Sainsbury's supermarket plan for Kendal - planning inspector's ruling (From The Westmorland Gazette)

How does a semi-detached site at Canal Head 'link to shops in the town centre'?

This is the same issue that afflicts K Village; too far away for easy pedestrian access between the town centre and the Village and no shared car parking scheme (let alone an easy traffic route) to permit easy movement between the two.

Quite how traffic will be able to negotiate the current one-way and bridge system of central Kendal to accomodate, without traffic snarl-ups, the level of car movements required by a large supermarket at Canal Head is a mystery that not even SLDC and Kendal Town Council look equipped to solve.

Whether it be Sainsbury's or Tesco's is irrelevant; location and traffic is all and on this the Shap Road site has the better, though not ideal, claim.

So an independent Planning Inspector has judged SLDC councillors called this one correctly, despite poor advice from their planning officers.

Credit where credit is due...

The K Village site has probably been a good thing for Kendal Town Centre as it is so awful that people take one look round and then proceed into the town. However any development at Canal Head will be a disaster for the already overloaded Kendal Traffic System as well as contributing to extra pollution from traffic fumes. It is also strange that a development for which plans have been already drawn up and approved by the SLDC Planners is declined in favour of a development for which there is no sign of any plans being submitted.

@geoff103 - that's why the new bridge across onto New Road is proposed as part of the development and why the "greenery" on New Road has been "delayed" ;)

The problem imo with Canal Head is more to do with the likely knock on effects from it, like the traffic emissions and economic effects on the existing town centre outlets because it's not just potentially a supermarket.

However Shap Road clearly isn't ideal either it too has serious knock-on effects for traffic according to the assessment submitted by SLDC.

I have to wonder whether the Rugby Club failed with this because they simply put "all their eggs into one basket" without a Plan B - surely some out of town offices or an amalgamation of some of our public sector buildings could have been a potential alternative.

BentheBorderCollie wrote:
So an independent Planning Inspector has judged SLDC councillors called this one correctly, despite poor advice from their planning officers.

Credit where credit is due...

So are these the same planning officers advising SLDC councillors about the Land Allocations?

traffic worries aside - I'd still prefer a Tesco over a sainsburys, I'd actually use a Tesco!

Kendmoor wrote:
traffic worries aside - I'd still prefer a Tesco over a sainsburys, I'd actually use a Tesco!

Then we better have a Tesco! What the heck is the difference between a Tesco and a Sainsbury? Or an ASDA for that matter? They all sell the same stuff at pretty much the same prices.

The Canal Head development appeared in the Gazette in August 2009, with planning application expected in Spring 2010. In March 2010, planning application was expected in June/July 2010. In late 2011, planning application was planned for December 2011. It's now almost July 2012 and as far as I know no application has been submitted, but all our elected representatives are already supporting it.
Perhaps this White Elephant needs to get a move on before it dies of old age.

gadgetgadget wrote:
@geoff103 - that's why the new bridge across onto New Road is proposed as part of the development and why the "greenery" on New Road has been "delayed" ;)

The problem imo with Canal Head is more to do with the likely knock on effects from it, like the traffic emissions and economic effects on the existing town centre outlets because it's not just potentially a supermarket.

However Shap Road clearly isn't ideal either it too has serious knock-on effects for traffic according to the assessment submitted by SLDC.

I have to wonder whether the Rugby Club failed with this because they simply put "all their eggs into one basket" without a Plan B - surely some out of town offices or an amalgamation of some of our public sector buildings could have been a potential alternative.

I agree with geoff's point. A new bridge feeding several hundred cars an hour into the New Rd/Blackhall Rd system should work fine, especially when the Sandes Av lights go wrong!

I've just realised that the indecent haste to demolish the New Road Toilets was make space for the bridge and I had been thinking it was to remove false hopes from desperate tourists.

All rather sad really. You can have a Tesco but not a Sainsbury's. This sort of thing usually comes about as having "Friends in High Places" - not to mention whose friend is richer. Like Cowboys fighting over frontier land. I find Kendal extraordinarily depressing - from a distance - quite pretty looking. Close up? The same as everywhere else.

Ado 16 wrote:
All rather sad really. You can have a Tesco but not a Sainsbury's. This sort of thing usually comes about as having "Friends in High Places" - not to mention whose friend is richer. Like Cowboys fighting over frontier land. I find Kendal extraordinarily depressing - from a distance - quite pretty looking. Close up? The same as everywhere else.

And what is extraordinarily offensive is the notion that planning inspectors or councillors get to decide whether consumers have a Tesco or a Sainsbury's (or both or neither) rather than by the shoppers themselves by putting their money in the tills they prefer. After all a wrong commercial decision is soon resolved by a store closure and its premises being put to other use.

Of course, this enforced choice is always dressed up as being decided by "planning controls".

In this case, the Canal Head scheme is proposed by a local employer holding a gun to the head of the planners - and whether the site is appropriate or not, it's that which is swaying the decision here.

Blackmail is the appropriate term, I believe, and in any other circumstances would be a criminal offence.

I agree with Ado , you just get the feeling that in this democracy called South Lakeland some people's votes count more than others.

onelocal wrote:

gadgetgadget wrote:
@geoff103 - that's why the new bridge across onto New Road is proposed as part of the development and why the "greenery" on New Road has been "delayed" ;)

The problem imo with Canal Head is more to do with the likely knock on effects from it, like the traffic emissions and economic effects on the existing town centre outlets because it's not just potentially a supermarket.

However Shap Road clearly isn't ideal either it too has serious knock-on effects for traffic according to the assessment submitted by SLDC.

I have to wonder whether the Rugby Club failed with this because they simply put "all their eggs into one basket" without a Plan B - surely some out of town offices or an amalgamation of some of our public sector buildings could have been a potential alternative.

I agree with geoff's point. A new bridge feeding several hundred cars an hour into the New Rd/Blackhall Rd system should work fine, especially when the Sandes Av lights go wrong!

@onelocal - wasn't disagreeing with Geoff's overall point - thus the ;) (wink) but he did say "current one-way and bridge system" which if I understand correctly will have to have to some quite radical modification to adapt New Road/Aynam Road for Canal Head requirements.

boris plasticmac wrote:
I've just realised that the indecent haste to demolish the New Road Toilets was make space for the bridge and I had been thinking it was to remove false hopes from desperate tourists.

As New Road is still common land how do they expect to get permission to adapt it into a highway?? From what I have seen the Canal Head development has to have a bridge to succeed and without it its a no hope - not sure how this will be possible given there is no intention to de register the New Road car park land.....

Geoff103 wrote:

Ado 16 wrote:
All rather sad really. You can have a Tesco but not a Sainsbury's. This sort of thing usually comes about as having "Friends in High Places" - not to mention whose friend is richer. Like Cowboys fighting over frontier land. I find Kendal extraordinarily depressing - from a distance - quite pretty looking. Close up? The same as everywhere else.

And what is extraordinarily offensive is the notion that planning inspectors or councillors get to decide whether consumers have a Tesco or a Sainsbury's (or both or neither) rather than by the shoppers themselves by putting their money in the tills they prefer. After all a wrong commercial decision is soon resolved by a store closure and its premises being put to other use.

Of course, this enforced choice is always dressed up as being decided by "planning controls".

In this case, the Canal Head scheme is proposed by a local employer holding a gun to the head of the planners - and whether the site is appropriate or not, it's that which is swaying the decision here.

Blackmail is the appropriate term, I believe, and in any other circumstances would be a criminal offence.

From what I have seen Gilkes are desperate to renovate their site to bring it into the 21st century - nothing wrong with that all businesses have to keep up with the competition, its just that most businesses set aside funds from profits to do this in the case of Gilkes they have been allocated funding for property repairs but it is subject to them spending other funds, these other funds will only be available when they sell the site for development..
This is not a case of a philanthropist doing good for the community of Kendal its about a bully threatening to pull out of Kendal and take his business elsewhere (not sure where they would get the funding for this as they have said all their refurbishment work etc is being funded by the re development) and has managed to scare SLDC into believing that without Gilkes Kendal will die as a town...
Its a shame SLDC did not feel the same way towards the people of Kendal when Provincial shut, or when K's shut, or when Goodacres shut, nor do I see them bending over backwards at Croppers who have shed employees or at Furmanite who are in the process of shedding a large number of employees...
For some reason they have backed to the hilt the Gilkes development.
Personally I am still at a loss as to how anyone can favour one application against another when only one application has ever been received, as another poster has said its been years since Gilkes first mentioned re development but they have still not submitted anything, what will happen if they never do how will the planners respond then....

Quote:
Planning inspector Martin Pike said guidelines meant an edge-of-town development, such as the one proposed at Canal Head, had to be favoured over an out-of-town development like Mint Bridge.

He said: “The appeal site is towards the northern periphery of Kendal and despite the bus service along Shap Road it is not an accessible site that is well connected to the town centre.”

In contrast, he said a supermarket at the Canal Head redevelopment, which is being led by Charles Crewdson, boss of Gilbert, Gilkes and Gordon, would link to shops in the town centre and have ‘potentially greater economic and employment benefits’.The Mint Bridge site is closer than Morrisons, ALDI, and all the businesses on that site - so how do they manage?

Tesco have a mini supermarket in Bowness.
The lorries that deliver their goods are a burden on the local transport system - I hesitate to guess at the scale of the delivery operation to the Canal Head site - but at a guess it too would add significantly to the traffic in Kendal excluding the potential customers.

So to employment.
Why would the Canal Head site bring any more employment than the Mint Bridge site?

Common land or not, there is a tunnel vision about this project which is forcing it through at any cost.

life cycle too wrote:
Quote:
Planning inspector Martin Pike said guidelines meant an edge-of-town development, such as the one proposed at Canal Head, had to be favoured over an out-of-town development like Mint Bridge.

He said: “The appeal site is towards the northern periphery of Kendal and despite the bus service along Shap Road it is not an accessible site that is well connected to the town centre.”

In contrast, he said a supermarket at the Canal Head redevelopment, which is being led by Charles Crewdson, boss of Gilbert, Gilkes and Gordon, would link to shops in the town centre and have ‘potentially greater economic and employment benefits’.The Mint Bridge site is closer than Morrisons, ALDI, and all the businesses on that site - so how do they manage?

Tesco have a mini supermarket in Bowness.
The lorries that deliver their goods are a burden on the local transport system - I hesitate to guess at the scale of the delivery operation to the Canal Head site - but at a guess it too would add significantly to the traffic in Kendal excluding the potential customers.

So to employment.
Why would the Canal Head site bring any more employment than the Mint Bridge site?

To which the obvious answer is "What edge-of-town development". Where are the plans, where is the planning application?

The Canal Head 'plans' are nothing more than a pipe-dream. There is no substance. They are notional.

To refuse the Mint Bridge application on this basis is nothing short of grotesque.

In short, what we have here is the classic British habit of bureaucrats and politicians of getting absolutely the wrong of of the stick and making absolutely the wrong decision.

It's constantly amazing. Makes you proud to be British.

How did we ever manage to do anything?

boris plasticmac wrote:
Common land or not, there is a tunnel vision about this project which is forcing it through at any cost.

There may be a tunnel vision over the project but there are still protections in place to stop people riding roughshod over common land..

SLDC have made it clear that they have no intention to de register New Road car park, without this de registration then they cannot turn it into a bridge / highway so I am at a loss as to how on the one hand they back the re development but then not make any allowance for a bridge which is a fundamental aspect of the development, unless of course the findings of their bore hole tests - findings which, to my knowledge, have never been made public - show that it is not feasible to build a bridge on the land, in which case they will have to channel all the traffic down Aynam Road.

What will this do to the air pollution down Aynam Road...

boris plasticmac wrote:
I've just realised that the indecent haste to demolish the New Road Toilets was make space for the bridge and I had been thinking it was to remove false hopes from desperate tourists.

Ahhhhh you could have something there,WHO ran the drug farm..........?

Well Nickjohn I hope you're right, but it didn't stop SLDC granting planning for a United Utilities Pumping station on Kendal Fell. Then as an afterthought, somebody realised that it had been made a village green in 1983 , so just before the planning permission expired they managed to get it deregistered.
If they want it badly enough they will do it and I suspect our opinion will count for nothing.

Well Nickjohn I hope you're right, but it didn't stop SLDC granting planning for a United Utilities Pumping station on Kendal Fell. Then as an afterthought, somebody realised that it had been made a village green in 1983 , so just before the planning permission expired they managed to get it deregistered.
If they want it badly enough they will do it and I suspect our opinion will count for nothing.

Well Nickjohn I hope you're right, but it didn't stop SLDC granting planning for a United Utilities Pumping station on Kendal Fell. Then as an afterthought, somebody realised that it had been made a village green in 1983 , so just before the planning permission expired they managed to get it deregistered.
If they want it badly enough they will do it and I suspect our opinion will count for nothing.

Moonbase wrote:

boris plasticmac wrote:
I've just realised that the indecent haste to demolish the New Road Toilets was make space for the bridge and I had been thinking it was to remove false hopes from desperate tourists.

Ahhhhh you could have something there,WHO ran the drug farm..........?

Maybe this is what happens if you don't apply for change of use.

ive said all along that sainsburys would never get the rugby site and rugby will never be played on strawberry fields. hate to gloat and tell ya " i told you so", but i did tell ya!! common sense has prevailed in planning by concentrating on whats best for kendal. sainsburys on that site and kendal playing rugby at strawberry fields was only ever in the best interest of a minority. a minority who thought that they were above everyone and process. rugby club kronies can now go back to their mud patch and wollow.

life cycle too wrote:
Quote: Planning inspector Martin Pike said guidelines meant an edge-of-town development, such as the one proposed at Canal Head, had to be favoured over an out-of-town development like Mint Bridge. He said: “The appeal site is towards the northern periphery of Kendal and despite the bus service along Shap Road it is not an accessible site that is well connected to the town centre.” In contrast, he said a supermarket at the Canal Head redevelopment, which is being led by Charles Crewdson, boss of Gilbert, Gilkes and Gordon, would link to shops in the town centre and have ‘potentially greater economic and employment benefits’.The Mint Bridge site is closer than Morrisons, ALDI, and all the businesses on that site - so how do they manage? Tesco have a mini supermarket in Bowness. The lorries that deliver their goods are a burden on the local transport system - I hesitate to guess at the scale of the delivery operation to the Canal Head site - but at a guess it too would add significantly to the traffic in Kendal excluding the potential customers. So to employment. Why would the Canal Head site bring any more employment than the Mint Bridge site?

told ya all along didnt i life cycle that this would never go ahead. the voice of the majority should always triumph over the minority. talking of minority, good luck for next season in your minority sport. cant be much worse than last season!!!

I'me sorry I don't understand the last post. What has the voice of the majority got to do with it, surely it was the inspector who made the decision and the inspector alone, even though the planners were in favour of it. Otherwise, since when did shopping at Tesco become a majority sport. Or sailing down a bit of land-locked canal for that matter! What a sad person you are Taigum with your sarcastic comment about a local sporting club that has been established for well over 100 years.

And I don't play or watch rugby - which I presume is what Taigum meant with the minority sport comment!

I do watch the antics of the local and district council in regard to planning, and it seems to have a lot in common with the dubious practices found in European football and the Olympics, with a few officials filled with self interest, riding roughshod over justice and fair play!

oceancloud wrote:
I'me sorry I don't understand the last post. What has the voice of the majority got to do with it, surely it was the inspector who made the decision and the inspector alone, even though the planners were in favour of it. Otherwise, since when did shopping at Tesco become a majority sport. Or sailing down a bit of land-locked canal for that matter! What a sad person you are Taigum with your sarcastic comment about a local sporting club that has been established for well over 100 years.

The saddest thing for a "established 100 yr old club" is the way its been run. Moving to a new state the art ground wouldn't mean anything if it continues to be run by the same people in the same manner! No buisness operates beyond its means!

life cycle too wrote:
And I don't play or watch rugby - which I presume is what Taigum meant with the minority sport comment!

I do watch the antics of the local and district council in regard to planning, and it seems to have a lot in common with the dubious practices found in European football and the Olympics, with a few officials filled with self interest, riding roughshod over justice and fair play!

you need to check back on your previous posts on this issue! As previously 1. U don't live in Kendal, 2. U support rugby at the lakes school! I've always been correct in my posts as this final outcome proves! My advice to rugby club...take a good look at yourselfs and change. New ground and operate same...end in same outcome! Unsustainable! My work on this issue is done! Me 1-rugby club nil! Final whistle.

"I do watch the antics of the local and district council in regard to planning, and it seems to have a lot in common with the dubious practices found in European football and the Olympics, with a few officials filled with self interest, riding roughshod over justice and fair play!”

@lifecycle. I couldn't agree more
@Taigum. You really do need to grow up. A dictionary and grammar check might not come amiss either! One can see you don't play rugby as rugby is played by gentlemen, one of which you most certainly are not.

Taigum. What a plonker!!

@Taigum: I am not into mud slinging or petty back stabbing but you make a comment about the rugby club living beyond its means, implying that it cannot afford the refurbishment costs due to bad management. Do you apply the same feelings toward Gilkes who have publicly said that they need to refurbish their manufacturing facility and cannot afford to do it without the injection of cash from selling their land to a supermarket chain.. Ultimately Gilkes are not doing this for the benefit of Kendal they are doing it for the benefit of themselves.

The planners are blinded to this fact in the same way as they were with K village.

Any major development within the town will cause congestion no matter what way you alter the traffic, a new bridge will be needed to support the deliveries and extra traffic - this will have to be placed on common land and therefore deprive the people of Kendal of something which is theirs, and, the air pollution in the town centre will increase..

In addition, to date no plans have been submitted its all speculation...

I understand that Gilkes plans result from a £2.5 million grant from the UK government - who are funded by the taxpayers, so it is understandable that SLDC want to do their part to ensure the tax payer gets best value for money!! ;-)

life cycle too wrote:
I understand that Gilkes plans result from a £2.5 million grant from the UK government - who are funded by the taxpayers, so it is understandable that SLDC want to do their part to ensure the tax payer gets best value for money!! ;-)

My understanding is that the £2.5m grant is dependent on them raising further funds for their refurbishment and is only to be used for this purpose as opposed to the Gilkes plans being the result of the grant.

I was also of the understanding that if the refurbishment does not go ahead then they will not get the £2.5m grant.

Ultimately £2.5m out of a total redevelopment of some £80m + is not a massive sum, the bridge they want to build will cost several millions more.

I believe that if Gilkes had a firm set of plans on the table and it had been a fair debate about 2 separate planning applications the people of Kendal would have understood the decision being made. But we have only seen one application, which has been turned down on the back of the talk of a potential application, talk which has been going on for some years now, in November last year Gilkes said they would have plans submitted by December but still we see nothing.

The planners should have pushed Gilkes harder to submit something tangible instead they turn down a perfectly good application which would have had knock on benefits of its own for the people of Kendal.

I go back to a comment I made many months ago, why don't all parties sit down and try and work something out, Gilke want a new state of the art factory unit with good access to the road infrastructure, the rugby club need a new site and the town, apparently, wants a new supermarket, so let the rugby club move to the new site let Gilkes build on the rugby club site and let Canal Head get redeveloped. Without Gilkes there it will allow even more redevelopment which will raise additional funding to support the whole thing..

redhairedgranny wrote:
"I do watch the antics of the local and district council in regard to planning, and it seems to have a lot in common with the dubious practices found in European football and the Olympics, with a few officials filled with self interest, riding roughshod over justice and fair play!”

@lifecycle. I couldn't agree more
@Taigum. You really do need to grow up. A dictionary and grammar check might not come amiss either! One can see you don't play rugby as rugby is played by gentlemen, one of which you most certainly are not.

Obviously I have the wrong school tie! You should be on rugby club board! They'd love your snobbery! Don't worry im not hurt...used to it from small people like you!

taigum wrote:

redhairedgranny wrote:
"I do watch the antics of the local and district council in regard to planning, and it seems to have a lot in common with the dubious practices found in European football and the Olympics, with a few officials filled with self interest, riding roughshod over justice and fair play!”

@lifecycle. I couldn't agree more
@Taigum. You really do need to grow up. A dictionary and grammar check might not come amiss either! One can see you don't play rugby as rugby is played by gentlemen, one of which you most certainly are not.

Obviously I have the wrong school tie! You should be on rugby club board! They'd love your snobbery! Don't worry im not hurt...used to it from small people like you!

P.s. Mike tindal and alike a really good role models as "gentlemen" judging by the antics in new Zealand! Only at a rugby club does a man drop his pants and people think its funny! Not the enviroment id place my child thanks your ladyship!

taigum wrote:

taigum wrote:

redhairedgranny wrote:
"I do watch the antics of the local and district council in regard to planning, and it seems to have a lot in common with the dubious practices found in European football and the Olympics, with a few officials filled with self interest, riding roughshod over justice and fair play!”

@lifecycle. I couldn't agree more
@Taigum. You really do need to grow up. A dictionary and grammar check might not come amiss either! One can see you don't play rugby as rugby is played by gentlemen, one of which you most certainly are not.

Obviously I have the wrong school tie! You should be on rugby club board! They'd love your snobbery! Don't worry im not hurt...used to it from small people like you!

P.s. Mike tindal and alike a really good role models as "gentlemen" judging by the antics in new Zealand! Only at a rugby club does a man drop his pants and people think its funny! Not the enviroment id place my child thanks your ladyship!

"Drunken Cambridge students cause havoc in public park" a headline from the Telegraph from May this year..

I think we can all pick examples of loutish behaviour from all areas of life whether it be from a rugby club, football club or cricket club.

Whichever ever way you look at it rugby is a popular sport, maybe not as popular as football, but this does not mean it is not entitled to a new ground and facilities.

I personally have no interest in football and can cite far more examples of loutish violent behaviour with football fans and players than you can for rugby fans / players but this would not stop me being a bigot over whether a football club should have a new facility / ground.

I feel that this discussion is drifting away from the the crux of the argument which is should a request for planning be turned down because of another project which might happen in the future.
The Canal Head project should put up or shutup.We have not had any chance to examine the detail of this project and the whole process is starting to gain a whiff of stinking fish.

boris plasticmac wrote:
I feel that this discussion is drifting away from the the crux of the argument which is should a request for planning be turned down because of another project which might happen in the future.
The Canal Head project should put up or shutup.We have not had any chance to examine the detail of this project and the whole process is starting to gain a whiff of stinking fish.

I agree completely, its been some 3 years since discussions started and still we have nothing. Its interesting that Mr Crewdson says the £2.5m was crucial to proceed yet in 2010 he said it would all go ahead without the funding.

He also says now that if the redevelopment is turned down he will move the factory yet in 2010 he stated “Our company cannot stay in our current building any longer - we need larger, more modern premises or we will have to move out of the area. We’ve been looking for a new site for more than four years".

Over that 4 year period he had no thought for the people of Kendal just a decision which was best for his business, which is perfectly normal, yet now as he has failed to secure a new site he has changed tack and is saying they are staying so that they can benefit the people of Kendal.

Why can people not just be honest and say; we need a new factory so we can compete in an international market and make healthy profits, we have not retained enough profit over the years to carry out refurbishment ourselves so have to sell the land to get the cash to help us survive, instead of pretending they are doing it for philanthropic reasons......

Appendix A prepared by the Planners for the November SLDC Planning meeting which rejected KRFC's application, shows that there are still many unanswered questions on the Canal Head plans. In particular, the new bridge which would be privately funded, would need to be completed before any site development work, and would require de-registration of New Road carpark, as Common Land by the Secretary of State following public discussion. The new bridge will require considerable restructuring of key junctions in Kendal by CCC and a number of Compulsory Purchase Orders. So far there has been no meaningful dialogue between CCC and the developers. In fact it hasn't even been agreed on the size of the supermarket, and what would be economically viable, information which would be required before any road changes can be planned.
Based on all this, we can expect it to be sometime, and much grief, before this development is complete.
By the way the RDF grant to Gilkes was £2.75mm of a Capital Project of £7.775mm for the refurbishment of Gilkes facilty, which it seems can be clawed back if the whole development doesn't go ahead.

onelocal wrote:
Appendix A prepared by the Planners for the November SLDC Planning meeting which rejected KRFC's application, shows that there are still many unanswered questions on the Canal Head plans. In particular, the new bridge which would be privately funded, would need to be completed before any site development work, and would require de-registration of New Road carpark, as Common Land by the Secretary of State following public discussion. The new bridge will require considerable restructuring of key junctions in Kendal by CCC and a number of Compulsory Purchase Orders. So far there has been no meaningful dialogue between CCC and the developers. In fact it hasn't even been agreed on the size of the supermarket, and what would be economically viable, information which would be required before any road changes can be planned.
Based on all this, we can expect it to be sometime, and much grief, before this development is complete.
By the way the RDF grant to Gilkes was £2.75mm of a Capital Project of £7.775mm for the refurbishment of Gilkes facilty, which it seems can be clawed back if the whole development doesn't go ahead.

I did a FOI request re de registration of the car park and received the following:

"The New Road project never intended to de-register the land adjacent to the river as it is considered that this land is an important amenity adjacent to the river".

Will be interesting what they say to overturn this view should a new bridge planning application be submitted..

I thought I had read in one of the consulation reports, I think by Ove Arub, where it recommended that any new supermarket on the Gilkes site must not be greater in size than those already within the town, I may be wrong though it was a while ago.

The report also made comment about the ability to fund such a development of housing and retail given the economic climate and the ability to sell on the residential units.

I'm not sure how many units K Village have sold but I was told not too long ago that the flats were empty...

onelocal wrote:
Appendix A prepared by the Planners for the November SLDC Planning meeting which rejected KRFC's application, shows that there are still many unanswered questions on the Canal Head plans. In particular, the new bridge which would be privately funded, would need to be completed before any site development work, and would require de-registration of New Road carpark, as Common Land by the Secretary of State following public discussion. The new bridge will require considerable restructuring of key junctions in Kendal by CCC and a number of Compulsory Purchase Orders. So far there has been no meaningful dialogue between CCC and the developers. In fact it hasn't even been agreed on the size of the supermarket, and what would be economically viable, information which would be required before any road changes can be planned.
Based on all this, we can expect it to be sometime, and much grief, before this development is complete.
By the way the RDF grant to Gilkes was £2.75mm of a Capital Project of £7.775mm for the refurbishment of Gilkes facilty, which it seems can be clawed back if the whole development doesn't go ahead.

Just had a thought, if the grant can be clawed back if the whole development does not go ahead then at what point do they decide its not going to proceed and ask for the money back and would they charge interest..

Gilkes could end up with a nice interest free loan to carry out much needed refurbishment work...

nickjohn- I asked similar questions when it was the New Road consultation, one was on why the slip road to the river wasn't going to be redeveloped, to which the response was that they couldn't disturb the bats that are in the walls, didn't stopped them disturbing them when when pulling down New Road toilets ;)

Anyone noticed that the district council have become less engaging with the public in recent months

Is there a conspiracy here I wonder. It certainly seems like it or perhaps a funny handshake & who pays the government inspector?

I guess people will have to speculate on the whole thing until such time as Gilkes actually put forward their planning application, as "onelocal" has indicated there is still a lot of work to be done before they can even start work and a lot of infrastructure elements to be worked out.

There is also the financial element, whilst in a major recession it is hard to find funding for such an adventurous scheme.

Did the Gilkes scheme feature in the recent LDF or will any housing on the site be in addition to this..

It's interesting that the Ove Arup project proposal from 2010 commissioned by SLDP covered the whole of the east side of the river from Canal Head down through Parkside to Change Bridge. In that plan Ove Arup assessed the Gilkes proposal for Canal Head, identifying strengths and weaknesses. It seems that the SDLP/Ove Arup proposals have taken a back seat to the Gilkes plan.
I guess some day we will find out what makes Tesco so interesting

When is Gazette going to get rid of the ridiculously annoying adverts that constantly get in the way of reading the page?

If you are using Google Chrome you can open an "incognito" browser window, it does not stop all adverts but does cut down on them and stops them being direct marketing and showing you adverts for the last thing you searched for on the net, which can get annoying..

another thing you can do with Google is install "adblock" its a beta software and stops all adverts.. Not sure of it myself as sometimes the ads do offer something of interest..

The traffic situation has been looked at and I believe a proposal has also been created, along with a proposal for the whole redevelopment. Admittably the planning permission has been delayed but is ready to be submitted. The addition of the Governments £2.8 million grant which was approved earlier this year has made a huge leap forward. Why should Gilkes have applied for planning permission at the same time as the Rugby club? if the rugby club went ahead then it would have been a waste of what I believe to be quite a considerable sum of money. It only makes sense that they have waited to apply for permission after the Rugby clubs application has been refused (now several times).
I believe there was also a plan for new houses and shops at the canal head site, investors would favour this greatly over the ghostly K village centre which has been a huge disappointment

This report from MARCH 2010:
http://www.thewestmo
rlandgazette.co.uk/n
ews/5070925.__100m_s
cheme_to_breathe_new
_life_into_Kendal_ar
ea/

@ SamWalker. Why would the rugby club site have been a waste of money?
You have already pointed out that K Village is a white elephant - what makes you think the canal head site would fare any better?

@lifecycletoo ... I got the impression from samwalker's comment that he/she was referring to the waste of money that Gilkes would have had IF the Rugby Club plan had gone ahead if they had submitted a fixed set of plans prior to the decision of the Rugby Club application being final. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's how I read it.

FWIW - the Canal Head proposal is probably more attractive to investors because it's likely to be a regeneration of existing buildings as well as redeveloping a rundown area of town. Unlike K Village which was a demolition and rebuild job. The likes of White Cross in Lancaster etc have proven that such developments can succeed and if marketed correctly can attract small businesses into them as well as being used for housing.

I've mentioned this before on other threads here but imo SLDC themselves together with CCC should be looking at Canal Head development proposal with some potential for them to combine offices and to reduce overheads. For all we know, they may already be doing that and maybe one of the potentially hidden reasons why preference has been given to Canal Head over the Rugby Club site.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, the Rugby Club failed somewhat because it put all it's eggs into the one basket (!) of a supermarket development on the site. There were other alternatives available including those that others here have suggested. The standoff between the two developments being only one or another happening could have been avoided if a bit more of a joined up thought had occurred and it has to be questioned why SLDC didn't put that on the table in the interests of the local community.

QUOTE:
@lifecycletoo ... I got the impression from samwalker's comment that he/she was referring to the waste of money that Gilkes would have had IF the Rugby Club plan had gone ahead if they had submitted a fixed set of plans prior to the decision of the Rugby Club application being final. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's how I read it.

That interpretation was correct, I've heard that planning permission is very expensive and Gilkes would have lost this money.
And I believe it would fare better for the simple fact that it is closer to the town centre, if I remember correctly there was also the proposal for a large number of parking spaces, I agree that these may not be cheap however this would be a considerable improvement over parking on New Road, which can be very difficult to navigate and park in at the best of times!

Also, the CCC are not choosing between which supermarket they want to be in Kendal, they are simple choosing which development option would benefit Kendal most, as a consequence that also means which supermarket has backed which development proposal.

Changing tack slightly, I see Morrisons is coming to Windermere! One word.... WHY?

samwalker wrote:
The traffic situation has been looked at and I believe a proposal has also been created, along with a proposal for the whole redevelopment. Admittably the planning permission has been delayed but is ready to be submitted. The addition of the Governments £2.8 million grant which was approved earlier this year has made a huge leap forward. Why should Gilkes have applied for planning permission at the same time as the Rugby club? if the rugby club went ahead then it would have been a waste of what I believe to be quite a considerable sum of money. It only makes sense that they have waited to apply for permission after the Rugby clubs application has been refused (now several times).
I believe there was also a plan for new houses and shops at the canal head site, investors would favour this greatly over the ghostly K village centre which has been a huge disappointment

Gilkes have been talking about submitting a planning application for some years now, why did they not do it sooner, before the rugby club one....

If they are so sure about having full backing from the planners then any expense in submitting a planning proposal would have been money well spent and they would have nothing to worry about..

Ultimately there is a lot more to this development than just knocking down a few buildings and re developing the site, there is the road infrastructure, a new bridge which can only be built on common land - please explain why the people of Kendal should agree to giving up land which was given to them so one company can make a considerable amount of money - pollution issues, and the actual viability of developing the site, just because you want to build shops / offices / residential units, does not mean you will get backing for them nor does it mean you will sell them all, look at K Village.. the longer it goes on the more of a white elephant it seems.. Kendal town centre is awash with empty shops and office space, if some deal has been done to relocate council staff then yet more of the town centre becomes empty. Couple this with having offices adjacent to a new supermarket and it makes coming into town redundant for those living / working on the new development, yet more down turn for Kendal town centre....

If they all do have the interests of Kendal at heart then they would all get together to thrash out a compromise between all parties but this will never happen as they all have their own interests at heart....