Response from Mr Dave Conlin (Individual)
1. Mr Dave Conlin (Individual) : 25 May 2008 13:52:00
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.
Site 1 N.W. Kendal - site between Burneside Road & Railway line
Site 8 N.E. Burneside - land behind Burneside Mill
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment
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 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).
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
More emphasis should be placed on the substantial investment required for these developments to take place.