Local Development Framework Consultation

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.