6 responses from Mr Frank Airey (Individual)
1. Mr Frank Airey (Individual) : 2 Jun 2008 14:29:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
3.17 The Preferred Option - PO1 - Locational Strategy
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 37 "Policies will protect Green Gaps between individual settlements"
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.
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
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
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.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
If North West Kendal is "Green Gap" then it shold be preserved for agricultural use only.
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. Mr Frank Airey (Individual) : 2 Jun 2008 16:40:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
3.69 - 3.78 PO4 - Balanced Housing Market - You Told us That & Introduction
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 59; Para 3.70
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.
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.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Reduce housing development to a manageable level,which can be proven not to put more strain on already stretched infrastructure. particularly in Kendal,
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
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.
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
3. Mr Frank Airey (Individual) : 9 Jun 2008 14:47:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
Alternative options : Options 1 - 3
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.
Option 3, page124,para 16
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.
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.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Delete para 16 "North West Kendal" as an option. Leave the land as greengap as formerly identified and for agricultural use.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
Either greengaps are important or not. This land serves as a green buffer between Kendal and Burneside. Look for better preferably brown site alternatives.
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
4. Mr Frank Airey (Individual) : 9 Jun 2008 15:14:00
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.
PO11, page 127 paras 1; 5,6,7
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.
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.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
A scale down of proposed housing and then very carefully situated on a brown field site first option.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
Either delete paras 5,6 and 7 which i wholeheartedly support or radically re-think para1.
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Adopted by the District Council
5. Mr Frank Airey (Individual) : 9 Jun 2008 16:08:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
4.12 - 4.23 Policy Context and Justification
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.
Table 3, Page133, para 1 (North West Kendal)
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.
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?
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Delete para 1.Page 133, North West Kendal
6. Mr Frank Airey (Individual) : 22 Aug 2008 15:17:00
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 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.