Owners of Kendal's K Village centre go into administration

3:06pm Monday 7th January 2013 in News

Owners of Kendal's K Village centre go into administration Owners of Kendal's K Village centre go into administration

THE company which owns Kendal's K Village shopping centre has gone into administration.

Kendal Riverside Limited were placed into administration on December 28, a brief statement released by the firm said.

John Hansen and Stuart Irwin, of KPMG, have been appointed joint administrators.

A spokesman for Kendal Riverside said: "The affairs, business and property of the company are being managed by the joint administrators.

"The centre will continue to operate as normal and it is firmly business as usual."

Following the announcement, Westmorland and Lonsdale MP Tim Farron said: “Jobs and investment are a priority for me and I am working tirelessly to do everything I can to improve the local economy so this is sad news.

"What is important to say is that the shops inside K Village and their staff are not affected at the moment.

"We need to try and find a buyer for the centre soon and make sure we attract more businesses that people want to visit.

“Many people tell me we need a major retailer like Primark or Nandos in there.

"I’d like to see if we could make that happen. If we could attract a business like that it would make a massive difference to the centre.”

Related links

A South Lakeland District Council spokesman said: “It is encouraging that the administrators are running the business as a going concern and SLDC hopes they find a positive way forward.”

The £100m complex opened in July 2010, with the company stating at the time that it aimed to attract more than 1.5 million visitors and up to 4,000 coaches a year.

Comments(104)

whitevanman2 says...
3:17pm Mon 7 Jan 13

oooh ....... never saw that coming did I

Report this post »

tictoc1 says...
4:09pm Mon 7 Jan 13

A complete shambles from day one. The building has never been finished, which to me, rings alarm bells before any of this.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
4:10pm Mon 7 Jan 13

"The centre will continue to operate as normal and it is firmly business as usual."

How long for?

I've never met anyone that has had anything good to say about the place and seems now everything that was said when it was built is coming true.

Report this post »

Adam_Kendal says...
4:24pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Deffo need some decent shops to attract people. Primark or Nandos would be good examples.

Currently the centre is dull and lifeless.

Report this post »

Kendmoor says...
4:25pm Mon 7 Jan 13

aaaaanother clothing store, and somewhere to eat. Yes, thats pretty diverse and sure to save it. Good luck.

Report this post »

Spies says...
4:26pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Surprised it's managed to hang on this long, now their plan can come to fruition, convert the rest of the units in to more flats and reap the proceeds.

Report this post »

Kendmoor says...
4:28pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Though I'd venture to say the Nandos might be a little better than another clothing shop!

Report this post »

BillP says...
4:33pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Badly designed,unfinished, too expensive to park, duplicated shops, the list goes on...............

Report this post »

carlsonsfish says...
4:48pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Hang on. Werent these people going to pay for half of the shambles on kirkland and SLDC deferred that half for later on? Does this mean Kendal ratepayers will be footing the whole bill for the unwanted Kirkland "improvements" ?!

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
5:01pm Mon 7 Jan 13

carlsonsfish wrote:
Hang on. Werent these people going to pay for half of the shambles on kirkland and SLDC deferred that half for later on? Does this mean Kendal ratepayers will be footing the whole bill for the unwanted Kirkland "improvements" ?!
From what I remember the councillors were adamant that the money would be forthcoming and that it was at no risk to the rate payers.

This being so then I suggest the councillors who made the decision to cover the amount from K Village should be made to pay it themselves, why should we suffer yet again from their incompetence........

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
5:03pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Guess this could solve the old Sainsbury's - Tesco argument, it would make an excellent site for one of them..

Wonder if the council will be so keen to back any future large developments in the same way as they backed this one....

Report this post »

Cas220 says...
5:05pm Mon 7 Jan 13

You naysayers don't seem to understand the popularity of Primark....it's the kind of place where riots happen.

I think the town is too small for a Primark but more household names would be a bonus.

I wonder if Mr Farron is actually contacting companies or just making comments for the local rag?

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
5:09pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Didn't Primark look at at the shop in the town centre which TK Max took over ??

Report this post »

craggy says...
5:13pm Mon 7 Jan 13

All of you who new this would happen are clearly delighted, I'm very happy for you all.

Report this post »

minkebill says...
5:16pm Mon 7 Jan 13

The best shop is the Clarks Factory outlet. Parking has been £1 over Christmas but I think what would help would be some kind of shuttle service into town/park and ride scheme. The main issue we've had is there has been no where decent to eat there and you find you have to go on into town, fight the one way system and struggle to park.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
5:29pm Mon 7 Jan 13

craggy wrote:
All of you who new this would happen are clearly delighted, I'm very happy for you all.
You're very welcome Craggy.

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
5:30pm Mon 7 Jan 13

craggy wrote:
All of you who new this would happen are clearly delighted, I'm very happy for you all.
Its not a case of being happy that it has happened, ultimately the remaining shops could close and jobs could be lost.

What it does confirm though is that the development should never have gone ahead and was not a viable proposition from day 1. Just because you build a shopping centre does not mean that it will work, no matter what price the parking is, you need people to want to go there and to do that you must have shops that people want to shop or browse in, neither of which has happened to date.

I believe too many people wanted to be seen as a supporter of this development so they could use it in their own self promotion and not looking into it to see if it was in the towns best interests.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
5:30pm Mon 7 Jan 13

minkebill wrote:
The best shop is the Clarks Factory outlet. Parking has been £1 over Christmas but I think what would help would be some kind of shuttle service into town/park and ride scheme. The main issue we've had is there has been no where decent to eat there and you find you have to go on into town, fight the one way system and struggle to park.
What would help would be some decent shops that local people would actually use on a regular basis.

Report this post »

Cas220 says...
5:36pm Mon 7 Jan 13

I think anyone who was against the development 'from the start' would have had ample opportunity to voice their concerns to the planners during the consultation process. There's no point saying 'I told you so' at this point when jobs could be lost..

Report this post »

lakesailor says...
6:17pm Mon 7 Jan 13

It's not so much a matter of the planning permission but more of the wisdom of the development in a business sense.

I can't imagine why someone would have fooled themselves it would be financially viable.

Report this post »

oceancloud says...
6:22pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Cas220 wrote:
I think anyone who was against the development 'from the start' would have had ample opportunity to voice their concerns to the planners during the consultation process. There's no point saying 'I told you so' at this point when jobs could be lost..
When did SLDC ever take any notice of people's concerns! Many people have said it was a complete white elephant right from the start and it has proved to be just that.

Report this post »

Moonbase says...
6:25pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Knock it down and start again or at least half of it and have parking for coaches.
Waste of space!!!

Report this post »

tictoc1 says...
6:27pm Mon 7 Jan 13

The £100m complex opened in July 2010, with the company stating at the time that it aimed to attract more than 1.5 million visitors and up to 4,000 coaches a year.
I have to say, that this part of the article makes me chuckle. If coaches came 365 days of the year, that would make 11 coaches a day. Where are all these coaches meant to park exactly?

Report this post »

craggy says...
6:45pm Mon 7 Jan 13

tictoc1 wrote:
The £100m complex opened in July 2010, with the company stating at the time that it aimed to attract more than 1.5 million visitors and up to 4,000 coaches a year.
I have to say, that this part of the article makes me chuckle. If coaches came 365 days of the year, that would make 11 coaches a day. Where are all these coaches meant to park exactly?
Many people about to be out of work, still- if it gives you a chuckle...

Report this post »

sklanc says...
6:46pm Mon 7 Jan 13

it's unlikely that this monstrous carbuncle will become a normal shopping centre with the usual supermarkets and popular shops as part of the planning consent was based around it not competing with the town centre etc so my money is on the conversion to flats as suggested by an earlier comment.

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
6:57pm Mon 7 Jan 13

sklanc wrote:
it's unlikely that this monstrous carbuncle will become a normal shopping centre with the usual supermarkets and popular shops as part of the planning consent was based around it not competing with the town centre etc so my money is on the conversion to flats as suggested by an earlier comment.
Can't see how flats would work as they have yet to sell any of the flats currently built..

Not sure how the planners ever thought that shops there would not be in competition to the town centre, the whole point of a shopping centre is to attract people to spend money this in turn takes money away from other areas of the town.. Given that the planners will do anything to save face and try and cover up incompetence they will just pass a change of use application...

Report this post »

Basey says...
7:14pm Mon 7 Jan 13

A Tesco Express (or similar) for the locals, a pub for the locals and flats .... for the locals, please

Report this post »

onelocal says...
7:29pm Mon 7 Jan 13

No point talking about a supermarket. If you recall the KRUFC planning appeal, Gilkes have first pick of a supermarket. Mr Crewdson quashed the rugby club development, arguing that Kendal could only support one more supermarket, and he was having it, with the support of his friends at SLDC. He has 5 years grace to deliver the goods or he loses the planning consent. In the meantime, K Village can scrape around for business and Kendal can whistle for a new supermarket.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
7:43pm Mon 7 Jan 13

I recently spent a weekend in Gloucester and visited the recently revamped docks area which has been turned into an outlet centre. There are numerous big name shops alongside restaurants with affordable parking and the place was very busy. So how come the owners of K Village got it so wrong?

Report this post »

A view From Cumbria says...
7:46pm Mon 7 Jan 13

The potential viability of a project is not a planning material consideration. And, at the starting point the effect of new competition on other existing developments isn't either. The latter is then muddied by the very weak rules put in place against out of town centre developments.

Be that as it may there might be a different issue concerning UK government and European grants towards this project in the first place. I cannot recall what grants, if any were given. But, they would be predicated upon outcomes and there must be some concern as to whether these outcomes have been achieved.

This is not a trivial point, if money was given then that money was not available for other projects which might have been more effective.

Do not think that planning committee members, on all sides do not shake with wonder and fear at the magnificent retail proposals for Kendal and elsewhere in South Lakeland put before them.

There is a presumption underlying planning practice that manifestly stupid proposals will not be put forward because anyone daft enough would go bust. This only works when the developer is using 100% of his own money. Even then there is an incentive to develop to do down the competition. I have some experience of this on three different sites within South Lakeland.

Report this post »

king edwards says...
8:47pm Mon 7 Jan 13

The K Village is one place I've never gone into but heard plenty about it in its earlier days and that was enough to convince me I was wasting my time going. Not one person has ever said a good thing about it and in the last 12 months or so you just never hear people talking about it because they just don't go.

Report this post »

KendalSmithy says...
9:09pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Free parking might just turn it around, but it's probably too late now. The reputation is in all our minds, so I would guess it's beyond rescue. But it has to be worth a try. After all, what else is there to lose now?

I've been once, and was pleasantly surprised by the place itself, but because of the lack of people it was lifeless.

Report this post »

Janeelspeth says...
9:26pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Maybe now the new owners can put in some shops that we would ALL like to have.

Report this post »

Janeelspeth says...
9:27pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Just a suggestion, what about facilities for our youth in this town.

Report this post »

penny p says...
9:46pm Mon 7 Jan 13

theres one solution to save K Village and Kendal bring in a primark and a B H S .!!!! we need need shops for the younger generation fashions ect .. i know LOTS of people that have to go to Blackpool /Preston for clothes Primark in kendal is what we need !!!..

Report this post »

Kendmoor says...
10:32pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Woo, another clothes shop, yes, that'll save kendal won't it. Just Survey the people of Kendal and surrounding areas and ask what shops they want, seems simple enough to me, it's one thing asking people if they want an outlet store...another for the actual bit that attracts people, whats in it.

this whole thing about planning consent being based around it not competing with the town centre? Surely thats what retail is all about?

I don't understand the fascination with yet MORE clothes stores, there seem to be plenty in town.

I liked someones previous comment about youth facilities, but I guess there might be things in their contract that say the types of establishment that can operate there?

Report this post »

Derelic-UK says...
10:39pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Not surprised at all, a shambles from start to finish, have they sold a single flat? I doubt it. If only they didn't charge for parking, it might have been a different story, I went all the time to the old one as it was free parking, now they charge, it's like a ghost town!

Bring on a new buyer with common sense.

Or just bulldoze it and make a nice park area

Report this post »

snuggle-bunny says...
11:14pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Oh no - where will I get my chocolate, sweets and designer handbags from now if it closes

Report this post »

onelocal says...
12:01am Tue 8 Jan 13

snuggle-bunny wrote:
Oh no - where will I get my chocolate, sweets and designer handbags from now if it closes
Try Poundland.

Report this post »

Kent123 says...
8:20am Tue 8 Jan 13

nickjohn wrote:
carlsonsfish wrote:
Hang on. Werent these people going to pay for half of the shambles on kirkland and SLDC deferred that half for later on? Does this mean Kendal ratepayers will be footing the whole bill for the unwanted Kirkland "improvements" ?!
From what I remember the councillors were adamant that the money would be forthcoming and that it was at no risk to the rate payers.

This being so then I suggest the councillors who made the decision to cover the amount from K Village should be made to pay it themselves, why should we suffer yet again from their incompetence........
Does anyone know if trying to make the councillors pay for this £100K mistake is viable?

Report this post »

Moonbase says...
8:38am Tue 8 Jan 13

zaney5 wrote:
I recently spent a weekend in Gloucester and visited the recently revamped docks area which has been turned into an outlet centre. There are numerous big name shops alongside restaurants with affordable parking and the place was very busy. So how come the owners of K Village got it so wrong?
They got greedy simple.
It always had a steady trade before,coaches could park easily and you did'nt freeze when you shopped,it's a cold wind tunnel because of fire regs.
An outlet village needs parking, not drop off or stay and pay.
Bad planning i think.

Report this post »

tictoc1 says...
8:43am Tue 8 Jan 13

craggy wrote:
tictoc1 wrote: The £100m complex opened in July 2010, with the company stating at the time that it aimed to attract more than 1.5 million visitors and up to 4,000 coaches a year. I have to say, that this part of the article makes me chuckle. If coaches came 365 days of the year, that would make 11 coaches a day. Where are all these coaches meant to park exactly?
Many people about to be out of work, still- if it gives you a chuckle...
"The centre will continue to operate as normal and it is firmly business as usual."
Plus, you're missing the point, I'm chuckling at the lack of coach parking spaces for 4000 coaches.

Report this post »

carlsonsfish says...
8:43am Tue 8 Jan 13

It's nice to see Gonzo, Kermit, Miss Piggy and Fozzy have found gainful employment within SLDC. I was a bit worried when the muppet show was axed

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
9:11am Tue 8 Jan 13

"The centre will continue to operate as normal and it is firmly business as usual."

Business as usual? Half the units are empty.

"Oh no - where will I get my chocolate, sweets and designer handbags from now if it closes"

You'd be hard pressed to get your chocolates there anyway as the Cadbury shop closed down a month or so back!

Report this post »

tom watson says...
11:42am Tue 8 Jan 13

44 comments on retailing, how many of you have owned a shop? I've seen and experienced the K-Village and it's a dud, spell that how you like and it turns out much the same. Many people have tried to re-invent the wheel but the ones who have retained the round concept have prevailed. The K-Village is in a lovely location on the river Kent, close to the centre of Kendal, surely it would make great apartments for long or short stay visitors . All you need is the people with the guts and the money to make it happen. Sainsbury's to KRUC grown.

Report this post »

Kendmoor says...
12:51pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Some of the commenters may well have, but another way of looking at it is 44 comments from potential customers! ;)

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
12:55pm Tue 8 Jan 13

tom watson wrote:
44 comments on retailing, how many of you have owned a shop? I've seen and experienced the K-Village and it's a dud, spell that how you like and it turns out much the same. Many people have tried to re-invent the wheel but the ones who have retained the round concept have prevailed. The K-Village is in a lovely location on the river Kent, close to the centre of Kendal, surely it would make great apartments for long or short stay visitors . All you need is the people with the guts and the money to make it happen. Sainsbury's to KRUC grown.
Never mind apartments for long or short stay visitors. What about housing for locals?

Report this post »

Ladyxxmacbeth says...
1:12pm Tue 8 Jan 13

It's such big news I heard two people talking in detail about It in asda this morning.

Report this post »

davidearnshaw says...
2:27pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Well it had to happen --- I know many local folks -- including myself were frequent visitors to the old K Village --- easy access --- no parking charges and some useful shops and a cafe ----- as soon as parking charges were introduced for the new development -- they have been without doubt a major factor in the pending demise of the place; I for one have not set foot in the place since it was opened, and doubtless there have been countless other locals the same ---- sadly the whole debacle is symptomatic of Kendal Town's mismanagement --- there is constant complaining and dissatisfaction with the way the town seems not to attract or welcome visitors and indeed locals and this is largely focussed on Car Parking Charges ---- and this really goes across all of SLDCs car parks ----- £3 for 2hrs in Ambleside ----- in my book -- robbery ---- it is so very obvious that car parking charges are a National Gripe -- but some places are really trying to see what they can to ease this problem ----- Chester for instance has free parking after 3pm !!! --- many places are now "seeing the light" that folks just will not come if charges are so high. I have long thought that Kendal needs a wise thinking Town Management team who's task is to really sort out what is going to allow traders and shops to flourish -- such a tream could look far and wide at what others do. It would be really interesting to see just how much trade picked up over a 6 month period with all parking free ---- but this is "cloud cookoo land" !!!!! thinking on my part.

Report this post »

life cycle too says...
2:41pm Tue 8 Jan 13

sklanc wrote:
it's unlikely that this monstrous carbuncle will become a normal shopping centre with the usual supermarkets and popular shops as part of the planning consent was based around it not competing with the town centre etc so my money is on the conversion to flats as suggested by an earlier comment.
So what about the businesses that had outlets at the K Village AND in town?

Why would anyone think that potential customers would travel miles to visit a set of shops that they could find on their OWN high streets... AND pay dearly to park there?
Those who chose to ignore this fact when permissions were being given should face up to their incompetence, and prevented from making the same mistakes again with any other planning issue... such as Gilkes and their supermarket site!

Report this post »

Adam_Kendal says...
4:00pm Tue 8 Jan 13

I believe the reason the flats/apartments are not selling is because the entire site is sinking. Becasue of this, nobody can obtain a motgage to buy them.

Doomed from the off..

Report this post »

penny p says...
4:10pm Tue 8 Jan 13

penny p wrote:
theres one solution to save K Village and Kendal bring in a primark and a B H S .!!!! we need need shops for the younger generation fashions ect .. i know LOTS of people that have to go to Blackpool /Preston for clothes Primark in kendal is what we need !!!..
Kendal need a fashion outlet ! somewhere for the young and fashion conscious !!! to bring in the shoppers....no more second hand shops and bookies please !!!! perhaps a Debenhams !!!

Report this post »

bantambelle says...
4:39pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Time for a few facts me thinks:

Coaches drop off at K Village and park behind the leisure centre on a leased site - easy to get 11 coaches in there at any given time!

Do people seriously think K Village haven't tried to get retailers in and shops let??? K Village would have had to find tenants to help recuperate the costs of the development. We're in recession, retail is on a downward spiral, ask any landlord in Kendal trying to let a shop- any would-be traders want premises for nothing.

Short term memories...town centre retailers lobbied the council to put in planning measures to ensure that the new 'singing and dancing' K Village didn't take away their customers; this included more expensive parking than town centre, contributions towards town centre improvements, restriction to outlet units only, a shuttle bus, pay on exit parking at Westmorland Centre. Perhaps the demands from the town centre retailers actually contributed to the demise of K Village?

Apartments - a significant number of apartments have sold but just one actually lived in. Now is the time to go look and get one at a decent price!

K Village is business as usual and trading normally - we need to get this message out to friends, relatives, coach companies, visitors etc and remain positive about our town. It's about time we stopped to think - why are we all so keen to see things fail?

Report this post »

Kendmoor says...
4:46pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Nobody was keen to see it fail - everyone was keen to see better shops there....I expect there is alot of hope that something better might arise out of the ashes, or something different.

Report this post »

itscommonsense says...
4:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

In principle this should have worked, as it was a better option than converting the rest of the old factory to new uses, which is usually a nightmare to make viable. The old outlet worked perfectly well, so what went wrong?

I blame the design. Faceless road frontage which left the shops and people invisible, bland corporate style and utterly soul-less design which was poorly finished to a low budget. Even a slightly shabby revamped factory was better than this. Next came the parking fees - enough said on that. Then the choice of shops - I used to go to the old outlet regularly, but one visit to this one was enough, and any of the decent outlets were duplicated in the town centre, so no need to go back for the rest of the tat on offer.

And don't underestimate the sense of betrayal felt by Kendalians at the asset stripping carried out by Clarks when they took over. We felt bonded to the old factory, it was part of Kendal's heritage, but this was just an opportunistic money spinning enterprise by some profiteering developer. It's a shame it failed, but it was doomed from the day the plans were approved. SLDC planners should take a good portion of the blame for agreeing to this grossly substandard development.

Report this post »

Adam_Kendal says...
5:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

itscommonsense wrote:
In principle this should have worked, as it was a better option than converting the rest of the old factory to new uses, which is usually a nightmare to make viable. The old outlet worked perfectly well, so what went wrong? I blame the design. Faceless road frontage which left the shops and people invisible, bland corporate style and utterly soul-less design which was poorly finished to a low budget. Even a slightly shabby revamped factory was better than this. Next came the parking fees - enough said on that. Then the choice of shops - I used to go to the old outlet regularly, but one visit to this one was enough, and any of the decent outlets were duplicated in the town centre, so no need to go back for the rest of the tat on offer. And don't underestimate the sense of betrayal felt by Kendalians at the asset stripping carried out by Clarks when they took over. We felt bonded to the old factory, it was part of Kendal's heritage, but this was just an opportunistic money spinning enterprise by some profiteering developer. It's a shame it failed, but it was doomed from the day the plans were approved. SLDC planners should take a good portion of the blame for agreeing to this grossly substandard development.
Well said!

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
5:18pm Tue 8 Jan 13

onelocal wrote:
No point talking about a supermarket. If you recall the KRUFC planning appeal, Gilkes have first pick of a supermarket. Mr Crewdson quashed the rugby club development, arguing that Kendal could only support one more supermarket, and he was having it, with the support of his friends at SLDC. He has 5 years grace to deliver the goods or he loses the planning consent. In the meantime, K Village can scrape around for business and Kendal can whistle for a new supermarket.
Surely if a supermarket took over the site it would be just a change of use application not a full planning application, it could even be that some of the units already have the relevant planning use to allow a supermarket..

If the planners do continue to back the Gilkes site then they need their heads testing, this failure just goes to show that Kendal is not big enough to support yet more offices / retails units / flats. Gilkes should also take a close look at what happened to make sure they don't end up getting involved in a doomed development, remember the Webs Garden Centre site, the owners there thought they were onto a good thing getting involved with a developer and I believe they went bankrupt in the process..

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
5:22pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Adam_Kendal wrote:
itscommonsense wrote:
In principle this should have worked, as it was a better option than converting the rest of the old factory to new uses, which is usually a nightmare to make viable. The old outlet worked perfectly well, so what went wrong? I blame the design. Faceless road frontage which left the shops and people invisible, bland corporate style and utterly soul-less design which was poorly finished to a low budget. Even a slightly shabby revamped factory was better than this. Next came the parking fees - enough said on that. Then the choice of shops - I used to go to the old outlet regularly, but one visit to this one was enough, and any of the decent outlets were duplicated in the town centre, so no need to go back for the rest of the tat on offer. And don't underestimate the sense of betrayal felt by Kendalians at the asset stripping carried out by Clarks when they took over. We felt bonded to the old factory, it was part of Kendal's heritage, but this was just an opportunistic money spinning enterprise by some profiteering developer. It's a shame it failed, but it was doomed from the day the plans were approved. SLDC planners should take a good portion of the blame for agreeing to this grossly substandard development.
Well said!
A fundamental problem was the financial figures. I remember when it was first announced they said how many people would be needed to visit the site to make it work and the footfall needed was over three times what the old site had and there was a massive increase in the coaches needed.

I believe they fell into the trap of believing their own hype and assuming more and more people would keep coming and not accept that the footfall for the old site was perhaps nearing the most it would ever get.

Just because you build it does not mean they will come..

Report this post »

furthersouth says...
7:05pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Sad to hear that folk may well lose jobs over this. Maybe SLDC can re-job them somewhere as compensation. Cheshire Oaks is a good spot to shop as is Gretna Gateway as there are some big brand outlet shops all in one place, easy to get to and food spots also. Not been to those spots for years though as shopping in an actual shop is sooo '90's. Most if not all of our shopping is done online these days, the last thing we want to do on our days off is traipse around Kendal shops and supermarkets. Housing for locals is what this place should be. Rehouse people who are under occupying their current council properties into flats in K village and house local families in the houses. Simples.

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
7:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

furthersouth wrote:
Sad to hear that folk may well lose jobs over this. Maybe SLDC can re-job them somewhere as compensation. Cheshire Oaks is a good spot to shop as is Gretna Gateway as there are some big brand outlet shops all in one place, easy to get to and food spots also. Not been to those spots for years though as shopping in an actual shop is sooo '90's. Most if not all of our shopping is done online these days, the last thing we want to do on our days off is traipse around Kendal shops and supermarkets. Housing for locals is what this place should be. Rehouse people who are under occupying their current council properties into flats in K village and house local families in the houses. Simples.
well said

Report this post »

Owlbert says...
8:24pm Tue 8 Jan 13

No more "big name" shops. It's called K "village", so lets have a selection of really useful independent shops under one roof. Keep K shoes and add a deli, real bakery, post office/newsagent, greengrocer, butcher, local crafts, a nice coffee shop, dry cleaners; somewhere you would drop into to get practical shopping done and avoid the supermarkets. Brilliant location for people going to and from work or living locally.

Report this post »

snuggle-bunny says...
9:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13

none of the 100 or so flats have yet been sold as they have not been passed by building control. Im also interested to know about how the council plans to recoup the £100,000 loan it gave, or doesnt it Not that it really matters as the council tax payer is paying

Report this post »

Lakeuk says...
10:01pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Two local councillors arguing on BBC Radio Cumbria over £100k K Village promise spent but not given, includes an odd below the belt comment.

listen from 39mins :-http://www.bbc.co.
uk/programmes/p012hc
ry

One argued it's a loan, the other a debt, does that really matter, someone somewhere has paid £100k in the expectation that K Village would finally pay it to end their part of the deal for build the village. Does it matter how it's now lost, is it more important to question why projects are being rubber stamped, started, completed, based on future income that's not guaranteed. Is this how the council budgets are decided before the income is known - would any business be run like this?

Report this post »

snuggle-bunny says...
10:42pm Tue 8 Jan 13

davidearnshaw wrote:
Well it had to happen --- I know many local folks -- including myself were frequent visitors to the old K Village --- easy access --- no parking charges and some useful shops and a cafe ----- as soon as parking charges were introduced for the new development -- they have been without doubt a major factor in the pending demise of the place; I for one have not set foot in the place since it was opened, and doubtless there have been countless other locals the same ---- sadly the whole debacle is symptomatic of Kendal Town's mismanagement --- there is constant complaining and dissatisfaction with the way the town seems not to attract or welcome visitors and indeed locals and this is largely focussed on Car Parking Charges ---- and this really goes across all of SLDCs car parks ----- £3 for 2hrs in Ambleside ----- in my book -- robbery ---- it is so very obvious that car parking charges are a National Gripe -- but some places are really trying to see what they can to ease this problem ----- Chester for instance has free parking after 3pm !!! --- many places are now "seeing the light" that folks just will not come if charges are so high. I have long thought that Kendal needs a wise thinking Town Management team who's task is to really sort out what is going to allow traders and shops to flourish -- such a tream could look far and wide at what others do. It would be really interesting to see just how much trade picked up over a 6 month period with all parking free ---- but this is "cloud cookoo land" !!!!! thinking on my part.
well said- sldc and it's councilors take note (ha ha) at some stage their will be council elections- use this oppertunity to sack those responsible. Unfortunately they've no doubt had their snouts in the tax payers trough and those that cant be voted out will no doubt continue to do so

Report this post »

ellakathryn says...
11:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13

having a primark would attract people from all around the lakes and cumbria, as the nearest ones are preston and blackpool, and the same with nandos. right now I personally would only ever go in new look, topshop and dorothy perkins as they are the only clothes shops that may even slightly appear to the younger generation! K village is aimed totally at the elder generation, and there isn't one shop I as an 18 year old would go in. The younger generation tend to shop somewhere else such as Lancaster, which is a shame that we should have to travel when there is a town on our doorstep with plenty of empty places that could be filled with shops!

Report this post »

onelocal says...
12:27am Wed 9 Jan 13

Lakeuk wrote:
Two local councillors arguing on BBC Radio Cumbria over £100k K Village promise spent but not given, includes an odd below the belt comment.

listen from 39mins :-http://www.bbc.co.

uk/programmes/p012hc

ry

One argued it's a loan, the other a debt, does that really matter, someone somewhere has paid £100k in the expectation that K Village would finally pay it to end their part of the deal for build the village. Does it matter how it's now lost, is it more important to question why projects are being rubber stamped, started, completed, based on future income that's not guaranteed. Is this how the council budgets are decided before the income is known - would any business be run like this?
I just listened to the interview on BBC Cumbria. Mr Stewart seems to have lost the plot, arguing on technicalities, following the party line, that there is no loss to the tax payer. Whichever way you look at it, K Village were supposed to pay a contribution to the Highgate development. The council paid this up front, and K village can not now pay their contribution. The tax payer through the council will have to cover the cost.
In addition I was surprised when Mr Stewart in addition to calling him a liar, made a personal derogatory attack on Mr Berry and his family, which was totally out of order, and certainly has no place in a public debate between two councillors on BBC Radio. If Councillor Stewart can not control his emotions, and debate in a reasonable way, then it's time he retired.

Report this post »

Geoff103 says...
8:24am Wed 9 Jan 13

Councillor Ian Stewart.

There is no question to which this name is a sensible answer.

Report this post »

kendaliangirl says...
10:22am Wed 9 Jan 13

If my memory serves me correctly,wasnt the original K Village just set up to make use of the redundant factory buildings? Living at the other end of town I only ever went down when the kids needed new school shoes. It was simple -you drove down,parked up ,wandered in purchased then came home! Since the new version has been around I only use Costa to meet up with a friend who works near by. I was last down in the second week of Dec, expecting to see a reasonable turn out seeing as Christmas was approaching. However I counted 7 people wandering around. One shop assistant putting a closed sign on the door at 11.00 and another shop assistant in one of the outdoor ware shops giving me a very cryptic message about stock clearance!
However, I feel that free parking would definitely help - can you imagine having to pay at the Trafford Centre! I also agree with other commenters that we dont really need more fashion shops ,my suggestions would be something that would take over the whole building such as John Lewis or possibly Ikea. Or something for the youngsters like bowling alley/ice rink.

Report this post »

TomHarvey says...
10:48am Wed 9 Jan 13

nickjohn wrote:
carlsonsfish wrote:
Hang on. Werent these people going to pay for half of the shambles on kirkland and SLDC deferred that half for later on? Does this mean Kendal ratepayers will be footing the whole bill for the unwanted Kirkland "improvements" ?!
From what I remember the councillors were adamant that the money would be forthcoming and that it was at no risk to the rate payers.

This being so then I suggest the councillors who made the decision to cover the amount from K Village should be made to pay it themselves, why should we suffer yet again from their incompetence........
Not all Councillors agreed that the money would definitely be forthcoming see here for the earlier warnings http://goo.gl/eKF1N
Unfortunately Tims team seem quite fond of gambling taxpayers money and then brushing it aside when it goes wrong, which is time and time again. Lets not forget the cash given to Lakes swimming just before it went bust (twice), the illegal charging of Lake Windermere users that will cost many tens of thousands of pounds, the fact that SLDC are being sued by disabled drivers, and so on.
On the flip side, people keep voting for Tim and his colleagues (and the Lib Dems at SLDC won't do anything that doesn't have Tims blessing) so I guess there must be support for this then?

Report this post »

Lakeuk says...
12:46pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Heard Councillor Ian Stewart on Radio Cumbria this morning being interviewed about parking revenues SLDC takes in of which out of a total of around £4 million there is around £2 million which supports council services so people using local SLDC car parks are paying around a 50% premium. May or may not be of concern to anyone.

But when the questions moved towards what the council is doing to support local retailers, Ian's response what effectively that the council doesn't consult with the local retailers because it's too difficult, the mandate he's given the council is to just maintain the £2million profit that car parking provides to council budget. I wouldn't like to be a local retailer.

Report this post »

sklanc says...
12:53pm Wed 9 Jan 13

life cycle too wrote:
sklanc wrote:
it's unlikely that this monstrous carbuncle will become a normal shopping centre with the usual supermarkets and popular shops as part of the planning consent was based around it not competing with the town centre etc so my money is on the conversion to flats as suggested by an earlier comment.
So what about the businesses that had outlets at the K Village AND in town?

Why would anyone think that potential customers would travel miles to visit a set of shops that they could find on their OWN high streets... AND pay dearly to park there?
Those who chose to ignore this fact when permissions were being given should face up to their incompetence, and prevented from making the same mistakes again with any other planning issue... such as Gilkes and their supermarket site!
generally business that have stores at k village and in town are not in competition with each other ! ie the money ends up in the same till eventually. To simply if for you , it was part of the consent that stores such as supermarkets, newsagents, butchers, flowershops etc would not be allowed to operate at k village due to the effect upon town centre businesses .

Report this post »

bantambelle says...
2:43pm Wed 9 Jan 13

snuggle-bunny wrote:
none of the 100 or so flats have yet been sold as they have not been passed by building control. Im also interested to know about how the council plans to recoup the £100,000 loan it gave, or doesnt it Not that it really matters as the council tax payer is paying
not true- there is someone living there- go and look!

Report this post »

snuggle-bunny says...
4:55pm Wed 9 Jan 13

zaney5 wrote:
craggy wrote:
All of you who new this would happen are clearly delighted, I'm very happy for you all.
You're very welcome Craggy.
lol

Report this post »

snuggle-bunny says...
5:01pm Wed 9 Jan 13

itscommonsense wrote:
In principle this should have worked, as it was a better option than converting the rest of the old factory to new uses, which is usually a nightmare to make viable. The old outlet worked perfectly well, so what went wrong?

I blame the design. Faceless road frontage which left the shops and people invisible, bland corporate style and utterly soul-less design which was poorly finished to a low budget. Even a slightly shabby revamped factory was better than this. Next came the parking fees - enough said on that. Then the choice of shops - I used to go to the old outlet regularly, but one visit to this one was enough, and any of the decent outlets were duplicated in the town centre, so no need to go back for the rest of the tat on offer.

And don't underestimate the sense of betrayal felt by Kendalians at the asset stripping carried out by Clarks when they took over. We felt bonded to the old factory, it was part of Kendal's heritage, but this was just an opportunistic money spinning enterprise by some profiteering developer. It's a shame it failed, but it was doomed from the day the plans were approved. SLDC planners should take a good portion of the blame for agreeing to this grossly substandard development.
here here- well said

Report this post »

Geoff103 says...
5:06pm Wed 9 Jan 13

"SLDC planners should take a good portion of the blame for agreeing to this grossly substandard development."

SLDC is now virtually a 'rotten borough'. Its councillors and MP no better than mountebanks who can be relied up to be wrong in every regard on any and every issue of the day, both locally and nationally.

Yet, they appear to be impervious to normal electoral politics.

Report this post »

gadgetgadget says...
6:54pm Wed 9 Jan 13

TomHarvey wrote:
nickjohn wrote:
carlsonsfish wrote:
Hang on. Werent these people going to pay for half of the shambles on kirkland and SLDC deferred that half for later on? Does this mean Kendal ratepayers will be footing the whole bill for the unwanted Kirkland "improvements" ?!
From what I remember the councillors were adamant that the money would be forthcoming and that it was at no risk to the rate payers.

This being so then I suggest the councillors who made the decision to cover the amount from K Village should be made to pay it themselves, why should we suffer yet again from their incompetence........
Not all Councillors agreed that the money would definitely be forthcoming see here for the earlier warnings http://goo.gl/eKF1N
Unfortunately Tims team seem quite fond of gambling taxpayers money and then brushing it aside when it goes wrong, which is time and time again. Lets not forget the cash given to Lakes swimming just before it went bust (twice), the illegal charging of Lake Windermere users that will cost many tens of thousands of pounds, the fact that SLDC are being sued by disabled drivers, and so on.
On the flip side, people keep voting for Tim and his colleagues (and the Lib Dems at SLDC won't do anything that doesn't have Tims blessing) so I guess there must be support for this then?
Hate to say I told you so approximately a year ago ... but it's come true.

http://goo.gl/eKF1N

Not having a pop at you personally Tom but just wonder whether you now might want to reconsider your stance (and maybe some other councillors) on recalling decisions when large amounts of money are being spent basically on a promise ?

£100k lost is an awful lot of money that is no longer going to be available either to other perhaps more needy projects or some form of local taxation increase will have to re-coup it e.g. increased parking fees (again).

I don't take any joy in saying I told you so at all, but perhaps there are some serious lessons that not only SLDC councillors should learn from this but also the planning department. It would be a travesty to the area if a similar development is allowed to go ahead in future without a proper assessment of the knock-on effects etc and especially if public money is effectively loaned to private companies.

Report this post »

gadgetgadget says...
6:56pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Geoff103 wrote:
"SLDC planners should take a good portion of the blame for agreeing to this grossly substandard development."

SLDC is now virtually a 'rotten borough'. Its councillors and MP no better than mountebanks who can be relied up to be wrong in every regard on any and every issue of the day, both locally and nationally.

Yet, they appear to be impervious to normal electoral politics.
Starts at the top Geoff ... and permeates down.

I've still got a record of a conversation I had with Peter Thornton about this very issue and his VERY flippant answers.

They ALL need a serious headwobble imo.

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
7:50pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Have just listened to the radio interview.. I find it hard to believe we allow these idiots to have control over the spending of our money - its not there money but our hard earned money....

If I went into the bank and asked them to give me £100k and that a third party would be paying it back at some point in the future they would laugh me out of the door... Any finance director, of any company, would be on the verge of loosing their job had they made the same mistake so why are these idiots untouchable.

Had they taken the very simple steps of doing a quick credit check to ensure that ratepayers money was safe they would have seen there were problems.

Report this post »

hemyfan says...
7:54pm Wed 9 Jan 13

ellakathryn wrote:
having a primark would attract people from all around the lakes and cumbria, as the nearest ones are preston and blackpool, and the same with nandos. right now I personally would only ever go in new look, topshop and dorothy perkins as they are the only clothes shops that may even slightly appear to the younger generation! K village is aimed totally at the elder generation, and there isn't one shop I as an 18 year old would go in. The younger generation tend to shop somewhere else such as Lancaster, which is a shame that we should have to travel when there is a town on our doorstep with plenty of empty places that could be filled with shops!
I'm over 60 and the clothes in there depress me!

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
8:08pm Wed 9 Jan 13

The original financials showed that for the development to work they would need a three fold increase in footfall compared to the old village and thousands of coaches per year..

Do people really think a Primark or Nandos will generate this sort of footfall or coaches??

As for a bowling alley the one in Barrow closed years ago due to lack of business and a local business man started to build one in Kendal and gave up half way through due to lack of interest..

Too really make it work it will need a single business which can utilise a site of that size e.g supermarket and for that to happen the councillors / planners will have to get their heads out their a**** and stop thinking of Gilkes development and accept something needs to be done today and not 5 years time... Or, at least 10 national chains who between them will attract the customers, problem there is how do you persuade these people to invest in a failed development which has inherent problems in a recession..

Another option could be to turn the office space into a casino.... Especially as SLDC like a gamble..

Report this post »

hemyfan says...
8:33pm Wed 9 Jan 13

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-northern-ir
eland-14219738
This 18 month old bbc news item says the Northern Irish development company Valto (ex Cusp) owned by brothers Shamus and Thomas Jennings, "regularly rated as among the wealthiest people in Northern Ireland" sold Kendal Riverside Ltd for "just £1..... It is not clear who the purchasers were." Who were they?why £1?; who was tracking with due dilligence the money from SLDC in this giveaway? Come on Gazette! Find out.Or at least ask the questions.

Report this post »

1207 says...
9:18pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Lets cut the crap, nothing we can do or say will make a shred of diffrence. what we must do is not allow SLDC to waste anymore of our money on the K Village Site.
The outcome is in the hands of others who have no connection to Kendal.

Report this post »

hemyfan says...
9:29pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Back in 2005 property week reported that;
".....some critics question the commercial success of Cusp’s schemes. One developer, who did not want to be named, said: ‘Can you tell me which Cusp (KVs developer) scheme has ever traded well?’
Junction One came in for criticism from some local agents for being a ‘visit once and never again’ scheme. Some also say that the retail mix and trading figures at Lisburn Square are poor.....Jennings’ response to criticism is blunt: ‘We are not worried about people talking out of their arse..."
Oh dear.

Report this post »

nickjohn says...
9:51pm Wed 9 Jan 13

1207 wrote:
Lets cut the crap, nothing we can do or say will make a shred of diffrence. what we must do is not allow SLDC to waste anymore of our money on the K Village Site.
The outcome is in the hands of others who have no connection to Kendal.
Isn't that the problem for to long we have sat back, listened and done nothing isn't it about time those responsible were held accountable.

There were numerous signs they should not spend the £100k before they had been given it but they took no notice and carried on regardless, do we really want those people in control of our money..

And when you listen to the radio interview they sound like school children not adults and not people looking for a solution more looking to cover their own arse....

Report this post »

onelocal says...
10:36pm Wed 9 Jan 13

hemyfan wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-northern-ir

eland-14219738
This 18 month old bbc news item says the Northern Irish development company Valto (ex Cusp) owned by brothers Shamus and Thomas Jennings, "regularly rated as among the wealthiest people in Northern Ireland" sold Kendal Riverside Ltd for "just £1..... It is not clear who the purchasers were." Who were they?why £1?; who was tracking with due dilligence the money from SLDC in this giveaway? Come on Gazette! Find out.Or at least ask the questions.
The same Shamus Jennings who said, quote " what we try to do is something that gives a little back to the community rather than try to be some greedy little bol*loc*ks who squeezes every last penny out of a development and then pi*ss*es off " unquote.
Looks like they did. SLDC planning committee needs to look in the mirror

Report this post »

Geoff103 says...
8:27am Thu 10 Jan 13

Gadgetgadget:" Starts at the top Geoff ... and permeates down.

I've still got a record of a conversation I had with Peter Thornton about this very issue and his VERY flippant answers. "

Indeed. And yet the list of instances of SLDC incompetence and financial recklessness goes on and on:

K Village,
New Parking meters
Tesco/Sainsburys planning applications
New Road Car parking
Cannabis farm in redundant Public Conveniences

On and on and on. And come next DC elections, will the LibDem fools be turned out?

On the evidence of recent Police Commissioner elections, the answer is 'No'. It is both a modern day mystery and scandal that Tim Farron and his acolytes have turned the area into a 'rotten borough' and the voters into sheep.

Report this post »

Kent123 says...
8:31am Thu 10 Jan 13

Why are my council tax and business rates being used to produce "news" on the SLDC website which is little more than a statement to protect Peter Thornton's back, in the event of an inquiry into his handling of this sorry tale?

http://www.southlake
land.gov.uk/newsroom
/news-stories/counci
l-news/8-january---t
he-benefits-that.asp
x

Report this post »

jazzactivist says...
12:03pm Thu 10 Jan 13

This was obviously going to be the situation from day one. Kendal didn't need this type of mainstream shopping centre, and could never support it. There were indications of trouble right from the beginning - first the plans were passed because the owners said that they were going to house the Kendal shoe museum in the main tower then, once they had the permission, reneged and put it in a back room blaming the recession, which had hardly begun by then! Lots of the building is unfinished and empty, and there have been desperate attempts to bring in money such as running a craft fair in a room full of rubble and temporary lighting just to get the tiny amount of stall money!

Kendal is an attractive town that is the only place in and around the Lakes that already where there are already some mainstream shops for those who want to shop in them, and that is enough. Everyone else likes the small independent shops that make the town worth going to. K-Village should be turned into affordable housing, rather than leave it as a white elephant. We certainly don't need to go even more downmarket with a Primark!

Report this post »

lightcatcher says...
12:07pm Thu 10 Jan 13

The problem with K village is the same as the problem with Kendal as a whole,it is behind the times by 5 years(at least)
all we hear from retailers in town is moaning about,roadworks,park
ing,traffic or anything else they can blame for lack of trade,where really the problem is the retailers dont move with the times.on the whole Kendal shops are dated,why would you shop here when you can be in Manchester or Liverpool in a little over an hour??
and that is the problem with K village,they tried to recreate something that was successful 15 years ago! what it needs is cheap rents/short leases to allow new small retailers with fresh ideas,something like the pop-up shop scene that is massive in london and other cities,but it will never happen because,your Kendalians and you dont like change!!!

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
1:45pm Thu 10 Jan 13

There's a shoe museum there? All the times I've walked through and never seen it!

Report this post »

itscommonsense says...
2:26pm Thu 10 Jan 13

We can wish for major retailers and supermarkets to come here all we want, but ultimately it's up to them, and they'll (quite understandably) only decide to come if the market and projected sales figures stack up for them. The unit sizes are too small for most of the big outlets like Primark, and sadly the building's quite the wrong shape for something more interesting like a bowling alley, nor will the retail units readily convert to housing.

It still amazes me that the developers through this scheme would work when even the Westmorland Centre, Wainwrights Yard and Blackhall Yard, also the Morrisons site on Shap Road, as well as the high street, always have empty units, some of which have been vacant for years. As someone else said, they were just sucked into believing their own hype, and so were the planners.

My own view is that with extensive remodelling, the site would be suitable for a supermarket, and any of the remaining smaller units could perhaps provide specialist foods, shoppers' cafe etc. This would certainly be cheaper than the huge cost of developing a new site, and would find a use for this great white elephant. The planners need to salvage their reputation from this and have the courage to revisit the issue of the new supermarket site - Gilkes and the pie-in-the-sky canal development may have to wait - let's face it, no-one can raise the money for this in the foreseeable future in this climate, so we may as well snatch this site from the jaws of defeat meanwhile.

Report this post »

lakesailor says...
5:17pm Thu 10 Jan 13

"It still amazes me that the developers through this scheme would work when even the Westmorland Centre, Wainwrights Yard and Blackhall Yard, also the Morrisons site on Shap Road, as well as the high street, always have empty units, some of which have been vacant for years. As someone else said, they were just sucked into believing their own hype, and so were the planners."

You and me both.

How anyone could sit down with a roomful of people and plan to spend that sort of money in the Hell-hole that was the K Village site, believing they would turn a profit, beggars belief.

It wasn't the remit of the SLDC to point that out, but a bit of strategic pre-positioning could have scuppered the chances of the debacle even starting.
The problem with Councils is that in their very nature they are political, when what is needed is a cohesive body, the members of which can all sing in tune.

Report this post »

Kent123 says...
5:46pm Thu 10 Jan 13

The latest set of accounts for Kendal Riverside Limited for the 18 months to 31 March 2011 were filed at Companies House on 24 December 2011.

These accounts were available when Peter Thornton and his “cabinet” decided to go ahead with the Highgate improvements, having allowed Kendal Riverside to defer the £100,000 contribution towards the cost.

The auditor’s (PricewaterhouseCoop
ers LLP) report highlights the uncertainty of Kendal Riverside’s financial position:

The company incurred a loss of £40,198,109 during the period ended 31 March 2011and at that date the company had net current liabilities of £71,656,581. Material uncertainties have been identified in respect of the financing of the company’s operations as current [banking} facilities have expired and currently stand at £55,236,240. This therefore may cast significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

Enough said.

Report this post »

Geoff103 says...
5:51pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Kent123.

Indeed, as you say, enough said.

Report this post »

JBean2 says...
7:37pm Fri 11 Jan 13

itscommonsense wrote:
We can wish for major retailers and supermarkets to come here all we want, but ultimately it's up to them, and they'll (quite understandably) only decide to come if the market and projected sales figures stack up for them. The unit sizes are too small for most of the big outlets like Primark, and sadly the building's quite the wrong shape for something more interesting like a bowling alley, nor will the retail units readily convert to housing.

It still amazes me that the developers through this scheme would work when even the Westmorland Centre, Wainwrights Yard and Blackhall Yard, also the Morrisons site on Shap Road, as well as the high street, always have empty units, some of which have been vacant for years. As someone else said, they were just sucked into believing their own hype, and so were the planners.

My own view is that with extensive remodelling, the site would be suitable for a supermarket, and any of the remaining smaller units could perhaps provide specialist foods, shoppers' cafe etc. This would certainly be cheaper than the huge cost of developing a new site, and would find a use for this great white elephant. The planners need to salvage their reputation from this and have the courage to revisit the issue of the new supermarket site - Gilkes and the pie-in-the-sky canal development may have to wait - let's face it, no-one can raise the money for this in the foreseeable future in this climate, so we may as well snatch this site from the jaws of defeat meanwhile.
With your final paragraph you hit the nail right on the head. The stage is set for a supermarket to move in. We have have been duped into agreeing that this is probably the best solution for this White Elephant. Prior to the development the chance of a supermarket moving in would have been much lower.

What I question is why people assume the developers ever did think this scheme would work? Where is the evidence for that?

Report this post »

fitzsi says...
8:59am Sun 13 Jan 13

All this talk about supermarkets and more shops. What we need is a meeting place where everyone (families, grannies, teenagers etc) can meet up and have fun in a safe environment.

I'm a Mum and I struggle to find things to do with my kids (aged 10 and 5) in Kendal. I think it's time for a modern and trendy sports complex (ice rink, swim with flumes, bowling, crazy golf etc) so that our kids are encouraged to be active and socialise more. This may encourage more kids to stop under-age drinking, smoking and sleeping around.

There are rumours of the Leisure Centre on Burton Road extending their building. Is this an opportunity for Leisure Centre to move to a modern building and provide Kendal with better facilities?

Report this post »

Adamrules says...
9:39am Sun 13 Jan 13

It was a shame that k village turned hmv down a few years ago, even though they now appear to be struggling. The redevelopment of k village begun as the recession was kicking off, so it would have been interesting to see how well it did in a "boom" period. You only have to go to places like Cheshire oaks to see all the different shops on offer, they have such a good choice, if k village was to attract 5-10 of those businesses then it may have a chance of being saved. But you also need a chain type restaurant like a nando's/ Frankie and benys to pull people in. If the right products were on offer in there, people would start going again! I remember 6 months ago romneys/kendal arms never had a car in the car park, and now look at it! A mini debenhams could be a good idea.

Report this post »

dragonhigher says...
8:09pm Sun 13 Jan 13

does anyone know the real story behind the flats which are unsold? Are they even being advertised for sale anywhere or are they unfinished??

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
10:09am Mon 14 Jan 13

http://www.kendalriv
ersideapartments.co.
uk/

I have one of them advertised by Carter Jonas - at £180,000 for a 1 bedroom flat I hardly think they'll be many takers!

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
10:10am Mon 14 Jan 13

Sorry.... I have SEEN one of them....

Report this post »

Adam_Kendal says...
12:00pm Mon 14 Jan 13

SLDC should look at what when wrong and who in the planning department is responsible and He / She/ Them should be dismissed on the grounds of incompetence. Let’s get someone in who is actually qualified or has the business acumen to make these decisions.

It’s clear they did not base the decisions on sound investigations or proposals, rather on what worked politically to make them (Lib-Dem's??) look good.

It’s a disgrace! Heads must Roll for this failure!!

Report this post »

Adam_Kendal says...
12:05pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Further more... What is Carter Jonas's stance on this, did they value the properties and get the prices grossly wrong?

£180k for a 1 bedroom flat seems way off the mark IMHO. If they could even sell them, since they are sinking and not yet passed by he building inspector. Added to which the carpark keeps flooding.

Rant over, time for lunch.

Report this post »

newcmr says...
12:52pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Just after the centre opened we tried to access the flats. The staff on the help desk had no clue about a sales office and indeed seemed surprised that we had seen stories in the press about the flats being available. Eventually we discovered Carter Jonas were the agents but they never answered the phone and the office shuts at weekends. There was a sales office I think for a short while and lots of ads on Rightmove but then it all went quiet. By that time there were stories about leaks and floods and the paint was peeling on the shops so it seemed a good idea to give the flats a wide berth! The whole complex seems to have build quality issues as well as economic ones.

Report this post »

Lakeuk says...
7:22pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Adam- Not sure why you feel council planning should have their head on a stick, K Village wasn't built by them

Report this post »

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