Local Development Framework Consultation

The whole document

Oppose

Cumbria Wildlife Trust has major concerns about the ecological impact and environmental sustainability of aspects of the Canal Head Area Action Plan. Previous discussions and concerns about the ecological impacts of the Area Action Plan raised by ourselves, Natural England and the Environment Agency have been poorly represented and underplayed in the current document. The Trust's main area of concern is the lack of information about the effect of the AAP on the River Kent SAC

River Kent Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
No Appropriate Assessment of the potential impact of the AAP on the River Kent SAC has yet been carried out on this Area Action Plan. Natural England, the Environment Agency and Cumbria Wildlife Trust have not yet been presented with evidence that this development, alone or in combination will not have a negative impact on the interest features of the River Kent SAC. If the competent authority finds that the proposed development will have a negative impact on the SAC, then the precautionary principle, as laid out in the Conservation (Natural Habitat &c.) Regulations 1994 (Habitat Regulations), this would mean that the development of the canal could not proceed. We therefore object to the Area Action Plan on the basis that it is unsound and should not have been brought forward for public consultation without an Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts of the canal on the River Kent SAC.

An Appropriate Assessment should have been carried out prior to the AAP Preferred Options document being brought forward for public consultation. Detailed information about the impacts of the proposed development on the SAC, protected species and ecosystems should all have been included with the AAP.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

2.1 - 2.12 Key Issues for Kendal Canal Head

Section 2.6 Environment Page 9

Oppose

There is very poor coverage of ecological issues with regard to the development of Kendal Canal Head. Much of the section doesn’t actually relate to ecological issues including commenting that redevelopment of brownfield sites is better than greenfield. This is not necessarily the case as brownfield sites are often more biodiverse than agricultural greenfield sites.

The Trust considers that the third bullet in this section is incorrect as the River Kent SAC will be functionally linked to the AAP area if the canal is reinstated. “Outside the AAP area” should be deleted from this sentence. There are proposals to abstract and discharge water directly from and to the River Kent SAC with potential impacts on the biodiversity, water quality and flows. The proximity of the proposed canal to the River Kent SAC also increases the risk of introducing non-native species, particularly signal crayfish and crayfish plague from the canal and its catchment to the River Kent SAC.

The Area Action Plan boundary as illustrated lies very close to the River Kent SAC, and to indicate that “the habitats present within the site area considered to be of low value for nature conservation terms” is incorrect and underplays the value of the River Kent which is an internationally important river for its biodiversity.

No Appropriate Assessment for water abstraction and discharge has been carried out by the competent authority, or agreed by Natural England and the Environment Agency. An Appropriate Assessment should have been carried out in combination with the Preferred Options stage to be in accordance with the Habitats Regulations.

An Appropriate Assessment can not ensure that the Canal Head development will not adversely affect the River Kent SAC. Only detailed information and proposed mitigation included within the Area Action Plan can do this. The AAP is therefore inadequate in this respect as it does not contain details of how the River Kent’s biodiversity interest is to be protected in the light of abstraction and discharge of canal water. Cumbria Wildlife Trust detailed these concerns in our letters to SLDC dated 12th July 2007 (to Réa Psillidou re the AAP) and 17th August 2007 (to Lillian Hopkins re the canal restoration Scoping Opinion).

That an Appropriate Assessment should have been carried out and used to inform the development of the Area Action Plan. That the River Kent is not functionally outside the AAP area and should be included in all considerations.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

4.1 - 4.6.10 Policy Context

4.2.1 Page 19

Oppose

The AAP states “Although no sites within the Kendal Canal Head area are designated as being of particular biological importance, other sites in the surrounding areas were identified”. This is factually incorrect as the River Kent SAC will be functionally linked with the AAP area if the canal is rewatered.

The statement “The creation of a new section of canal as an integral feature in the AAP area could lead to the creation of new priority habitats, which would be in line with national targets towards sustainability” needs to be qualified and weighed up against the potential loss of biodiversity in the River Kent caused by reconnection to the canal network due to the introduction of signal crayfish and crayfish plague which would be catastrophic for this extremely valuable habitat.

The statement that “the findings of the Appropriate Assessment will also ensure that important habitats are protected” is misleading as the Appropriate Assessment will only assess if there is a risk to the SAC. Measures to ensure that no harm to the SAC occurs should be incorporated into this document, and the fact that they are not is a huge omission that needs to be corrected. It is the omission of detailed measures and the lack of an Appropriate Assessment that makes this document unsound

The report should have contained a proper ecological evaluation of the threats to the River Kent and how these could be avoided if they can be avoided at all. An Appropriate Assessment should have been carried out prior to this document being submitted for public consultation. If the threat to the River Kent from the reconnection of the canal is too large and is assessed as such in the Appropriate Assessment, then the development of the canal will not be able to go ahead at all under the Habitats Regulations 1994.

By not carrying out an Appropriate Assessment at the correct juncture, it may be that none of the canal-based options offered in the AAP in its current form can actually go ahead due to threats to the River Kent.

Options 3 and 4, Fletcher Square variation 2 page 81-82 and Financial Models Variations 3 and 4 pages 126-127

Oppose

Cumbria Wildlife Trust objects to the loss of some or all of the allotment sites as laid out in Options 3 and 4, Fletcher Square Variation 2 (page 81-82) and Financial Models Variations 3 and 4 (pages 126-127). The allotment sites in Kendal are of importance for biodiversity for invertebrates, small mammals and birds, but are also important for the long term sustainability of the town. Allotments meet many of the government’s sustainability targets for community, health and wellbeing as well as providing a refuge and ecological corridor for biodiversity. Allotments enable people to grow their own food thus reducing food miles and contributing to a reduction in greenhouse gas production as well as encouraging healthy eating and exercise. The allotments in this area currently have a very long waiting list which indicates that they are well used by local people and are therefore a very valuable community resource.

Losing the current allotments and replacing them with allotments in an as yet unspecified place will mean that the allotment holders will lose the years of work that have gone into improving the land and making it productive. It is very likely that replacement allotments would be further away meaning that people had to drive to them rather than walking as is the case now which would increase greenhouse gas production and contribute to climate change. The figures provided in the report (page 140) indicate that “developing the allotments either in part or in full makes relatively little difference to the financial performance of the scheme, extra revenue being largely offset by increased costs”. There is no possible way that the loss of well used town centre allotments can be considered to be sustainable.

Delete any options in the AAP which consider building on allotments. Ensure that space for new allotments is incorporated and provided with any new development.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council

8.1 - 8.3.4 Commercial and Economic Appraisals

8.2.2 page 99

Oppose

Cumbria Wildlife Trust deplores the fact that it appears that design and sustainability quality are to be skimped in order to meet the financial targets of the plan. Section 8.2.2 Financial Summary on page 99 states that '... if more cautious house price assumptions are used and if no more than a handful of homes are built to a higher standard than Code for Sustainable Homes 3, neither the Preferred Option Base Scenario nor the 4 Variations generate any meaningful final development value that could contribute to the costs of the canal. If homes are built to Code for Sustainable Homes 5, the Preferred Option Base Scenario and the Variations all show large losses.'

All the housing proposed in a development such as this should be built to the highest standard of sustainability and include features such as solar hot water/ground source heat pumps, rainwater harvesting, greywater recycling and the highest quality energy efficiency measures including passive solar gain to help in the fight against climate change. This is especially important in times of high oil and fuel prices where fuel poverty is a spectre looming for poorer families. There is little point having affordable housing if the owners cannot then afford to heat their properties. The Trust therefore objects to the AAP on the grounds of lack of sustainability of housing.

Ensure that all housing and other development conforms to the highest possible sustainability standards, aiming for carbon neutral buildings.

Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination

Adopted by the District Council