5 responses from Miss Sarah Roberts (Individual)
1. Miss Sarah Roberts (Individual) : 29 May 2008 10:13:00
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.
Table 3 (p.134), para 10 E.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.
1)Extensive development here would be disproportionate to the current settlement size and erode the green gap between Oxenholme & Natland which gives each of these LSCs its distinct identity & community feel.
2)Vehicles would access this site from Wandales Lane, & ultimately from either Helm lane or Oxenholme Lane. Both of these are one track roads with passing at private driveways and the current level of traffic already makes them hazardous for other road users. Would also increase traffic accessing from Natland Road at dangerous, tight and congested corner outside village shop.
3) Surface water and highway drainage in village is already a serious and unaddressed issue with no systematic highway drainage. Development of this site would exacerbate this by increasing run off, and reducing ground absorption uphill from the village.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Delete this as preferred direction for growth
2. Miss Sarah Roberts (Individual) : 29 May 2008 10:34:00
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.
Table 3 (p.136), para 9 N.W.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.
Reasons as given in Inspector's report on objections to South Lakeland local plan Alteration no.1 in 2002. Ignoring the findings of this Public Inquiry undermines the principles of having such Inquiries. Conditions and circumstances have not significantly changed since that date.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Delete 9. NW Oxenholme as preferred town extension within Kendal Functional area.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
Consider alternative (p.125) 23 S.Kendal (south of Scroggs Wood) for employment site.
1) close to proposed Shenstone development (Option 5A, table 2, page 83), so co-ordinated transport arrangements can be facilitated; well-placed on principal road artery into Kendal from south.
2) public transport access from Kendal, and settlements to NW & S; also Grange & Ulverston areas (bus services 555, X35)
3) screened from housing to north
4) level site could be screened to south, reducing visual impact when approaching Kendal from south.
3. Miss Sarah Roberts (Individual) : 30 May 2008 10:28:00
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.
Figure 21 (p.128) & para 4.19
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Support partly
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 Green Areas are inadequate for protecting the village of Natland from future encroachment from South Kendal development, and also maintaining Oxenholme and Natland as distinct settlements within Kendal Functional Area. Green gap required to prevent coalescence, as recommended in PO7, para 8 (page 101)
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
This section should state clearly that Natland and Oxenholme should always remain as separate settlements. The Green Areas on Fig 21 should be extended and a more robust position taken as to their protection.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
Extend the Green Areas separating Kendal from Natland to include the high ground north of Natland and west of the Burton Road which is attractive as viewed from South Kendal. Also extend the Green Area to include (at least eastern part of) proposed development site 10 (E. Natland), where existing development boundary of Oxenholme is immediately adjacent along the line of the railway.
4. Miss Sarah Roberts (Individual) : 30 May 2008 10:42:00
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.
Table 3, para 10 E.Natland (p.137)
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.
(CONTINUATION OF EARLIER RESPONSE ON THIS SECTION)
4) Along part of the railway here the current Oxenholme development boundary adjoins the railway, so it is essential that this site is not developed in order to retain a "green gap" on West (Natland) side. Otherwise the settlements of Natland and Oxenholme coalesce in contravention of the stated strategy under PO7 Green Infrastructure(page 101, para 8).
Comment also that the railway embankment is no longer "heavily vegetated" and therefore does not form a visual barrier as stated (p.123/p.137)
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Exclude E.Natland from preferred directions of growth in Table 3.
5. Miss Sarah Roberts (Individual) : 30 May 2008 10:47:00
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.
P.124, para 12 N.W.Oxenholme
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 area indicated on Figure 20 lies within the parish boundary of Natland. This brings into question the knowledge of those making recommendations within this report, and whether they are sufficiently equipped to make informed decisions.
In similar vein note also (p.121 para 4.10) :
Newer (1960? 1970?) housing to E & NE of Natland includes NO semi-detached properties.