Local Development Framework Consultation
Response from Mrs Maureen Platts (Individual)
1. Mrs Maureen Platts (Individual) : 8 Jul 2008 14:43:00
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 seen some details of your consultation on the South Lakeland Local Development Framework.
I understand why you call Kendal a Primary Service Centre but cannot understand why you believe the town can accommodate such a high percentage of the growth required by the government over the period of the plan. I understand that this growth will amount to an increase in population of about 30%. It is obvious to all who live here that this would simply be unrealistic. The road network is inadequate now; the bus services are limited; the hospital is being curtailed (and I have had to go to Lancaster late at night for modest A&E treatment); there are inadequate dental facilities – I could go on and on.
I therefore object strongly to the growth levels suggested for Kendal.
I also object to the proposed extra housing between Burneside Road and the railway – what you call North West Kendal. Some of your statements about this site are wrong – there has not been a new bridge built and Hallgarth is not 19th century estates. If you make these fundamental errors in such an important document how can we, lay people, have any faith in the remainder of your assessments about this, or any other, site.
How would any houses here gain access – because they would inevitably have to use their cars to reach work, take children to school (which one would that be?) go to the shops – nearest supermarket is on Shap Road and has to accessed by car via the town centre or via the busy unacceptable back lanes from Burneside. Any suggestion that this site is “sustainable” is clearly incorrect. Any access point onto Burneside Road would be dangerous.
I object strongly to the suggestion that flexibility is needed over the Green Gap here. The Council made that designation for good reasons in the past and there is no reason whatsoever why these lovely fields should be lost to housing. I also object to the suggestion that houses would be crammed on this site (and other sites) as if it were an inner city area. The density stated is ridiculous and totally out of character for the outskirts of a lovely market town, in a rural setting very close to the most beautiful area in England.
I expect you to take into account comments such as these and that the next version of the Plan will more obviously recognise, and maintain, the very real quality, but very real constraints of Kendal.