Response from Mr & Mrs Keith and Christina Greenwood (Individual)
1. Mr & Mrs Keith and Christina Greenwood (Individual) : 22 May 2008 13:37:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
The Preferred Option - PO11 - Kendal Functional Area
Please state as clearly as you can the exact part of the Report you are commenting on by quoting the page number (if known), paragraph number, option name or number, or the number of the map, figure or table.
P133, 2b Land off Maple Drive & Cedar Grove
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Please write your comment or explain your reasons for supporting or opposing this part of the Report. You may also wish to refer to the tests of soundess in the glossary of the Preferred Options document before making your comments.
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.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
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?