Proposal Submission Core Strategy

This is the response by Kendal Civic Society to the above proposal.

A great deal of thought has clearly gone into the preparation of the Proposed Submission. The documents, though daunting, are interesting in the way they reveal the problems, needs and aspirations of those responsible for planning for the future of this area.

Kendal Civic Society wishes to comment on the Core Strategy, mainly when it concerns Kendal, which is where our remit lies, although our comments could well apply to other parts of the district. We are particularly concerned with the Conservation Area; members of the Civic Society were heavily involved in drawing up the Conservation Area and feel very strongly about its future.

We do not believe that there has been a legal failure in the process used to produce the document. We feel that it fails in the tests for “soundness”, namely that it is not justified and will not prove to be effective.

Housing

You begin by stating (page 1) that you “must meet challenging targets laid down by central government, most notably for house building”. Why? What would happen if you refused? How can central government know or even care about the housing situation in any town in the provinces? Surely this should be a matter for local people and local government to decide. Does Kendal need 400 more houses a year? Can the roads and services take this unnatural volume of growth?

7.10
We heartily agree that there is an acute need for affordable housing, for local people to rent. You state that 65% of the new housing must be affordable with 60% rented. What we strongly dispute is that a figure of 400 new houses per year should be imposed on Kendal. This town has grown naturally and gradually over the years, as need arose. Imposing a set target is unnatural, unjustified and will destroy all that made Kendal such an attractive market town. Recent housing developments are not affordable for local people at local wage levels; only retired or wealthier incomers can afford them and this will continue to unbalance the town’s population. This is not “sound”.

Greenfield Sites

CS1.2
Sites for this important housing target have included green fields, yet you state “Priority will be given to the re-use of existing buildings and previously developed land ...” Why, then, are greenfield sites such as Hallgarth Cottage and its adjoining field, and the Burton Road triangle being considered? Why is the ex-Webbs Garden Centre on Burneside Road and land behind Kendal Station, as just two examples, being allowed to remain a public eyesore when they could take a large number of houses? What use is being made of the over 1000 empty houses in the district, or the huge amount of accommodation over shops, much of it empty and under-used? These – and others – must be looked at before greenfield sites are even considered. We are very concerned when we read:

2.20
“In order to deliver the development targets ... it will be necessary to build on some greenfield sites” and -

3.51
“Significant development is proposed for Kendal particularly around the edges where the town meets the wider countryside”. This is unjustified and is not “sound”.

Green Infrastructure and Green Gap

1.35
Frequent reference throughout the document is made to the need to preserve green spaces: “It is necessary to ensure that green infrastructure is upgraded and expanded in line with growth in housing and employment land” and -

1.35
“Across the area, a network of open spaces and sport and recreation facilities, such as allotments and play areas, should be provided and protected”.

9.2
“The benefits and values of green infrastructure are wide reaching”.

CS 8.1
This next promise sounds even better: “The Core Strategy will seek to protect and enhance important open spaces ... of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community”. It will also “conserve and enhance existing trees and woodlands”. All very worthy, but what is being done to ensure that this takes place? The Old Playing Field at Canal Head has been blocked with rusting skips, road scrapings and fencing for over three years by a local developer, thereby excluding all the children, dog walkers, youth groups and footballers who have used it freely for generations. In spite of all efforts, nothing has been done to open up the field again to local people. An application to Cumbria County Council for its registration as New Town Green is due to be heard within the coming year. No resident should have to go to such lengths to protect a green field site and its shelter belt woodland from the developer.

3.49
As for Green Gaps: “the area strategy supports the retention of green gaps”.

CS 8.2
“Green Gaps should contribute to maintaining a settlement’s identity, landscape setting and character...”

CS 2
The Core Strategy will “Ensure Greenfield development is sympathetic to the landscape character of Kendal and to the historic character and setting of Kendal”.

We have no faith in these declarations. How could we, when permission has been granted for a new Rugby Clubhouse and pitches on the Green Gap
between Kendal and Oxenholme?

This is not a “sound” statement, it is ineffective and not to be trusted.

Canal Head

3.7The document sets out, at some length, its plans for the regeneration of the canal into Kendal. “A significant opportunity exists to restore the canal ... including improvements to the Kendal waterside, linkages to the town centre and the town’s Conservation Area” and “The regeneration of the former

3.32 Kendal Canal Head area will be delivered ...”

Long before the restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal Canal was in the public domain, Kendal Civic Society was involved in a survey of all the remaining historic buildings, bridges and signs along the route of the Canal within the town boundary. We raised the funding to restore the Change Bridge and Natland Mill Beck Bridge Steps, and published “Kendal’s Canal”. We long to see the Canal and Canal Head restored, but not to the narrow stretch of water lined with high-rise apartments and the proposed supermarket which is to pay for all the new work Canal Head must have a winding basin, a “sense of place” which people want to visit by boat or on foot, with all the facilities that go with a vibrant canal side. This needs far more thought, time and money than has ever been expended to date. We would rather see nothing done than the plans so far revealed but, in the hope that restoration will take place one day, we are in the process of possibly taking on the care and storage of the ‘Lady Fiona’, the last barge to use the canal, until such time as she can be restored. The plans revealed in the Core Strategy are inadequate and not “sound”.

Traffic

What thought has been given to the traffic that 400 new homes and their occupants will produce, together with the need for more doctors, dentists, hospital beds (in an already over stretched hospital), school places, employment opportunities, and better sewerage system? All these issues are raised in the Core Strategy but with no “sound” solution.

1.13
Traffic figures largely: “congestion at peak-times is a problem”. In the wishful thinking for 2025, you state:

1.37
“Solutions to the traffic issues in Kendal ... have been delivered”. Really?! If then, why not now? Traffic congestion in Kendal is horrendous, and not just at peak times or when a road is dug up or closed. How will ancient streets cope with the people and their vehicles from another 2,714

3.18
homes in the next 15 years? It is totally unrealistic. Junctions already operate at over- capacity, with that at Longpool being pointed out specifically. And yet are there not two separate applications for supermarkets on Shap Road currently submitted, in spite of your statement:

CS7.5
“The development of additional retail floor space outside of the town centre will normally be strongly resisted”? Kendal cannot take more traffic, more supermarkets and more houses. Dare we say that Kendal is big enough already? Address the issues of affordable housing and employment on a realistic scale. Any other way is madness. This is ineffective and not “sound”.

Historic Environment

Finally, this is the one where Kendal Civic Society feels most strongly. The 8.24 document states, time and again that: “It is important that Kendal remains attractive and competitive.”

1.22
“The historic environment is particularly distinctive and important”.

1.35
“The rich built heritage has a significant cultural value that requires protecting and enhancing.” “New developments must respect and be sympathetic to the

1.38
character of the locality, enhance the existing built environment and create “a sense of place”.

9.17
“Development proposals in Conservation Areas must preserve or enhance a character or appearance of the Conservation Area”. From past experience, we have no faith in these ideals. Buildings have recently been granted permission within the Conservation Area which include reconstituted stone and slate. Even Chinese slate on three new-builds in Collin Croft, and Brazilian slate on a Grade II listed building – all perfectly acceptable on new estates but utterly wrong within the Conservation Area.

CS8.10
You state: “The design of buildings and the character of settlements are important elements in the quality of the environment. This quality could be threatened by new forms of development which use designs and materials unrelated to those traditional to the local area. The siting, design, layout and choice of construction materials for new developments should be in keeping with these highly valued surroundings”.

9.36
“The District Council will seek to influence new development to ensure that it is compatible with the surrounding townscape. New housing development, in

CS8.10
particular, will be expected to exhibit a form and character appropriate to its setting ... in keeping with local vernacular tradition”.
Fine words – but hollow. The abysmal standard of design (or lack of it) in many of Kendal’s recent buildings has caused us much heartache and despair, and should be a source of shame both to those who proposed and those who allowed it.

Recent applications for buildings in Kirkland and Stricklandgate and the Marks and Spencer extension, are an affront to all who care for our historic town, yet they have been permitted. Complete lack of scale, the use of artificial materials, plastic windows and the inappropriate juxtaposition of the new with the traditional, are evident all over the town, even within the Conservation Area.

Attractive work can be done, as at the old Bonded Warehouse where the Civic Society pleaded for its retention and the new Homebase store was successfully

9.20
sited within the old walls. This policy is clearly set out in the document which “supports the adaptive re-use of redundant buildings” where it can be done “with minimal damage to the historic fabric or architectural character of the building”

Too much of historic Kendal has been lost, often unnecessarily. The Old Coal Wharf at Change Bridge, which gave meaning to the bridge, was intact under the soil. It was lost, in spite of protests, to a huge sheltered housing project. This need not have happened, had the will to preserve it been exercised, but the developers have won out yet again.

Kendal, and the whole South Lakeland District, needs the kind of regeneration which a Core Strategy could provide. This is a beautiful place to live, but it could be so much better.

We are of the opinion that the present document is not justified as it stands, being under the dead hand of central government. We also doubt whether it will prove to be effective, given past experience. It is probably consistent with National Policy, but is this the Policy for Kendal and District? On these grounds, we consider that the Core Strategy fails to deliver what is so badly needed, and therefore does not meet the test of “soundness”.

Kendal Civic Society, October 9th 2009