units and increased traffic flow through the village would totally spoil the area, an area of outstanding beauty. Empty industrial units already exist in the Quarray Lane area of Sandside and employment development shouold be concentrated on the same area.

PO14, 4.64, page 163

Oppose

1) Heversham/Leasgill should not be part of the Milnthorpe funtional area as it is too far away and has a totally different character with a very didderent type of population.
2) There may be a need for some affordable housing in Heversham/Leasgill but not for non affordable. At present there are about 18 properties for sale in Heversham/Leasgill ranging from £164,000 to £795,000. Many have been on the market for years (literally) since long before the housing "slump". If there was a demand for this type of property they would have sold!
3) One of the Stategic Objectives is the need to minimise travel. (2.31) Anyone living in Heversham/Leasgill will have to travel. There is no shop, doctor, dentist or secondary school. The Dallam site is only 6th form at the moment and this will also cease in a few years as all the teaching is moved to Milnthorpe.

Remove Heversham?Leasgill from the Milnethorpe Funtional Area.

P 164 point 8

Oppose

Land behind the school cannot be accessed off Woodhouse Lane.
The lane is narrow and winding with exremely restricted sight lines. There is already a hazard from the many drives opening onto the lane.
Improvement cannot be made at the lower end as the area is a Consevation Area

Omit this comment

Table 6, page 168, Area 4, East Heverham

Oppose

There will not be "minimal effect on the landscape" by development in parts of this area. This field may not be visible from the A6 but it is visible from many areas surrounding the Kent estuary. eg. Sandside, Storth, Arnside, Arnside Knott, Grange, Whitbarrow Scar. There is a danger that it could resemble an urban area from these far vantage points. Large development would also spoil the aspect of the village from Heversham Head.

Any development should be restricted to the far south east corner of area 4

please accept this note as my objection to the option of introducing a Storth housing development, off the Yans Lane/Storth Road area. The access to such a development would require significant expansion of the roadways, potentially causing the fabric of the village to be destroyed; access via Yans Lane would require significant demolition of the Post Office areas ; alternatively access via Storth Road at the Village Hall end, would cause congestion because of the Village Hall car users.

This development would cause additional strain on the village;
Further traffic in a small village, particularly close to the School.
Additional families, without any facilities, e.g. shops, will generate further traffic
Additional demand on utilities infrastructure, causing further damage to the village.

As an alternate to the Yans Lane development, could housing be developed on the B5282, between Storth and Arnside, this would give the potential of building new road access, without disturbing the centre of a village?

Storth
site 1 - light industry
site 2 - housing

Oppose

site 1 - access is poor. in either direction the road is very narrow and unsuitable for heavy vehicles. Otherwise it would add traffic to Storth Road which would be dangerous as it has many roads to properties on it.
site 2 - Again access is a major issue. Yans lane access to Storth Road is very narrow and would be difficult for heavy vehicles.

General - Buses, schools, doctors, dentist and shops etc are all currently poorly provided in Storth and unless these are improved it makes no sense to add further burden

Land alongside Quarray Lane on right hand side going form Storth Road towards Sandside or old coal yard adjacent to Kingfisher restaurant on main Milnthorpe Road - ideal for flats for elderly and low cost housing.

4.60 - 4.62 Sustainability Appraisal

core strategy preferred options.PO13 grange over sands
pages 153/154
para 8
Pit Farm /Orchard Close cartmel

Oppose

I am concerned at the development plans proposed, for cartmel, The plans to build behind Orchard Close, concern me, especially if the proposed site access is to go directly through Orchard close. This is going to cause a large amount of traffic, from a busy main road onto a quiet close where children play safely. Also the field behind us house all sorts of wildlife, from badgers and foxes to ducks and all manner of birds, the public footpath to Hampsfell runs adjacent to the field and is a popular walk for not only locals but also tourists which are very important to cartmel village. I have first hand experience living on a large estate, and the problems that can occur, such as neighbour hood disputes to antisocial behaviour, I oppose the plans to develop behind orchard close and feel strongly that this would prove to be a serious disadvantage for residents and cartmel as a whole. The final thing I wish to comment on is not knowing how many houses are due to be built is a concern, but cartmel cannot accommadate a large number where schooling etc is concerned. I will be voicing my objections if a meeting is arranged.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

I am a resident of Orchard close in Cartmel, and I am not pleased with the fact that there are going to be a number of houses built in the field behind us. The plans are to use the existing car park as an entrance to this new estate, not only is that going to be taking parking places away from the residents but also could be dangerous for the children who live there. I will be opposing this development as will the majority of the residents.

PLans for Storth & Sandside

We would like to comment on the above. The proposals for housing development on the land to the north of Yans Lane would have effects greater than identified in SLDC documentation. In particular, traffic generated by the new development would be a problem not only on Yans Lane but also on Storth Road itself, which is already a busy, narrow road with no pavements for most of its length. The access through the "Square" at the centre of Storth is a bottleneck, with frequent obstructions caused by delivery vans etc: there is very little room to manoeuvre.

It is also inappropriate to develop a new greenfield site within a designated AONB. AONBs are designated because of their high landscape value, and local authorities should give first consideration to the conservation and protection of these areas. This field is part of the village environment, being a part of the open space formed by the playing field and these open fields. That is an essential aspect of the character of the village, which would be destroyed by such development.

On the matter of the proposed industrial development to the south of Cockshot Lane, this is in the vicinity of "Four Lane Ends". Despite the name, access to this area is very poor. Three of the lanes are narrow and single track. The other is the road through the whole village of Storth and Sandside (see comments above). It is not suitable, therefore, for an employment use of the land, with all the traffic movements that implies. Such development would also be totally inappropriate in an area with such a rural aspect. Other sites are available locally: the old railway station site (not fully utilised) and on the "Back Lane" or "Quarry Lane" (ditto).

Storth

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

between the disused railway line and Friarcotes Bridge, Sandside. Flood defence would need improvement - which it does anyway.

Further to recent public concerns regarding the possible proposal to build on land off Burneside Road Kendal ( Land known as Sparrowmire), we write with reservations to wether the following concerns will be taken into account:-

1.Loss of green belt land.
2.Increased traffic already at a dangerous high amount with it beeing the main route to Burneside, Croppers etc.
3. Top water and drainage issues, photos can be provided showing risk to house flooding to 216 +218 Burneside Road.
4. Loss of wild life habitat.
5. Increased traffic at Windermere Road at a all time high already.

Has or will anybody have the commensense to build large scale developments away from already congested areas of the town. Has thought been given to building near to boundaries of Kendal, Appleby road (Nr schools, services), Milnthorpe Road, Entrance to the town near services and schools, Windermere Road, reducing congestion, near services etc.

We understand this stage of the consultation is 1st steps towards identifying land avaible, however will the above issues be reviewed at great lengths to ensure the above concerns are answered.

Petition of objection to PO13 for Grange in the LDF

Oppose

as promised i nmy letter to to you dated 26 May 2008, I herewith attach our petition with 141 signatures. I hope this will bear some weight as to how we all feel about the PO13 project

Oppose

4.70 Sustainability Appraisal

page 169, paragraph 4.70

Oppose

You state that the preferred option scores negatively against environmental and natural resource indications.
To say that all developments will be subject to the sustainable development principles in order to mitigate against these negative impacts is a totally unacceptable approach, and contrary to earlier statements.
According to PO9 (principle 8, page 112), new developments are required to respect and be sympathetic to the character of the locality, enhance the existing built environment and create a 'sense of place'. ensure the amenity of neighbouring properties are protected and that the amenity of future occupiers will not be affected by adjoining existing users. Hopefully these words mean what they say.
The plan is not sound in relation to sustainability appraisal

I would suggest that the scale of the development has to be appropriate to the area to reduce the negative impacts.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.70 Sustainability Appraisal

page 169, paragraph 4.70

Oppose

You state that the preferred option scores negatively against environmental and natural resource indications.
To say that all developments will be subject to the sustainable development principles in order to mitigate against these negative impacts is a totally unacceptable approach, and contrary to earlier statements.
According to PO9 (principle 8, page 112), new developments are required to respect and be sympathetic to the character of the locality, enhance the existing built environment and create a 'sense of place'. ensure the amenity of neighbouring properties are protected and that the amenity of future occupiers will not be affected by adjoining existing users. Hopefully these words mean what they say.

I would suggest that the scale of the development has to be appropriate to the area to reduce the negative impacts.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.65 - 4.69 Policy Context and Justification

page 168, Table 6.3

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

To consider that infilling at Heversham and Leasgill, which are two quite separate hamlets, will have little impact on the landscape seems to consider the effect of new building on the landscape rather than the effect of new building on the existing buildings. Already there are traffic problems on the old A6 with school traffic, farm traffic and the increasing number of parked cars. People here do not see Milnthorpe as their service centre, and travel much further than possible by walking or public transport. Any restrictions on car use will be seen as a retrograde step.

First an acknowledgement that the older linear hamlet of Leasgill with a single access road requires a different treatment to the more traditional layout of Heversham. Secondly a need to restrict development to affordable housing rather than expensive housing for second homes.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Development at Ulverston

Following updated e mail recieved 18 / 07 There are two gross omissions:

1. There is no mention of the Stone cross site.
2. Similarly no mention of the Glaxo Laboratories site.

There are further important issues :

3. regarding the provisions for South Ulverston alongside the Canal
4. regarding the descriptions of land at South Ulverston subject to flooding
5. some discrepancies with the views of the NPS regarding the land at Low Mill
6. preservation of good land for crops


1. Stone Cross Site

This provides a large area between Hill Foot Garden Centre and Stockbridge Lane which will provide many houses. There is space enough that they need not be bunched together and what would be desirable would be a mixture of a wide variety of houses, flats and bungalows some of them self-build some of them ‘affordable’.

In order to achieve an attractive variety of design it would be best if different developers designed and built houses that were distributed over the whole site so that one was not aware of a line of buildings all done to a similar design.

Perhaps roads and services could be introduced to a large number of plots by one organisation and then plots sold off to private individuals and larger numbers of plots that were not together would be sold to different developers to achieve an attractive mix as is to be found in many rural French Towns as a result of individual design of each house.

At present what is happening in Ulverston is a ridiculously high intensity of very undesirable Flats and Houses that are far too close to each other . For example the 9 apartments being built at present at the high NW end of Upper Brook street. Here a Timber frame construction is being erected that I consider to be a disgrace to the 21st century. In only one unit are the bedrooms above the owners living room. In the other 8 units, bedrooms are situated either above or below other people’s living rooms. As a result a lot of social friction will occur, as this is a concept completely foreign to English society. Usually, in apartment blocks the layout is such that bedrooms are above each other, similarly bathrooms and living rooms.

Restrictions should be placed on the Stone cross site so that a very low houseing density is achieved, ensuring that the land value is not inflated. The Council could perhaps assist by securing loans that would enable the purchase of the whole site, which could then be sold on to a smaller building concern.

The fact that a preservation order has been put on the whole site may mean that Persimmons will sell. Then a strong case should be put to English heritage to alter the definition of ‘the site’ so that land is released for building.

In this case the history of the Stone Cross building itself could even be sacrificed for a good housing site. This would need extensive consultation.

Nevertheless, Stone Cross should be included as an urgently needed possibility in the next 25 years.

2. Glaxo Laboratories
This very large site has not been taken into account in future planning for industry, yet Glaxo project that some of it will be available by the year 2011. Pressure should be put on Glaxo of a moral nature that to tie up land that has supported employment is putting massive pressure on housing communities such as that at South Ulverston close to the Canal. Hopefully political pressure and SLDC planning incentives can be used to pursuade Glaxo to enable the building of commercial units by 2009, or at least by the time the Core strategy is approved. In the mean time temporary solutions that are outside this planning procedure will be resisted by all means necessary in order to avoid ‘stop-gap’ solutions which will lead to social unrest.

The building of an Ulverston Bypass would greatly assist with traffic problems of winding roads at Outcast where heavy lorries cause the houses to shake, and with problems of low clearance under railway bridges over North Lonsdale (13 feet).

However, talking to Cumbria Highways, in reality the bypass may only be possible in 25 years or more. Nevertheless, it should be included as a very desirable option. The arguments against by local traders who say they would lose business I believe are weak, as this is not an example of a town on a route to a far destination. The A590 leads only to Barrow, so those travelling there are not tempted to stop off in Ulverston because their destination was so close. Barrow Highways are also keen to have a Bypass around Ulverston to aid traffic to their town and conurbation.

3. The provisions for South Ulverston alongside the Canal
I found confusion in the interpretation of the value of the Canal masterplan.

In section 4.38 page 146 of the Core Strategy it is stated that

“ a masterplan has been produced and adopted following public consultation”

And this is used to argue the need for commercial sites and not housing, as in 4.39
“The SFRA states that future development within such areas should be restricted to ‘less vulnerable uses”
So that “Employment uses are regarded as less vulnerable.”

Yet the very same Canal Masterplan provides strong reasons for its implementation concerning the land close to Kennedy Street. This land which at the moment is designated as commercial use should in the future have planning requirements for Eco housing, small workshops, together with recreation land if the Canal Masterplan is followed see section 11 as described in the second plan after page 42 of the Masterplan.

There is a serious need for recreational ground to be both kept and improved so that the community of some 500 people with approximately 80 children between ages 4 and 18 have an improved living environment.

The community is losing its church, allotments have been lost, and there are no facillities for those over the age of 14.

Under 14s have only a small ‘baby’ playground.

There is no meeting place for people – some time ago a Co-op store closed the only places for groups of people are the nursery and the gym. Allocation of a community build is urgently needed.

The rural enviroment needs to be preserved. This is at present under threat from the sale of land by SLDC with total disregard for the Canal masterplan


4. Regarding the descriptions of land at South Ulverston subject to flooding

There are two issues.

I do not accept that the land between North Lonsdale Road and the canal is necessarily liable to flooding. We should not abandon measures that will deal with minor flooding – by the use of walls and pumps. The back drain alongside of the canal can provide an escape route for minor breaches of the Steel St defenses. With good maintenance of Dragley Beck and the Gate at the sea will greatly reduce flooding close to Steel Street.


The flooding will have to come from across the other side of Steel Street ie from the west and come from the overflow from Dragley Beck . I understand that in spite of flooding affecting the houses at Outcast, the wall that was built in 1983 alongside Steel street to protect it , has been effective in preventing water accessing any of the houses. What flooding has been experienced, has come from the drains not being cleaned which resulted in overflow from the drains themselves.

In one case the wall was almost breached, which suggests that raising the wall by six inches would be adequate to deal with most severe cases of flooding.

As to the causes of flooding, it would seem that this could be reduced by attention to the maintenance of the bed of Dragley Beck between Fitz Bridge and the next bridge downstream, where there is evidence that a bank of shingle has been deposited by the fast flowing river. This could be the cause of the flooding near Steel Street.

There is evidence that a small stream that flows parallel and within fifty yards of the Canal was blocked from reaching Dragley Beck by the hard core added to the Glaxo site when it was constructed so that the original direction of flow has been reversed.

I suggest that any drainage problems of this land could be resolved, although the problem will get worse if global warming continues to raise the sea level.

I accept the situation is further aggravated by the inability of the drains to handle surface water and sewage through this area .

This is a long term problem that one hopes can be solved by United Utilities.

5. some discrepancies with the views of the NPS regarding the land at Low Mill

There is still the land at the old tannery but further expansion here should be curtailed and rather pressure put on Glaxo to release its land as soon as possible.

6. Preservation of good land for crops
Lastly I agree with the argument put forward by David Macauley-Alcock of Church Walk Ulverston that, wherever possible, land suitable for growing food should be preserved and moderate building sites on rock and uncultivatable land should be used even if the buildings intrude into the countryside. This will be preferable in the long term (25 years).

It will be a shame if good land that could be used, even as allotments, near the town is lost to buildings.

As has been demonstrated by Monty Donn’s TV series Around The World In 80 Gardens, town allotments in cities such as Cuba and in Japan, can, as well as providing food, help knit societies together. Something greatly needed by society today.

The Preferred Option - PO12 - Ulverston Functional Area 2025

139 - 149, TABLE 4

Oppose

PROPOSED HOUSES ON LAND TO THE SOUTH OF WEST HILLS DRIVE AND BIRCHWOOD DRIVE.

EXISTING ROAD CANNOT SUPPORT 1000 PLUS MORE CARS. NARROW WITH BLINDSPOTS.

DANGEROUS TO ROUTE 1000 PLUS MORE CARS PAST A PRIMARY SCHOOL.

REGENERATION OF TOWN TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT WOULD EMPLOY EXISTING RESIDENTS NOT ATTRACT NEW HOME OWNERS.

OTHER HOUSING APPLICATIONS BY THE FARMER FOR THIS LAND HAS BEEN TURNED DOWN. NO ELEMENTS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THESE REJECTIONS.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO2 - Rural Areas

Page 44 - Option 1

Oppose

Development of the coastal villages and hinterland should be tighly controlled within the presently, clearly identified, boundaries. Too much development in Bardsea in the past has adversely changed its character and charm as a place of relaxation or visual appeal.

The Furness Peninsula villages and farmsteads add to the the recreational ambience of the area, supporting Ulverston, Barrow, the Lake District National Park and WestLakes developments.

Barrow and the Furness Peninsula is developing more leisure activities and the Rural Areas are essential to that future. Allowing villages and steadings to sprawl beyond existing boundaries will threathen the rural character of the area and detract from its charm and visual appeal.

There are already many small businesses in the area established for leisure support. Rural industrial businesses should be encouraged to contract and withdraw to areas such as the Ulverston Functional Area (PO12)or brown field sites in Barrow in maintaining a manufacturing employment base in the Furness Peninsula.

Restricting development in the Rural Areas (PO2) would encourage more leisure use of the area both nationally and internationally, based on existing revenues from the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks.

Remove Option 1.

Development boundaries around rural settlements should be delineated and controlled.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The core strategy states that small settlements such as hamlets and small villages will be still restricted to planning

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

I would like to see some of these settlements been able to build in parts of infill land not so the boundaries get bigger but just fill in parts which would be acceptable to the surrounding area

I think planning should be considered for local people who have lived in the area and supported it all there lives not just the agricultural or forest workers

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

P139 - P149

Oppose

I oppose this scheme for the following reasons;
The area proposed is prone to flooding (even after a couple of hours of rain)
The area is loosing jobs and not creating any quality jobs to justify this amount of houses in the area.
The appeal of Ulverston is that it is a small market town not a large town like Barrow/Kendal.
There are no decent schools in the area or enough school places to accommodate this amount of houses.
Traffic in the area will increase to dangerous levels around an already busy estate especially Birchwood and Mountbarrow Road. This in turn will cause a danger for school children at Croftlands Infants School as this is already dangerous caused by speed and a blind bend.
Sewage. Where will it go? There is already a problem with this particularly near the quarry area.
There are no recreational facilities now particularly for smaller children and teenagers where will they go? Crime, vandalism in the area may go up caused by this.
The houses in the immediate vicinity will be affected dramatically. Who is going to buy a house next to a proposed building site that may last 10-15 years.
Unfair to build local authority houses amounts private houses. Who is going to buy them in the middle of rented accommodation?
The area proposed is a green belt the next step to Birkrigg commom (crown land) this is going to spoil the entire area as you are basically stepping into the country from the Lancastrian pub and may spoil the protected land with more traffic and people and wildlife will inevitably be effected.

Reduce the number of houses proposed for one particular area dramatically. To build an area one fifth the size of Ulverston in one small area is unfair, unrealistic, unsustainable, unnecessary and unfeasible given the surrounding factors and bigger issues that need taking into account. There is a lot more to the proposed development than owners being prepared to sell their land!

The brown areas around the Tannery area is a much better site there are no residential areas that the building works would disrupt, the area is in need of improvement and it is not spoiling green areas which people enjoy there is also better access from Priory Road and other minor roads.
South Ulverston (expanding Lund Farm) is also a better option as there are fields there surrounded by houses - Ulverstons Green Belt would not need to be expanded here.
Between (Urswick Road and Swarthmoor) there is no reason to keep the two areas separate as the proposed plan is developing Ulverston to almost Urswick. There are plenty of non residential areas between the two to keep the separation anyway.
The canal areas would also be a better option since that is up for proposed improvement. The access for that amount of houses is far better and it is served already by a supermarket and trunk road.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO3 - Distribution of Development

Page 50. The proposed % of development for Ulverston at 20% of the Total resulting in 1804 extra dwellings over the period

Oppose

1. The amount of extra housing proposed in Ulverston is too large. With about 5500 dwellings at the moment the 1804 extra dwellings proposed is an increase of about 33%. This is too large an increase for a small market town and will impact the character of the town. The proposed increase for Kendal is only around 27%.

2. Ulverstons dominant employer has always been Glaxo with 1900 employed there in the early 1990s. With the 400 job losses in 2002 and the 330 job losses announced in February 2008 there will soon only be 210 left employed there. It is likely that these remaining jobs will go within the period covered by the report. These job losses will cause significant reduction in demand for housing in Ulverston as Senior staff are moved to other locations by Glaxo and others have to move away to find new jobs.This means that most of the extra housing proposed will not be required.

The percentage of the additional development to be applied to Ulverston should be reduced to 5-10%.

The Preferred Option - PO12 - Ulverston Functional Area 2025

Page 137 Point 1 and Point 2 Development to the South of Croftlands Ulverston
Figure 24 Ulverston Functional Area Strategy Diagram

Oppose

I oppose the Development to the South of the Croftlands Estate in Ulverston.
1. The existing Croftlands Estate already extends the boundary of Ulverston a long way from the town centre towards Birkrigg Common. Further developement in this direction will spoil the views from Birkrigg Common and will push the town much further out into the countryside. Options exist to infill open areas closer to the town centre.
2.This area has a public footpath through it from the rear of the Lancastrian Pub which is the only footpath into the countryside for the people living on the Croftlands Estate. The path is extensively used by local people for walks, exercise,taking dogs for walks etc. Loss of this footpath in the countryside would be a significant loss to the community.
3. Due to the recent announcement of 330 job losses at Glaxo and the likely eventual closure of the plant demand for housing in the area is likely to be reduced for many years as people move away to find alternative jobs. The extra housing is not required on this scale.
4. The fields to the South of West Hills Drive and behind the Lancastrian Pub are prone to flooding and have standing water for weeks at a time.
5. This area will be too far from Ulverston Town Centre to walk so everyone will drive causing additional congestion in the town centre.

That the area to the South of West Hills Drive and Birchwood drive be removed as the preferred direction of growth.

I suggest that the amount of new housing be substandially reduced and that this is done in the following areas.
1.Urswick Road see p135 option 1-Development can occur here while still maintaining a green gap between Ulverston and Swartmoor.
2.Dragely Beck see p135 option 3
3.North West Swarthmoor see p135 option
Development in these areas will be of a more infill nature preventing the sprawl of Ulverston out into the countryside.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Section 4 PO11 North West Kendal

Oppose

Since the building of the Briery Meadows estate traffic density is already reaching dangerously high levels. Added to that Burneside Road is used as a "rat run" from the A6 and from the A591 through Burneside to Kendal as a means of avoiding congestion on other routes. Housing added to plot 16 (Kendal North West) would make that situation far worse and would present a serious safety hazard.

A wide variety of bird life including curlews, woodpeckers and owls are regular visitors through that green gap particularly favouring the marshy land at the north east end. Curlews have recently been added to the list of birds endangered in England. To build on the site will drive that wildlife away, probably threatening its very existence. That does not fit with statements and assurances given about protecting environmental assets.

This section should be amended to remove site 16 (North West Kendal.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO14 - Milnthorpe Functional Area 2025

Page 164 options 8,9 and 10

Support partly

We support the plan in pricipal subject to more reasonable building density.
Reasons for supporting:
Because of the housing situation, few children brought up in Heversham are able to settle here as adults with their own families.
We believe Heversham should see some development, with the express hope that more young families could find affordable property, enabling them to enjoy the village as much as those who already live here.
Heversham village life would be enhanced all round by a wider age representation.
It is understandable that many residents opposing the plan have particular underlying concerns about the impact development might have on the views from and aspect of their properties. We ourselves are in that situation also, but we do not believe this to be a valid reason for objecting, thus denying others some of the priviledges we enjoy. Never the less, we hope that consideration would be given to this point by the planners to minimise the impact of future develoment.

A declared intention to be sensitive in development planning - in volume, access, layout and style, with consideration for existing residents.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Oppose

Your plans indicate that both houses and small industrial units could be built on, mainly, the several large green fields at the South West corner of farmland belonging to Brian Brocklebank of Springbank Farm and also to the Church ( presumably C of E ? ) Those cottages on Grange Fell Rd that extend down the hill from the Post Office to well past Stone Terrace get their back yards and kitchens flooded by heavy rain running off the area of farmland in question from time to time and this occurs even though much of the rainwater is taken up by the fields. Many of the occupants are quite elderly, most not having access to online facilities and just put up with the ingress of water, happening as it does occasionally. I put it to you that the proposed building on this farmland will largely render it impermeable thus increasing hugely the certainty of flooding in these houses to a level not remotely thought about by your goodselves in the comfort of your offices. What do you propose to do about this ? and is your answer likely to be believable ? This plan of yours needs shelving until climate change turns South Cumbria into an arid zone.

I wish to make a further observation on the effect that these development plans would have on local house prices in the form of planning blight extending from now until 2025.
I live in that group of houses situated adjacent to and downhill from the farm land which is referred to as Land off Grange Fell Road ( Spring Bank Farm )
I cannot get Estate Agents in Grange to tell me what the value of my house will drop to, due to this planning blight. I was told that my guess was as good as theirs but there would NOT be any increase in value. My question is who pays for a loss ? If these planning proposals are not to go ahead then the sooner I and my neighbours are informed the better. I wake up at night thinking my house will barely pay for my funeral. Definitely not a good feeling.

There is public uproar in my corner of Grange Over Sands which the planners call the North West Grange, and which locally is called Springbank Farm owned by Brian Brocklebank and is earmarked for compulsory purchase to build a mixture of houses and what is described as commercial building. The consultation period runs for 6 weeks up to the 30th May ( day after tomorrow )
Now comes the crunch !! We local people, immediately affected, adversely, only found out when my neighbour saw a notice in Morrisons on Monday last week prior to the Bank Holiday. Despite a flurry of local activity we just about informed most of our neighbours by last Sunday and had a vociferous ( for Grange that is ! ) outdoor meeting to which we managed to get a photographer and reporter to meet us here yesterday afternoon, and one of our local Councillors, Tom Harvey, also got the news and came along.
We are extremely angry with the lateness of this news, and with this planning strategy, destroying good farmland and destroying the scenic beauty of countryside immediately adjacent to the National Park together problems of building with very restricted access and flash flooding and sewage/ drainage problems.
The Planners envisage around 400 houses over and above existing infill building and that with houses in this area proving very difficult to sell.

Incredibly, the Planners are talking about a new pool replacing both the old original pool and the White Elephant ( new pool ) which was jerry built with Lottery money plus public donations, and the Planners are astonishingly hoping for more Heritage Lottery money. This little paragraph is written to show what vivid imagination those in the SLDC possess.

Thank you for extending the consultation period to 5pm Monday 9th June thus enabling many of us to think more clearly about this matter.
The availability of brown field sites should be looked at in more detail before picking on prime green farmland which is destined to provide food in the near future with the way food and transport costs rise on a daily basis. My concern is the earmarking of farmland off the upper reaches of Grange Fell Road to provide space for both houses and employment.
The equivalent brown field sites belong to Mr Bateman who has already, it is alleged,done a deal with Booths supermarkets. My suggestion is that his numerous car sites at Lindale ( 4 sites to my knowledge, and 1 site just south of Kendal ) are a few too many, especially for Grange and Lindale and can be seen as vast car parks at a time when fuel costs and proposed car taxes look like turning cars into a new age dinosaur. My own car usage has dropped to once a week half day for shopping using so called economic diesel. At the age of 74 I cycle for both health and economic needs, and I see many older folk doing the same around Grange and surrounds.
A natural lessening of car use will reduce carbon footprints and encourage schoolchildren, very many of whom are frightened by the thought of cycling to school due to traffic and lack of simple facilities at schools to accomodate bicyles and here, on todays news, we have a government proposing walking and swimming and a large sum of cash to reduce obesity and increase fitness when all that is required are people on bikes. I look to myself as an example, cycling to school in the late 1940s and continuing this as a sport and recreation to my present age and remaining the same weight and waistline from 1950 when I left school to now, 2008 (10 stone, 32 inches)
It is all so very easy, it is not a secret society and I am sure there must be a few people in your office who will agree with what I am saying. The old saying about acting in haste and repenting at leisure still holds true.

With regard to the idea of building numerous cheap houses around the outskirts of Grange Fell Rd, as I look out of my front window this morning, I see 3 empty terraced houses in Beech Road, all second homes for people with money to spare, money that deprives local people of a home, in fact if I look further up Grange Fell Rd I see several others in just this immediate view. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. and needs to be really looked at by planners. I am an incomer who moved here with my family 20 years ago when houses were hard to sell and I bought mine from a local builder and invested all my income into Grange and district and paid the full local taxes and did, and continue to act as an unpaid clearer of litter around, mainly the upper part of Grange Fell Rd and Hampsfell and indeed further and this is why I am so annoyed by freeloaders who should be staying in legitimate B&Bs thus helping local people to earn a living.

20th May 2008
Reference:-The South Lakeland Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Preferred Options, PO13 - Grange Over Sands Functional Area 2025.

Northwest Grange Over Sands, Land off Grange Fell Rd.

I only found out about this yesterday from a neighbour who had seen a notice in Morrisons, Kendal, and find to my dismay that our opinions terminate on Friday 30th May.
As a resident immediately affected by some of the proposals should not I have been contacted directly ?
That said, I am very concerned as are many of my neighbours who I have been able to talk to today, regarding the run off of rainwater from the green fields which even with the current normal soak into the ground causes some flooding into the back yards of houses further down the slope from where we are. The proposed house building plan on these fields will aggravate this water run off to something close to the type of flooding seen in Windermere Rd for example and we will end up not having houses fit to live in.

Next, the sewer pipe which serves the 6 houses behind Beech Rd, one of which is my house, built 20 years ago, is, I believe, a 4 inch pipe which is just adequate for our six houses according to Lloyd Saunders who built these houses, our 3 in 1988. the 3 just behind us being built by his father, Jimmy, some years prior.
As for the potential loss of views to the north of us which is the only open view we have, the other aspects blocked by houses, this is the reason I bought my house in 1989 in order to get peace and quiet after 40 years in industry.

Reference:-The South Lakeland Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Preferred Options, PO13 - Grange Over Sands Functional Area 2025.

Northwest Grange Over Sands, Land off Grange Fell Rd.

I only found out about this yesterday from a neighbour who had seen a notice in Morrisons, Kendal, and find to my dismay that our opinions terminate on Friday 30th May.
As a resident immediately affected by some of the proposals should not I have been contacted directly ?
That said, I am very concerned as are many of my neighbours who I have been able to talk to today, regarding the run off of rainwater from the green fields which even with the current normal soak into the ground causes some flooding into the back yards of houses further down the slope from where we are. The proposed house building plan on these fields will aggravate this water run off to something close to the type of flooding seen in Windermere Rd for example and we will end up not having houses fit to live in.

Next, the sewer pipe which serves the 6 houses behind Beech Rd, one of which is my house, built 20 years ago, is, I believe, a 4 inch pipe which is just adequate for our six houses according to Lloyd Saunders who built these houses, our 3 in 1988. the 3 just behind us being built by his father, Jimmy, some years prior.
As for the potential loss of views to the north of us which is the only open view we have, the other aspects blocked by houses, this is the reason I bought my house in 1989 in order to get peace and quiet after 40 years in industry.

With reference to land off Grange Fell Rd, Grange Over Sands, this potential building site is marked with a small green square numbered 1 and is described as being for mixed employment/housing..
I have seen what happens to small 1 or 2 person businesses in this area and give some immediate examples.
1) A bicycle repair and wheel building concern where the bulk of the work consists of repairs to damaged wheels and gear mechanisms brought in by schoolboys with little money and the mechanic ends up doing this time consuming work for the price of a bottle of wine paid for by grateful parents.If the mechanic rented a small workshop to do this he would soon become a bankrupt. I know because I was that mechanic in my own back garden shed.
2 ) The lady trying to run a tiny sub post office and open 2 half days a week because that was what the Post Office paid her for and most of the work involved filling in a hundred and one official Post Office forms each week in her own time and unpaid.
3) A 2 person business involving computing software and setting up, over at Witherslack, losing many clients owing to the fact that they cannot cover sickness and holidays and the business goes to much larger organisations in Windermere for example and the couple find they have to sell their house in order to downsize and remain in the black.

These are the people expected to rent out a small office or workshop on a site built in a field at the top of Grange Fell Road. Absolute lack of vision coming from the Planners who occupy comfortable office jobs paid for by the Council Taxes.
I rest my case, please look at your plans again.

There is public uproar in my corner of Grange Over Sands which the planners call the North West Grange, and which locally is called Springbank Farm owned by Brian Brocklebank and is earmarked for compulsory purchase to build a mixture of houses and what is described as commercial building. The consultation period runs for 6 weeks up to the 30th May ( day after tomorrow )
Now comes the crunch !! We local people, immediately affected, adversely, only found out when my neighbour saw a notice in Morrisons on Monday last week prior to the Bank Holiday. Despite a flurry of local activity we just about informed most of our neighbours by last Sunday and had a vociferous ( for Grange that is ! ) outdoor meeting to which we managed to get a photographer and reporter to meet us here yesterday afternoon, and one of our local Councillors, Tom Harvey, also got the news and came along.
We are extremely angry with the lateness of this news, and with this planning strategy, destroying good farmland and destroying the scenic beauty of countryside immediately adjacent to the National Park together problems of building with very restricted access and flash flooding and sewage/ drainage problems.
The Planners envisage around 400 houses over and above existing infill building and that with houses in this area proving very difficult to sell.

Incredibly, the Planners are talking about a new pool replacing both the old original pool and the White Elephant ( new pool ) which was jerry built with Lottery money plus public donations, and the Planners are astonishingly hoping for more Heritage Lottery money. This little paragraph is written to show what vivid imagination those in the SLDC possess.

have seen a number of E-mails referring to the strategic development of farm land situated off Grange Fell Rd ( Northwest Grange ) and must give you the correct name of the farm and of the lane leading to it from Grange Fell Rd having read of Springhill Lane and also Springfield etc.
The lane is Springbank Lane, the farm is Springbank Farm, the owner a Brian Brocklebank and unless told to the contrary, I beleive that an underhand deal has been done between him and the SLDC on selling land to developers. Does the Freedom of Information Act cover such a deal ?

You might/ or not as the case may be, care to read the opinions of my son who moved to Edinburgh from here a number of years ago. His observations really are very very worrying. If what he says comes to pass in North West Grange Over Sands there will be big trouble I can assure you. I did not come to live here20 years ago in order to find myself living in the back streets of Manchester liable to get kicked to death by drunken youths off a council type estate. All I can say is God help Grange Over Sands.

Bloody hell!!!!!!!!!!! 400 houses????????? I wonder how they managed to get a compulsory purchase order. Must be looking at doing some sort of housing association idea to help out people who can’t afford the going rate. That’ll not be good for the value of your house, or quality of life. Some housing association houses went up over the back of Craig’s old house in our street. When we went to help them move out and shift furniture after work we couldn’t believe the amount of noise coming from those houses, and that was at ten at night.

Your plans indicate that both houses and small industrial units could be built on, mainly, the several large green fields at the South West corner of farmland belonging to Brian Brocklebank of Springbank Farm and also to the Church ( presumably C of E ? ) Those cottages on Grange Fell Rd that extend down the hill from the Post Office to well past Stone Terrace get their back yards and kitchens flooded by heavy rain running off the area of farmland in question from time to time and this occurs even though much of the rainwater is taken up by the fields. Many of the occupants are quite elderly, most not having access to online facilities and just put up with the ingress of water, happening as it does occasionally.
I put it to you that the proposed building on this farmland will largely render it impermeable thus increasing hugely the certainty of flooding in these houses to a level not remotely thought about by your goodselves in the comfort of your offices.
What do you propose to do about this ? and is your answer likely to be believable ?

This plan of yours needs shelving until climate change turns South Cumbria into an arid zone.

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2
WEST BURTON IN KENDAL

Oppose

The land in question is stated to be 'rolling fields with good quality stone walls and intricate field patterns creates a good quality landscape with attractive rural views'. In my opinion this is correct and the path of the M6 through the village does not impede the quality of the landscape as it is predominantly in a cutting or screened by trees! Futhermore, if this area was to be developed how would safe access be achieved for pedestrians in Tanpits Lane and Neddy Hill as a result of increased traffic? These are busy pedestrian routes for families walking to and from the primary school and other local amenities. Both routes are predominantly without footpaths, have sub-standard street lighting and tight bends with reduced sight lines. Acess from Station Lane (west approach) would be unachievable due to the presence of the canal aquaduct and the railway bridge. Even if this route was viable it could deter villagers from using Station Road as a popular waliking route to/from the canal. Finally, both junctions from the A6070 (Tanpits Lane and Neddy Hill) are currently dangerous with restricted sight lines. As a Civil Engineer I fail to see how these can be upgraded to the standards required to achieve planning permission.

Remove the proposal for development within the West of Burton-in-Kendal from the report.

Burton-in-Kendal currently has two Business Centres; Clawthorpe Hall and Dalton. Both have office space available and the potential to expand. Any employment investment within the village could be encouraged in relevant areas with safer road access not resulting in danger to the pedestrians within the village.

2.16 - 2.17 Key Issues to be Addressed

I think not only has affordability a key part but also ensuring that the appropiate type of houses are affordable. Currnelty there are too many young familes living in one and two bedroom appartments and they can not aford the next jump to a 3 bed house which for a young family with two or 3 children is what they need. The principal employment is in the poorly paid care, tourism, retail and public sector. This sector will remain large and is indeed likely to grow as the population ages needing even more care assistants etc. It is clear that the issue of public transport needs to be addressed as well as that of utilities and maintaining supply to existing users and ensuring that it can cope with the increase in load.

Should the region wish to atract back the young proffesionals that have had to move out of the area for work then employment opportunities need to be improved, and even then the issue of second homes and city types retiring to the country keeps the house prices high.

Support partly

2.16 - 2.17 Key Issues to be Addressed

I think not only has affordability a key part but also ensuring that the appropiate type of houses are affordable. Currnelty there are too many young familes living in one and two bedroom appartments and they can not aford the next jump to a 3 bed house which for a young family with two or 3 children is what they need. The principal employment is in the poorly paid care, tourism, retail and public sector. This sector will remain large and is indeed likely to grow as the population ages needing even more care assistants etc. It is clear that the issue of public transport needs to be addressed as well as that of utilities and maintaining supply to existing users and ensuring that it can cope with the increase in load.

Should the region wish to atract back the young proffesionals (and keep the next phase of young people from leaveing) that have had to move out of the area for work then employment opportunities need to be improved, and even then the issue of second homes and city types retiring to the country keeps the house prices high.

Support partly

more on employment issues and also on the type of housing rather than affordable housing - the two go hand in hand and if the region is not careful then there will be an over supply of one bedroom local ocupancy housing.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

2.28 - 2.38 Strategic Objectives

I think these are good objective but feel the need to stress that the affordable houseing needs should be pre fixed with 'appropiate'. By this i mean an increase in the number of 3 and even 4 bed affordable housing.

Support

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2

The development in every town/village is what is required and I would like to support warmly the move to develop appropiate affordable housing for local people, particularly for young families. The lack of appropiate brown field sites will inevitably lead to sprawl of town but if this is done sypathetically and with local consultationg then this is a nessesary development. Building on/near existing sites would help maintain the integrity of the community village ethos while encouraging integration of young families.

With regard to Levens the area to the rear of greengate appears to have always been penciled for development with roads et al already set up for an expansion of the estate. As with all othe proposals i would be interested to know what proposals are in place to expand and maintain the integraty of electricity, gas, draingage etc. Also what improvements will be made to the traffic infrastruture - taffic calming measures etc.

Any new development should make use of all available sustainability tecnology to ensure that all houses are energy efficient and built to the highest standard.

Finnaly enphasis has been places on having existing community services - bus, train, shops, pub, etc. What will be put in place to maintain and improve local services?

Support

1.1 - 1.13 Introduction and Context

I have attached this comment to this particular paragraph as I believe the that the plan has to a degree been strategic but could have been far more. I appreciate the great deal of work that has gone into the production of this document and it must have been quite exhausting. However quantity does not equal quality.

The document appears to focus primarily on housing and paid lip service to employment. I have not found any area where the Strategic appraisal of the local NHS trust has been reviewed or in deed that of the local primary and secondary schools have been approached to understand there capacity. The same can be said for transport, dentists, etc etc. Traffic management and volume has been glossed over - extra houses mean extra car - especailly in this area where communting to larger towns is essential for many and where public transport is not the best. We can not look at housing in isolation and an all party/sector/service forum should be set up.

The strategy is simply not strategic, but a collection of proposals which are really quite specific and no doubt have attracted emotive responses from NIMB’s (Not in my back yard) but they should be listened to very carefully as it is those locals that know the area and problems already and the consultation could not only aid better planning but also focus on areas for improvement.

In summary i am all for development of the right type and in the right areas as long as the existing infrastrure and services are reviewed. For example i am all for a major development in somewhere like Levens but with this would a local dentist and doctors surgry be provided or will that still be a commutee to Milnthorpe or Kendal. Will the school be able to cope and what impact will this have on the roads into, around and out of Levens.

Support

Support any development that will be for the good of the masses rather than a select few. The lack of appropiate affordable housing is driving more and more local young couple and familes further a field - Carlisle, Penrith, Shap, Lancaster, Carnforth, Morecombe, Preston, Warrington, Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham, London, Cardiff the list of where my old school friend live due to work and affordability goes on. WE NEED TO ACT NOW OTHERWISE THE POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC FOR THE WHOLE REGION WILL LIVE UP TO THE UNFORTUNATE STRAP LINE OF GRANGE - "GODS WAITING ROOM"

I would suggest a relook at whether this approach has been successful in presenting a strategy which in years to come people will say it covered all bases and was the right thing to do and not a knee gerk reaction causing more problems than it solved. Will the plan be future proof and enable the communities to ride the enevitable peacks and troughts of the global economic climate that we are in.

Communting is essential to the local region - either into one of the principle areas such as Kendal but more and more people are commuting further a field to Penrith, Lancaster, Preston and Manchester. This is for employment at more than the national minimal wage and to enable them to afford a house. I think links to train stations and improved free parking are essential and having quick and easy access to the M6 are essential. With this in mind Oxenholme is an area that no doubt will be effected by traffic regardless of where any development takes place. Having said this flexible working and home working will enable people to work further afield for mid week and work from home fir-mon which suggests that larger housing such as 4 beds needs to be concidered.

Suggest that emplyment opportunities are actively encouraged to the principle towns and that land is set a side in other towns for this. A realisation that not all towns will be the answer to every issue and that commuting is essential. Levens for example has been identified for substantial housing but no employment and the current employment opportunities are very low and it is understood that the vast majority of working age population commute to Kendal, Milnthorpe, Ulverston et al.

Oppose

Storth

Oppose

There is no need for increased housing in the Storth Area, beyond some affordable housing for the local people and sheltered housing for locals. Jack's field should not be used, as it will destroy the view for everybody.

Much of our businesses rely on tourism and we need to conserve our beautiful area. Neither do we need more traffic along Park Road in Milnthorpe - it is dangerous as it is.

To try and develop Four Lanes End is too abserd to comment on, unless it is craft workshop, charcoal burner, local art, stonemeason etc.

If we have to have houses, a small development of affordabe houses (sell plots for people to put their own eco-homes on) on quarray lane. Convert the village hall in to a sheltered, support complex. Move the village hall to a more suitable site for larger hall with a car park on Sandside main road (enter form Quarray Road

Storth - Four Lane Ends

Oppose

Ligt indusrial units at Four Lane Ends is not on.

There is plenty of room in the Quarray Lane. If this must go ahead much more industrial traffic would use Storth Road and the country lanes. As I have stated at previous meeting there are no footpaths in the village. This will make our village a dangerous place.

When I moved to Grange in 2005 one could walk over a bridge to the Prom,one could have a swim in the local bathing pool, you are fully aware of the URGENCY with regard to putting these back , who has ever heard of a Coastal Town where residents and visitors have to stuggle to get on the front. You are now contemplating actions which will take away the livelehood of the small retailers by allowing Booth's to open a Store,these people pay high rates and we residents would loose these delightful shops,which give character to this OLD ENGLISH TOWN. I am given to understand that you are contemplating building an estate on the agricultural land at the top of Grange Fell Road,this is a natural DRAIN, and if built on would no longer prevent the flooding of among others our lovely Library..

Storth

Oppose

we feel that any industrial developments should be in Quarray lane.

We feel that low cost housing should be located in proposed option 2 for the following reasons.
a) Development of option 2 would be less disruptive to majority of the village.
b) Road access would be closer to the main highway
c) housing in option 2 would not be noticed or rather less conspicuous in this area.

pages 154/5 9.North Allithwaite (the currently preferred option for Allithwaite)

Oppose

'Land south of Templand Farm' and 'opposite Fellside' are bowl-shaped hollows in the limestone, without watercourses. Their principal aspect is northwards and away from Allithwaite. Contrary to their appearance on any map, they are not a natural part of the village and should not be regarded as a natural extension of it. The provision of a drainage and sewage system for any new development on this site will raise major expensive technical difficulties, as connection to Allithwaite's existing south-falling system will prove virtually impossible.
The local water supply switches seasonally from Simpson Ground reservoir to aquifers, so groundwater purity is important The village of Allithwaite consists of a mix of housing and agricultural land. In the past few years, two fields have been swallowed up by further housing development, the most recent of which, the very crowded estate at ‘Greendale’, would be visually unattractive were it not for its relatively hidden situation. A housing development on the 'land opposite Fellside' would extend the village beyond its current bounds and also such houses would be extremely conspicuous from many directions. Development here would seriously detract from the rural character of the village, in an area with ‘a very open feel’ similar to that on the west side of the village.
The ‘land south of Templand Farm’ suffers from a major problem of access. It is bounded on two sides by the rough and narrow track to Templand Farm (with its hazardous exit on a sharp bend onto Cartmel Road) and by the equally narrow and winding Templand Lane. The other two sides are bounded by the mature housing of Templand Park and Cartmel Road. These houses would suffer particularly from any new development. Aside from visual effects, which would be severe, there would not even be the buffer of a lane and hedges between them, just the existing low wall.

If development in the village is to be considered, the field adjacent to the church would at least have the merit of being entirely within current housing.

Allithwaite has no amenites other than the village post office, recently under threat, two pubs and one charity shop. Considering the proximity of Grange-over-Sands, with its amenities and services and its ‘small town‘ character, this would seem a more appropriate place to concentrate new housing. With the growing need to consider energy consumption and to reduce the use of cars, development close to such services would seem a more desirable objective.

The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025

Proposal to develop land off Grnage Fell Road, Option 4

Oppose

At the head of the framework document it is stated that the emphasis for Grange-over-Sands should be towards promoting tourism and leisure through culture, heritage and environmental enhancement. Selecting this land at Grange Fell goes completely against this basis. People come to Grange to visit this quaint picturesque town, see the traditional local shops and walk in the local countryside. Hampsfell is arguably the place to walk in the Grange area. I walk the area daily and see many visitors on my walks, a number exclaiming what a beautiful view from Hampsfell. Significant development in this area, particularly where shown on the framework map would ;

• have high visual impact to those tourists who walk that area and reduce its environmental value and probably reduce tourism by walkers –. in direct contradiction to the stated aim of the Framework document
• the land is bordered by dry stone walls which if lost would be destroying our environmental heritage. There are also substantial limestone outcrops (and indeed at least one limestone pavement protection order) in the Grange Fell area. Has anyone checked for limestone pavement on this land ? Is this not also in direct contradiction to the stated aim of the Framework document ?
• The Framework document states in the “Suitability” column of the document Table that the land is a “large, level” Greenfield site. The site is not, in the main, level but part of the rolling hill which is Grange Fell.
• The land would be accessed from Grange Fell Road, a busy route from Grange to Cartmel. The Framework document claims “good access” to this site under the “Suitability” column of the document Table, seemingly unaware of the road blind bend and roadside parked car issues. At the position of the identified land there is a significant blind bend on the hilly fell road. This requires straightening now to reduce accident risks but any significant development on the suggested site creating more turning traffic would risk creating an accident blackspot unless the road was straightened. Grange Fell Road is also currently hazardous due to parked cars which creates a need to “slalom” between parked cars at present. That hazard would also need to be removed before further development to maintain current accident risk levels.

In summary I’d say that significant development at land off Grange Fell Road would be contrary to the stated objectives of the Framework.

• Development of part of the first field closest to what is currently Grange Fell Post Office (but presumably to soon be closed), partly as a car park to take cars off Grange Fell Road). Perhaps there could be limited development in that field if there is no limestone pavement on the land.
• Development of land north of Meadowbank Lane along Grange Fell Road.to the Cemetary. This land is shielded from Hampsfell by trees along the Golf course boundary and by tree on the field side of the road. The road here is straighter and less hazardous.
• Development of a triangle of land in the field next to Spring Bank Farm lane where it meets Grange Fell Road and bounded by the existing Right of Way. This would take walker’s cars of the lay on Grange Fell Road adjacent to the field identified in the previous paragraph.
• Using other land for development such as that identified at Kents Bank which is next to Allithwaite Road. There the road is straighter and less hazardous to new turning traffic and the area does not offer the particular attraction of Hampsfell to tourists in this area.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

1.1 - 1.13 Introduction and Context

pp4-5

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

I appreciate the value of displays and officer supported events around the district to help inform this consultation process. However, given the strategic importance of this document for future SLDC development planning and given its length and complexity I feel the consultation period has been too short. I am particularly concerned that Parish Councils do not appear to have been automatically consulted as they would be for individual planning applications - and surely this present exercise is a greatly magnified equivalent.

As the Core Strategy continues to be worked on, ensure further fine tuning consultation with Parish Councils between now and final draft.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

3.17 The Preferred Option - PO1 - Locational Strategy

p37

Oppose

I am concerned that Local Service Centres will be subject to undue development pressures because smaller rural settlements will not be taking their share of required population growth. This principle is likely to result in each LSC growing beyond its present attractive (and sustainable) character.

A more even apportionment of development between LSCs and smaller settlements should be laid down.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO2 - Rural Areas

p46

Oppose

For the retention of the character of such smaller settlements it is vital that where infill would be on greenfield land it is not automatically viewed as a better option than the use of greenfield land on the outskirts. Sometimes green spaces among traditional buildings contribute as much to the character of a place as the buildings themselves.

Change PO2-2 wording to 'It is small-scale and, where appropriate, comprises...'.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

2.16 - 2.17 Key Issues to be Addressed

2.16 - bullet 1

Oppose

The Regional Spatial Plan sets a guideline that 50% of Lakes and Morecambe Bay housing development should be on brownfield land. Figures for brownfield development are notably lacking from this Core Strategy. Indeed there are only two uses of the term 'brownfield' throughout the document. The considerable inroads into good agricultural or amenity countryside are a completely unacceptable part of SLDC's strategy.

The underlying principles for the whole strategy need to be reassessed in the light of the North West's brownfield guidelline.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

3.69 - 3.78 PO4 - Balanced Housing Market - You Told us That & Introduction

3.69

Oppose

The Core Strategy's overall housing development target is 8,800 as compared with the figure of 7,200 in the NW RSS. Accepting that the problem of affordable housing is particularly acute in South Lakeland, this higher figure undoubtedly puts additional pressure on solutions acceptable to local communities.

It would be more realistic to compromise on the affordable housing target in order to ensure a level and rate of housing development with which the existing South Lakeland population would be more comfortable.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.53 - 4.59 Policy Context and Justification

4.58

Oppose

Preserving the 'historic environment' which is acknowledged to be Cartmel's 'main attraction' does not depend solely on protecting the older heritage area of the village. The additional number of residents envisaged will put pressure on the village in all sorts of respects (e.g. size of primary school, size of village store, vehicular access to racecourse for recreation, busyness of main through roads, pedestrian access through non-pavemented area of village) which will affect safety within the village and the village's tranquillity within the context of the surrounding valley.
If 60% of the housing development is affordable, this itself will put greater pressures on local infrastructure issues such as schools and pedestrian safety. Moreover, the need for residents of affordable homes to travel to their employment - which may not be well paid - creates both an issue in terms of additional commuter traffic and of affordable travel. Much additional traffic will create very real problems on the Haggs Lane hill, lined with residential housing and concealed entrances, and in Grange Fell Road, lined with parked vehicles.
In addition more needs to be made of the countryside of which Cartmel is a part: protecting the natural environment, maintaining the tranquillity of the countryside and taking account of and enhancing landscape character and features are in their various ways, of course, all emphasised in the RSS as well as the Core Strategy.

The amount of housing being allocated to Cartmel needs to be reconsidered, along with its physical and visual impact on the surrounding area, of such importance to its attractiveness to tourists.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025

p151 para 4.50

Oppose

Cartmel is referred to as both a village and a town within the same paragraph. While presumably an oversight, this may also reflect an ambivalence towards the place. Cartmel should be seen as a village and any proposed development planning viewed in this context. To begin defining Cartmel as a town can all too easily become the thin end of the wedge in deciding appropriate levels of new development.

Change 'town' to 'village'.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.53 - 4.59 Policy Context and Justification

p161 Table 5 point 4

Oppose

As a general point I believe it is misguided to regard a single direction of growth as preferable in LSCs.
Specifically I strongly oppose the Pit Farm option as the only direction for growth in Cartmel. I fully appreciate points such as walking distance from amenities but there are a number of serious reasons for objection.
1. Visibility from Hampsfell and particularly the footpaths down towards the village. The issue of visibiliity from the surrounding countryside is cited in a number of other options (e.g. option 12 West Allithwaite p154). While existing development would screen the field from the roads at village level, much of Cartmel's charm to tourists is the way it nestles into its valley as viewed from the higher points to east and west. A large new development (50-90 houses between now and 2005?) would absolutely destroy this effect and no amount of screening would conceal it from these elevated positions. In any case Town End Meadow and Orchard Close, the eastern limits of the village at the present time, show no such attempt to screen - and the tight margins for a developer providing 60% affordable housing will not be conducive to 'unprofitable' landscaping and planting.
2. One reason for the choice of this site over the other Cartmel options is apparently the ready access through Orchard Close. However, this would be a disaster from a traffic and safety perspective. During commuter/school run hours the road onto which all the additional traffic would emerge is already congested, putting pedestrians and vehicles alike at risk. Frequent deliveries to the Spar store can be added to this picture - and presumably these will become more frequent or longer if the store's turnover increases significantly with a larger customer base. The consequent traffic chaos and danger make this option unacceptable.
3. Light pollution from streetlamps on the new development would be seriously detrimental to the impact of the street light-free nature of the historic part of the village - orange lighting among the newer houses is already compromising this feature.

It is vital that the pressure of the proposed extra housing, if it is to be, should be spread across at least three separate areas around the village. Option 5 on p153 and Option 6 p154 (the infill proposal near the campsite) would be far more discreet locations as viewed from Hampsfell/Howbarrow, would disgorge into different roads and would avoid the creation of a concentrated area of street lighting.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.52 Alternative Options: Options 1-3

Option 3 pp153-4

Support partly

I broadly agree with the assessments set out under all the alternatives except for points 3, 9 and 12.

I suggest that a greater range of the assessed options are proposed as preferred directions of growth rather than the narrowing down which has taken place.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

3.60 - 3.66 Policy Context and Justification

p57 para 3.62

Oppose

I strongly challenge the allocation of only 4% growth requirements to Kirkby Lonsdale at the expense of Grange and Milnthorpe. While I cannot comment in detail of the topography of Milnthorpe, surely it can be argued as strongly for Grange as for Kirkby that its environmental capacity for expansion is limited. Grange is a town bounded on the one hand by Morecambe Bay, on the other by Hampsfell and with important woodland to the north. Points 1-4 on p153 spell out how little room for manoeuvre the town has.

A more equitable distribution of development between these three Key Service Centres.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025

p156

Oppose

While I accept that Grange must contribute to the need for housing and employment development, there seems to be insufficient recognition in the Core Strategy of the topographical and infrastructure difficulties of the town. I have commented on the former elsewhere. One significant infrastructure problem is that all traffic growth will be funnelled down Main Street without any feasible alternative route through or round the town. This growth will arise from Grange's regeneration as a tourist resort and so will not simply be proportionate to the expansion of the resident population in its functional area.

A realistic reduction in the development demands to be made of Grange between now and 2025.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

3.17 The Preferred Option - PO1 - Locational Strategy

p37

Oppose

I feel that some of the premises on which this preferred option is based are unsound.
1. The definition of service provision gives equal weighting to six factors. But to suggest that a village hall or pub, important though they are as symbols of community, are as important as good bus links is a nonsense. Similarly open space if it means a playing field is of less importance where accessible open countryside exists. Other services could as easily have been chosen, e.g. train service, secondary school, post office, doctor's surgery. To require a LSC to tick five out of six of the currently suggested list of services is a very shaky basis for deciding settlement distribution.
The key services are surely public transport (bus or train), a primary school and a shop. The aim should be to apply criteria which ensure an expansion of the number of defined LSCs to help build a wider distribution of small but viable local settlements.
2. The preservation of green gaps seems to me a lesser principle than many other features of the district which we should be trying to preserve. There needs to be a significant reassessment of such gaps and whether the notional separation of settlements along a roadway (as opposed to preserved countryside away from the road) is to be enshrined in tablets of stone.
3. The definition of functional areas according to the rule of 1.5k distance between a LSC and a KSC is unsound. A longer distance from the centre to centre of each settlement is essential. It is of little use that Cartmel may be only 1.5k from the edge of Grange if it takes the same distance again to reach the library or post office or butcher's. The current definition adds pressure to the closing in of settlements to each other because it reinforces the idea that communities whose edges are close will operate more and more as a single functional community.

1. Review the services criteria. Apply them so as to increase the proposed number of LSCs.
2. Review the principle of green gaps and, if retained, rigorously question how vital each one is compared with the demands of other factors.
3. Replace the 1.5k principle with a centre to centre measure (centre being defined as that part of a town which offers a sufficient cluster of services, particularly retail).

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025

p156 & map p157

Oppose

The proposal to preserve the green gap between Allithwaite and Grange seriously inhibits Grange's necessary directions of growth. This area offers very suitable land for development and is of little importance as a 'green lung'. Moreover, ribbon development already lines most of the one side of Kirkhead Road and all the other side as far as Jack Hill. The important green gap between the two settlements is the whole Wart Barrow area. What happens along this stretch of road is of relatively little importance. Communities have sufficient ways to preserve their identity without physical separateness having to be retained as an immutable principle.

Abandon this green gap, or at least the portion of it south of the B5277.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.52 Alternative Options: Options 1-3

Option 3 pp153-4

Oppose

Point 3. Is there not an area of land SW of Castle Head which is suitable for development?
Point 9. This area is certainly very suitable for development, being very level. The proposed extent could easily be increased by making the limit a line drawn west from the end of current housing on Wart Barrow Lane. This would not represent significant encroachment beyond existing development.
Point 12. I am not sure how and where from the issue of visibility is significant. Certainly the field north of Vicarage Lane and west of the church is very suitable for development. Further west beyond Boarbank Lane towards Boarbank Hall and Farm other small scale development could be sited.

Further review the locations referred to and increase the number of preferred directions of growth listed on pp160-1.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

Table 3 Page 137 Para. 10

Oppose

1 The proposed housing development would overload :-
a)the already inadequate roads,(viz Helme Lane and Oxenholme Lane and the pinch-point on Natland Road at the village entrance),
b)sewers and surface water drainage.
2 There would be a potential catastrophe from collapse of the proposed development into the limestone cave system running underneath these fields.
3 The village is already intensively developed with few green breathing spaces left.
4 The proposal is another step closer to coalescence of the village with Oxenholme and Kendal, a situation already pronounced unacceptable by H M Inspector with regard to the development of "Strawberry Fields" Oxenholme.
5 The school is already at full capacity.
6 The Lake District gateway view from the train line is not the only one to be considered. The view of Helme and Natland on its lower slopes, as seen from the west, would be less green and more built-up.
7 The whole idea of overdeveloping a pleasant rural village runs counter to the policy of promoting the well-being of residents, stated elsewhere in this `planning proposal under another name'.

Delete reference to East Natland as a growth location.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.80 - 4.88 PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres South and East - Introduction

The preferred directions of growth for new employment development at Burton in Kendal as shown on the Local Service Centre Area Strategy Maps.

Oppose

The access roads to this site are not suitable for additional traffic. Neddy Hill and Tanpits Lane are residential roads, both are traditional village streets, they are narrow, with no footways or verges and have right angle bends and restricted forward visibility. We walk our children to school and the shops along these roads and any increase in traffic would be unacceptable in terms of pedestrian and traffic safety. The alternative route to the A 6 along Moss lane is a single track road with occasional passing bays and a less than 3metre height limit under the canal bridge.

I do not know what the drainage implications would be of developing this land but there are already problems with the sewers at Neddy Hill after heavy rain and there have been problems with the rising main from St James's Drive.

Deletion of this proposed employment site to the west of Burton in Kendal.

It is not clear how much consideration has been given to the relationship of the village to employment developments at Clawthorpe, Dalton Hall, Moss End and in Carnforth.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Key Diagrams - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East)

The Key diagram for Burton in Kendal and its preferred option for employment land development on the west side of the village.

Oppose

Pedestrian and road safety as detailed in my representation for Policy PO16.

Deletion of this preferred option.

Consideration of existing employment land developments as detailed for PO16.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

3.83 The Preferred Approach - PO4 - Balanced Housing Market

PO4 summary pp70-1 and related section generally

Oppose

The general feeling seems to be that the only need for additional housing in the Cartmel area is for more affordable housing for local people. In the Core Strategy affordability and local occupancy seem to be discussed as two related but separate issues. In fact what local people want is affordable houses for locals, not for incomers settling into the area nor indeed residents of the wider locality proposed in Option 5 p66. It is not evident on the ground in Cartmel that the local lower income workforce needs to be augmented by further incomers.

To get more affordable homes built, developers have to be permitted to sell other houses in a new development at a higher market price in order to make a reasonable overall profit. However, this dilution greatly increases the requirement for house building in any particular area - and still fails to fulfil the affordable housing need.

The Core Strategy (pp61 & 73) points out that 119% of all proposed housing development on the Cartmel Peninsula would need to be affordable to meet local needs. Even if all developments required a 60% affordability proportion, by 2025 still only half the number of affordable homes needed would have been built (approx 29 annually as against an annual requirement of 57).

So what happens in 2025 when the LDF is reviewed? A significant shortfall of affordable housing will still be identified – and this shortfall will be potentially even bigger if market demand in an area with a fixed stock of non-local occupancy homes will have pushed average house prices still higher. The argument will be for a similar level of annual development on into the distant future.

This is not a sustainable approach, either locally or nationally. p78 of the Sustainability Appraisal acknowledges this:

‘It is expected that some headway will be made towards addressing the affordable housing problems, however, it is recognised that this issue cannot be entirely addressed through the provision of affordable homes as the number of affordable homes needed per year (416) exceeds the total quota of homes to be built per year (400 under the draft RSS).’

In areas of high priced housing the problem of affordability is by definition that much more extreme. In Cartmel Peninsula Rural the multiple of actual to affordable house price based on median household incomes in 2006 was 4.7 (South Lakeland Housing Needs and Market Assessment Executive Summary p7). The income level is in reality the same in Ulverston but, because of lower market values the multiple is only 2.2. Affordability levels are thus far easier to deliver in Ulverston than Cartmel. Given that employment opportunities in the Cartmel area are limited, it makes far more sense to concentrate the affordability housing drive in the KSCs, from where – past evidence suggests – people will otherwise migrate to fill much of the affordable housing built in places such as Cartmel.

The whole basis by which the housing need statistics are turned into development policy needs to be revisited.
Other innovative solutions to achieving affordable housing need urgently to be explored - relying on the traditional approach of subsidised building developments is neither efficient nor effective.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

3.83 The Preferred Approach - PO4 - Balanced Housing Market

PO4 summary specifically and the PO4 section generally

Oppose

I am concerned about the 'stickability' of practical policies to deliver affordable and local occupancy housing.

Firstly, is there a constraint which will ensure that housing made initially affordable by some modification of normal market mechanisms will remain equally affordable when subsequently sold on?

Secondly, will the Council be introducing a proactive system for assessing the local occupancy credentials of purchasers? The current reactive arrangement seems to rely on retrospective discovery, complaint by a third party, etc and is undoubtedly a weakened system as a result.

Mechanisms to ensure the delivery of sufficient affordable and local occupancy housing need to be clearly formulated and spelt out.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

2.28 - 2.38 Strategic Objectives

General comment about strategic way forward

Oppose

The sacrifice that local communities are being asked to make warrants something more accountable than simply good intentions on the part of SLDC. In places there is a disturbing lack of convincing assurances in the Strategy where, for example, references are made to the problem of second homes, viability of the formulae governing developments, enhanced employment opportunities and improvements in infrastructure such as public transport.

Whatever the final planning detail set out in the Local Development Framework it will be vital that progress is monitored regularly (at least biennially). There must be built in room for manoeuvre in case intentions are not being fulfilled. Targets for reducing affordability/local occupancy need, the suitability of selected directions of growth, the sensitivity of development, the necessary infrastructure improvements, etc all need to be rigorously monitored.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Alternative options : Options 1 - 3

Page 125, Alternative Options, Option 3, Number 21: South Kendal

Oppose

This area was put up for this development in the last 10 year plan for Kendal and was overwhelmingly objected by local people (2634 responses) on the grounds that this is a vital piece of green belt within walking distance and used constantly. It was proposed this this brown field site would become green field status, unsuitable for housing or light industrial units. The objections raised before have not changed, but become stronger due to the expansion of Kendal into the surrounding countryside. Eg.
1. Destroy forever a vital area of green belt
2. Visual impression to impact on visitors arriving from South (site would be prominent as one leaves Shenstone roundabout for Kendal, breaking the existing natural and beautiful boundary line)
3. Previous schemes firmly rejected by government inspector in 1991
4. Proposals will conflict with scheme to develop Lancaster Canal, which would bring far more jobs than this light industrial development
5. Impact on leisure activities...fishing, dog walking, etc.
6. Noise, light and water pollution into the Kent which is an SSSI
7. No commercial advantage as access along Natland Road is restricted, better access and ease of development at already used sites.

Removal

Adopt this area as green belt in perpetuity.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Alternative options : Options 1 - 3

I would like to comment on Section 4, Option 3, Para 22 - South Kendal - and specifically on the area between Lumley Road and Helsington Laithes.

Oppose

Whilst understanding that nobody wants any development bordering their own property, the outline proposed would totally destroy the delightful rural setting and delightful setting backing on to our property between Lumley Road and the converted farm development of Helsington Laithes.

Our main objection centres around the avoidance of any development on the high elevated ground to the west of Milnthorpe Road as that would be so intrusive, overbearing and completely spoil what is currently a beautiful natural landandscape. This high ground that provides such an attractive setting and backdrop on the approaches into Kendal should not be touched, apart from being costly due to infrastructure difficulties, to build here would be totally inappropriate and unbelievably insensitive to the beauty of the area. Housing development would overlook and dominate existing properties and remove any privacy.

It could be more difficult to defend development on the lower ground bordering the road, although that would also have an adverse effect on current properties in Lumley Road and some of the converted farm properties in Helsington Laithes, ours in particular, and it would need to be planned very sensitively and without any density.

I do hope our comments can be taken into account.

The Core Strategy is an impressive document. Thank you for putting so much work into it. It does have its weak spots.
Thank you for accepting this response today June 10 2008.
PO9 - Sustainable Development Principles:
On page 111, under the heading PO9 of the above document, you outline 15 objectives/proposals/policies which are good but can be better.
The 'wheel' of sustainability has already been invented by the 'Code for Sustainable Homes' and 'The Merton Rule' and I fear that PO9 is trying to reinvent the wheel.
My suggestion is that:
1 - the 'Code for Sustainable Homes' and the' Merton Rule' should be included in PO9 as the 'measure' that all Sustainable Principles are measured. The CSH is a comprehensive proven methodology with a recognised and proven set of criteria for measuring CO2 levels before, during and after development and should be inserted into PO9 in paragraph 3.180 as the 'guiding principles' that inform PO9 and by which PO9 will be measured;
2 - that the CSH and the Merton Rule should be 'obligations' imposed on all developments with immediate effect including all developments that have already been given outline planning consent but have not yet passed the 'detail' aspect of planning consent.

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

PO11 para 1 - Kedal , development of circa 90 hectacres of residential & " employment" land. The development of combined residential / employemt land between Lumley Road & Helsington Laithes will, I feel, impact seriously on the "countryside" feel to the southern entrance to Kendal (which after all is described & is actually a tourist town now). The "Gateway" to the Lakes, it could be argued, should not be impaired with any serious developments here. Already we have traffic backing to the southern end of the Kendal by-pass at peak times which will be exascerbated by additional heavy vehicular traffic. The two "Green" areas of land (south of Burneside & North west of Oxenholme) are alarming in their "minisculity"!! This is the Lake District, this is the countryside - are we to condemn Kendal to a "service" backdrop of mediocrity? If so then tourists will forge further north with resultant impact on the Kendal economy (already stretched to support 28,000 residents)

Oppose

the need for additionaL housing is an obvious need, however, have we exhausted the "brown" field sites potential? (before we start expanding into our green fields)

The "employment/ residential" areas need fuher thought & consideration given to maximising more appropriate land potential rather than selection of the soft "underbelly" of the southern approach (which is clearly attractive to tourists (our main income for the town).

the northern / north eastern & perhaps section 93 of the Kendal functional area ( Kendal Fell)which is entirely feasible & less impacting on the tourist traffic heading up the by-pass for the lakes?

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

We attended a meeting at Stonecross Manor to discuss the plan for developing the area between Lumley Road but we wonder if sufficient thought has been given to the effect this will have on traffic and the southern end of the town which is so attractive and inviting. This may sound like nimbyism but traffic is daily backed up to Prizet on the bypass at busy periods, and this could act as a deterrent for visitors to the town.
Most of the heavier employment is in the north of the town and this will add to traffic problems without a northern bypass.
Will the drains and sewers and the treatment works cope with the increase?.
The types of houses are not specified but in any event they will generate more cars making it more difficult for us to access Milnthorpe Road particularly to travel south.
Now aged 80 and having lived in Kendal most of my life we think the Old Grey town is being spoiled by all the changes being made. A wonderful hospital has been downgraded to a cottage hospital and ambulalances now have to travel to Barrow & Lancaster along Milnthorpe road with more difficulties for them. So much for consultation there.
Still you want to enlarge Kendal. There are great traffic problems in town and the pedestrianisation has turned Stricklandgate into a bus station with unloading lorries and taxies in the main street. More cars are using the road and eventually there will be an accident.
I don't suppose you will take much notice of these complaints but I feel better for having made them.

3.12 - 3.16 Options Considered: Alternative Locational Strategies: Options 1-7

OPtion 7 maintaining green gaps

Support

I think you made the point well yourselves:Part of the distinctive character of South Lakeland is the diverse range of separate communities in a range of towns, villages and hamlets. Green gaps protect their individuality.

1. When the current housing in Long Meadow Lane was built we were advised that the drains were at their maximum capacity. The designated area for future development would take them well beyond their capacity.2. The local school is at full capacity. 3. This area is far bigger than necessary for the housing allocation for Natland however its value as building land would lead to it being developed ahead of more preferable brown field and infill sites. Even after the housing allocation for Natland had been build it would make further development in this area difficult to refuse.4. The site itself would be noisy due to the proximity of the railway line and the screen of trees referred to in the plan having recently been removed (This is quite noticeable in the village.).5. Access to the village is mainly by way of narrow roads with limited passing places and due to the tight and dangerous corner on Natland Road.6. Development on the proposed scale would destroy Natland as a separate rural village community and with the development in the ‘Oxenholme Triangle’ risk making a suburb of Kendal.7. There are high radon gas readings in the area.8. There is a significant flood risk if the green field site over the limestone caverns is covered with concrete and buildings.

The local parish council has handled development around Natland in a very sensitive way which has fostered the needs of the community whilst allowing the village to grow in an organic and controlled way and should be allowed to carry on with this process.A greater emphasis should be placed on the developments around Canal Head and in infill and low cost areas particularly where they are better served by public transport. This would be more environmentally friendly as it would involve re-use of former industrial land.

I appreciate that this is a very complex issue, which will necessitate an involved system for consultation, but I feel that after 40 minutes I have not been able to gain an overview or make my opinions known on anything more than a specific tiny area of the plan.
In general I feel that in a time of falling house prices with many flats in the pipeline which will probably struggle to sell it is a pity that the council is forced to earmark areas for further development. This area of the country is special specifically because it has not suffered from the large scale developments of the past - presumably because of its natural beauty and lack of large industry - factors which still apply and would seem to suggest we should not expand of expansions sake. Rural areas have poor transport links and Kendal has a traffic problem to put it mildly. South lake just doesn't seem an appropriate place for large scale development, tho' I suspect government edict gives you little option, perhaps delay is the best option!

Oppose

The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025

PAGE 156 item 3 : Berners Close car park development should be kept as health and leisure. I do not believe that a small housing development would be appropriate.

PAGE 156 Item 6 : I do not support the inclusion of a new small supermarket as this will have an adverse affect on the excellent local shops. I have moved from an area where the introduction of a small supermarket instead of enhancing the local shopping killed off these small businesses and made way for a larger national chain store.

Page 160 item 2 SOUTH WEST GRANGE OVER SANDS Land at Kents Bank - Building on this site will deplete the green gap between GoS and Allithwaite and would, in my opinion, begin to blur the identity of the two communities and set a dangerous precedent for further erosion of green space.

Page 161 item 5 West GoS Land adjacent to Fell Gate Farm: Can you clarify the distance and which station this refers to.

Support partly

PAGE 156 item 3 : Berners Close car park development should be kept as health and leisure. I do not believe that a small housing development would be appropriate.

PAGE 156 Item 6 : I do not support the inclusion of a new small supermarket as this will have an adverse affect on the excellent local shops. I have moved from an area where the introduction of a small supermarket instead of enhancing the local shopping killed off these small businesses and made way for a larger national chain store.

Page 160 item 2 SOUTH WEST GRANGE OVER SANDS Land at Kents Bank - Building on this site will deplete the green gap between GoS and Allithwaite and would, in my opinion, begin to blur the identity of the two communities and set a dangerous precedent for further erosion of green space.

Page 161 item 5 West GoS Land adjacent to Fell Gate Farm: Can you clarify the distance and which station this refers to.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The South Lakeland Local Development Framework can be summed up by a single word, awful. This plane is full of pc meaningless words with the exception of amounts of green lands to be turned over to developers for exploitation. I fail to see anywhere in this plan anything to assure me that it will "include tightening up measures which will help preserve, enhance and protect the South Lakeland countryside for us and future generations".
It needs a lot more thought and work.

wish to oppose the proposed housing development by South Lakeland District Council in the Heversham/ Leasgillareas for the following reasons:-

1. Traffic: - The villages were bypassed in the 1920's due to traffic congestion on the A6
through the villages. Increased traffic caused by any development would cause
chaos around the Church area because the road is narrow with no footpaths.
The cambre of the road is particularly severe around the 'Old Blue Bell' area.

2. Extra cars:- Families would enevitably have more than one vehicle because the bus
service is infrequent. This would cause increased noise, pollution and safety
hazards. Access to the A6 would require traffic lights, causing traffic build-up
at peak times.

3. Public Amenities:- There are no shops, Post Office, Doctor's surgeries or Dental
surgeries.Any extra residents would require all these facilities and would have to
visit other towns e.g. Milnthorpe causing more problems there.

4. Position of Housing:- Area 3B is sighted on the old village pond, which floods in periods of
heavy rain. Areas 3B and 4 are sighted on good agricultural land. We are now
told that the developing countries are now consuming more food causing
shortages and increased prices in the U.K. making it more important to produce
more home-grown food.It would be more sensible to build houses on ex-industrial
land, rather than agricultural land.

5. Social Effect on Villages:-The sheer size of any development would cause a negative
impact on the Community, and spoil the rural character of the villages of
Heversham and Leasgill.

6. Employment:- Any extra residents would require employment and there has been no
evidence to show how small or large businesses would be encouraged to invest
in the area. with salaries to afford high mortgage payments.

7. Schools:- The local school is already over-subscribed and there would be no school
places for young children.

8.Current houses for sale;- There are already many houses for sale which have been on
the housing market for a long time.

I trust you will consider all my relevant points in any decisions.

Re: the Proposed South Lakeland Local development framework/Core Strategy Options/PO13 Grange over sands Functional Area 2025. Preferred Direction of Growth 1; North West Grange: Land off Grange Fell Road
I would like to register my objection to the proposed site as a ‘Preferred Direction of Growth as outlined above’
Grange Fell Road is a steep narrow road, which has both a blind bend, and an area with no footpath. The increase of traffic that additional housing / work units would bring would be dangerous to both locals and the numerous walkers who come to walk Hampsfell. Tourists walk up Hampsfell to see the magnificent view of Morecambe Bay. It would be impossible to hide the new buildings, therefore potential destroying one of the major reasons why tourists visit this area. Widening the road would destroy walls that have been in place for centuries and destroy the local character. The ambience of this area is one of open countryside. The destruction would be irreversible and a loss for future generations.
Your document states that the fields chosen for development are flat when in fact they are sloping. Flooding occurred in the area in 2007 and caused damage to local housing.
Ravenstown is already an area defined as suitable for development in the ‘Ravenstown Masterplan’. Why has no mention been made in your document of this? I realise that Grange Fell Rd / Cartmel is more desirable in location and therefore more suitable to developers who wish to build large expensive homes. However, if your plan is to build affordable homes for locals this should not be a factor. land would surely
Flookborough has an area of industrial units, which are surrounded, by empty fields. Cartmel Sticky Toffee Pudding has a unit there as does Pintail Candles. Surely it makes more sense to develop there rather than in a green belt area?
This beautiful area has not been built on in the past because it has always been deemed to be not suitable. This is not a series of open fields ripe for development but an area of beauty that needs to be protected.
Please keep me informed of any developments.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO3 - Distribution of Development

Oppose

SOUTH LAKELAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: CORE STRATEGY PREFERRED OPTIONS, APRIL 2008

1. General comments on the presentation of the Local Development Framework

1.1. While recognizing that this document represents the first stage of the consultation process, the absence of any definitive information on the boundaries and associated areas of the sites, or the density of potential developments, hinders proper evaluation of the proposals. Moreover, it would have been helpful for there to have been a statement of the proportion of the land identified for development that is actually needed for SLDC to meet its development objectives.

2. Comments and arguments against developing 3 sites to the south of Kendal town

The Development Framework includes consideration of the potential for development of 3 sites on the southern approach to Kendal via the A591 and A6 Milnthorpe Road, viz.
- Land between Lumley Road and Helsington Laithes for mixed/employment/housing (preferred option 2c)
- Land at Shenstone for employment (preferred option 11)
- Land south of Scroggs Wood for employment (Option 3, alternative directions of growth, 23)

The following paragraphs present comments and arguments against developing these 3 sites.

3. Development of the land between Lumley Road and Helsington Laithes for mixed/employment/housing (preferred option 2c)

3.1. Preserving South Lakeland’s environment and character

The area is on an important access route to the town from the south (and therefore used by many tourists and other visitors to the area who arrive from the south via the M6) – it needs to be kept as an attractive entrance to the town, in keeping with Kendal’s status as The Auld Grey Town at the ‘Gateway to the Lake District’. The importance of this consideration is magnified if the Lake District is to be designated as a World Heritage Site.

3.2. Road access

3.2.1. Access either directly onto Milnthorpe Road or via Lumley Road would further increase the density of traffic on this already busy and congested stretch of road. Visitors to the town from the south might well prefer to continue on the by-pass to Windermere and beyond, rather than sit in traffic waiting to enter Kendal. This would pose further risk to the viability of town centre businesses and facilities.

3.2.2. Access onto Milnthorpe Road would necessitate another junction on this stretch of road which already has multiple junctions (Lumley Road, Kent Park Avenue, Helsington Laithes, Scroggs Lane and a car dealership) – potentially increasing the risk to road users.

3.2.3. Access only via Lumley Road would adversely affect residents of the road, as a result of increased traffic noise and pollution from vehicle exhaust fumes. There would also be a potentially hazardous increase in traffic at the junction with Milnthorpe Road.

3.3. Loss of green space

3.3.1. This land should be protected as part of the district’s green infrastructure. Once this agricultural land is built on, it will be lost for ever as open space; such development of green-field sites should always be the last resort, to be used only when no brown-field sites are available.

3.3.2. The Development Framework does not make it clear what percentage of the required housing and employment provision could be accommodated on brown-field sites, nor does it identify such sites within the existing town boundary.

3.4. Supporting infrastructure

3.4.1. The Development Framework does not provide reassurance that the infrastructure and site services are adequate to support development on this land. Concerns relate to social infrastructure (education, health service provision etc), and to factors such as water run-off (from the hill at 102 m behind the site) and the adequacy of drains and sewerage treatment facilities.

3.4.2. Better sites for potential development exist at the northern and north-eastern edges of the town, which already have access to services, and facilities such as shops and schools.

3.5. Loss of amenity for residents of Lumley Road, residential areas south-east of Milnthorpe Road and Helsington Laithes

3.5.1. Increased traffic with the associated noise and pollution.

3.5.2. Potential disruption to the main drains (and possibly other services) from Helsington Laithes that run through this land.

3.6. Development for housing

3.6.1. Notwithstanding the acute need to provide affordable housing in Kendal, the southern approach to the town is not the best site for such development, for the reasons noted above. There are more suitable sites for housing, already identified in Option 3, than this small, hilly area. Furthermore, there will clearly be opportunities to develop parts of the town centre as more shopping moves out of town or to the internet. Also, social habits are changing, as witnessed by the recent closure of a number of pubs in the town, providing other opportunities for brown-field development.

3.6.2. It is understood that developers have already expressed interest in building on this land. Such interest should not influence the decision-making process in respect of designating this land as available for development.

3.7. Development for employment

3.7.1. Development for employment is not in keeping with the predominantly residential / agricultural nature of the area, the appearance of which enhances the southern approach to the town (as noted in 3.1 above).

3.7.2. An argument that is sometimes advanced against developing the northern and north eastern edges of the town is that road access from the east, west or south is predominantly through the town centre. The Local Development Framework should not be constrained by failure at the County Council or Government level to consider the future transport needs of the area for the first half of the 21st century. SLDC should make strong representation to the County Council to progress the Northern Link Road. Locating 40% of all the new development for South Lakeland in Kendal as a Principal Service Centre will result in an unacceptable increase in density of traffic in the town centre unless the Northern Link road is built. Construction of this road would also increase the possibility of further development for employment to the north and north east of the town where much of the existing light industry is based, thereby reducing the need for such development to the south of the town.

3.7.3. The parcel of land to the south of Lumley Road is small and hilly – any development for employment would be so limited that it could be accommodated on existing industrial / commercial sites in the town, or by changing the use of former retail or pub sites, as noted in 3.6.1 above.

3.7.4. There is no argument that would support mixing housing and employment on such a small site; the presence of employment facilities would be unsatisfactory for residents (e.g. additional traffic, parking, noise, lighting at night).

4. Development of land at Shenstone for employment (preferred option 11)

4.1. Essentially, this is a proposal for a green-field office development that would benefit from the excellent road and rail access to the site. While offices would be more acceptable than industrial use of the land, the Local Development Framework document acknowledges that substantial infrastructure development would be required (roads, water supply and drainage). Furthermore, development at Shenstone could set a marker for extending the town boundary, potentially leading to filling-in of the open space that presently separates the area from Kendal. This would be undesirable for the reasons outlined in 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 above.

4.2. If only small-scale office-based development is intended (e.g. for IT or financial businesses), there seems to be no good reason why small green-field sites should not be developed on the periphery of population centres in South Lakeland other than Kendal, where road access would be adequate for this type of land use.

5. Development of land south of Scroggs Wood for employment (Option 3, alternative directions of growth, 23)

5.1. Although not part of the proposed Core Strategy, this option is undesirable as it would, again, represent an extension of the southern boundary of the town, and the arguments against such development, noted in 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 above, apply.


For the above reasons, we object to the proposals to develop 3 areas on the southern side of Kendal.

Roy and Sarah Frost
The Old Smithy
Helsington Laithes
Kendal. LA9 5RN

30 May 2008

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Storth

Oppose

We believe that the developement of the land at Four Lane Ends for employment land is totally isguided on a number of grounds. the roads which pass this land are narrow and only suitable for light traffic, particularly because of the lack of pavements for pedestrians. The immediate area is residential and does not need the potential increase in noise and traffic.

The obvious place for employment land is in the present industrial area along the old railway yards at Sandside/Quarray Lane, especially given the much greater access.

This land would be much better used for some of the housing proposed for Storth, reducing the size of any such developments.

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

4 Area Strategies pp 125, 126 and 133

Oppose

The land in question is a raised hillside facing south east, which dominates the most important southern entrance to Kendal from the A591. The impact of any form of development on this land would severely detract from the unique market town character of Kendal for both visitors and residents alike. The raised land is clearly visible from both the A6 to the south and east and the A591 to the west. Any form of modern development on this land would be detrimental to the visual impact of this most important southerly route into Kendal. The visitor's first impression is an important consideration and development on this site could adversely effect tourism in the town.

The traffic flowing along the A6 into Kendal at peak travelling times is already causing traffic jams which occasionally extend to the junction with the A591 at Shenstone. Adding further traffic volume through a development to the south of Lumley Road would worsen the situation and could well present a major safety issue with standing traffic on the A591 which is of course dual carriageway. Increased traffic volume would also in general have a negative impact on the volume of tourists wishing to visit the town.

An option which must be considered is to extend the existing Kendal A591 by-pass from the Plumgarths roundabout to join with the A6 north of Kendal. This will reduce the volume of traffic on the A6 southerly approach to Kendal, the volume of town centre traffic and provide good access for housing development off the by-pass route.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

4 Area Strategies pp 118-138

Oppose

The LDF report does not make reference to the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006 and the conclusions of the Inspector Mr P Whitehead.

Include references to the South Lakeland Local Plan 2006 and explain how the circumstances have changed to warrant the inclusion of land to the south of Lumley Road as a 'Core Strategy Preferred Option'

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

2.3 - 2.15 A Spatial Portrait of South Lakeland

Section 2 2.8 pp 9 2.11, 2.12 pp 10 commuting

Oppose

The report clearly states two of South Lakelands major problems. The first is the general low wage economy of the area with its subsequent problem of home affordability. The second is lack of availability of high technology jobs within the region, which force our qualified young people to move outside the area to pursue a career. For the more established residents who perhaps are making lifestyle choices the environmentally unfriendly long distance commute is the only choice.
In the South Lakeland area there are less than 10 'World Class' businesses, able to offer high technology jobs. The area needs in excess of 50 of these 'world class' businesses to address the two major problems. Each of these businesses could employ between 50 to 100 persons with a wide range of skill and technology requirements. Businesses of this type are usually established by entrepreneurs, who are strongly persuaded to come to a particular region because of the natural assets and lifestyle of that region.
None of the proposals in the report correctly address the problems of the low wage economy and the migration of our younger people. Furthermore the proposals of increased house building and the provision of commercial premises on the green spaces within Kendal and other South Lakeland areas of settlement are likely to discourage entrepreneurs from coming to this region. Should the proposals in this report be implemented, it is likely that the South Lakeland area would be condemned to a low wage economy beyond 2025 and for the foreseeable future.

Establish proposals ( in other sections of the report) to address the two problems of the low wage economy and the migration of our younger people.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

Section 4 par 6 pp 125 & 2c pp133

Oppose

Much work has gone into the production of such a lengthy report, no doubt at considerable cost to the South Lakeland rate payers.
I hate to be too critical over detail in reports, however it is a little disconcerting to find factual errors in the content of a report which must have been proof read many times over.
The first comment concerns the description of area 22. The area is shown on the map on page 126 as being south of Lumley Road and west of the A6. However on page 125 the description relates more to area 18 which is spatially some 0.5miles away as the crow flies.
The second comment concerns the description of the houses as Edwardian detached houses. Even a cursory glance at the houses on Lumley Road would reveal that they are not Edwardian but are pre and post war houses. The third comment concerns the greenfield site south of Lumley road as being level which it is not. The site rises from the A6 by at least 20 metres. A quick cursory examination of the Ordnance survey for Area 22 would have revealed that two contour lines run across it. Each contour line representing a 10 metre vertical interval.

Correct the report in the light of the forgoing comments.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.63 - 4.64 PO14 - Milnthorpe Functional Area 2025 - Introduction

PO14
PAGE 164
PARAGRAPH 3
SOUTH EAST MILNTHORPE

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
I SUBMIT THIS OPTION AS A MORE VIABLE ONE THAN THE PREFERRED OPTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS

IT DOES NOT IMPINGE ON LOCAL ACTIVITIES

IT PRESENTS NO DRAINAGE PROBLEMS

VEHICULAR ACCESS COULD BE MADE AT THE ROUNDABOUT AT THE JUNCTION OF THE B384 AND B385. ALSO ON TO THE A6 AT THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE VILLAGE. THUS ESTATE TRAFFIC COULD AVOID THE VILLAGE CENTRE NO MATTER WHERE IT IS HEADING.

IT IS CLOSE TO THE VILLAGE CENTRE. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS COULD EASILY BE MADE AT THE NORTH END OF FIRS ROAD ESTATE BEHIND THE CHURCH WHICH IS ONLY A FEW YARDS FROM THE SQUARE AND ALL ESSENTIAL SERVICES.

SOME PARKING COULD BE PROVIDED ON THE DEVELOPMENT CLOSE TO THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THUS REDUCING THE NEED TO OVERLOAD THE PRESENT PARKING FACILITIES.

PAGE 164
PARAGRAPH 5
NORTH ACKENTHWAITE
2

Oppose

LOCAL RESIDENTS ENJOY THE PRIVILEGE OF A PUBLIC FOOT PATH ACROSS A GREEN FIELD WHICH IS THE PREFERRED OPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT.

KIRKGATE LANE IS A SINGLE TRACK NARROW LANE USED BY PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS. IT IS UNSUITABLE FOR MOTOR VEHICLES AND ONLY USED BY FARM VEHICLES AND THOSE REQUIRING ACCESS TO HAVERFLATS.

AFTER HEAVY OR SUSTAINED RAINFALL THE LAND FLOODS QUITE EXTENSIVELY IN TWO PLACES AND TAKES SEVERAL DAYS TO SOAK AWAY NATURALLY. THE LIE OF THE LAND SUGGESTS THAT ANY DRAINAGE SYSTEM WOULD HAVE TO PASS THROUGH OWLET ASH ESTATE.

THE SITE IS JUST FAR ENOUGH AWAY TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE WALKING TO THE VILLAGE CENTRE WHERE ALL THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES ARE LOCATED THUS COMPOUNDING THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING PROBLEMS IN THE VILLAGE.

PO14
ALLOCATING EMPLOYMENT LAND PO5

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ALL LAND ALLOCATED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE SHOULD BE WELL AWAY FROM THE VILLAGE CENTRE AS THE ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT VEHICLES TEND TO CLOG UP NARROW ROADS [TRY GETTING OFF THE SQUARE WHEN THE BUTCHER IS RECEIVING A DELIVERY OR GETTING TO THE SQUARE WHEN THE SPAR IS RE-STOCKING].
AS THESE TWO ESTABLISHMENTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE VIBRANCY OF THE VILLAGE THE INCONVENIENCE IS TOLERATED WITH GOOD HUMOUR. HOWEVER THERE IS NO SENSE BURDENING OURSELVES WITH UNNECESSARY FRUSTRATION.

I AM THEREFORE SURPRISED THAT THE GATEWAY PROJECT MERITS NO MENTION IN THE PLAN. THIS SCHEME, WOULD IT SEEMS, HAVE PROVIDED PLENTY OF SPACE FOR INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION WITH [I BELIEVE] DIRECT ACCESS TO THE A590.
THIS FACILITY WOULD SAVE SOME OF THE HEAVY TRAFFIC THROUGH MILNTHORPE, POSSIBLY ENHANCING THE VIABILITY OF THE MAINLINE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AND SAVE THE CANAL BRIDGE AT CROOKLANDS BEING WRECKED ON A REGULAR BASIS.

May we take this chance,before your deadline on 09/06/2008,to air our concerns for our village regarding plans up for consideration affecting Burton.

Your map on line certainly left a lot to be desired as far as clarity is concerned ,being out of focus.

Social infrastructure,including the network of roads in question,would certainly not cope.Indeed it is difficult now to get round the village due in part to the roads being narrow,as well as conjested with cars parked day and night,usually meaning two cars cannot pass without one giving way for the other.Also on health and safety grounds regarding fire,police and ambulance,further loading on the structure would be fool hardy,inparticular down Tanpits Lane,Neddy Hill and Station Lane.

Furthermore,the physical infrastructure cannot cope now.United Utilities are called out on a regular basis to the pumping station in St.James's Drive,evidence of which was documented in the Westmorland Gazette last year.Several houses flooded with sewage,and not always when it rains!Further overload would be catastrophic.

The environment would also be adversly affected,creating urban impression.No priorities appear to be noted about any local clauses for any more houses.Indeed,are more houses needed?

Why if any more"employment sites"are needed,are further considerations not being given to areas around Crooklands/Milness areas by Junction 36,indeed any development closer to the motorway area around Burton could indeed proove fatal in the long run as pressure on the m6 increases,and anything in closer proximity than currently exists could well be asking for trouble.

I have only just seen the Local Development Framework (LDF) and notice that comments have to be made by 30th May 2008. I would be grateful if you could advise me where the proposed sites are for the additional 72 housing requirements planned for the Cartmel Peninsular.

SLDC's Conservation Officer, Graham Darlington recently held a "Place Detectives" event to form part of a review of all of the district's conservation areas. This was to find out what local people value most about the village's buildings and open spaces and what aspects help to make the village such a distinctive place. It is these open spaces and architectural and historic aspects in Cartmel that combine to give the village such a distinctive character and appearance. One of the purposes of the review was to help protect the area in the future. Is the information from this review and the comments gained from local people during the event going to feed into the LDF?

Apart from the actual location of the houses I have concerns over the impact of additional traffic on the roads as public transport is poor in the area for people who have to rely on it to travel to work. Employment in the area is limited to bar, cleaning, shop work etc which is poorly paid, unless people are prepared to travel further afield to seek employment.

Presumably an additional 72 houses will have an impact on the local schools, doctors and other services. Will the local services and schools be able to cope with such a large scale development?

I would also be interested to know if the local Parish Council has been consulted on the need for 72 additional properties in the area as very few people in the village are aware of the LDF, let alone the need to comment by the 30th May.

RE: Objection of the inclusion of site one, in: THE SOUTH LAKELAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - Core Strategy Preferred Options.


I am writing to state my objection to the inclusion of site 1 of the Proposed Direction of Growth for Grange over Sands: North-West Grange over Sands land off Grange Fell Road.

Its description under the suitability category, as a 'large level Greenfield site' and achievability deemed 'easily developable land' is misleading, and NOT an accurate description.


I understand from the local councillor, that this site was designated by an office in Manchester. The mention of 'May be subject to flooding', is an understatement as it is already subject to flooding. Ought not the 'requirement of a Flood risk assessment' be done, prior to inclusion in such a drastic change in the town boundaries. An assessment can already be done, by the talking to the people who live and work in the vicinity of Grange Fell Road.


Grange is built on a limestone pavement i.e. a ridge of porous rock. At times of heavy rain, water wells up in many places, flooding basements, cellars, and roads. Seven times out of ten, when it rains, Grange Fell road turns literally into a stream. The water carries all the way down and regularly floods the Spa, and butchers and other shops at the bottom of the road. Any bins left out get carried down hill, and the house next door has a spring which literally gushes out of its foundations when it rains particularly hard. Our house has a well in the garden, showing how near the water table below is. All over Grange, the water from the hill percolates through, making its way down hill to the bay beyond, flooding various basements. My Grandfathers apartment on Sunny Brea, Rockland Road is one such example.


This is now a known and quantitifible occurance, with house holders and shop owners knowing what to expect and how to deal with the level of water, though this is far from satisfactory.


Hampfell Fell, and the fields beneath which are the proposed area for development, play a critical part in protecting Grange. It is not a level, green field - rather the top of the limestone ridge. The turf is generally very thin, and at places the limestone is bare. Other than conservation concerns, my main concern is for flooding implications. If the land is distured in any way the results could be catastrophic. The deep digging needed for concrete foundations and drainage of such a large scale development will upset the water channels that have been established over hundreds of years. The majority of water from heavy rain, coming off Hampsfell naturally drains into these channels, to lower streams, rivulets, down to the bay. If the soil at the top of Grange is disturbed, ie Hampsfell Fell and its lower fields, absorbancy would be destroyed. We already live with the regular flooding from the small percentage of water this does not absorb - imagine the implications with this not in place.

All the water coming off Hampsfell would seep into the limestone, upon which Grange is built, changing the whole natural, established water courses and drainage system. It would become a completely unknowable, and serious risk of flooding to the residents of Grange. Water would come up anywhere. Additionally the volume of water running down Grange-Fell road to the main shopping centre below will increase enormously.


IF you disturb the delicate nature, and natural water ways that have been created over many, many years, there will be no way to predict where the water will surface. A worse case scenario is serious flooding of the main village on a regular basis, plus an enviornmental disaster. The cost of culverts and a drainage system deep enough to cope with this amount of water will be huge. I beleive that in 1998, the estimated cost to deal with the current problem alone was over 3 million.


I believe, before this is permitted to be included within the LDF core strategy plan, this problem needs to be addressed seriously. Inclusion in a LDF, implies it will go ahead in the future - not including it will put an end to a possible threat for the large parts of Grange. Not including it will also fulfil one of the other priorities in the LDF:' Themes and priorities should be explicit on the importance of protecting and enhancing the environment for future generations'.
The LDF also states 'Sustainable energy production and local food production should be priorities.' This area might fulfil such a requirement by growing organic vegetables and having a farm shop. This would be an excellent designation of this site. Ensuring and maintaining flood protection for Grange, plus keeping intact a most beautiful environmental part of Grange.
I hope you take into serious consideration these facts

The Preferred Option - PO13 - Grange-over-Sands Functional Area 2025

Page's 153 & 154 Option 3-Alernative Directions of Growth

Support partly

Whilst i agree that there is a need for 'low cost' housing for local people, will the area's infrastucture be adequate? Particularly with the partial closure of local hospitals, police stations, fire stations etc. Another point is our local roads which can barely manage the current amount of traffic are in a dire state, i really can't see how they would handle the extra traffic. Also local people are constantly scratching their heads trying to find something for the young people of Grange-Over-Sands and the surrounding area something to do other than assembling on street corners, with the proposed number of dwellings at 880 this currently small issue could expand into something much larger and potentially more serious. Overall in my view the proposed developments are far to large and any development carried out should be for the benefit of local people seeking housing.

Storth

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

Although i appreciate the need for starter homes and employment oppotuniy, the suggested cross roads location for light industrial application would seem more suitable for housing. The industrial development could be located adjacent to exsisting such developments behind the ship inn.

However, the crossroads access would also provide a better housing access option than the suggetion of housing on Yan Lane field, as additonal housing here would require a new road system to be built, potentially damaging the heart of the village.

I would like to register the following concerns with regard to the Local Development Framework and its impact on Heversham.

Locality - The LDF presumes that Heversham is part of the Milnthorpe functional area.

Heversham, like the rest of South Lakeland, has just gone through an extensive electoral boundary review with the result confirming the Heversham ward as being linked with Levens - not Milnthorpe. This decision by a statutory government agency surely undermines the claim in the LDF that Heversham is part of Milnthorpe.

Beetham, on the other hand, is linked to Milnthorpe (both as a local government ward and historically); has a school that needs more pupils (unlike Leasgill) and a Post Office that needs more customers. Any new housing would be far better placed on land linking Milnthorpe and Beetham.

Traffic - Heversham's road network is unsuitable for more traffic which the new development would inevitably produce.

Woodhouse Lane is only navigable to two-way traffic by cars pulling off the highway and into the entrances to private drives.

Recreation - The land to the north of Parkhouse Drive is an established recreation area for dog walkers with footpaths across it. The land is also an important wildlife habitat.

am opposed to the proposed housing developements in the Heversham/Leasgill area as I feel that this would destroy the character of our small villages. The visual impact of a large number of extra housing units would be extremely detrimental to the rural character of these villages which have grown slowly and in sympathy with their settings. The villages are not dormitories for the surrounding area but communities in their own right.
Despite being on one of the major bus routes through the area we are mainly dependant on personal transport. The villages have narrow roads and lanes that are of only one car width,mainly without footpaths. Traffic is already a problem, particually at school collection times and without destroying the historic buildings and turning rural lanes into 'urban' roads, how could the villages cope with an extra 80 plus cars? The villages stand on the side of a limestone hill,natural springs cause roads (and properties)to flood and part of the area of site 3B is under water for much of the year.
Site 3A would seem a possibility; but access via Dugg Hills' narrow roads or onto the A6 near a blind bend?? Site 4 ,exiting on to Woodhouse Lane, very narrow at both possible points! or again onto Dugg Hill? As to the visual impact of this site, the effect on the village would be catastrophic from all angles. I do understand that affordable housing is needed for local people,few of whom can work locally and must own cars, we have no shops or Post Office and it is a dangerous walk to Milnthorpe with or without young children A small developement of affordable housing on the Dallam school site, should it become available, would not put undue strain on the existing infrastructure of the villages as some of the traffic problems caused by the school would then be removed.
Finally, do we need more 'non'- affordable housng in an area that has had desirable houses in the £200-£400,000 bracket on the market, and not selling, for several years?

2.16 - 2.17 Key Issues to be Addressed

2.16 para3

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

The issue no-one has addressed is whether building'affordable housing' is possible by only considering the standard 'row of cheap boxes in a group' model that has pertained in the past. There needs to be much more creativity and public/private partnership with a range of agencies and builders to come up with truly affordable options which are also eco-friendly. Many of us need cheaper better-quality housing, given the steep rises in food and fuel bills. Why cannot housing associations work with SLDC to develop a voluntary 'sell-back'scheme where second home owners who wanted to could sell their homes to housing associations who could refurbish/redevelop them for locals?. This would keep them on brownfield sites and within the existing development boundaries. What about building good quality all-season timber lodges and upgrading existing caravan sites to accommodate permanent residents? There is a precedent for 'trailer parks' already, but these would be more up-to-date and attractive. The active elderly might like them as well as the low-waged, and it would be a good source of income to farmers who can think of nothing but selling their land at the moment.

An unequivocal commitment and a creative proactive approach to evolving truly affordable homes within the existing development boundaries on brownfield sites.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Figure 27 - Grange-over-Sands Functional area Strategy Diagram

Site 1 Fig 27 land off Grange Fell Rd

Oppose

The invitation to interested parties to submit sites for consideration for development specifically limited these sites to land within the development boundaries of the Local Plan. How can SLDC nominate land outside the boundary for development unless the owner has already agreed? If the owner has already submitted an ineligible site for consideration, why has SLDC considered it? SLDC cannot claim at this point that there is no option but to build on greenfield as it has not carried out any of the more detailed assessments. It has also shown little initiative in seeking out brownfield sites in a proactive manner. It is not sufficient to accept a greenfield site outside the boundary merely because the landowner has offered one. If this type of decision is acceptable policy, it opens the door to continued attrition of farmland over the next twenty years and leads to farms that are too small to have the land/resources to diversify even if they wanted to.

Be consistent with existing policy and procedures, and remove area 1 from consideration altogether, along with any other greenfield sites outside the existing boundaries.

Consider some less obvious options for redeveloping town centre sites. How about replacing Grange Library with a three-story building? The existing building isn't attractive and the rear car park is a death trap with terrible access onto a one-way road! New library facilities on the ground floor, eco-friendly apartments above - keep the trees, build on most of the car park, plan in some pedestrianization for the site, incorporate balconies, cycle stores,wi-fi and recycling chutes. Give the first tenants/owners a free railcard for the first year to encourage them to sell their cars. What about using the site of the current British Legion on Kents Bank Road for serviced apartments for the elderly? The BL is having a hard time keeping its clubs going - it might be willing to sell if the purpose was in sympathy with its existing aims. There would be good level access to local amenities for the less mobile. Given the increased targets for identifying sites I think something other than the standard letter of invitation is called for, even at this stage - maybe a well-publicized 'invitation to discuss', pointing out the potential financial gain, to the owner of every large commercial premises in Grange. If SLDC can be flexible in their response to developers' obligations re co2 emissions, they can be flexible in the way they attract good brownfield sites. Now is the time to do a second trawl before everything becomes a foregone conclusion.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Re: Preferred Direction of Growth
Local Development Framework
1. North West Grange
Land off Grange Fell Rd, Grange Over Sands


1. I strongly oppose this option for many reasons. My stance is that this site should be taken out of consideration for any building development (other than small-scale improvements by the farmer) at this stage of the LDF process. Further, it should be designated as green gap/ protected as historic county landscape for the life of the Development Plan, and its existing character and historical interest should be gently enhanced to promote enjoyment and appreciation of locals and tourists alike with more footpaths, interpretation boards, and waymarkers.

2. This site is not in the Grange Regeneration Plan; if the evidence for this Preferred Option rests mainly on the surveys, statistics and details provided for the Grange Regeneration Plan, there is no evidence of it having been surveyed, assessed, analysed, commented on, or mentioned by anyone as good for building on. This Option has no robust evidence to support its inclusion. It fails the first test of soundness – that the choice should be based on good evidence.
3. It could be argued that this option also fails the second test of soundness in terms of good practice in involving the community in its preparation. While it may be more cost effective to put a copy of the LDF in Grange Library and have one consultation day at Victoria Hall, the needs of the elderly and less mobile to receive information in a form they can understand and comment on is not well served. The length, format and jargon of the LDF is impenetrable to someone with an average reading age and no background in planning, and the request for ordinary readers to comment on the Tests of Soundness is risible.

4. The information in the LDF has not got through to those most affected. I have talked to at least twenty of my nearest neighbours over the past week and most have expressed complete ignorance of anything planned for the area: coverage in Grange Now has had no detail for this site, the notification in the Westmorland Gazette was not noticed by anyone I talked to, most of them do not have internet access to electronic versions, and no councillors, with or without planners) have organized small meetings to discuss the proposals (unlike other local districts). SLDC may have fulfilled their statutory consultation obligations, but have failed to get a full and informative response or any sense of involvement from those most likely to be affected. The elderly are particularly vulnerable to disruption of familiar and safe surroundings, and sensitive to having their needs / views ignored. It is not sufficient to be told, there are no community buildings, no pub/shops, and no healthcare centre. “Don’t worry – it won’t happen in your lifetime”. If this Preferred Option is not taken out of the LDF at this stage, the type of people who are least best placed to fight their corner can look forward to the worry and uncertainty of contesting every planning application put in for this site for the next twenty years. Most of them are not affluent incomers- they are low income locals who have seen nearly every corner of their surroundings built on over the past fifty years and would like to preserve their last bit of neighbourhood open space.

5. The Grange Regeneration Plan specifies that developments should be sited in / near the town centre for sustainability – it is perverse and inconsistent to suggest large scale development outside the development boundary in the existing Local Plan. To achieve a cost-effective build density on this site would produce a development out of character with its nearest buildings in terms of size and scale.

6. The Grange Regeneration Plan recognizes the need to protect and enhance distinctively local landscape recognized as County Landscape. Altering the wonderful scenery around the foot of Fell End and Hampsfell is the opposite of all national, regional and local guidance on protecting the quality and character of the landscape. Building would ruin the history of this site and the Hampsfell / Fell End area. The fields have been like this for at least three centuries. They retain the characteristic wells, limestone walls and field patterns typical of the area; they are acknowledged as interesting and valuable heritage, which cannot be replaced once altered. National planning policy is to promote/create /reinforce local distinctiveness, and ‘Heritage’ is a key theme in Grange’s Regeneration Plan. The main road to Cartmel past this site is narrow, steep and has a blind bend with no footpath. To construct access for businesses and homes would mean a major reshaping of the road and complete loss of rural character including old trees and native wildflower verges.

7. The comment in the Preferred Options chart in the LDF that new residents might find work in Lindale is inappropriate and inconsistent. It is inappropriate at this point because it suggests some notional employment advantage to this site, when in fact it is open to residents on any of the proposed sites to work in Lindale.


8. In terms of reducing journeys by car, this site is a poor candidate, as residents would have to cycle to Lindale through Grange Town Centre and up Windermere Rd, both challenging gradients for the fittest amongst us! Anyone with a disability will hesitate to buy a house which demands they retain their car as they get older – in this sense it is discriminatory to build houses here as the inherent transport issues make them less accessible for low income, elderly and the disabled than sites on flatter ground near the town centre. This is the wrong place to build homes for the elderly population and young families – it produces an increase in car journeys, as no-one can carry a week’s shopping by foot /bus or cycle up this gradient of hill. There are no amenities in the immediate vicinity – the sub post office about to shut.9. It is not acceptable to sacrifice the quality of a major year-round attraction for ramblers, casual walkers, residents and day tourists to both Grange and Cartmel . Anything which lessens the visual appeal will have a detrimental effect on the number of visitors and the local economy. The site provides an appropriately characteristic and distinctive rural ‘skirt’ for the higher land, and a visually attractive approach to the major walking routes on Fell End and Hampsfell. Building on any of these fields would be visible to tourists and locals from the slopes of Fell End; this is easily demonstrable by photographs which can be supplied if necessary. It would be visible to cyclists, pedestrians and car users on the road from Cartmel to Grange ; there are stunning views of Morecambe Bay at the point that the road passes this site, which would not be complemented by new buildings. It would also be visible from the footpath that runs along the southern boundary wall of the fields. The buildings could not be hidden by conventional landscaping because of the landforms, the drawbacks of excavating limestone to sufficient depth, the lack of sufficient natural topsoil and the alteration to visual character produced by tree planting.


10. These fields, including their aged / veteran trees which are particularly valuable for biodiversity, are a major visual amenity for local residents, many of whose homes are bounded on three sides by other houses – they provide an important open space and source of pleasure to many who cannot walk far because of age or infirmity. They have views up to the hills, there are deer , foxes and birds to watch, and there are bats to be seen at dusk, which may be roosting in the unused agricultural building on the site. Most of the residents
I have spoken to bought their homes because of the amenity of living next to
open fields. Some of the small houses abutting the site will be much affected,
as they have little or no garden space, their only compensation being their
proximity to open space. As the development would be uphill from the
existing houses, their effect would be quite dominant and overbearing for
residents around the Beech Rd / Stone Terrace area.


11. There is already a high risk of flooding toward houses further down due to the slope and shape of the fields. Existing local houses and roads already flood in heavy rain. Mitigation through drainage would be expensive and unpredictable as limestone is very difficult to excavate – most of the local houses have drainage systems that are relatively near the surface as a consequence. The construction of building foundations on limestone might alter the existing underground and surface drainage patterns with further unpredictable flooding results. Any hardstanding associated with buildings will remove soakaway capacity and exacerbate existing flooding potential. The floodwater would end up at the Main St / Kents Bank Rd crossroads and would disrupt traffic and commerce as much as the Windermere Rd flooding has. There is strong presumption in regional and national planning policy against building in areas of flooding and this is not limited to the low-lying coastal strip.

12. Altering the ‘visual amenity’ of the area prejudices the possibility of developing further tourism – related businesses in existing premises. Grange Fell Sub-Post Office is shortly to close, and the owner has started a promising B&B business. This is immediately adjacent to the south boundary wall of the site and gains most of its attractiveness from its location next to open fields and within walking distance of Hampsfell. If other residents want to develop B&B businesses or start a holiday cottage business, their chance of success is slim if they lose the open views and rural atmosphere. As a resident on Beech Rd for seven years I can see increasing numbers of houses here contributing to the local economy . Of the ten houses on Beech Rd, two have operated as holiday cottages in the recent past, one brings long-term rental income for a local owner, three are currently second homes. I can only see the trend accelerating as affluent retirees look for affordable second homes outside the Lake District honeypots, and local families reject these small Victorian cottages as too cramped and lacking amenities for permanent residence. Holiday cottages and B&Bs are a traditional and accessible route to business for the area, particularly for women and farming families, and I think there is potential on Grange Fell to expand this in future if the scenery stays as attractive as it is. Grange centre has sufficient facilities for most second home owners to shop locally, and they certainly use the cafés and local attractions.


13. Developing on this site would take valuable agricultural land out of production. One predicted growth industry is local / organic food - more restaurants are trying to source it, more customers are paying premium prices for it. There is good commercial potential for local production to supply local hotels, and grow national businesses through internet marketing. This is already happening for individual local producers. Taking agricultural land out of production leads to less flexible land use later on, and limits the commercial options for future generations.

14. Any business development is better placed in the town centre near the railway, post office, banks etc. It is important to raise the vitality of town centre to keep it viable and attractive, and the Grange Regeneration plan is based on this premise. I think there may be brownfield options that have not been considered, such as:

Redeveloping the existing Station Yard business site. There is derelict land alongside the railway line at the end of this site, which seems to shelter nothing but unsightly dead cars, but has potential. The owner of Station Garage might be amenable to compulsory purchase. The existing garage building could be replaced by several units or refurbished into offices / starter units . It has the advantage of being near the Station to facilitate rail freight instead of road, delivery vehicles do not need to drive through the town centre to reach it, it is mainly not visible from the road, and it is near enough the access to the prom to consider including some retail outlets near the entrance. I think it would accommodate internet mail-order businesses or starter workshops and could even have an on-site training centre to assist starter businesses and promote mutual assistance / peer mentoring between businesses.

Redeveloping the land / buildings in the angle of Main St / Kents Bank Rd and Albert Rd ie the area behind Higginsons. Mr Higginson might be amenable to selling his undeveloped garage on Kents Bank Rd, and / or Mr. Gedyes might like to sell his defunct Auction Rooms for redevelopment. An attractive courtyard / all-weather arcade with quality food and speciality shops, and affordable apartments / offices above, would enhance the appearance of the area and be a great asset to that end of town, particularly if Booth’s does arrive at the Windermere Rd site. It could include outlets for local producers, even have space for a farmer’s market under cover – or a Sunday gardeners’ market, to build on a local characteristic and encourage tourists to include the Kents Bank Rd area in their walkabouts. There is already a good footfall in this area and this would help retain it.

If Booths does take up the Toyota garage site, one or more of Spar / Co-op / Fletchers might want to sell up for redevelopment. If the Booth’s decision is confirmed, they might like the option of realizing the capital from their existing assets to reinvest elsewhere rather than remaining to cope with the inevitable competition. If it were put into the plan at this stage, or opened to other businesses with suitable premises for redevelopment to offer for compulsory purchase, Grange might be able to avoid the conflict and tension experienced last time when Booths applied to build locally. If the Booth’s application fails again, that land still offers a well located site for housing / retail / business. Redevelopment could inclused finally sorting out the culverts and flooding as well. This would fit the ‘higher density housing on redevelopment land rather than lower density on greenfield’ priciple and also the sequential principle of town centre outwards development.

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

P133, 2b Land off Maple Drive & Cedar Grove
Table 3

Oppose

ACCESSIBILITY OF SITEHow will heavy plant access the site during the construction of the site? Cedar Grove is already a congested road at the best of times, with parked cars (most existing houses have a parking space for only one car and most people have 2 or 3 vehicles). Note some of Cedar Grove does not have any pavements at all. In addition most people living in this area do not walk into Kendal or use public transport. Therefore, more houses will mean an increase in traffic going into Kendal. More cars will also have to use the already difficult exit of Vicarage Drive onto Milnethorpe Road to come out of the estate.

VIABILITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTIf the requirement is for 50% of low cost housing, how will this be achieved when apparently the last few houses developed on Cedar Grove required blasting to enable foundations to be built.

VISUAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & HUMAN IMPACTKendal will just be an urban sprawl up to the by-pass. Traffic noise from the by-pass will impact on any new development.Loss of a valuable green-field space that the inhabitants of the area use.Finally, the impact on existing residents who have had privacy, peace & quiet for the last 13 years plus, will be extreme. Any new development because of the lay of the land would overlook all property on the boundary.Does Kendal really need all these houses? Especially when all other services that would be required to support the proposed increase in the population, such as hospitals, post offices, dental surgeries etc, are being severely reduced. Moreover, shops and facilities in this part of Kendal have been severely reduced over the last 5 years.

Consider brown field sites as priority. Consider a more accessible and economic sites first.Evaluate whether 3,000 + homes (potentially 11,000 more residents), that being a growth in Kendal by a third is realistic over a period of 12 years?

4.63 - 4.64 PO14 - Milnthorpe Functional Area 2025 - Introduction

Oppose

Leasgill/Heversham lie further than 1.5km from Milnthorpe. No mention is made of other settlements such as Beetham that are closer to Milnthorpe.
Leasgill and Heversham are distinct hamlet, very different in structure and character, Leasgill being traditonal linear type layout.

Include more settlements to disperse the effect of development

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Key Diagram - Milnthorpe - Figure 30

Oppose

Oppose the inclusion of Leasgill/Heversham as LSC :
1. Does not fully satisfy criteria given in Option 4, i.e. having a primary school, daily bus service, shop, public house, community hall and recreation
space as there is no shop and the only recreation space is a small playgoround for use of limited members of community. This means there is an inadequate infrastructure for development. The school is oversubscribed.

2. Further away than 1.5km from Milnthorpe

3. Lack of employment opportunities so people still have to drive.

4. Increased traffic - the road already struggles to cope with busy periods. Some stretches and nartrow with bad visibility and in Leasgill there is generally no footpath.

5. The scale of development being proposed is excessive in proportion to existing numbers


Site 3b -
1. The possible sites for development contradict 2.31.4 "To conserve and enhance the diverse character and local distinctiveness of the District." Leasgill in particular is a traditional linear type hamlet and any expansion into green space such as site 3b would have a marked detrimental effect on the landscape. It would ruin the local distinctiveness of the district. The view from Heversham head would be marred.

2. Increase traffic would cause problems on the single road or have to access directly onto the busy A6.

3. For most of the year the field suggested is partially waterlogged.

As mentioned previously there is currently no community leisure provision thus any additional people in the area would need to be transported to Kendal.

The 2001 census showed “310 household spaces” in Heversham. That number will have increased slightly but an extra 80 houses (2 hectares at 40 houses per hectare) – an increase of around 25%, does not seem to fit the definition of “moderate scale development” (Section 2.25). The increase in Milnthorpe seems even less “moderate” with 640 houses (16 times 40) on top of a 2001 census figure of 955.

There is no justification in the report for the relationship between residential and commercial space, and the Milnthorpe KSC seems to have been singled out for special treatment. The ratio is 18 residential to 9 commercial in Milnthorpe, but in other areas seems to be much smaller. For instance, Kendal is 50 to 42 and Grange 12.5 to 10.

Table in section 3.71 - there is little “Urban capacity” identified in the Milnthorpe KSC. Although the “Housing target” is 792 (9% of 8,800), the “Residual” figure of 721 is 15% of the total “Residual”. In other words Milnthorpe KSC is being asked to provide far more than 9% of the new land for housing.

Option 3 to be the preferred option - more sustainable and with less impact on local resources

Adopted by the District Council

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Document Instructions

Option 2C P 133 – Land to south of Lumley Rd. Area 22 and 23 Map 4 P 126. and Page 125 para 23 Scroggs Wood and Page 83 Shenstone

Oppose

The proposed 2C development (and Scroggs wood) would spoil the initial impression of visitors to Kendal, this being on the main access route and adjacent to the Town boundary.

Loss of more green field space!

The local infrastructure is inadequate as schools are already over subscribed and getting to see a doctor is almost impossible.

Milnthorpe road already has major traffic problems and at peak times backs up to the bypass. Trying to pull out onto Milnthorpe road one takes great risks as traffic speeds both into and out of town with little regard for the road markings! We cannot therefore accommodate the massive increase that such development in this location would create.

Kendal town centre development including the new k village development to attract visitors is pointless if they cannot obtain satisfactory access. The associated pollution from stationary traffic is incompatible with sustainable development objectives.

The A6 is a crucial access for emergency services, particularly following the downgrading of Westmoreland general Hospital. Further congestion on this route would introduce undue risk.


The proposed development is considered unviable and incompatible with the character of the historic Helsington development and other existing properties in the area.

remove these options from the plan

Page 154, paragraph 4.51 - 9.North Allithwaite

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

I am concerned about the appropriateness of siting new dwellings near to a busy working farm and the implication for traffic density in the narrow roads nearby.

Add a sentence: "However the size of any new development to the south of Templand Farm and its layout should take account of the busy working nature of the farm and the fact that the lanes serving the area are narrow."

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.52 Alternative Options: Options 1-3

Page 154 - Point 9 NORTH ALLITHWAITE: Proposed development to the north and north-east of templand park.

Oppose

The land falls outside the development limit, therefore leading to coalescence between Cartmel & Allithwaite

Loss of visual amenity, destruction of wildlife habitat

There is clear under capacity in terms of community assets and infrastructure

Development would impact on the environmental character of the settlement

Development would put increased pressure on already under-resourced hard and soft community services

This is very little or no local employment to sustain local development

Development would lead to an increased use of private transport putting increased pressure on already saturated village road networks leading to an increased risk of road traffic accidents and increased levels of local pollution

No evidence provided that there is a demand in Allithwaite for additional housing

Quality of life for existing residents would be severely compromised.

There are other more viable and more sustainable alternatives for development in Cark and Flookburgh

Point 4.52 indicated that Allithwaite was not considered with regards the Employment & Housing Land search study, based on the results of a report over 3 years ago. Extensive work is required to establish the implications of extending Allithwaite, and it appears that this has not been done thus far.

see above

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

We are a young couple and would very much like to move into Holme. At the moment, we live in rented accommodation at Preston Patrick. My sister and her family live in Holme, so we visit very often and really like the village, but, at the moment, we cannot afford to buy a house there.

We feel that affordable housing would be a great asset to the village and we would welcome positive plans for future development.

4.89 - 4.90 Policy Context and Justification

Page 183 and P189 relating to Storth/Sandside

Oppose

Area 32 on the map of Storth is not suitable for development as access will be extremely difficult given that the only way onto this site is from Yans Lane which is a single track road. Also, although you say Storth meets the criteria for further development by having a shop, pub, village hall, public transport etc, the reality is very different. The shop has a very limited range of goods and residents of the village still need to travel to the major centres for the weekly shop. Creating further housing here would lead to additional car journeys which is contrary to your stated objectives at 2.32 & 2.33 "to reduce the need to travel and reduce reliance on cars". Public transport is non existent in the village, the nearest bus stops are on the B5282 which entail a walk down Green Lane (which has no footpaths and entails crossing the road where visability is poor due to the dip in the road) or to the Ship Inn where the bus stop is on an exposed bend with no shelter, again there are no footpaths on this stretch of road. You also state that one of your objectives is to preserve the countryside and agricultural land, again the development proposal is contrary to this policy as it will utilise agricultural land currently used for grazing and ruin the countryside views for many residents on Storth Road and Yans Lane. At a time of growing worldwide food shortages and increasing demand for bio fuels as oil stocks become depleted, the council should be preserving agricultural land to help feed future generations.

Designate area 32 on the Storth map as unsuitable for developement due to access difficulties and not meeting the service provision requirements.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Storth - Storth Road and Yans Lane.

Oppose

i am oppossed to developement of the land bordering Storth Road and Yans Lane. This land has poor access, floods in heavy rain and is contray to the stated sustainablility criteria adopted byt he council.

The village, in my view, is of optimum size with a good range of of properties which include large expensive houses and much cheaper properties. There is also a good balance of housetype with a large proportion of bungalows and smaller cottage properties providing a good balance within the budget of young and old.

Pleas epreserve the central areas of the village.

If you need to build more in Storth then i suggest Quarray Lane in the field south of Keasedale Road

North East Storth

Oppose

Object to the building on pastoral fields backing onto Storth road ( north east Storth)

Poor access, flooding and detrimental to bio diversity make this a very insuitable area.

No commercial buildings in area 2 either.

Please keep our green sites - Storth is big enough

Possible buildings may be at the front at Sandside (Dixies)

Alternative Options 1 - 4

Page 171 paragraph 4 Page 175 paragraph 2

Oppose

To consider access to any future devopment from Harling Bank is out of the question. There has been a debate going on for over two years about the problem caused by the volume of traffic due to the proximity of the secondary school and the primary school. There are cars parked all day due to the lack of parking being provided on the expansion of the schools and the volume of traffic caused by buses and cars bringing and collecting pupils makes the area a very dangerous place. Our MP has visited and has seen the problem.

The proposed site should be ruled out due to the serious problem of traffic, sewage not being adequate (three schools in the area) and the land being unsuitable due to water logging

Consideration should again be given to the land south west of Kirkby Lonsdale which is a site favoured by the majority of Kirkby Lonsdale residents

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Oppose

i wish to object in the strangest terms of the Proposed Site of 790 homes in Ackenthwaite. if all the surrounding towns and villages were asked to find plots for 50-100 new homes the distribution would be fair, however to build a new village on green field sites is in this day and age is a criminal act.

The proposal of additional housing and employment development between Helsington Laithes and Lumley Road

I am writing to object to the proposal of additional housing and employment development between Helsington Laithes and Lumley Road. This green area at the southern approach to Kendal, with its daffodils and cherry blossom in Spring, is one of great character and is the first view of our town seen by many visitors. It should not be despoiled for commercial greed.

Continue to develop the other entrances to the town that have already been spoiled by retail parks and housing. For example, Shap and Appleby Road

1. A03 be the preferred option for housing development in Kirkby Lonsdale. FIG 32, Site 3. Housing here would be within walking distance of shops, health care and schools.2. Industrial development should take place near existing new units to the south of the A65
FIG 33, Site No.2, Table 7, 2nd section:- Land to the West of Harling BankSubject:- Vehicular Access to Site No.2 from Harling Bank.At both ends of the school day, over the length of Harling Bank and at it’s junction with the B6446, vehicular traffic approaches grid lock.Through traffic from the A65 to town, to St Mary’s, Queen Elizabeth and Cedar House schools and the Bowling Club, all contribute to this extremely dangerous situation, as does residential traffic to Harling Bank. Access to and from Harling Bank when parents evenings etc. take place at QES is virtually impossible and parking on the bends unsights the usually difficulty of accessing Harling Bank, particularly from town (turning right into Harling Bank from Kendal Road).I am no mathematical expert, but from the numbers that I have heard mentioned, the number of vehicle movements that the proposed development would generate would cause traffic chaos.The current traffic movements along Harling Bank are beyond the reasonable capacity of the road even if widened and adopted and I consider, therefore, that there is no way that the additional traffic generated can safely use Harling Bank to reach the schools, town or A65.

Serious consideration should be given to providing vehicular access to Site 3, FIG 32, from the A65. A cycle and pedestrian underpass to Site 3 be provided adjacent to the roundabout on the A65.Any development on Site 2 should include a ‘green space’ between such development and Harling Bank.Reference to Harling Bank as access to the site be removed from the report.

Continue to develop industrial units where such development has already taken place, adjacent to the BP Garage on the A65
1. Vehicular access to Site No.2 be via Site No.3 and thus from near the junction of the B6446 and the A65.2. School traffic be directed from the A65 to a new area on Site No.1 set aside for safe parking.This would go some way to moving the traffic problem away from the entrance to the schools and would eliminate the current practice of parking on pavements and corners. Traffic from Sites Nos 1, 2 and 3 could, therefore, go directly to the A65 and town traffic would be able to enter at the roundabout on the A65 near to Booths.

3.1 - 3.7 Spatial Development Strategy

Allithwaite

Support

These comments relate only to Allithwaite, a village in which my wife and I have lived for quarter of a century.
To increase the village size by 80 dwellings in the period up to 2025 is five a year and seems very reasonable.
I accept the comments and intentions relating to local occupancy and affordable homes.
Since there appears to have been a significant degree of NIMBY behaviour in relation to these modest development proposals within the village I would like to ask you to consider as a possible site for inclusion in the new development boundary for residential development (embracing affordable and local occupancy accommodation in line with the proposed new terms) the land on the right hand side of Beckside (as one heads south) known as Allithwaite Lodge field - or part thereof. This may not be an immediate high priory for development but to have it within the plan and therefore capable of being developed within the rather lengthy period extending to 2025 now under consideration seems a sensible step.

See above

These comments relate only to Allithwaite, a village in which my wife and I have lived for quarter of a century.
To increase the village size by 80 dwellings in the period up to 2025 is five a year and seems very reasonable.
I accept the comments and intentions relating to local occupancy and affordable homes.
Since there appears to have been a significant degree of NIMBY behaviour in relation to these modest development proposals within the village I would like to ask you to consider as a possible site for inclusion in the new development boundary for residential development (embracing affordable and local occupancy accommodation in line with the proposed new terms) the land on the right hand side of Beckside (as one heads south) known as Allithwaite Lodge field - or part thereof. This may not be an immediate high priory for development but to have it within the plan and therefore capable of being developed within the rather lengthy period extending to 2025 now under consideration seems a sensible step.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.12 - 4.23 Policy Context and Justification

Table 3 Para 1. - North-West Kendal.

Oppose

The effect of this proposal on traffic through Burneside Rd. and Kendal Town centre is not dealt with. The road sytem is not adequate for developements on the proposed scale. Access to main Roads from the area is poor - The A 591 junction at Plantation Bridge is accessed via a winding, single lane country lane: the junction at the other end of Burneside Rd., giving access to Windermere Rd., often has queues at current traffic levels. Neither route is convenient for southbound traffic. The amount of car and lorry trafic through Burneside Rd is already high for a residential road that passes under a narrow bridge, and causes significant noise to houses along the Road. The cumulative effect of new traffic on Burneside Rd from this and other proposed developments - residential and commercial - in North Kendal and Burneside if more than one goes ahead, is not dealt with.
Burneside Rd. is currently used by a large number of cyclists - both local commuters and tourists. Higher levels of traffic would increase the danger to cyclists, deter local people from cycling to work and have a negative impact on leisure cycling and tourism - thus going against the Council's sustainable transport goals. Kendal's role as a centre for cycling tourism sholud be expanded by making this route more bike-friendly - Burneside Rd. is a key link between the town, and many high quality cycling routes in Kentdale, Longsleddale and beyond.

No mention is made of the adverse effect of development on this site on views from neighbouring properties - including houses on the West side of Burneside Road, Laurel Gardens and the Hallgarth Estate. This contrasts with sections on other proposed sites, in which the effect on views from other - larger - houses is mentioned as a factor, as is, in one case, the "private feel" of an area with large, detached houses.
Under "Achievability" the report states that "Environmental quality will drive demand and values". It is hardly necessary to point out that this statement, if true, completely undermines the chances of creating genuinely affordable housing on the site.

Completely reconsider.

Any new developments should be sited in areas with good access to trunk roads, and avoid creating - or adding to - heavy traffic through existing residential areas. Alternative approaches to affordable housing should be developed, which avoid selecting development sites on the basis of high demand and prices, and then building "affordable" housing there - which those in most need can't afford.

2.16 - 2.17 Key Issues to be Addressed

The whole section. The same key issues run thorugh this whole document. Requiring each response to relate to specific lines makes the process of responding more off-putting and inconvenient.

There is very little mention of brownfield sites for development in the report. It is hard to believe that all such sites in the area have already been used. The issue of providing more low-cost rental property is also not addressed.
It seems clear to me that the way the planning system and the housing market work
prevents any new developmentin this area from being genuinely "affordable" to people not already on ther housing ladder, who work in Cumbria. This would be clear from any analysis of the current occupancy of housing in Kendal designated as "affordable" when built. In current market conditions the price reduction is simply not enough. Local occupancy conditions are a step in the right direction - but if these do not apply to future purchasers of the property, then any benefit will be a passing one. Some poeple will get on the housing ladder, but they will - unerstandably - sell on for the highest price they can get, probably to relatively wealthy people moving into the area. I believe that a number of houses on the recently built estates west of Burneside Road - built as "affordable" - are now second homes.
On the other hand,if the market falls - and it seems to be starting to - there will be no need for the proposed developments. At least one development in Kendal already seems to have been left half-built, as buyers could not be found.

The report should be re-drafted, with locating brownfield sites for development as a central issue. Research should be carried out into the success of "affordable housing" already built in benefitting its target groups; and into other strategies that might provide genuinely affordable housing.

See above box.

Core Strategy Preferred Options

Oppose

This plan for the next 15 to 20 years seems to ignore what is actually happening in the region e.g. NWDA employment statistics showing a declining employment base and project some utopian ideal, completely ignoring factors such as the increase in oil prices and subsequent changes in employment and commuting patterns.I believe the choice of local service centres is flawed as it is based on transient factors, e.g. is there a shop or pub available, which may change at any time and not on predictable things like communication links.
Comments specific to Storth - the proposals would site development where access is poor - either down lanes which are single track in places or through the centre of a small village, with no pavements and past a primary school. Infrastructure i.e sewage, drainage, telecommunications would also be unable to accommodate such an increase in the private and commercial population.
The plan would result in a district wide increase in road traffic which seems to directly contradict the supposed current emphasis on green policies.

It would seem sensible to base any long term plan on things which can be predicted i.e. public transport especially rail will become ever more important.
Because of the uncertainties over future requirements no use of greenfield sites should be proposed or planned whilst there are existing brownfield sites which could be utilised.
The proposed site for commercial development in Storth/Sandside should be removed from the plan and Storth/Sandside should not be considered as an LSC

Cumbria has a major rail artery running through the county, any new developments, especially industrial or commercial, should be sited as close as possible to this. Any proper forward looking plan should take this into account and look to the reopening of old stations and even creation of new ones.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Oppose

i wish to object in the strangest terms of the Proposed Site of 790 homes in Ackenthwaite. if all the surrounding towns and villages were asked to find plots for 50-100 new homes the distribution would be fair, however to build a new village on green field sites is in this day and age is a criminal act.

4.5 - 4.11 PO11 - Kendal Functional Area 2025 - Introduction

Option 3 (p123) `East Natland`. Also Area 10 on Fig 21 (p128) and Table 3,Preferred Direction of Growth 10, `East Natland`(p137).

Oppose

I strongly oppose the proposed development of `East Natland` for the following main reasons:
a)PRIVACY
For 25 years we have enjoyed the outstanding view from the rear of our property across well managed meadows towards the Helm.Indeed, this was our reason for choosing to live here. The impact upon our quality of life, and that of our neighbours, would be little short of catastrophic. The land behind our property rises towards the railway line and any new housing would inevitably overlook our rear garden, possibly at close quarters. Needless to say, this would have a severe impact upon the value of our property.
b) VILLAGE INTEGRITY
One key feature of South Lakeland is the existence of discrete villages, each with its own unique character. This characteristic has, sadly, been lost in many areas, particularly in the South of England. Any development that allows Kendal, Oxenholme and Natland to coalesce into an amorphous area of housing must be resisted at all costs. The green gap identified between the A65 and Natland on the Functional Area Key Diagram would, in my view, be completely inadequate in preventing an amalgamation of Natland and Oxenholme. Also, further residential development on the proposed scale would be completely disproportionate with the services available in the village, and would move towards Natland becoming a dormitory settlement for Kendal, rather than a living entity in its own right.
c) TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
The three lanes that provide access to Natland are narrow and unsuitable for heavy traffic. Over the past 25 years, the volume of traffic using Oxenholme Lane, in particular, has grown enormously and at peak times, such as the start and end of school, congestion has become the norm. Any significant additional housing development would undoubtedly affect this situation adversely. Also, access to the site proposed would be very difficult, not only for the residents of the new properties but also during the construction phase.
d) POSSIBLE GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
The area identified for development lies over limestone and there is evidence of cave systems and underground streams. To the best of my knowledge, these have not been surveyed fully. Over 25 years, there has certainly been a degree of movement/settlement in our property.

I would suggest that the area designated as `East Natland` be removed from the list of preferred directions of growth.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.5 - 4.11 PO11 - Kendal Functional Area 2025 - Introduction

Option3 (p123) 'East Natland'. Also Area 10 on Fig. 21 (p128) and Table 3, Preferred direction of growth 10, 'East Natland' (p137)

Oppose

I totally oppose the proposed development of 'East Natland' for the following main reasons:
1)DESTRUCTION OF VILLAGE INTEGRITY...Natland is a very small village and has a unique character.Any increase in its size would be detrimental to the quality of life here and would represent a retrograde step for English village life, which should be cherished. The loss of green gap areas would impinge on the basic human need for space and light.
2)INCREASED CONGESTION:...Helm Lane and Oxenholme Lane are narrow single track access lanes and any further development would severely compromise the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles and property.Already, on an almost daily basis, vehicles are blocked on Oxenholme Lane in particular. Such is the congestion around the very popular and successful school that delivery trucks and buses often have to use quiet residential roads to effect their business. This already causes distress and residents are fearful of increased danger.
3)RISK OF FLOODING AND OVERLOAD ON SEWERS:...There is a body of evidence that strongly suggests domestic overbuilding of green field sites to be responsible for flooding and pollution because of the ground's inability to absorb rain in a normal soak-away manner. Any development between Long Meadow Lane and the railway will increase the risk of flooding and sewer overload and,therefore, pollution and danger to other properties.
4)SUBSIDENCE:...The area suggested for development has limestone bedrock and there is evidence of significant cave systems and underground streams. There would be a considerable risk to property if this land is overbuilt.
5)LOSS OF MANAGED AND IMPROVED FARMLAND:...This land is integral to the rural life of South Lakeland and would be a devastating loss if it were to disappear. The land should not be assimilated into a building programme but should be maintained as part of a rural heritage.

I suggest that the area designated as 'East Natland' be removed from the list of preferred directions for growth.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.52 Alternative Options: Options 1-3

Option 3 Paragraphs 5,6,7 & 8

Oppose

We do not agree with any developments in cartmel for the following reasons:-
Lack of amenities and facilities.
Poor public transport serving the area.
Lack of local employment opportunites.
Inadequate roads/access to proposed sites.
Destruction of wildlife and the environment.
We especially oppose Paragraph 6 - this land is liable to flooding purely from surface water and has a beck running through it which struggles to cope with existing rainfall/water. All surrounding properties would be liable to a greater possibility of flooding especially as there is all ready a medium flood risk highlighted on our local environmental search. There is no easy access onto this site and aesthetically could potentially ruin our beautiful village which relies heavily on tourism.
We understand the need for more affordable properties in the area but surely Grange and especially Kendal could support any new developments better and need the investment (Kendal has empty shops, pubs etc - if the town could be regenerated surely this would provide more employment?)
If development/affordable housing was needed in cartmel it would need to be small in number, blend with the village and it would make sense that it should be at Orchard Close as this was the most recent development.

Omit paragraphs 5,6, 7 & 8 from the report

See above

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Page numbers 153 and 154, paragraphs 5,6,7,& 8. Cartmel village proposed development areas.

Oppose

I oppose the proposed development of new housing in Cartmel for the following reasons.
1) No defined and proven need for these houses regardless of the numbers. 2) Insufficent infrastructure to accommodate increased number of residents ( roads, schooling, employment within the village, policing, fire services inability to get into the village already )3)Proposal for up to 88 houses is disproportionate to the number of dwellings already in the village ( around 200 )4)Significant increase in the number of cars on the road increasing the threat of serious accidents ( Haggs Lane is a death trap with regular speeding through the village. This will only increase with more houses and residents. 5) Absoloutely no benefit to the village which is a thriving tourist centre already. Any new residents will simply travel in and out of the village, there is nowhere to employ them within the village. 6) Already been advised that no work will be undertaken on improving the road infrastructure. The only time the villagers voices will be heard is when a child is killed on the road. All exit routes around the village are extremely narrow. 7) Spoiling the character of the village with new housing. This is a very popular tourist destination which will simply be spoilt by the building of a new development within it's boundaries. 8) Continued usage of greenbelt land gobbling up much needed agricultural land for farming. 9) Who will purchase these houses? It was extremely difficult to sell the existing Orchard Close development when it was built so why should this new developmentbe any different.

None of the 4 proposed sites are attractive in terms of easy access in and out with all of then being visible as you come into the village. This will simply ruin the nature of the village and it's beauty to the thousands of tourists who come each year.

Reconsider locating any of proposed developments within the village boundaries no matter how few houses are being considered. There must be sufficient other sites within the area with much better access and facilities such as Grange Over Sands to accommodate the required number of dwellings. The proposed site on the land adjacent to Fell Gate Farm is within 1 mile of the village so why the need to come into the village which brings no discernable benefits.

There must be opportunity for a limited number of dwellings by rounding off certain areas of the village on the roads out to Allithwaite and Cark where access is not as difficult. A larger scale development would simply be an eyesore within the village and do it more harm than good.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Storth

Oppose

1. Totally against indutrial development on Cockshott Lane.
a) not needed here - plenty of room still on Quarray lane.
b) Access via village on Cockshott Lane/ beetham is an idea generated by people who dont know the area.

2. against housing between playingfield and Storth road/ Dairy Lane. If housing need proved then use land between Kingfisher and TP yard. this area needs tidying up.

Storth

Oppose

1. Totally against indutrial development on Cockshott Lane.
a) not needed here - plenty of room still on Quarray lane.
b) Access via village on Cockshott Lane/ beetham is an idea generated by people who dont know the area.

2. against housing between playingfield and Storth road/ Dairy Lane. If housing need proved then use land between Kingfisher and TP yard. this area needs tidying up.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

CORE STRATEGY


We understand the need for balance in protecting the environment and character of Kendal when providing housing and jobs for the area during the next 25 years.

The areas that concern us most are the following:

The area south of Lumley Road/Helsington Laithes
The area south of Scroggs Lane
The area marked Shenstone

All these proposed areas may well adversely reflect on the access to Kendal from the south. In the past, local government have stressed the importance of the approach to Kendal in this respect. We hope the following points will be taken into consideration.

Additional housing/commercial enterprise, and associated services, would mean a tremendous increase in traffic where at certain times there is already a build-up on Milnthorpe Road from the bypass. All of these sites will put great strain on existing utilities. There would obviously have to be a great improvement and considerable expansion in this regard.

There is already a question mark as to whether some of the facilities and services at Westmorland General Hospital will be axed! Is there a plan to increase private health care to cover any future expansion? The same problem of additional services will of course will also apply to education.

We consider that there are more suitable sites for expansion on the north side of the town. We realise that to make this possible consideration would have to be given to improving the road network in that area by the County Council.

CORE STRATEGY


We understand the need for balance in protecting the environment and character of Kendal when providing housing and jobs for the area during the next 25 years.

The areas that concern us most are the following:

The area south of Lumley Road/Helsington Laithes
The area south of Scroggs Lane
The area marked Shenstone

All these proposed areas may well adversely reflect on the access to Kendal from the south. In the past, local government have stressed the importance of the approach to Kendal in this respect. We hope the following points will be taken into consideration.

Additional housing/commercial enterprise, and associated services, would mean a tremendous increase in traffic where at certain times there is already a build-up on Milnthorpe Road from the bypass. All of these sites will put great strain on existing utilities. There would obviously have to be a great improvement and considerable expansion in this regard.

There is already a question mark as to whether some of the facilities and services at Westmorland General Hospital will be axed! Is there a plan to increase private health care to cover any future expansion? The same problem of additional services will of course will also apply to education.

We consider that there are more suitable sites for expansion on the north side of the town. We realise that to make this possible consideration would have to be given to improving the road network in that area by the County Council.

Oppose

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

Functional Area 22:Page 133:2c Land to the south of Lumley Road.

Oppose

The view from the bypass across the town affords the prospect of Kendal as a country town contained
attractively in a valley with the countryside extending beyond it. The approach to the town along Milnthorpe Road has a view across the fields and the natural landscape rises to the sky line; it mirrors the image from the bypass and is memorable. This prospect marks the character of the town to both visitors and residents alike.Any development must be sensitive to the special qualities of this approach and the particular context of it. It is my view that this will be very difficult to achieve without being either intrusive or discordant.

I would suggest removing this option for development from the LDF as there are a number of other areas contained within the report where development will have less impact on the visual perception of Kendal when approaching it.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Core Strategy Preferred Options
Page number(s) Page 133
Map/Table/Figure number(s) (where applicable) TABLE 3

Oppose

We oppose the proposed direction of growth on the Green Gap land between the railway and Burneside Road because of its designation as a Green gap. As we understand it, the definition of a Green Gap is that it cannot be built-on and therefore it is more special than a Greenfield site. If the authorities begin to erode these designated areas (e.g. the proposed Sparrowmire site) then the idea of a Green Gap becomes a nonsense.

We suggest that all references to developing on the Sparrowmire site in North-West Kendal, item 1 on page 133 (and any other relevant pages) are removed from the Core Strategy.

If SLDC are compelled to build more houses around Kendal then unfortunately it will have to be at the expense of Greenfield sites (with more suitable road access to employment areas than Sparrowmire) or in other areas more suitable for development (please see other comment sheets supplied) . The idea of flexibility of Green Gaps must not be considered.

Core Strategy Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal
Page 28
4.20

Oppose

“34% of households owning two or more cars” means, that if the proposed Sparrowmire site is developed, many more cars will pass along Burneside Road. Peoples lives are already in danger along this road and the country lane connecting Kendal to Burneside. As a regular cyclist and user of the footpath between 202 Burneside Road and Burneside village (my children go to St Oswald’s CE School) the traffic is already a worry (cars and lorries travelling at speed). An increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development will make the risk even higher than it is at the moment. This is an unacceptable issue in terms of safety and cannot be ignored. I believe it is a compelling argument against development in the north west area identified in the Strategy.

If SLDC are determined to build houses in the Kendal area then they need to be located so that it does not involve employees passing along Burneside Rd and through Kendal town on their way to work. Other areas on the north-east, east and south sides of Kendal with clear 'A' roads to a motorway junction (or close to Oxenholme railway station) will be much more suitable than the proposal to develop the Sparrowmire site in the north-west.

Core Strategy Preferred Options
Page number(s) 59
Paragraph number(s) (where applicable) 3.70

Oppose

The proposed allocation of 43% of the total SDLC development to the Kendal area is far too high and must be reduced. Kendal, with only three bridges crossing the river (and the traffic/pollution problems associated with an increase in the number of families with cars in the area) is a completely unsuitable town to expand. A completely new development near the M6 is a much more sensible approach. Alternatively the SLDC could enlarge the existing villages near the M6.

Reduce the figure considerably from 43% to a value which does not increase the traffic/pollution in Kendal Town.

The present character of Kendal as a small market town must remain. If SLDC are compelled to build new houses then a completely new site must be planned somewhere near an entrance to the M6 motorway. This site must have infrastructure/services capable of being expanded many years so that SDLC do not have this same problem in the future. It will also avoid the associated pollution problems in Kendal which will result from the increase in families driving in the town if proposed development in the north west goes ahead.

Core Strategy Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal
Page number(s) 12
Paragraph number(s) (where applicable) 1.42

Oppose

As a resident who lives very near the Sparrowmire site I’ve already observed recent flooding in this area and have seen photographic evidence of it in the past. Drainage has always been a problem and must be considered very carefully in the light of arrangements necessary for the disposal of foul sewage, liquid wastes, trade effluent and contaminated surface water in a new estate. In fact, the marshy nature of the fields near our houses on Burneside Road, encourages wildlife which otherwise finds it difficult to exist. After the present Briery Meadow estate was built it was noticeable that herons that had frequented the area, no longer used the fields. Further development would completely ruin this habitat for other wildlife, including frogs and newts, and a colony of bats that are regularly seen flying on the periphery of the fields at night.

Before the proposed Sparrowmire site is changed from Green Gap to Housing a report must be produced by SLDC on the capability of the sewage system to accommodate the new proposed Sparrowmire development. This report needs to state that calculations have been made to show that in the event of the worst flood predicted for the foreseeable future no raw sewage will be flushed onto the roads. This applies all the way from the far north of the site right back to the sewage works. Also the report must state that no foul/surface flooding will take place on the Sparrowmire site itself or on the Briery Meadows estate.
Similarly, the extent of the damage caused to the natural environment and the associated affect on wildlife need to be thoroughly considered in relation to proposed building developments.

Core Strategy Preferred Options
Page number(s) 125
Paragraph number(s) (where applicable) 22

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

“The existing housing on the outskirts consists of large detached houses and feels very private – this may limit potential for locating housing” . This statement suggests that the privacy of certain residents is of greater concern than that of others. Why ? If the land in South Kendal is proved to be most suitable as an area for development , then the privacy of more affluent residents must not be allowed to affect the council’s decisions.

If the Government are compelling the SLDC to build houses in the Kendal area then the area to the south of Kendal is one of the most suitable areas for transport links. The council’s decisions must not be influenced by the socio-economic group it affects. Consideration must first be given to suitability of the site in relation to the increase of traffic/pollution in Kendal Town and not to the “increased development costs”.

Core Strategy Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal
Page number(s) 29
Paragraph number(s) (where applicable) 4.34

Oppose

Building more houses in the Kendal area will increase the waste production even more than current figures.

Before the proposed Sparrowmire site is re-designated as Housing, a report must be produced by SLDC to show how it is planned to cope with the extra refuse in the many years to come

Core Strategy Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal
Page number(s) 27
Paragraph number(s) (where applicable) 4.16

Oppose

There is already “significant pressure and demand on health services provided within the district, including GP surgeries”. Building more houses will overload these demands even more. The fact that the Westmorland Hospital is being run down, indicates that Kendal should not be an area for expansion.

If SLDC are forced by the Government to build houses in the Kendal area then we must have a report which shows that all the services (e.g. schools, doctors, dentists, etc) for all the proposed areas have enough spare capacity to cope with the increase in the number of constituents proposed in the Core Strategy.

in suport of letter from mr and Mrs Macaulay

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2

Page no.180 Paragraph 7

Oppose

The purposed Development to the west of Burton would be inappropriate and totally
alter the character of the Village. The road infrastructure is inadequate with
single carriageways and ninety degree bends.There is no need to destroy good farming
land as there is already an industial estate two miles away.

Cancel it.

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2

Page 180 Paragraph 8

Oppose

The development to the East at the top of Morewood Drive would because of its
elevated position dominate the houses on Vicarage Lane and Morewood Drive and expand
the village envelope onto good farming land.The extra traffic movement around Burton
Morewood School would be unacceptable.This large type of development is not needed.

Change it.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Oppose

We attended the meeting at Levens Institute on the 13th May 2008 when a representative of SLDC was present to give further information regarding the proposed plan for Levens. This meeting was arranged by the Parish Council as there are grave concerns, within the village, regarding the above plans.
Whilst there may be the need to provide 8,800 new houses in South Lakeland up to 2025, we would state that the need will not be met by over developing a small village and we would suggest that a small number of affordable houses or sheltered accomodation for the elderly can be met by using other small sites in Levens. That would enhance the village rather than your proposed site, which would no doubt be over developed by builders/developers.
The proposed site is East Levens and we suggest that there are other alternatives to be considered.
* An empty carpet shop, on a large site, that has been
empty some time.
* Land that has an empty stable/half finished dwelling to the
North of Levens.
* Two plots of land on Lowgate.
* Land owned by the Parish Council which is already being
investigated for possible buildings.
These would be smaller groups of dwellings which would be more in keeping with the village rather than a sprawling estate.
Our reasons for only a small development are:
* All roads into Levens have poor access.
* Poor access into sites from Greengate and Greengate
Crescent especially for heavy building lorries.
* Poor electricity supply with frequent power cuts any time
of the year.
* Poor water pressure and inadequate/waste water
sewerage.
The utilities providers may maintain that they provide adequate services but this is not the reality, as many residents voiced their concerns at the meeting.
The core strategy preferred options notes that there is a daily bus service but this is inadequate for employees to rely on to travel to and from work. So each occupier will need at least one car, many families now have two, and this would result in unacceptable pressure on the already inadequate village roads, particularly round the Greengate area. Surely houses need to be built where there is employment thus reducing everyone's carbon footprint.
We have recently had a new development at Nethercroft and the builders did not provide the original agreed numbers of affordable houses and we believe this will happen again in view of the price of the land and making the development viable for the builder.
South Levens is not seen as an option because it would be seen from the A590. Yet a large number of recently built houses are already seen from the A590 and the proposed site at East Greengate would also be seen from this road.
We feel, most strongly, that that the preferred option would constitute undesirable over-development of the sites out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of Levens.

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

Table 3 Para 10 East Natland

Oppose

My main concern is that traffic on Helm Lane and Oxenholme Lane is already excessive. Natland has grown out of all context over the last 30 years with the consequential increase in traffic on these 2 lanes. Extra housing development would make traffic flows too much.

Following the recent proposals to include extended areas of land within Holme village in the local plan, we feel that this is to be wholly supported on the grounds that more affordable and sustainable housing is urgently required. Many first time buyers' especially local people are forced to move out of the village and away from the area; this has a negative effect on the village community and amenities.

Holme village supports a wide range of facilities including a local primary school and playgroup, a church, a chapel, a grocery store and a post office as well as a long established local pub and village hall with many groups meeting there and using the facility. Holme has a cricket field and bowling green all of which local people work hard to maintain and sustain these for the future of an evolving village community.

Holme is well located for good transport links for both the M6 motorway and Oxenholme Railway Station, providing easy commuting for those working further a field.

We feel that further development as indicated by the suggested sites would enhance the village and not detract from it, providing that sensible locations be approved. The area referred to as South Holme is in deed an ideal location for affordable sustainable housing, with good planning and sympathetic architectural design we feel sure the piece of land would blend in very well, with a good mix of different sized houses to accommodate varying needs ranging from first time buyers, to families, to retired people. This particular piece of land is ideally situated to be regarded favourably as infill, thereby not affecting the rural fringes of the village.

With today's building and design technology new houses are environmentally friendly and fuel efficient addressing the environmental impact of new housing developments in line with recent Government proposals in the Housing Green Paper. The Government is eventually acknowledging the issue that more housing is required to fill the huge shortfall. Infill within existing villages and towns seems a sensible way to go, adding to not detracting from local services and amenities.

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Option - PO17 - Remaining Local Service Centres 2025

item 3 and all in Great Urswick. You have not considered Little Urswick where Mid Town farm is ripe for development and also in Great Urswick the area behind Kirk Flatt. The comments made are more geographical than practical.

Oppose

See above

Mid Town Farm, Land behind Kirk Flatt, land to the right of Bankfield

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Option - PO17 - Remaining Local Service Centres 2025

Designation of green areas between Little and Great Urswick. All of the land on either side of the road between the school and the garage should be designated green.

Support partly

see above

4.92 - 4.97 PO17 - Remaining Local Service Centres West 2025 - Introduction

The Parish Council submitted a document last year indicating areas in the Urswick parish that could be developed. This does not appear to have been taken into account.

Support partly

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO14 - Milnthorpe Functional Area 2025

P164, para 9 - West Heversham - Infilling existing boundaries of Leasgill, Heversham and Princess Way.

Oppose

Proposal 3b is inappropriate, unnecessary and unsound.

As can be clearly seen in Figure 28, Leasgill falls outside the 1.5km boundary of the Milnthorpe functional area. What is less obvious from the document is that there is no shop, and almost no employment in Leasgill or Heversham “service area”. Therefore any significant new housing development will create a dormitory village increasing the need for road travel. This is in direct contravention to Strategic Objectives 3 and 5 (pages 17 and 18), and strategic vision (7) p6 which states "The main challenge - to limit climate change - should be recognised".

While I recognise and fully support the need for a small number of affordable homes for local families, I do not recognise any evidence - what so ever - of any demand for other new housing development. This is clearly and unequivocally demonstrated by the local housing market, with some 15 “unaffordable” houses currently for sale - some of which have been on the market for some considerable time. This clear, incontrovertible evidence speaks far more effectively than some, apparently unsupported, assertion in a NWRA document - a document written far away in a very different economic climate.

The concept of using a developer to address the need for a small number of, effectively loss-making “affordable” homes, as part of a larger housing scheme, is no longer realistic, in the current financial climate, nor is it likely to be for some time to come.

Furthermore to build over green fields, constructing new roads, infrastructure and houses, is obviously bad for the environment locally and globally. To do so when there is no demonstrable need is not only in direct contravention of what is described in page 6 of the LDF as “the main challenge – to limit climate change”, but is nothing short of unethical and fully deserves public condemnation.

Some of the details have plainly been ignored. For example the impact of the additional vehicular traffic arising from this scheme has not been considered adequately, if at all. South of site 3b there is a serious constriction in the road at the Church. Such is the problem that one house there has been struck and damaged by high sided vehicles several times in the last couple of years.

To the North of site 3b things are worse. There are a couple of narrow and winding sections of road with poor sightlines for drivers and no footpaths. My wife and young children are put at risk everyday when walking to and from the village school – with the bus drivers being the worst culprits.

Further to the North, where the village road re-joins the A6 there is a very dangerous junction. A young woman was killed in her car there just a couple of years ago. There was another very serious injury resulting from an accident at this junction recently.

The problems are not confined to traffic. It is locally well known that part of site 3b is subject to deep localized flooding even after light rain. Sustained heavy rain results in this flood encroaching on to, and across, the A6, often to a depth of 3 or 4 inches. Clearly this is a significant hazard to road users (in a 60mph zone), a hazard that can only increase with increased surface water run off from any new development.

As a further example, the local school is over-subscribed; there are no places for any additional children. As the school site is land-locked there is no prospect of extending the school to increase capacity. This appears to have been overlooked in the plans.

Finally, infilling of the green gap between Leasgill and Heversham, and development up to the edge of the A6 - creating a linear conurbation alongside an busy A road - will have a very significant negative impact, destroying the green, low density, character of the villages.

To conclude; Proposal 3b is inappropriate, unnecessary and unsound. It is inappropriate because it will destroy the character of the villages, it is unnecessary because, other than the need for a small number of affordable family homes, there is no demonstrable demand for any new housing, it is unsound because it is not based upon good evidence, has failed to address, or even recognise, some serious planning and safety issues and, in it’s current guise does not, nor will it ever likely, have local support.

In short the intensive, large scale (in relation to the size of the village), development, as proposed in 3b is ill thought out and entirely inappropriate. Those proposed at 3a and 4 are little better.

Omission of 3b, and large reduction in scale of 3a and 4.

As stated above I recognise, and fully support, the case for a *small* number of affordable homes for young, local families.

However, I do not see the LDF as currently drafted adequately delivering this requirement in Leasgill and Heversham. Expecting any developer to build a number of, effectively, loss-making “affordable” homes as part of a larger scheme of housing in the current financial climate is no longer realistic, nor is it likely to be for some time to come.

The low number of affordable properties that might arise from such a scheme are likely to be small, low quality, unimaginative dwellings pinched unfavorably in the small disadvantaged end of a large site filled with spacious “executive homes” (supposedly essential to make the development viable).

Far better to address the need, the real need, for affordable homes directly without the unneeded executive homes (and the big developer)! There are something like 15 “unaffordable” houses already on the market in the area, building more is surely inappropriate and is no solution to the problem of affordable houses!

The real problem for local people is the high cost of property, which arises, in very large part, from the lack of affordable land with planning permission. This has resulted in plots being worth more (often much more) than the houses that sit on them.

When a new plot does come up builders have no option but to build a large house to justify the total cost. Building the house is (relatively) inexpensive – even a large, well designed and appointed, 4 bed property is unlikely to cost much more than £80~100k to construct. Yet that £100k house will sell for £400 to £500k on the open market (obviously the developer and agents have to make a profit too).

Thus it is really the high price of building land that puts the total cost of houses well beyond the reach of most local families, families which DO have the finances and wherewithal to engage a builder and fund the construction of a modest house – if only they were not priced out of the market for land in the first place!

The real issue, therefore, is the availability of *affordable* building plots for *local* people. This being the real issue is it not a far more appropriate that a few small parcels of land (suitable only for one home at a time) be “released” for development?

These plots can go on to the open market (perhaps by auction) with - planning permission for appropriate designs, strict local occupancy conditions, and a covenant that prevents any developer snapping them up. These conditions should keep the price affordable to local families, who can then engage (hopefully local) builders to construct their new homes, homes carefully sited and of appropriate design to their village surroundings. The result will be appropriate individually designed homes, homes lived in and built with imagination and care by their owners, not part of some developer-lead, large scale scheme.

Obviously this concept does come with some costs. The land owners won’t make as much money on the plots. And the planning authorities will have a higher overhead – such a scheme will require careful forethought and some good planning.

As there are to be several small “phases” of construction, each managed by different developers, the design, finish and location of each dwelling must be considered and controlled carefully by the planning authorities to avoid a “piecemeal” effect. Similarly the development and construction of any new access roads and services will require careful co-ordination amongst the planners and developers.

I believe that these “overheads” are a price well worth paying to achieve a fitting solution to the problem of affordable housing.

In short I propose that the LDF should be radically amended in the Leasgill and Heversham areas. Rather than the current, relatively high density, high capacity, inappropriate, ill-thought out developer lead “big bang” schemes, there should be a very small number (perhaps somewhere between 10 and 20 - maximum - by 2025) of affordable building plots identified and released slowly with strict controls for local families to develop appropriately and individually.

This is a surely a far more sustainable and appropriate solution to the proven needs of the area. Such a scheme would likely receive widespread support within the villages – unlike the current proposals which seem to be met with near universal opposition.

Mark Jameson
Roase Cottage
Leasgill

I am writing to OBJECT to the proposals for development in Leasgill and Heversham as contained in sections 8, 9 and 10 of P014 in the South Lakeland Local Development Framework (on P164).

I object on the following grounds:-

1.These plans represent an over-development of the villages of Leasgill and Heversham.

I feel that there is no need for alot more development in this area, as many local houses are already on the open market, not selling quickly. Big developments are not what these villages need. I do believe however, on the right site half a dozen/dozen houses would be okay built for/by local people.

2. No proper consideration has been given to the infrastructure required to support such a large increase in houses.

The road through the villages is already busy, there are no pavements, I believe more housing would make this area more dangerous to walk through especially for the young children. The village school can not cater for any more, this is already over-subscribed.

3. The environmental impact has not been properly considered

4. Leasgill is more than 1.5Km from Milnthorpe - and therefore should not fall in the Milnthorpe "functional area".

Leasgill is a very small, independent, low density village, which is close to but different in character to Heversham. Leasgill is visible from a wide area including the Lyth Valley, parts of the National Parks, part of the area of outstanding natural beauty including several of the fell tops. Over-development of the village (as proposed in 3b) will spoil the views from these areas.

As I stated earlier a few suitable plots for local people to build 'nice' houses (not built by a developer) could be accommodated and be more suited in this area.

I have studied your proposals on the South Lakeland local Development Framework and now submit my following observations regarding the proposed release of farm land referred to as prefered option No:3 in the village of Allithwaite:-

1. This site has very restricted access from a minor road between Allithwaite and Cartmel and with the entry to the village being from a blind corner opposite the Guide over Sand pub, would require major road improvement to allow safe and efficient access to the development.

2. The site is next to a busy working farm with constant traffic from agricultural machinery, making this a dangerous area for both adults and children. Not to mention the proximity to various farm animals that wander freely on this land and which I am sure would increase the likelihood of live stock born disease.

3. This site already exceeds the drainage and sewage needs for this area and as such this development would require substantial investment in these services.

4. I do suggest that a much better option would be the site to the east of the village, entering Allithwaite on the B5277 and located between Low Fell Gate the entrance to Jack Hill. Currently farm land this site offers safe access via the main road and I would assume also easy access to all main services.

1.1 - 1.13 Introduction and Context

Para 1.10 Soundness

Oppose

I have attached this comment to this particular paragraph as I believe the soundness of the plan must be judged on its satrtegic approach. I appreciate the great deal of work that has gone into the production of this document and it must have been quite exhausting. However volume does not in this case equal soundness. There is so much bathwater that it at times difficult to find the baby and that is the strategic thrust of the document. It is not very well focussed and has much detail some of which is plainly wrong, eg the non existent semi-detached houses east of the village centre of Natland p.121 para 4.10. The strategy is simply not strategic, but a collection of proposals which are really quite specific. It takes a rather incremental adhoc approach and has no vision of the genius loci. Indeed the LDF vision for 2025 in para 2.22 seems a generic description which could be written about anywhere in England and does not recognise the blend of geography and culture which makes this district distinguishable from any other. In brief there is no testing of radical strategies which would relate to the area as it is; rather it is a sraping of a barrel for develoment land, and this barrel has already been well scraped.

I would suggest a radical look at whether this approach has been successful in presenting a strategy which our children can look back and say that we had foresight in the planning of our area.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

page 137
East Natland

Oppose

If a strategy makes detailed assertions to justify very detailed proposals, then they should be correct, otherwise the strategy is built on poor foundations and is unsound.

The references are in a vital part inaccurate. Access is not via Wandales Lane but via Longmeadow Lane. This road is a modern estate road which links eventually to two older lanes which are for the most part single carriageway without footways and proper passing places. The local network is therefore totally unsuitable for increased traffic and the proposal for "relatively large scale of site"is therefore unsustainable. The only way in which this site can be made accessible is by a long road linking to Burton Road crossing the proposed green gap of south west Oxenholme ref para 12 page 124. If this road is constructed to adoptable standards to link to the housing site it will have lamp standards etc which will render the road conspicuous and destroy the idea of the green gap however skilfully the road is sculpted into the landscape. The expense of the access road will also render the development a high cost site and therefore do little to solve the problem of affordability.

You will have observed that Railtrack have removed the dense vegetation along the railway and the screening has disappeared. More importantly the view of the district from the train needs to be better analysed and this particular view over the village to Kendal Fell is a hall mark view for the traveller and sets a standard for district. The reverse view from the fellside to the east of the Kent has not been commented upon in the plan.Has it been seen and analysed? the site is the foreground to Helm and should be assessed as part of the landscape assessment which is largely lacking here and indeed in the evidence base.

Removal of the site until such time as a proper practical assessment demonstrates its sustainability both in terms of access, affordability and landscape impact.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

2.1 - 2.2 Strategic Vision and Objectives - and 'You told us that'

Para 2.22-2.28, South Lakeland in 2025

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

This section relates to a period 17 years in the future, yet is written in the present tense. This is more than just a grammatical quibble. The section is clearly written with the intention of presenting the whole plan as an inevitable path to a land of milk and honey.

Rewrite it in the correct tense, cut out the spin and write in plain and honest English. Spin is bad enough from political parties, it is definitely inappropriate from local government employees.

3.97 - 3.102 Options Considered: Alternative Sustainable Economy Options; Options 1 - 5

Para 3.99

Oppose

"The NWDA employment projections are based on a declining employment base
(particularly in the manufacturing and primary sectors). As a consequence, this has
been discarded as a potential option for the Core Strategy as it would be contrary to
the objective of supporting the growth of the value of the local economy."

I.e. throw out the reality and carry on regardless. Is this any way to make realistic plans for the next 17 years?

Plan on the basis of what is plausible and realistic, not some 'wish list' drawn out of thin air.

Plan on the basis that the NWDA Employment projections represent what is most likely to actually happen.

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2

Pages 181 and 185 in online document.
Maps of Storth and Arnside in printed document 'Shaping the Future of South Lakeland to 2005' - collected from SLDC office.

Oppose

In both cases (Arnside and Storth) the selected areas are unsuitable for any form of development. Online the document refers to area 4 NE Arnside and in printed document it is area 1. Similarly for Storth the online document refers to area 33 and the printed document to area 1. In both cases greenfield sites have been choosen when brownfield sites are available. In both cases access might prove difficult for larger vehicles; in Arnside due to a low bridge and particularly in Storth due to very narrow roads. Both sites are in the AONB and would be very detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. In both cases neighbouring residential properties would be subject to a form of 'planning blight'.

Remove the offending sections on Arnside and Storth. Re-evaluate corresponding sections for other LSCs for similar errors.

Use only brownfield sites in both villages. There is probably no need for such large developments as SLDC have projected - see my previous comments on Para 3.99.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Oppose

Firstly regarding publicizing the Core Strategy .. Given the amount of tax payers' money spent, and that this seems to be such an important issue for the future of all of us, I am surprised and disappointed that you did not see fit to inform us all individually of this consultation exercise. SLDC have recently sent council tax bills to us all. It would have cost little extra to have included some such notification of this issue. However I can see that this would have involved some cooperation with the Finance Dept. You could also have made sure that 'South Lakes News' reached us all for the start of the consultation period. However again I can see that this would have involved some cooperation and communication with the Publicity Dept.

Secondly regarding the projected demand for housing and employment. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that at the base of these 'projections' or 'targets' or whatever they are, are a number of 'surveys' which are no more than a lot of independent wish lists from various bodies around the region. These wish lists constitute the evidence? They appear to be completely unrelated to what has happened in the past or to what is plausible for the future. A simple graph showing how the projection relates to the actual data on housing and employment development for the last 15 years or so would have shown more professional competence.

Thirdly I will rephrase a question which remains largely unanswered. Will all (or indeed any) of the existing planning controls apply to the areas designated for housing and employment development in the LDF? I note that you state that LDF will take full account of national planning policies in AONBs. Surely that would already preclude developments in Arnside and Storth on the greenfield areas designated in the LDF?

The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area

The proposed housing development off Burneside Rd (Kendal Functional Area). Sorry I cannot at this time supply precise details of pages / paras etc, as your document is overwhelmingingly complicated and I only have a very limited amount of time to submit this response.

Oppose

1) Traffic.
The road infrastructure in this area, particularly Burneside Rd, cannot take the extra traffic that would be generated by additional housing in this area. No matter what direction you drive along Burneside Rd, you shortly encounter a serious narrowing of the road, whether it's country lanes towards the north, or the parking and traffic constricted area around the junction with Windermere Rd.
It would make far more sense to locate new developments to the south of the town, closer to better road/rail links.

2) Unsustainability.
I know there are plans to develop employment areas, but the employers should come first and only when the jobs actually exist locally, should a larger population be considered. Otherwise you are encouraging a large number of residents who have to commute to Carlisle, Barrow or Lancaster. These days, when we are actively being encouraged to use cars less, this is a totally unsustainable approach.

3) Drainage.
This area is well known for having problems with damp/flooding. I understand there are still problems with the development known as Briery Meadows and that the drains have still not been adopted by United Utilities because of shortcomings in the existing infrastructure. Since there are still problems several years on, it's folly to compound these with further development.

4) Green Belt.
Building on these two fields will seriously erode the precious green belt between Kendal and Burneside. As these areas were supposedly set up to avoid exactly what you are proposing, it would seem that you are moving the goal posts to suit yourselves.

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO16 - Remaining Local Service Centres (South & East) 2

Pages 179 180 185 and 187
Table 8

Oppose

In summary.
1. The geographic area of Burton has been too narrowly defined leading to the most suitable sites for business development not being selected.

2. The Sustainability Appraisal for the Preferred Direction for Business Growth omits key factors that make the direction in the plan undesirable.

3. There is no demand for, and Burton is not suitable for, large scale housing development.

I am only working from the small scale map in the report but it appears to be based on the old Burton Development Plan and does not include in the village boundary the land of the Burton Recreational Trust which was built on land outside the old plan and also the recent construction of affordable housing above Boon Town both of which are now an integral part of the village. This could be relevant to the sighting of any housing development.
Even including these areas however, the plan does not include the two adjacent areas of Home Farm Dalton and Clawthorpe Hall. Dalton is historically part of the Parish of Burton and in particular a small business park development has been completed at Home Farm which is shown on your map and lies between Dalton and Burton a few hundred yards east of the south east boundary of the village (map ref SD538761). This development is situated on Dalton Lane which is already used by heavy timber lorries and provides a connection to the south to the M6 without passing through Burton village. Pedestrian access direct to the village could easily be provided by a continuation of the existing track leading from the market square.
Clawthorpe Hall is to the north of Burton on the A6070, is joined to Burton by more or less continuous development and also contains a recently developed business park in the grounds of Clawthorpe Hall (map ref SD531777). Access is available to the M6 to the north, again without passing through the village.
My contention is that these locations form an integral part of Burton Village as a Local Service Centre and it would be inappropriate to consider them as separate rural areas in section PO2 of the plan. Both business parks have adjoining open land and could be extended if required to provide the limited employment development that the plan envisages without creating a new third site.
Also although it is “over the border” in Lancashire a new business development is already also taking place at Greenlands Farm just 2 miles to the south of Burton on the A6070 and this must also be taken into account in considering the need for a new development in Burton under the test for soundness - .....its’ consistency with other development plan documents including neighbours’ plans…….

Sustainability Appraisal item 1 West Burton-in-Kendal on page 187. The suitability section of the report completely underestimates the difficulty of access to the proposed development. There is no access to the M6 without either traffic passing through the village or along narrow, in parts single track, country lanes. Through the village means using either the junction of Tanpits Lane with the A6070 which is a dangerous blind junction or Neddy Hill which has housing directly fronting the road without any intervening verge, a blind corner and is unsuited to any increased traffic load. In any event heavy traffic would not be permitted from the north as there is a weight restriction on traffic using the road through the village which took years to obtain and its removal would be bitterly opposed by the entire village. Access via Station lane would mean using the narrow restricted height single lane through the bridge under the canal and then if access was required to the A6 using a single track road across Burton Moss.
Given that only a small site is envisaged would it be viable in view of the two existing business parks in the village and the one being developed at Greenlands Farm.

Turning to item 2 East Burton-in-Kendal, the report is not specific but seems to envisage a large development “….. large site will provide economies of scale and attract larger developers…” but there is a complete lack of a justification for a housing development on this scale in Burton. This is a rural village with only limited local employment even if there was an additional small business development. In no way is it an urban centre and will not be attractive to new residents seeking an urban environment, facilities and amenities. The demand for affordable housing from local people is limited (starter homes have been on sale for some time with no takers) and is already being extended by the new development to the east of Boon Town. The centres for local employment are Kendal and Lancaster with to a lesser extent Carnforth and Milnthorpe and seem to me to be more appropriate places for additional accommodation. Do we really want to deliberately destroy the character of a village and set about creating more traffic on local roads not to mention the cost to the owners of travelling a considerable distances to their jobs and the additional carbon output that will be generated. We really do need to challenge the assumption by government that extensive new housing is required in a rural location such as Burton.

If there is some demand for additional housing it would seem appropriate to consider a much more modest development. Here perhaps you need to take into account the semi derelict Royal hotel on main street. Much as it would be nice to see it reopened practical considerations say this will not happen. It is a substantial property and has the potential for conversion to a number of housing units and could also be the nucleus for a modest further development in the land behind alongside the recreational ground. This is to the south of the area designated on the map for the direction of expansion and would integrate any new housing into the core of the village rather than create a virtual satellite development which would occur if development took place in the direction on the draft plan.

The site indicated on the plan east of Morewood Drive is described in the sustainability appraisal as a “level Greenfield site”. This is simply not true. Just look at an OS Survey map and see the succession of contour lines marching across the site. There are also implications for the wider view from afar of this scenically important area.

A further consideration is the issue of drainage. The land you are considering developing slopes down to Burton and is the drainage line from the fells above. Already we have a problem in the village after heavy rain from the run off from this land. You do allude to the need to improve drainage in Overcoming Restraints. I am not a water engineer but I suspect that this will be a far from simple problem if you concrete over this land and much more difficult and expensive to solve than you envisage. At the very least much more investigation needs to be done before you commit to a major development on this land.

To support the changes discussed above I believe some changes are needed to the descriptions on pages 179 and 180.

5 North Burton-in-Kendal. The existing comments seem limited to the area around St James Drive in what geographically is the east side of the north of the village. The north of the village in fact continues with more or less continuous housing along the A6070 to Clawthorpe Hall which forms a more natural boundary to the village before the enclosed land screening Holme Park Quarry.

6 South Burton-in-Kendal. The comments on the southern aspect are correct but to the east of the “detached well spaced houses to the north of Dalton lane” separated by a short space of 3 open fields is the business park located in Home Farm. This is in a natural valley which while pleasant in itself, is not overlooked, is screened from Dalton hamlet and Dalton Estate itself, does not have extensive vistas and it could be suitable for limited further development without destroying the character of the area.

7 West-Burton-in Kendal. The M6 does detract from views but this could be better dealt with by much improved screening and noise barriers which would much improve the quality of life in the village. For the reasons discussed it is not suitable for a business development.

8 East Burton in Kendal. Your description is reasonably accurate but it seems to me not the best location for further housing when there are more suitable sites for a smaller development to the east but further south alongside and to the south of the recreational trust site.

4.92 - 4.97 PO17 - Remaining Local Service Centres West 2025 - Introduction

As well as the above I wish to comment on page 192 Option 1 paragraph 7 and page 198 Table 9 All of which relate to the proposed development in Great and Little Urswick

Oppose

I write as a resident of Urswick for 30 years having raised a family there and worked in neighbouring Dalton-in-Furness for the same period.

Whilst my particular objection relates to the sections of the document relating to Great and Little Urswick, I have read the whole document and find that in many areas it fails on tests of soundness particularly the sustainability appraisal, it lacks coherence in many areas and takes no noticeable account of neighbouring plans or potential plans. In addition the document is written in language, which is incomprehensible to the average reader. It also lacks rigour in terms of its descriptions and summaries of evidence, and hence lends itself to alternative interpretations in the future.

My objections specifically are as follows:-

On Page 190 paragraph 4.94 you claim that Great Urswick and Little Urswick form part of the same settlement. This is not and has never been the case. The two villages are distinct in character and culturally and Little Urswick is not close at all to Urswick Tarn. You also demonstrate the lack of rigour I mentioned above in that you mention several pubs and restaurants in the centre of the village. In fact there are exactly two pubs and one restaurant all of them in Great Urswick.

On page 192, Option1, item 7 where you specifically mention development occurring you suggest that the field adjacent to Kirk Flatt is of lower landscape quality than the surrounding area you fail to look at more than one view and I suggest that viewed from Hooks Lane the view across the field to the church are of high quality. To put further housing and possibly industrial units here would hardly enhance that view and would certainly downgrade the view from Kirk Flatt as you acknowledge in table 9.

You also refer to housing in this area connecting the school to the village. It is pertinent to point out that when the new school, known as Low Furness C of E Primary School, was built it was an amalgamation of 3 village schools and was not intended to have any particular connection to the village of Great Urswick.

Development in this area would take up part of an already designated green gap and thus contradicts the Statement in PO7 page 101 item 8 where the core strategy is to retain green gaps to prevent eventual coalescence of settlements.

I turn now to page 198 Tale 9 relating to South West Great Urswick. In the column headed suitability I would like to comment on the 3rd and 4th bullet points.

The suggestion that there is potentially good access from Church Road ignores the fact that roads leading up to that point from outside the villages contain bottlenecks and are of a narrow rural nature unsuitable for increased traffic and particularly the possible heavy vehicles which may be associated with industrial units. There are few footpaths in either village and increased traffic would increase the danger for cyclists and pedestrians thus being at odds with the aspiration to increase walking and cycling and provide a safer travel environment espoused in the document.

Further research might also have revealed the huge volume of traffic on this road near the school at key times of day and increase to this would increase the hazhard to parents and children at the school.

You also acknowledge the “minimal local amenities and services” and the “somewhat isolated” nature of the area “but close proximity to Ulverston enables commute to larger settlements”. Again the implications of this are contrary to the core strategy aspiration to minimise the effects of climate change.

There are many other points which do not pass the tests of soundness.

That Great and Little Urswick be reclassified as Rural Settlements

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Response to SLDC Local Development Framework Consultation
Dozens" of new houses - the figure quoted by Alistair McNeil at the Open meeting in Cartmel Village Hall on Monday, June 2nd. - would put SLDC's previous efforts and investments in the village along with employment, quality of life and sustainability of a rural area into jeopardy for the following reasons:-



Cartmel enjoys the benefit of Conservation Area status and this must be guaranteed for the village to protect the very reason that tourism thrives.
Efforts in interpretation, explanation and guiding in the Priory have increased during the last few years and this has boosted visitor numbers and it must not be forgotten that the Priory is the reason that people have come to Cartmel for the last eight centuries.
The cars belonging to these extra houses would exacerbate the already existing pressure on the narrow roads that feed the village.
Further hazards would be created outside the 2 schools in the village, one of which is only a matter of metres from the proposed entrance to the site of SLDC's "preferred option".
As there are no plans to improve the road infrastructure - another fact stated by Alistair McNeil - this preferred option would be a disaster for local employment.
The new primary school hall is to be built on the opposite side of the road to the school - again within yards of the proposed entrance to the preferred option and will create further danger to the children attending the school because of increased traffic.
Strains on local suppliers of basic human needs for a village of Cartmel's size would also be compromised because of increased volume of people - schooling, medical care, sewage and drainage, emergency service cover and access.
It would appear to be highly questionable today when we are suffering from high fuel prices and we are all being encouraged to "buy local", "shop local" and grow more food in the UK, that we should be turning high quality, Greenfield sites into building sites.
The other important employment in the area is farming. It is unlikely that tenant farmers who have their fields sold from under their feet for building development would be able to continue to farm in a viable manner.
It was also stated at the Open meeting by Alistair McNeil that "Local Occupancy" did not mean local to SLDC but would include people from Barrow Borough Council, Eden District Council and Lancaster District Council. Surely these Councils are required to find locals for their own local occupancy for their Local Development Frameworks?
May I respectfully suggest that SLDC Officers and Councillors look at a typical day in Cartmel and experience the traffic problems for themselves - not just within the village square but outside the Spar shop at about 8.15 - 8.25am, about 10am when the Spar take deliveries, outside both schools from 8.10 to 8.40 and, in particular outside the Priory school near the doctor's surgery from 2.05pm when the school buses start to park up until 3.15pm. I can assure them that it is chaos and an accident waiting to happen at the moment without a possible 36% increase of residents.

GRANGE

It has been decided in the LDF that Cartmel and Allithwaite should not have any land identified as required for employment. If this is the case and employment has been developed in Cartmel since 2003 (the required period in the LDF), this must surely negate some of the need to find extra land for employment in the Grange area, the Key Service Centre, as it has already been found in the area covered by PO13 in the Cartmel area.










CARTMEL



During the last two decades, as a result of strategies developed and funded by SLDC, Furness and Cartmel Tourism (now known as The Lake District Peninsula Tourism Partnership) was set up. It was funded jointly by SLDC and Barrow Borough Council along with the Department of Trade and Industry and the European Union. The strategies identified Cartmel and Grange as high quality tourism destinations that needed greater promotion and support. As a result of this initiative, Cartmel has developed greater investment into the tourism product by private businesses and has seen the rise of quality facilities like accommodation providers Longlands at Cartmel and L'Enclume, improved restaurant facilities in the four pubs in the village, a Michelin starred fine dining experience and a new Bistro along with greatly improved facilities on the race course, the grand stand of which has now become an all year round venue for various gatherings. All this activity has resulted in greater employment in the village especially since 2003.

4.71 - 4.72 PO15 - Kirkby Lonsdale 2025 - Introduction

Page 170 para 4.71
Page 171 para 4

Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment

para 4.71 There is no population figure for Kirkby Lonsdale. In all other Service Centres this is mentioned in the introduction. I suggest this is an omission and should be inserted.
page 171 para 4 West Kirkby Lonsdale site - Incorrect factual information and typographical error.

Population figure needs to be quoted in para 4.71.
Page 171 - Harlington Road should read 'Harling Bank'. There are four detached houses on this road , therefore, 'detached and' should be inserted after 'a row of'. Typo - replace 'pposite' with 'opposite' in last sentence.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Alternative Options/ The Preferred Options - PO15 - Kirkby Lonsdale 2025

page171 Option 1

Support partly

Site 1 - support
Site 2 - support as this is likely to be an economical site to develop
Site 3 - support as this is likely to be an economical site to develop
Site 4 - opposed to development if access from Harling Bank. This site is still likely to be expensive to develop if accessed via A65 or B6446 in view of undulating topography, flooding issues, sewage capacity and need to avoid developing over Thirlmere water mains.

Site 4 - some reference should be made about preferred access and its viability.

As two recent affordable housing sites have been developed at Raygarth / Old School is there scope for further development in this location with access from the Kearstwick Road? The most recent site has already had expensive roadworks and site preparation costs.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Key Diagram - Kirkby Lonsdale - Figure 33

Page 175 Preferred direction of growth

Support partly

Site 1 South West Kirkby - support but careful consideration will need to be given to access arrangements and this should present an opportunity to resolve long-standing issues about inadequate car parking arrangements for both schools.
Site 2 North West Kirkby - strongly oppose access from Harling Bank (private unadopted road) as this will exacerbate car parking issues connected with point above. This site is likely to be expensive to develop because of access, flooding issues, topography (the land is undulating and has a number of prominent ridges and is not level as stated in bullet point 2), sewage capacity and avoidance of thirlmere water pipes.
Site 3 West Kirkby Lonsdale - support as this is the most economical site to develop with access from A65.

Site 2 - Why has this site been singled out for individual treatment by utilising all column headings?
Either sites 1 and 3 should be treated similarly or the headings become meaningless. Suggest at this stage that, to be consistent throughout the report, all columns need to be completed so that consultees have as much factual information as possible.

Sites 1 and 3 have the potential for development on both sides of the A65 thus minimising infrastructure costs and providing significant development costs which should help in the provision of affordable housing.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

are writing to object to the plans for Burton in Kendal described in South Lakeland Local Development Framework - Core Strategy, to develop to the east of Morewood Drive.

1) We believe any further development up the hill side to the east of Morewood Drive will have a significant negative impact on the views of Burton in Kendal and its rural setting from the West.

2) Further development up the hill side to the east of Morewood Drive would create an urban environment and detract from the current environment and quality of Burton in Kendal.

3) The east of Morewood Drive currently has a public footpath on its boundary, connecting the centre of Burton in Kendal to Slape Lane which is used extensively by locals and Ramblers. Further development to the east of Morewood Drive would enclose this footpath and reduce the amenity of the footpath and spoil the rural views currently enjoyed.

We wish to register our objections to SLDC plans to build houses/work units on hampsfell and believe this would be wrong for the following reasons:-

1 Grange Fell Road is narrow and steep with no footpath and a blind bend near the fields. To construct access roads would require major reshaping of the Fell road resulting in complete loss of its rural character.

2 It is the wrong place to build homes for elderly or young families at the top of a very steep hill. Car journeys would be necessary for shopping etc as there are no shops or post offices locally and cycling is virtually impossible. Traffic on the Fell is already heavy and will be increased by the proposals to build houses in the field next to the fell church and further exacerbated by the plans for Hampsfell.

3 There would be an increased risk of flooding to properties below the sloping fields. Three houses close to the Fell Post Office were flooded in last years rains, as water poured in torrents from the fields .

4 It would totally alter the wonderful scenery around the foot of Fell End and Hampsfell making it less attractive to tourists - a major industry in this area.

5 Building here would completely change the history of this place. Fields have been here for centuries, still showing limestone walls and field patterns typical of the area. Once this is lost, it cannot be replaced.

6 Homes and businesses would be better placed near the town centre, close to shopping facilities, Post Office, Banks, Railway, etc,.

Oppose

The Preferred Option - PO12 - Ulverston Functional Area 2025

pages 139 - 149 inclusive

Oppose

I object to the proposed development of 1000+ homes at the ‘preferred’ site on Croftlands Estate for the following reasons
I object to the destruction of prime farm land (Greenbelt) when the country is already flooding due to continued development of our countryside., surely there are brown belt sites that have already been developed to some extent that would be better for the environment.

The size of the development is quite scary and will increase the size of our town by a fifth! I object to this when the one senior school (UVHS) cannot handle the large number of students already enrolled and had a terrible ofsted report. My daughter attends this school and the terrible ofsted was not related to any of the usual problems like non English speaking children or underprivileged problems. Their problems are due to the sheer number of students who attend. This proposed development would put a strain on our schools, Doctors and we definitely do not have enough NHS dentists in the town and cannot attract them.

Where are the jobs to support these 2000+ people? And where are all these people going to be buried? The existing cemetery has already been partly taken for Housing association housing and does not have much space left.

The land that is ‘preferred’ is prone to constant flooding already and shouldn’t be built up, to put the already strained countryside under more strain.

The few remaining shops in town will suffer if another supermarket is built and will spoil the tourist potential for the ‘small cobbled market town’. Ulverston will be totally changed if this proposal goes ahead in its existing form and not for the better.

What are the young people going to do in their free time. there are very few facilities available to them now and I for one do not want more hanging around the streets intimidating people with their sheer numbers!

There will be a dangerously increased number of road users through our already busy estate and this will only lead to accidents and pollution.

If 50% of the housing is for ‘locals’ then surely the other 50% is not needed as I do not see any jobs in the town that pay much more than minimum wage being proposed.

Affordable properties should be built nearer the town, not as far away as they can possibly get, due to the cost of cars, fuel, roadtax and increased public transport fares.

The views from existing homes will be totally ruined and the privacy of existing residents impacted upon immensely, also the long term building proposal will have a prolonged impact on the community that has to live with a constant building site. Constant noise, dust and construction traffic are just some of the effects

The preferred option seems to be the ‘easiest’ option and the reasons why it is preferred over the other options do not hold much water. For example one of the farmers is willing to sell ( Compulsory purchase is an option according to the Core Strategy preferred options (page 148) ) so this is totally irrelevant in my opinion as the other options could be bought anyway.. As I said it seems to be the ‘easiest’ option and surely being called the ‘preferred option’ will ultimately bias the outcome of the result.

There are still undeveloped areas within the original boundaries of the town, why are these not the preferred option?
On a personal level I am also disgusted in the lack of information and prior consultation regarding this project and the direct affect it will have on me! I have had three days to prepare and write my objections to this proposal.

I suggest land within the specified current town boundaries between Outcast and Priory Road.
Or between Ulverston and Swarthmoor.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

The Preferred Option - PO12 - Ulverston Functional Area 2025

pages 139 - 149 inclusive

Oppose

I object to the proposed development of 1000+ homes at the ‘preferred’ site on Croftlands Estate for the following reasons...........................................................................
I object to the destruction of prime farm land (Greenbelt) when the country is already flooding due to continued development of our countryside., surely there are brown belt sites that have already been developed to some extent that would be better for the environment..............................

The size of the development is quite scary and will increase the size of our town by a fifth! I object to this when the one senior school (UVHS) cannot handle the large number of students already enrolled and had a terrible ofsted report. My daughter attends this school and the terrible ofsted was not related to any of the usual problems like non English speaking children or underprivileged problems. Their problems are due to the sheer number of students who attend. This proposed development would put a strain on our schools, Doctors and we definitely do not have enough NHS dentists in the town and cannot attract them...................................................

Where are the jobs to support these 2000+ people? And where are all these people going to be buried? The existing cemetery has already been partly taken for Housing association housing and does not have much space left...................................................................

The land that is ‘preferred’ is prone to constant flooding already and shouldn’t be built up, to put the already strained countryside under more strain..........................................

The few remaining shops in town will suffer if another supermarket is built and will spoil the tourist potential for the ‘small cobbled market town’. Ulverston will be totally changed if this proposal goes ahead in its existing form and not for the better..................................

What are the young people going to do in their free time. there are very few facilities available to them now and I for one do not want more hanging around the streets intimidating people with their sheer numbers!...........................................................................

There will be a dangerously increased number of road users through our already busy estate and this will only lead to accidents and pollution..........................................................

If 50% of the housing is for ‘locals’ then surely the other 50% is not needed as I do not see any jobs in the town that pay much more than minimum wage being proposed.............................

Affordable properties should be built nearer the town, not as far away as they can possibly get, due to the cost of cars, fuel, roadtax and increased public transport fares.....................

The views from existing homes will be totally ruined and the privacy of existing residents impacted upon immensely, also the long term building proposal will have a prolonged impact on the community that has to live with a constant building site. Constant noise, dust and construction traffic are just some of the effects.........................................................................

The preferred option seems to be the ‘easiest’ option and the reasons why it is preferred over the other options do not hold much water. For example one of the farmers is willing to sell ( Compulsory purchase is an option according to the Core Strategy preferred options (page 148) ) so this is totally irrelevant in my opinion as the other options could be bought anyway.. As I said it seems to be the ‘easiest’ option and surely being called the ‘preferred option’ will ultimately bias the outcome of the result..................................................................

There are still undeveloped areas within the original boundaries of the town, why are these not the preferred option? ................................................................................
On a personal level I am also disgusted in the lack of information and prior consultation regarding this project and the direct affect it will have on me! I have had three days to prepare and write my objections to this proposal.

I suggest land within the specified current town boundaries between Outcast and Priory Road.
Or between Ulverston and Swarthmoor.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

Storth

Oppose

We totally oppose the proposal for light industrial / employment activity for Four Lane Ends because access is impractical for this site.

The site proposed for housing would be impractical because of inadequate access.

this site could possibly be considered for family housing thus improving the balance of population whoch the village and ensuring the future of the school.

industry and employment sites could prehaps be located near Quarray Lane subject to proper/safe access.

storth

Oppose

I oppose the industrial development on Sandside at Cockshott Lane. it woudl destroy the nature of the village.

Sandside is traditionally an industrial area and there is room for further development there - more convinient road, transport etc.

The housing issue raises many questions. Why 25 houses? Would this be private, housing association or council developments? to buy or to rent?

An advantage of more houses might increase use of the school , PO, shops etc - but woud this mean better amenities? eg transport

To the Development Plans Team

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the South Lakeland District Council Preferred Options. While the document is forward looking in many respects I have significant concerns about several issues which I have outlined below. I understand that a more thorough round of public consultation will accompany the submission draft but I felt I needed to draw these issues to your attention so that you could address them in the forthcoming draft. While many of these issues can be considered to be District wide I am most concerned with the development outlined for Ulverston as this is my home town.

Housing
The scale of housing proposed for Ulverston and Kendal seems quite extraordinary and I therefore object strongly to the number of dwellings / land proposed (approx 20ha) in Ulverston and the excessive allocations for the rest of the District.

I understand and appreciate that new housing is required to provide additional housing for a growing population and to support business, retail and employment. I also understand that housing numbers are provided from the RSS document, which are based on SLDC figures and the top down approach to housing adopted by central Government. SLDC housing figures for completions (supplied to the RSS) will, I imagine, include development on windfall sites so I would therefore expect windfall development (based on historical rates) to be taken into account when considering future housing allocations. However the housing figures presented in the Core Strategy do not appear to take any account of the present level of ‘windfall’ housing development that presently accounts for a large percentage of the Districts housing.
I understand that ‘windfalls’ are not considered appropriate in the RSS and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments nationally but I believe that the Council must take a strong stance against this national policy and guidance because it is just not appropriate for an area which traditionally benefits from large numbers of windfall housing. I understand that LDF policy allows for such flexibility so that a Plan is locally specific and sound.

In its current form I believe that the document would be unsound because if the housing allocation figures do not take account of windfalls, and windfall development carries on at its present rate then the District could expect a 60-70% increase in housing provision over and above the allocation stated (1130) in the Core Strategy, the Council would, therefore be massively over supplying housing over the course of the plan by virtue of not considering windfall development when calculating how many houses (or how much land) to allocate for residential purposes.
The existing Core Strategy plan would mean: Ulverston = 1130 dwellings in allocations but with no consideration of windfalls which provide 60-70% of housing, therefore when including windfalls Ulverston could expect 1864 (1130 +65%) houses over the course of the Core Strategy.

The correct approach would be, a total allocation including windfalls of 1130 with these windfalls accounting for 60-70% of this figure. Therefore Ulverston could expect approximately 400 new houses on allocated sites. This I believe is a much more realistic figure for new housing over the course of the plan.

I believe such a methodology should be applied to every settlement within the District.

Please note I have not gone into detail regarding figures from the AMR and other documents at this stage. If a similar unsuitable scale of housing is still proposed as part of the submission draft then I will respond in more detail.
I am also concerned about the sustainability issues that the proposed locations for housing (and employment) will bring. The housing is some distance from the train station and a substantial increase in public facilities (shops, public transport, transport infrastructure, schools) would be required to support the proposed number of houses.

I believe the council will need to re-consider the status (Local Service Centres etc) and the development within villages as a result of likely Post Office closures. In many cases I expect this may involve the removal of development cordons and housing moratoriums in villages that are effected. Allocating within villages where Post Offices close may result in unsustainable development and would not justify any development, such an issue could be justification for finding the Plan unsound.

Employment

I appreciate the need for employment provision in the District and Ulverston to ensure that a mix jobs are available and that the area remains economically competitive. However I wish to object to the scale of the proposed development throughout the District and Ulverston as I consider it to be greatly excessive. A mixed employment/housing site would be more appropriate, the proposed housing and employment sites are a couple of miles apart. I believe the next draft may need to consider the possibility of the Glaxo site becoming available for some type of use (a potential massive windfall site!).
Transport.
The plan does not appear to take into account the possibility of an A590 Ulverston bypass which is mentioned in several key Regional and County transport documents.

Transport infrastructure in Ulverston is already a major issue and with large scale development I believe massive strain would be placed on the existing A590 junctions. I believe any development should be accompanied by significant transport improvements around these junction and on the A590 itself. Development (housing and employment) on the edge of the Croftlands estate would also greatly increase traffic past Croftlands Primary School and UFinally while maybe not be a Core Strategy issue another problem with transport is the poor standard of the X35 bus route that does not pick up passengers in Ulverston who wish to go to Barrow. This means passengers have to take an indirect service that takes double the time. I believe this is contrary to the Councils sustainability objectives.

The natural and built environment and historic conservation.

I believe that the District is very reliant on the environment for its success and continued tourist draw. I support the Core Strategy in its desire to protect the natural environment. However this is rather contradictory when considering the massive expansion of towns into the open countryside.

I support the proposed Article 4 direction in Ulverston, I believe it should take the form of an Article 4(2) Direction that still provides for some Permitted Development to the ‘rear’ of dwellings. Grants to residents and business should be continued to help retain and improve buildings.

I believe the Market Town status of Ulverston should be vigorously pursued, with improvements to its character paramount. This should be achieved through many factors but I believe the Council should encourage the re-installation of cobbles on Brogden Street, New Market Street and King Street.

Once again, many thanks for consulting on the plan and conducting community consultation throughout the District. I look forward to seeing the Submission Draft of the Core Strategy

4.63 - 4.64 PO14 - Milnthorpe Functional Area 2025 - Introduction

pages 163-169

Oppose

I have lived in Heversham for 11 years and during this time, there has been sporadic house-building, mainly in the gaps and other vacant land on the arterial housing areas, running along the old A6 through Leasgill and Heversham, and on Woodhouse Lane. This housing has been of sufficiently small scale to be in harmony with the two hamlets and has been integrated in a sympathetic manner.

The age population is high in both Heversham and Leasgill, and there is a high dependence on the motor car to access local services.
The village is located in an area of high landscape value; the encroachment onto fields for a projected 79 houses would impact not only on green fields but onto incomparably beautiful pasture land, and would affect the views towards St Anthony’s Tower in particular.

I should also point out that house prices are extremely high in the village, and the new houses built since 1996 have all been sold for prices starting at £300,000. They have not been sold to first-time buyers or young families but to affluent people wanting to live in a village who can afford more than one motor car. During this period, the one remaining shop has closed in the village, ensuring all residents have to travel to Milnthorpe for basic services such as shops, doctor, dentist etc. There is a village primary school but many children come from outlying areas to attend. Dallam Sixth Form college is located in Heversham but the main secondary school services are located in Milnthorpe. My main objections to the proposals are:·
· the proposals are wholly out of scale with previous developments and would negatively impact on the characters of the respective areas of Heversham and Leasgill.
· the proposals run counter to Council policy regarding reducing the reliance on the motor car as there are NO local services in the villages apart from the primary school
· this is prime agricultural land, especially East Heversham.
· the land is also of outstanding landscape value as classified by the Council
· in Core Strategy Preferred Options, page 164, North Milnthorpe, it is stated that because of St Anthony’s Tower, development is limited because the ‘views should be kept open’. East and South Heversham are on the opposite side of the Tower from Milnthorpe, so what is the difference?? Has a planner been to look at the views of the Tower from Woodhouse Lane? I would suggest the views of the Tower are even more spectacular from Heversham, as there is the beautiful mixed woodland on the high ground on this side.
Also , it is stated in SW Milnthorpe page 164, that development is limited there because the deer park is of high landscape value (something I agree with), but the deer come onto the fields to the rear of Woodhouse Lane, and this is an area of equal landscape value I contend.
· whatever houses are built would be bought by older people, or retirees etc as they would be out of the price range of low income families. Therefore, we would be despoiling the village to provide homes for people whose reliance on services is wholly dependent on using motor cars i.e. doctors, care workers, shops if ‘affordable’ houses were built, how can we guarantee that these would not go to retirees or second-home owners? One local house-builder, Russell Armer, is currently marketing new property in Kendal as ideal for second homes???
· major utility services would have to be upgraded or installed from scratch. There is a pumping station for water on Woodhouse Lane (which could not cope with larger demands), and the sewage works have only recently been modified to cope with existing demands. The proposed building land in Leasgill is close to an area which regularly floods.
· the road network is inadequate to deal with extra traffic. East Heversham – the idea is for access to new houses from Woodhouse Lane? - I should point out that Woodhouse Lane is single track and we already have problems when there is extra traffic using the roads e.g. on County Show day locals have to queue to get into their own drives. Larger vehicles get stuck trying to turn round.
· These rural roads are used and appreciated by many people who are escaping from built-up areas. We have large numbers of cyclists, ramblers, elderly people using the lanes (not roads!) as they are relatively safe and free of traffic. Blind people come with their helpers to cycle up the lane. Children run across the fields behind Dallam School to access Tristrams sports’ field. Encouraging more journeys along these narrow lanes is irresponsible, and as stated above, run counter to Council policy on sustainable transport.

As all services are available in Milnthorpe, it is obvious that extra housing should be located here. The road network is adequate to deal with increased traffic flow. However, if there are not going to be increased employment opportunities, then this is straining the Council sustainability transport policy, as more people will have to commute. Therefore, the road network will be put under further pressure. Future development in Heversham/Leasgill should be located in small pockets, infilling gaps only.

Storth

Oppose

there are already houses in the village for sale and not selling. The infrastructure will not accomodate more traffic thorugh the village and to begin to widen the exisiting roads would make amockery of the whole village. as far as industrial units at Four Lane Ends, this would mean heavire vehicles travelling on narrow roads - in some cases single track roads - endandering walkers, the traffic that already exists carrying children to school - again widening the roads is unacceptable.

The village if Beetham, if we're honest, is much closer to the A6 and M6 and would benefit from a small developementand would stop further traffic hammering the already busy roads through Milnthorpe.

Storth

Oppose

there are already houses in the village for sale and not selling. The infrastructure will not accomodate more traffic thorugh the village and to begin to widen the exisiting roads would make amockery of the whole village. as far as industrial units at Four Lane Ends, this would mean heavire vehicles travelling on narrow roads - in some cases single track roads - endandering walkers, the traffic that already exists carrying children to school - again widening the roads is unacceptable.

The village if Beetham, if we're honest, is much closer to the A6 and M6 and would benefit from a small developementand would stop further traffic hammering the already busy roads through Milnthorpe.

Storth

Oppose

there are already houses in the village for sale and not selling. The infrastructure will not accomodate more traffic thorugh the village and to begin to widen the exisiting roads would make amockery of the whole village. as far as industrial units at Four Lane Ends, this would mean heavire vehicles travelling on narrow roads - in some cases single track roads - endandering walkers, the traffic that already exists carrying children to school - again widening the roads is unacceptable.

The village if Beetham, if we're honest, is much closer to the A6 and M6 and would benefit from a small developementand would stop further traffic hammering the already busy roads through Milnthorpe.

2.28 - 2.38 Strategic Objectives

Proposed Development at Heversham

1 It is out of proportion to the size of the village i e 79 new dwellings
to a total of 220 existing houses . The appearance of the village would be
adversely affected.

2 There are no shops or medical services in the village. Car traffic to
Milnthorpe would be greatly increased.

3 Woodhouse Lane in particular is completely inadequate to cope with the
increased traffic. For most of its length it is wide enough for one car only
and passing another car always involves manoeuvring.

4 It is difficult to see where the demand for the new houses is to come
from - there are no jobs to support these numbers.

SUMMARY
The following detailed comments on the South Lakeland Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options Document will show that:
The process itself is flawed, and fails any soundness test, because, despite assurances within the document and from staff, specific sites are considered and given preferred status without the benefit of the full range of assessments.

The Preferred Strategy is flawed, and fails any soundness test, because it proposes such a high percentage of the intended growth within Kendal without any acknowledgment of the limitations on infrastructure and facilities. The Strategy is also flawed as it states that the proposals are sustainable when clearly they are not.

The Strategy is further flawed, and again fails soundness tests because the published document is inconsistent, assessments are incomplete and contain incorrect statements of fact.

The proposals for Kendal are flawed and unsound because they ignore the limitations of the facilities available - or capable of being provided - within the existing town, are based on erroneous data and demand unacceptable flexibility in respect of Green Gaps. That flexibility would be unnecessary if the growth figures were realistic and if other sites without that “status” were included within the Preferred Strategy.

The proposal to include the North West Kendal site within the Strategy is flawed and unsound because any limited assessment has been based on wrong information; safe access to the site would be difficult to achieve and it would intensify traffic usage on a totally inadequate and substandard artery into Kendal; the location does not have good access to key facilities, as claimed; does not meet any sustainability criteria; requires unnecessary and unacceptable encroachment into a Green Gap; and is premature and prejudicial to the Kendal Relief Road proposal.


I will show throughout that, in all respects, the Strategy fails any “soundness” test and should be given more considered thought before the final Strategy is prepared




The Preferred Strategy is flawed, and fails any soundness test, because it proposes such a high percentage of the intended growth within Kendal without any acknowledgment of the limitations on infrastructure and facilities. The Strategy is also flawed as it states that the proposals are sustainable when clearly they are not.



The Strategy is further flawed, and again fails soundness tests because the published document is inconsistent, assessments are incomplete and contain incorrect statements of fact.



The proposals for Kendal are flawed and unsound because they ignore the limitations of the facilities available - or capable of being provided - within the existing town, are based on erroneous data and demand unacceptable flexibility in respect of Green Gaps. That flexibility would be unnecessary if the growth figures were realistic and if other sites without that "status" were included within the Preferred Strategy.



The proposal to include the North West Kendal site within the Strategy is flawed and unsound because any limited assessment has been based on wrong information; safe access to the site would be difficult to achieve and it would intensify traffic usage on a totally inadequate and substandard artery into Kendal; the location does not have good access to key facilities, as claimed; does not meet any sustainability criteria; requires unnecessary and unacceptable encroachment into a Green Gap; and is premature and prejudicial to the Kendal Relief Road proposal.



I will show throughout that, in all respects, the Strategy fails any "soundness" test and should be given more considered thought before the final Strategy is prepared"



From this summary you will see that I believe both the process and conclusions to be flawed in many respects. Whilst I could have addressed these comments solely to Miss Psillidou I feel that the issues here are of sufficient importance to require that their exposure to senior officers and Members at the earliest opportunity.

I apologise for the overall length of the comments but I do hope that you will take time to read them and ideally take an early opportunity to influence the further development of the Strategy before it is finalised for submission to government. I also hope that you will encourage any Inspector to allow public oral representations at any subsequent Examination of the Strategy.
SUMMARY

The following detailed comments on the South Lakeland Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options Document will show that:

The process itself is flawed, and fails any soundness test, because, despite assurances within the document and from staff, specific sites are considered and given preferred status without the benefit of the full range of assessments.

The Preferred Strategy is flawed, and fails any soundness test, because it proposes such a high percentage of the intended growth within Kendal without any acknowledgment of the limitations on infrastructure and facilities. The Strategy is also flawed as it states that the proposals are sustainable when clearly they are not.

The Strategy is further flawed, and again fails soundness tests because the published document is inconsistent, assessments are incomplete and contain incorrect statements of fact.
The proposals for Kendal are flawed and unsound because they ignore the limitations of the facilities available - or capable of being provided - within the existing town, are based on erroneous data and demand unacceptable flexibility in respect of Green Gaps. That flexibility would be unnecessary if the growth figures were realistic and if other sites without that “status” were included within the Preferred Strategy.

The proposal to include the North West Kendal site within the Strategy is flawed and unsound because any limited assessment has been based on wrong information; safe access to the site would be difficult to achieve and it would intensify traffic usage on a totally inadequate and substandard artery into Kendal; the location does not have good access to key facilities, as claimed; does not meet any sustainability criteria; requires unnecessary and unacceptable encroachment into a Green Gap; and is premature and prejudicial to the Kendal Relief Road proposal.


I will show throughout that, in all respects, the Strategy fails any “soundness” test and should be given more considered thought before the final Strategy is prepared

Introduction

All of the following comments consider the “soundness of the plan” as requested on page 5 of the document. They are divided into comment on the soundness of the overall process itself; on the soundness of the overall Preferred Option; on the soundness of the plan in respect of the Kendal Functional Area; and on the soundness of the plan in respect of the North West Kendal housing and Green Gap proposals.

I will show throughout that, in all respects, it fails “soundness” and should be given more considered input before the final Strategy is prepared

The Process itself.

The Draft Strategy is flawed “in process” from the start because it purports to show principle and policy and states “it is important to stress that the Council is not outlining specific sites which will need to be finalised in the Allocation of Land DPD – the symbols do not denote a specific site but a broad location”. And yet that is exactly what the document does, in so many locations. And it does so without full environmental, traffic and other appraisals.
Staff also emphasised the “broad locations” at the exhibition in Kendal. However within the document there are many comments about the suitability for development of various “broad locations” which actually refer to specific sites. These comments are shallow, some are ill founded, some are wrong, there are many inconsistencies and, equally, many omissions. The Draft Strategy has been prepared and identifies these “broad locations” without the benefit of the Employment and Housing Land Search Study, which is not yet complete (Page 90).
This would mean that if adopted the Strategy would give a “broad location” planning status that it may not warrant if/when tested fully and properly. That could put long term delivery of the Strategy at risk. Perhaps more importantly, it would also put any interested party at a distinct disadvantage when individual development proposals are brought forward for detailed consideration.

The Strategy fails the “soundness” test on those general principles alone.

The Overall Preferred Option

1 Kendal as a Principal Service Centre

Whilst it is accepted that it is correct to identify Kendal as a Principal Service Centre, it cannot be right to concentrate such a high proportion of the growth in that one tightly constrained urban area where the infrastructure and facilities are already inadequate.
The Draft Strategy Preferred Option is to concentrate 43% of residential and commercial/employment development growth in the town – together with expecting Kendal to act as “an employment zone for National Park residents”. That means that Kendal population will grow by in excess of 27% (on the basis of only 2 people per new household on a base population of 28398) as well as accommodating “commuting” employees from elsewhere within the area and from the National Park. The degree of commuting expected from the National Park over the Strategy period is unknown as the Lake District National Park has yet to publish their Preferred LDF for consultation
Challenges to “the soundness” are :

a. Kendal’s transport infrastructure is fully stretched at present. The maintenance, development and enhancement of that infrastructure are in the hands of the County Council. The Strategy states that the District Council relies on “partners” delivering their contribution but Cumbria County Council have failed miserably to deliver in full their most recent strategy for Kendal – pedestrianisation was intended to be but one part of an overall strategy – and I have been told no further work will be done to address issues such as Lowther Street, where Air Quality is a cause for concern now. The opportunity for capacity enhancement within the town is very limited.
Because of the size of the town and the nature of the surrounding area there is a finite limit that any Council can do (both physically and financially) to increase public transport and thus increase sustainable travel. The Draft Strategy acknowledges that Park and Ride in a town such as this is uneconomic – I go further – it is impractical because of the lack of “economies of scale”. There is therefore little opportunity for the infrastructure within Kendal to accommodate the travel patterns of such a large population increase and increased volume of commuters from the National Park;

b. The Draft Strategy makes selective reference to the County Council’s Local Transport Plan, quoting many extracts from the LTP but it omits any reference to the Kendal Northern Relief Road which is stated as being the County Council’s second priority for capital investment. The fact that the project is not included within Regional funding priorities before 2017 does not preclude its relevance to the timeframe of the Draft Strategy. A Strategy that will lead to a LDF has to contain reference to another local authorities’ prioritised capital project. That would not preclude the District Council, in developing its Strategy from having a policy of its own on this capital project – is it important to the achievement of the Strategy, in which case why is it not mentioned and why is the District Council not persuading the County Council to do further work on the project to further its case with the regional bodies; or does the District Council not want a Relief Road pursued. In either case the “soundness” of the plan is flawed by omission.
c. The document acknowledges the importance to the district of the M6 and recognises that many residents use that corridor to access employment. A higher proportion of appropriately sized developments should be located close to this corridor in places such as Crooklands, Holme etc. Similarly, within Kendal itself the location of this transport corridor should be recognised when allocating growth areas – the Preferred Strategy has three employment areas to the north, which means traffic serving those sites would have to pass through the town.

d. Kendal does not have a fully functioning hospital, and policies are to allow the existing facilities to become more run down or more “specialised”. At present Westmorland General Hospital A&E does not deal with cases which are much more than routine – with patients having to be sent to Lancaster or Barrow. This in itself points to changing the Strategy emphasis towards marginal increases in development in places such as Milnthorpe, Crooklands (proximity to M6) and a higher concentration in Ulverston which not only has a limited hospital of its own but also enjoys good access to full hospital facilities (at Barrow).
Also on the health front, this area suffers more than most from the absence of National Health dental facilities.
e. There is no reference in the document to the ability of schools, collectively or individually to accommodate such a potentially large increase in population.

e. Such a large increase in employment/housing would have a dramatic impact on the foul sewage system in Kendal. There is no comfort in the document that the system and the waste water treatment plant have the capacity to accommodate such an increase. Similarly, such extensive development will inevitably increase the volume and rate of runoff of surface water. There is no evidence that this can be accommodated without additional flood risk, particularly bearing in mind the fickle nature of the River Kent catchment area.

2 Canal Head

It is quite obvious throughout the document the importance the District Council places on the Canal Head development. It is a major element of the Draft Strategy and yet there must be major risks and questions over it ever being delivered. Reopening the canal through to Kendal will be expensive and, like many such major capital projects those costs could escalate, its cost effectiveness must be increasingly open to question and the ability to attract funding must be questioned. That such a high profile, high risk project forms a major plank without any discussion of risk and alternatives again challenges the “soundness” of the entire plan.

Whilst all of the above deal specifically with Kendal issues, they are sufficiently fundamental to the whole and thus cast further doubt on the “soundness” of the whole Strategy.

3 The Long(er) Term

Having stated that Kendal’s infrastructure cannot accommodate the increase proposed within this draft Strategy, it is also incumbent on the Council to give some thought beyond the timescale of this LDF. There are clearly no grounds for optimism that Kendal can grow beyond that timescale. This LDF should therefore acknowledge that, show some longer term thought process, decide where a future Principal Service Centre should be established and set that process in hand within this LDF.

Kendal Functional Area

The following comments refer in more detail to the “soundness” of proposals for Kendal itself.

a. All of the above general comments apply.

b. There are two points within the Report which indicate that the overall demand for development land in Kendal could be reduced. – para 3.111 states that 10% more industrial land is needed “whereby existing sites in inappropriate locations are replaced by new sites”. Presumably a % of those sites so replaced, being “brown field”, would be available for housing – reducing the demand in Kendal by up to 8.8 hectares. Para 3.117 mentions 5.05 hectares of industrial land in Milnthorpe not being included in the table “as it could undermine the supply in the Strategy” (whatever that means). The “soundness” of this statement is challenged – that reduces the demand for land in Kendal by a further 5.05 hectares
So even if the basic assumption about Kendal is maintained, the overall need for land is reduced by up to 13.85 hectares.


c. Comments on Option 3 Alternative Directions of Growth (page 123).

This section purports to assess 23 “broad locations” for development and contains superficial, sparse, inconsistent and incorrect comments – and many do look very site specific indeed. Presumably those comments/superficial assessments were considered relevant and used when the Council came to conclusions on the Preferred Strategy. They do however need some considerable additional work before being an acceptable part of the process –

1 –potential development may be restricted, but the area could still be given positive assessment – the recreational facility (soccer field) could be relocated the other side of Rather Heath Lane without prejudicing any other policies.

2 – There is no comment here at all. So is there any viability here? It must be remembered that Burneside is incorporated within Kendal Functional Area in the Draft Strategy despite, confusingly, also having Local Service Centre status.

3 - On what basis is the statement “access is significantly constrained” made.

4 - Is the implication that the Green Gap between Burneside and Bowston is of more importance than the Green Gap between North West Kendal and Burneside. Again what is the substance for the access comment.

5 and 6 - there seems nothing here to detract from minor additional development

7 – visibility from footpaths seems to be of importance in some places, but irrelevant elsewhere. What assessment has been done to determine whether the drainage concerns are not insurmountable

8 and 9 – Just how important is visibility of developments and why is it particularly relevant here. A65 is some distance from Natland and “wider landscape” is bound to be affected by most of the potential sites

10 - there are a few pockets here to be included.

12 – is potential scale of controversy to be the controlling factor in deciding the Strategy

13 and 14 – at last areas that are acceptable

15 – this ignores totally the fact that discussions have been ongoing with both Kendal Cricket and Rugby Clubs for their facilities to be acquired for development with a purpose built replacement being provided elsewhere in the town. Such sites could be ideal for employment, but bearing in mind the small residential developments along Shap Road, some housing could also be accommodated.
How does the character of the area limit development potential

16 – This states that Hallgarth is all 19th century estates. This area started to be developed in the 20th century and contains relatively recent developments. A new access bridge has NOT been built over the railway from Hallgarth. An existing bridge has been strengthened by Network Rail to ensure it can continue with its original function – accommodation and footpath bridge, not to provide access to housing development. These two erroneous statements cast doubt on all other aspects of this assessment. The statement that there is potential to build new access roads is unacceptable without a proper environmental and traffic assessment – more in detail below.

17 – what does this mean – does it give this “broad location” a positive reaction or what – there is no comment about suitability of access, potential to build new access roads etc.

20 – this appears to give favourable assessment to development in this location

22 – the comments in this item are potentially the most outrageous within this section and fully demonstrate the lack of “soundness” in the approach. A new access would be needed which may increase development costs!! Virtually all “broad locations” considered would need new accesses and many would require extensive infrastructure. “The existing housing consists of large detached houses – which may limit the potential for locating housing”!! This wording is a cause for particular concern about “soundness” and equity.

23 – receives very positive, if tightly constrained comment.

Comment was made above about the rugby and cricket grounds. The process also fails the “soundness” test in connection with the livestock market site off Appleby Road. It is recognised that the process for its replacement may be at a difficult stage but the Strategy is flawed if such large potential is ignored – in the same vein as comments about Canal Head above, the document should discuss this site’s contribution in a balanced but non prejudicial manner.
No mention is made within this Option of the two areas of fields off Sedburgh Road in the vicinity of Castle Green Hotel. The fields to the west of Sedburgh Road are most suitable for housing. Part of the fields to the east are very steep but there has to be scope for some additional housing here.

The Preferred Strategy (for Kendal)

There is no commentary on how this Preferred Strategy was arrived at; nor why the order of the locations changes so dramatically between Option 3 and Table 3.

The Preferred Strategy does contain some illogical and unexplained proposals. For example, and deliberately distant from North West Kendal, area 23 in Option 3 received positive comment about suitability for knowledge based employment development – and yet it is excluded from the strategy. Area 22 in Option 3 is suggested as being suitable for housing, albeit with the questionable caveat that the size of the existing houses may limit the potential for new housing. Yet the Preferred Strategy suggests that there will be no apparent problem in locating Mixed Employment/Housing here.

Para 4.12 makes a wholly unsubstantiated comment that development areas (“urban extensions”) included in the overall Core Strategy are sustainable. On what basis – the information given in Option 3 and in Table 3 is inadequate for such an assertion. No environmental or traffic assessments have been done – how can sustainability have been proven. Indeed below I argue that sustainability is far from achieved.
Green Gaps
The definition of a Green Gap is that it cannot be built on and therefore has greater protection than other green field sites. The original reasons for this definition were quite clear and there is no reason for any change of direction. The Strategy document has not made any case for the flexibility now desired in respect of some Green Gaps. It also seems to favour sites within Green Gaps over some areas that do not at present enjoy that designation. Those “broad locations” within the Preferred Strategy that require such Green Gap flexibility should be withdrawn.

Table 3

The variation in depth of assessment of individual “broad locations” is clearly demonstrated by the Achievability comments in respect of service provision – for example sites 1,3 and 4 mention possibility of off site mains reinforcement whereas sites 2c,8,9 and 10 give details of all services in the vicinity. This inconsistency again fails the “soundness” test.

The Preferred Strategy for the Kendal Function Area fails the “soundness test” as a consequence of all of the above points.

North West Kendal – “broad location”

Because the boundaries of this site are clearly drawn, along with the proposed modification to the Green Gap, it cannot be denied that comments on the site’s inclusion in the Preferred Strategy are anything but very specific. This site should not be included in the Preferred Strategy because many issues fail the “soundness” test.
The comments in Table 3 are challenged in their entirety as they are weak, flimsy and not, in themselves sustainable. Option 3 comments on this site have been shown to be wrong.

Suitability

a. “good accessibility
bus stop 100 yards from site” – presumably this refers to the stop at Carus Green at the extreme north west corner of this “large site”– 1 bus each way an hour!!!! How many people in affordable, or other housing will use that. Most people will drive as they do now from Briery Meadows and existing properties on Burneside Road.

“Oxenholme Station 4.8km away” – what is that supposed to mean in terms of accessibility /suitability/sustainability of sites in Kendal – to access Oxenholme from this site requires travel through Kendal Centre --- by car to do so in a sensible timeframe.
At this stage in the process it is essential to assess how the site would be accessed by road borne vehicles – service vehicles, owner’s cars etc? This is not mentioned. Is the expectation that the alleged new bridge over the railway is used to gain vehicular access from Hallgarth. If so that totally fails the “soundness” test.

Is a new access proposed onto Burneside Road – if so why is this not mentioned in line with comments about other sites. Or is it intended to access this “large site” through the existing Briery Meadows estate. If so that still requires a new access and there is no mention of it in the document – further “soundness” issues.

If either are proposed then it will be demonstrated below that neither access point is acceptable. This would be proven within any Traffic Assessment for the site.
At this stage in the process it is essential to assess how the site would be accessed by road borne vehicles – service vehicles, owner’s cars etc? This is not mentioned. Is the expectation that the alleged new bridge over the railway is used to gain vehicular access from Hallgarth. If so that totally fails the “soundness” test.

Is a new access proposed onto Burneside Road – if so why is this not mentioned in line with comments about other sites. Or is it intended to access this “large site” through the existing Briery Meadows estate. If so that still requires a new access and there is no mention of it in the document – further “soundness” issues.

If either are proposed then it will be demonstrated below that neither access point is acceptable. This would be proven within any Traffic Assessment for the site.

b. “clarification of culvert required” – what is this comment doing in something so allegedly broadbrush.

c. “environmental assessment required” – so how can the District Council proceed with this “site” as a fundamental element of your core strategy without an environmental assessment having been done. And how can the Strategy make claim in para 4.12 that all sites are sustainable.
d. “travel assessment/travel plan – at developers expense”!! I know that officers will state that it is too early in the process for detailed assessments but that cannot be so in respect of this large site. How can this be a core part of a Strategy which claims to be sustainable without a traffic assessment having been done at some level. It will be shown below that there are major traffic/road safety issues in respect of this site that will prevent it being developed. That has to be tested before the site is included within the Strategy otherwise the entire exercise is futile - utterly failing the “soundness” test.

Overcoming Constraints

a. Flexibility required over Green Gap – already mentioned above. But there is a possibility that the Council expects even more flexibility over/encroachment into the existing Green Gap if access is to be proposed from Burneside Road – see detail below.

b. Again this mentions a Traffic Assessment may be required. No one can propose a development of this size without a traffic assessment so why should that not be tested at this stage. The Preferred Strategy is very site specific and not broad brush here, as it may be elsewhere.
In fact the entire strategy should be subjected to a traffic assessment before it is finalised and submitted to government/Ministers.

c. Confirmation has been received from both the developer of Briery Meadows and from United Utilities that the sewage system on the existing Briery Meadows estate does not include any spare capacity for discharges from further development. Extensive drainage works would therefore be required, which would seem to far exceed the “off site mains reinforcement” mentioned in the table.
d. No mention in here about the Kendal Northern Relief Road, which is a priority for the County Council. There is no information about its alignment etc but at present it could be built within the timeframe of the Strategy. There is a possibility that the route could cross Burneside Road in the vicinity of the development. It is reasonable to suggest that this development, or access from it could prejudice the relief road scheme. Inclusion of the site in the Preferred Strategy would therefore be both premature and prejudicial in respect of a firm proposal that has been County Council policy for several years. On that basis alone this North West Kendal site again fails the “soundness” test.

Detailed comment on access to the North West Kendal site.

a. Burneside Road. Wherever the new site is accessed from –more below – it would significantly increase traffic on Burneside Road, one of the least acceptable corridors into Kendal. It contains:
a difficult pair of junctions into Briarigg and Kentrigg not far south of a crest with inadequate visibility when exiting from Briarigg;
a very narrow restricted height railway over bridge with the carriageway edge directly against a totally unprotected abutment and one narrow footway – actual carriageway width 4.4 m, 14.4 ft; minimum footway width 1 m, 3.28ft; effective carriageway width only about 13ft;
a difficult junction with Sparrowmire and Horncop Lanes, which itself is at a crest with very poor main road forward visibility;
a further difficult junction with the totally unacceptable access to the Courts and Dockray Hall industrial estate (mentioned in the Strategy as having scope for more development); parking within the side road often causes great difficulty for right turning lorries; visibility to the right is limited but usually reduced to zero by parked vehicles;
other junctions with existing housing and the new Riverside estate;
a difficult junction with Busher Walk where visibility to the south is severely restricted by the left hand bend.
All of these inadequacies are exacerbated by both the authorised and uncontrolled parking, much of which reduces the road to single lane.
The junction with Windermere Road is controlled by traffic signals where queue lengths on Burneside Road are constrained by parking on the approach to the signals.
The road is used by bus services to Burneside and Hallgarth, by every permitted size of goods vehicle to both Dockray Hall estate and to the paper mill at Burneside.
The road is crossed on foot by many pupils heading for Queen Katherine School on Shap Road, the majority of them in possibly the worst place between the crest with poor visibility and the constrained railway bridge; and having to use the very narrow footway through the railway bridge.
Any intensification of use –over that from development at the industrial estate – must be resisted on road safety grounds.



b. Access to the site. (note in this context that page 133 Achievability section talks about “the site’s large size”)
Access directly onto Burneside Road.
From Figure 21 the “obvious place” to access this site is at the point where the existing footpath/farm access joins Burneside Road, where the proposed development site meets the proposed, “flexibly” revised Green Gap boundary. That position is clearly unsafe being on the inside of the sharp bend at the bottom of a fairly steep hill where visibility to both left and right is severely constrained (about a quarter of recommended standards). It would also be opposite the access to the well used Carus Green Golf Course.
Any access point here would have to be taken further to the north, perhaps as far as midway between the two existing sharp bends. This would effectively add this further field to the development area – encroaching even further into the Green Gap and having a disastrous impact on the visual amenity of The Todds from the south. Even so the alignment constraints and vehicle speeds here suggest that it may be very difficult to site a junction of adequate and safe standard.
Access through the existing Briery Meadows Estate
This can not be considered seriously by anyone as, in strict planning terms alone, it would introduce a material disbenefit to the amenity of the entire existing estate.
It would introduce significant road safety concerns on the estate, require the compulsory purchase of land from several properties at the end of Briarigg to make the access road of adequate width, would do away with a prime open space and formal childrens’ play area.
The estate infrastructure is of inadequate alignment and width to accommodate intensification of use, bearing in mind the natural intensification that is occurring/will occur as existing families mature and offspring acquire vehicles of their own - there is on street parking now.
The existing junction with Burneside Road is inadequate for any further intensification of use. The standard of this junction is arguably unacceptable for the traffic using it now, with visibility from the junction falling some 30% short of recommended standards accompanied by high traffic speeds on Burneside Road. Clearly these are issues of concern now but the junction is totally incapable of safely accommodating any further intensification of use of the side road.
On that basis, it cannot safely accommodate any deliberate intensification of use of the main Burneside Road either.

It is obvious that no further progress should be made in considering this site without the benefit of the full range of environmental, traffic impact and safety assessments.

Indeed the many issues associated with this site mean that it should be withdrawn from the Strategy.
Conclusion

The overall document raises more issues than it answers and fails “soundness” throughout – in process, in policy considerations, and in their application to Kendal.

The amount of growth directed at Kendal needs to be reduced to a more realistic and sustainable level; and areas where growth is proposed need to be located in more appropriate and sustainable locations.

The proposed North West Kendal Site fails any logical “soundness” test on many issues –
inadequacy of assessment;
distance from facilities and lack of sustainability;
unacceptable and unnecessary flexibility in respect of the Green Gap;
prematurity and prejudice of Relief Road proposal;
environmental impact;
drainage issues;
adequacy and safety of access, both direct and in respect of additional traffic on Burneside Road.
This site should therefore be removed from the strategy as it is finalised for submission to government.