2 responses from Mr and Mrs Martin Wilson (Individual)
1. Mr and Mrs Martin Wilson (Individual) : 30 May 2008 09:17:00
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 125, Option 3 - point 20 (south east Kendal).
Page 134, Table 3 - point 4 (south east 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.
Land adjacent to Oxenholme Road and The Oaks is not suitable for development.
Oxenholme Road is already very busy and fast and more traffic would create more hazard and spoil the area. Extra traffic would undoubtedly cause further disruption around the already dangerous western entrance to Oxenholme station. The railway bridge is also dangerous and very unsuitable for larger vehicles. The extra traffic would proabably increase problems in Oxenholme village as that is the obvious exit route from Oxenholme Road towards the A65 and M6.
Many properties on Oxenholme Road and The Oaks overlook this area and views would be permanently spoilt.
The area is also a natural habitat with crayfish in the beck.
We believe this area is currently designated green gap. Why spoil that and build there when there are alternatives for development. The current green gap should be maintained to retain the characters of Kendal and Oxenholme.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Remove: Option 3 - point 20 (p125) plus Table 3 - point 4 (p134) (South East Kendal).
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
It is important to think about the issues of so many new houses in the Kendal area. Is the current decline in the housing market likely to redress the balance on afforable housing, particularly as there is no significant increase in population and/or employment in this area. Why build more homes? Are these houses really going to be lived in by locals or are we just going to attract more people from outside the area who probably work outside the area (large carbon footprint) and often lack community involvement.
You should also look at the number of second homes, one option is to reduce those and increase those available to locals. It is those with second homes in the area who are pushing up prices and making starter homes unaffordable.
Kendal is a small town with character. It has increaseed in size massively in the last 30yrs. Surely we have to draw the line with new houses. Quality of life for the rest of us will suffer, it is not inevitable that a town such as ours should expand beyond recognition.
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination
2. Mr and Mrs Martin Wilson (Individual) : 30 May 2008 09:13:00
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 124, Option 3 - point 14 (north west oxenholme).
Page 136, Table 3 - point 9 (north west oxenholme).
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.
Why does this area have "lesser landscape quality than the surrounding area"? There is a public footpath through the area which provides a very pleasant field path walk for locals and dogs. It is the only path in the immediate area where we can walk through open fields and to build over it would ruin that opportunity.
We hear rumour of potential development around the strawberry fields to the north east of this area (rugby club?) although that is not mentioned in the plan. If that was to happen, combined with building in areas 4 and 9 (fig 21), the green gap between Kendal and Oxenholme would all but disappear and that cannot be allowed to happen. Green gaps are there for a reason, do not look at reducing them.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Remove: Option 3 - point 14 (p124) plus Table 3 - point 9 (p136) (north west Oxenholme).
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination