Click on SLDC Land Allocations - Further Consultation July 2011 to see the document to which the Natland Parish Council responses are shown below.
1. Alternative Sites: Natland - RN298# - Oppose In previous consultations the Council opposed development on R144 for reasons of: generating additional traffic directly onto Oxenholme Lane and Helm Lane; visual intrusion on rising ground in the landscape; remoteness from the village centre; coalescence with Oxenholme. The Council strongly supports the proposed ‘green gap’ in this area. The Council believes there are underground passages and caves below the site (as with much of Natland) but is not competent to comment on their significance regarding land allocation.
The shape of the site would be impractical for development, being barely wide enough for a single row of houses let alone the road that must serve them or the second row of houses that might justify such infrastructure provision.
Natland - RN303# - Oppose In previous consultations the Council opposed development on R144 for reasons of generating additional traffic directly onto Oxenholme Lane and Helm Lane, visual intrusion on rising ground in the landscape, remoteness from the village centre, and coalescence with Oxenholme. The Council strongly supports the proposed ‘green gap’ in this area. The Council believes there are underground passages and caves below the site (as with much of Natland) but is not competent to comment on their significance regarding land allocation.
Natland - ON51# - Oppose
Natland - RN256# - Oppose It is noted that the area of the whole site (2.43ha) is similar to the total areas (2.47ha) of the three sites identified for housing on the west side of the village in ‘Emerging Options’. The Council wishes to remind the Planning Authority of its earlier 2011 submission that Natland was being asked to bear far more than its ‘fair share’ of the housing target, so any allocation hereabouts should result in corresponding reductions elsewhere in the village.
Oxenholme - M2# and M5# - Oppose These are spurious proposals. Their combined area is considerably more than M2M, which the Council strongly opposed in the earlier consultation, and the reasons for rejecting any development on this land are broadly the same.
Oxenholme - RN253# - Oppose The impact on the landscape of any development on this rising ground, which provides a setting for The Helm as a major landscape feature, would be disastrous when seen from many important viewpoints from the west and from The Helm itself.
Oxenholme - RN231# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. Although the Council did not oppose RN223, this adjacent site is on rising ground with mature trees and garden around a large house. It is a pleasing feature in the landscape which should be protected as a foreground to The Helm.
Kendal SE - M40# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. It is similar to M40 which the Council opposed in its January 2009 submission, and adjacent to R97M which the Council opposed earlier in 2011. The main reason is the destruction of the rural character of Natland Mill Beck Lane and the green field setting of Helme Lodge by extending Kendal’s built up area into open countryside.
Kendal SE - R140# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. It is similar to R140 which the Council opposed in its January 2009 submission. Contrary to the statement by the Proposer, developing this site would have a considerable adverse impact on landscape character by spilling southwards over the higher ground in the middle of the site and further degrading the once visually magnificent approach to Kendal along A65 Burton Road. The impact of the hospital and superstore have been gradually softened by tree/vegetation growth along the A65. It would be a major step towards coalescence with Natland, eroding its open countryside character and strengthening the feel of being part of an urban fringe. The impact on the residents of housing at Helme Lodge would be considerable.
Kendal SE - MN34# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. It would form an extension to R97M which the Council opposed in the earlier 2011 consultation and the Council is opposed to this allocation for similar reasons. (But see comments on E31M# below suggesting possible use as a marina).
Kendal SW - E31M# - Support in part This site is in Natland civil parish. The Council supports in principle the restoration of the northern reaches of the Lancaster-Kendal canal and recognises the need for facilities, including overnight moorings, on the southern edge of Kendal if they cannot be provided at Canal Head. However, part of this site begins to fall away steeply towards the River Kent and the Council doubts whether the whole site is topographically suitable for use as a marina. It may need to be supplemented by land currently forming MN34# and part of R97M.
Kendal SW - E31# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. The Council strongly opposed E31M earlier in 2011 and similar reasons apply to this much more extensive site.
Kendal SW - E4M# - Oppose The Council opposed this site as E4M (strategic employment ) in early 2011 and the reasons for opposing it for housing use are the same.
Kendal SW - E5#, E8# and E64# - Oppose The council did not previously comment on these sites but wishes to oppose them because of their intrusion into the quality landscape of the River Kent valley, including when viewed from Natland and The Helm.
Kendal SE - R120# - Oppose The Council is strongly opposed to allocating this huge (25.82ha – note Oxenholme and Kendal South East maps are contradictory) site for any development purpose as it would eliminate the ‘green gap’ between Kendal and Oxenholme which the Council strongly supports.
Kendal SE - RN301# - Oppose This appears to be an extension to ‘Emerging Options’ site RN133M rather than to R120M. Although the Council did not oppose RN133M in early 2011 it is opposed to RN301# because it would be a further erosion of the ‘green gap’ between Kendal and Oxenholme.
2. Time span of Land Allocations Document
(“Should the Land Allocations document plan period remain 2003 – 2025 or cover a shorter period, for example, 2003-2020?”)
Oppose Comment: This process has already consumed so much time and resources that revisiting it five years earlier than otherwise would be unacceptable. Allocating sufficient land was always going to be difficult and unpopular, and the emergence of ‘neighbourhood planning’ will make it harder, not easier.
3. Small Villages, Hamlets & Open Countryside
B. Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives”)
Option B Comment: none
1. Alternative Sites: Natland - RN298# - Oppose In previous consultations the Council opposed development on R144 for reasons of: generating additional traffic directly onto Oxenholme Lane and Helm Lane; visual intrusion on rising ground in the landscape; remoteness from the village centre; coalescence with Oxenholme. The Council strongly supports the proposed ‘green gap’ in this area. The Council believes there are underground passages and caves below the site (as with much of Natland) but is not competent to comment on their significance regarding land allocation.
The shape of the site would be impractical for development, being barely wide enough for a single row of houses let alone the road that must serve them or the second row of houses that might justify such infrastructure provision.
Natland - RN303# - Oppose In previous consultations the Council opposed development on R144 for reasons of generating additional traffic directly onto Oxenholme Lane and Helm Lane, visual intrusion on rising ground in the landscape, remoteness from the village centre, and coalescence with Oxenholme. The Council strongly supports the proposed ‘green gap’ in this area. The Council believes there are underground passages and caves below the site (as with much of Natland) but is not competent to comment on their significance regarding land allocation.
Natland - ON51# - Oppose
Natland - RN256# - Oppose It is noted that the area of the whole site (2.43ha) is similar to the total areas (2.47ha) of the three sites identified for housing on the west side of the village in ‘Emerging Options’. The Council wishes to remind the Planning Authority of its earlier 2011 submission that Natland was being asked to bear far more than its ‘fair share’ of the housing target, so any allocation hereabouts should result in corresponding reductions elsewhere in the village.
Oxenholme - M2# and M5# - Oppose These are spurious proposals. Their combined area is considerably more than M2M, which the Council strongly opposed in the earlier consultation, and the reasons for rejecting any development on this land are broadly the same.
Oxenholme - RN253# - Oppose The impact on the landscape of any development on this rising ground, which provides a setting for The Helm as a major landscape feature, would be disastrous when seen from many important viewpoints from the west and from The Helm itself.
Oxenholme - RN231# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. Although the Council did not oppose RN223, this adjacent site is on rising ground with mature trees and garden around a large house. It is a pleasing feature in the landscape which should be protected as a foreground to The Helm.
Kendal SE - M40# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. It is similar to M40 which the Council opposed in its January 2009 submission, and adjacent to R97M which the Council opposed earlier in 2011. The main reason is the destruction of the rural character of Natland Mill Beck Lane and the green field setting of Helme Lodge by extending Kendal’s built up area into open countryside.
Kendal SE - R140# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. It is similar to R140 which the Council opposed in its January 2009 submission. Contrary to the statement by the Proposer, developing this site would have a considerable adverse impact on landscape character by spilling southwards over the higher ground in the middle of the site and further degrading the once visually magnificent approach to Kendal along A65 Burton Road. The impact of the hospital and superstore have been gradually softened by tree/vegetation growth along the A65. It would be a major step towards coalescence with Natland, eroding its open countryside character and strengthening the feel of being part of an urban fringe. The impact on the residents of housing at Helme Lodge would be considerable.
Kendal SE - MN34# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. It would form an extension to R97M which the Council opposed in the earlier 2011 consultation and the Council is opposed to this allocation for similar reasons. (But see comments on E31M# below suggesting possible use as a marina).
Kendal SW - E31M# - Support in part This site is in Natland civil parish. The Council supports in principle the restoration of the northern reaches of the Lancaster-Kendal canal and recognises the need for facilities, including overnight moorings, on the southern edge of Kendal if they cannot be provided at Canal Head. However, part of this site begins to fall away steeply towards the River Kent and the Council doubts whether the whole site is topographically suitable for use as a marina. It may need to be supplemented by land currently forming MN34# and part of R97M.
Kendal SW - E31# - Oppose This site is in Natland civil parish. The Council strongly opposed E31M earlier in 2011 and similar reasons apply to this much more extensive site.
Kendal SW - E4M# - Oppose The Council opposed this site as E4M (strategic employment ) in early 2011 and the reasons for opposing it for housing use are the same.
Kendal SW - E5#, E8# and E64# - Oppose The council did not previously comment on these sites but wishes to oppose them because of their intrusion into the quality landscape of the River Kent valley, including when viewed from Natland and The Helm.
Kendal SE - R120# - Oppose The Council is strongly opposed to allocating this huge (25.82ha – note Oxenholme and Kendal South East maps are contradictory) site for any development purpose as it would eliminate the ‘green gap’ between Kendal and Oxenholme which the Council strongly supports.
Kendal SE - RN301# - Oppose This appears to be an extension to ‘Emerging Options’ site RN133M rather than to R120M. Although the Council did not oppose RN133M in early 2011 it is opposed to RN301# because it would be a further erosion of the ‘green gap’ between Kendal and Oxenholme.
2. Time span of Land Allocations Document
(“Should the Land Allocations document plan period remain 2003 – 2025 or cover a shorter period, for example, 2003-2020?”)
Oppose Comment: This process has already consumed so much time and resources that revisiting it five years earlier than otherwise would be unacceptable. Allocating sufficient land was always going to be difficult and unpopular, and the emergence of ‘neighbourhood planning’ will make it harder, not easier.
3. Small Villages, Hamlets & Open Countryside
B. Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives”)
Option B Comment: none