Proposals to develop former Kendal garden centre set to be unveiled

PROPOSALS to develop the former Webb’s Garden Centre site in Kendal are set to be unveiled later this week.

McCarthy & Stone want feedback from local residents to help shape an ‘assisted living’ development and have organised a public exhibition.

The site was partly redeveloped with 16 properties in 2007 prior to the developer going into administration.

McCarthy & Stone plan to create ‘high-quality units, specifically designed to meet the needs of people in later life who require a greater level of care’ on Webb View, off Burneside Road.

The company will share its early proposals with local residents and key stakeholders at a public exhibition on Thursday at The Quaker Tapestry Exhibition Centre and Museum at the Friends Meeting House, Stramongate, Kendal, between 3pm and 7pm.

“We’ve already spent time carefully researching the architecture and character of the local area but we need to ensure what we build is what our customers, as well as the local community, would like to see in Kendal,” said Steve Secker of McCarthy & Stone.

“We want to hear from our future customers and the local community before we submit a planning application and will be displaying our early plans at the exhibition. Our project team will be at the exhibition to answer questions and listen to feedback on what we’ve done so far and the comments we receive will help us tailor our proposals into something people will want to see and enjoy.”

A website covering McCarthy & Stone’s initial proposals can be found at www.mccarthyandstone-consultation.co.uk/kendal. A dedicated freephone information line (0800 298 7040) has also been set up.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:21am Mon 10 Dec 12

MJ-kendal says...

As someone who lives in the area, and who's father spent his last years in a similar development, I am all for this plan. It allowed him to retain his independence as much as possible, and his own home, while providing the increasing level of support he needed.

Such a facility would be good for Kendal.
As someone who lives in the area, and who's father spent his last years in a similar development, I am all for this plan. It allowed him to retain his independence as much as possible, and his own home, while providing the increasing level of support he needed. Such a facility would be good for Kendal. MJ-kendal
  • Score: 0

10:52am Mon 10 Dec 12

tom watson says...

It seems strange that what once was a
nursery is now going to be the opposite. I feel that not alot of thought has gone into this redevelopement.
An area once used for growing is now proposed for dying. Life. Heritage.
Get real!
It seems strange that what once was a nursery is now going to be the opposite. I feel that not alot of thought has gone into this redevelopement. An area once used for growing is now proposed for dying. Life. Heritage. Get real! tom watson
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Mon 10 Dec 12

oceancloud says...

Not sure what tom watson is on, not this planet by the looks of it!

Anything is better than the existing eyesore.
Not sure what tom watson is on, not this planet by the looks of it! Anything is better than the existing eyesore. oceancloud
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Mon 10 Dec 12

magical trevor says...

Tom Watson's comments in no way relate to the reality of the proposals....what are you harping on about Tom?
Tom Watson's comments in no way relate to the reality of the proposals....what are you harping on about Tom? magical trevor
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Mon 10 Dec 12

boris plasticmac says...

What's wrong with the development being completed under the existing planning permissions.
The people who bought houses under the original scheme must be tearing their hair out at the delays,as well as having to live on a site which has been neglected for years.
A McCarthy & Stone development might tidy up the site but does it fit the principles of the earlier planning permissions that these householders signed up to when they purchased their houses.
What's wrong with the development being completed under the existing planning permissions. The people who bought houses under the original scheme must be tearing their hair out at the delays,as well as having to live on a site which has been neglected for years. A McCarthy & Stone development might tidy up the site but does it fit the principles of the earlier planning permissions that these householders signed up to when they purchased their houses. boris plasticmac
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Mon 10 Dec 12

wezzyk says...

I think they should knock the whole lot down and build a nice little garden centre with a cafe on it. And get rid of those hideous what look like half finished, three floor houses that have completely destroyed the views from some Burneside Road residents.
I think they should knock the whole lot down and build a nice little garden centre with a cafe on it. And get rid of those hideous what look like half finished, three floor houses that have completely destroyed the views from some Burneside Road residents. wezzyk
  • Score: 0

11:21pm Mon 10 Dec 12

nickjohn says...

"A McCarthy & Stone development might tidy up the site but does it fit the principles of the earlier planning permissions that these householders signed up to when they purchased their houses"

The original principles went out of the window when the original developers went bust, the whole site has been about greed from day one.

I have no sympathy for the residents there now, they had no sympathy for those of us living on Burneside Road when the site was started and have had to put up with the eyesore that it is.

Had the properties been built in keeping with the surrounding area then perhaps it would be a different story but they look nothing like those opposite and I believe the facing stone comes from Yorkshire, hence the yellow colouring....
"A McCarthy & Stone development might tidy up the site but does it fit the principles of the earlier planning permissions that these householders signed up to when they purchased their houses" The original principles went out of the window when the original developers went bust, the whole site has been about greed from day one. I have no sympathy for the residents there now, they had no sympathy for those of us living on Burneside Road when the site was started and have had to put up with the eyesore that it is. Had the properties been built in keeping with the surrounding area then perhaps it would be a different story but they look nothing like those opposite and I believe the facing stone comes from Yorkshire, hence the yellow colouring.... nickjohn
  • Score: 0

9:57am Tue 11 Dec 12

boris plasticmac says...

I agree with you nickjohn the development was done with unsuitable stone and is currently an eyesore.
But he will be aware there are still about 50 units left to build on the site which is covered by the current planning permission.
However I'll give a bet when the plans are published for the McCarthy & Stone development there will be a lot more than 50 units.
Better the devil know....
I agree with you nickjohn the development was done with unsuitable stone and is currently an eyesore. But he will be aware there are still about 50 units left to build on the site which is covered by the current planning permission. However I'll give a bet when the plans are published for the McCarthy & Stone development there will be a lot more than 50 units. Better the devil know.... boris plasticmac
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Tue 11 Dec 12

nickjohn says...

boris plasticmac wrote:
I agree with you nickjohn the development was done with unsuitable stone and is currently an eyesore.
But he will be aware there are still about 50 units left to build on the site which is covered by the current planning permission.
However I'll give a bet when the plans are published for the McCarthy & Stone development there will be a lot more than 50 units.
Better the devil know....
To be honest I thought the plans allowed for more than 50 units....

I believe one of the other amendments submitted, but then withdrawn, wanted even more than that.

Ultimately the central "block" was always going to be an eyesore and at least 4 storeys high so I don't think the McCarthy proposal will be much of a shock size wise.

Also the original plans allow for 2, 3 and 4 bed units whereas the McCarthy plans will no doubt follow their previous developments which are mainly 1 bed, So whilst the number of individual units may be more the number of bedrooms on the site will probably be comparable.
[quote][p][bold]boris plasticmac[/bold] wrote: I agree with you nickjohn the development was done with unsuitable stone and is currently an eyesore. But he will be aware there are still about 50 units left to build on the site which is covered by the current planning permission. However I'll give a bet when the plans are published for the McCarthy & Stone development there will be a lot more than 50 units. Better the devil know....[/p][/quote]To be honest I thought the plans allowed for more than 50 units.... I believe one of the other amendments submitted, but then withdrawn, wanted even more than that. Ultimately the central "block" was always going to be an eyesore and at least 4 storeys high so I don't think the McCarthy proposal will be much of a shock size wise. Also the original plans allow for 2, 3 and 4 bed units whereas the McCarthy plans will no doubt follow their previous developments which are mainly 1 bed, So whilst the number of individual units may be more the number of bedrooms on the site will probably be comparable. nickjohn
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Tue 11 Dec 12

boris plasticmac says...

Well I hope you're right nickjohn as you're the person living with the eyesore but I would advise that you don't get too enthusiastic until you see their proposals on Thursday.
Well I hope you're right nickjohn as you're the person living with the eyesore but I would advise that you don't get too enthusiastic until you see their proposals on Thursday. boris plasticmac
  • Score: 0

8:11pm Tue 11 Dec 12

nickjohn says...

Don't get me wrong I am fully aware that no matter what we say the eyesore will get bigger and be built. I am in the construction trade and it is on its a**e so when a large corporate comes along with a million pound development it will get the green light all the way as it will keep the planners in a job, building control in a job and the local builders merchants in a job... The local occupants don't stand a chance :-))
Don't get me wrong I am fully aware that no matter what we say the eyesore will get bigger and be built. I am in the construction trade and it is on its a**e so when a large corporate comes along with a million pound development it will get the green light all the way as it will keep the planners in a job, building control in a job and the local builders merchants in a job... The local occupants don't stand a chance :-)) nickjohn
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree