2 responses from Revd and Mrs Martin & Elspeth Jayne (Individual)
1. Revd and Mrs Martin & Elspeth Jayne (Individual) : 23 May 2008 22:21:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
1.1 - 1.13 Introduction and Context
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.
Para 1.10 Soundness
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Oppose
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.
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.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
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.
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination
Adopted by the District Council
2. Revd and Mrs Martin & Elspeth Jayne (Individual) : 23 May 2008 23:15:00
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.
page 137
East Natland
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Oppose
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.
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.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Removal of the site until such time as a proper practical assessment demonstrates its sustainability both in terms of access, affordability and landscape impact.
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination
Adopted by the District Council