76 new homes at Kendal given the go-ahead

RESIDENTS have been left ‘devastated’ after a council approved plans for a a 76-home estate.

The development, off Natland Road, Kendal, on almost five hectares of former parkland, was rubberstamped despite objections from 55 local residents, Natland Parish Council, Kendal Town Council and Kendal Civic Society.

“The styles of the houses proposed are more suited to a suburb in Surrey,” neighbour, Philip Livesey, told planners at a meeting last Thursday.

“The scale and design of this proposed development are totally wrong for this sensitive site.”

His wife, Mary Livesey, added: “These houses haven’t been designed for a Kendal landscape – with names like the Greenwich, the Westminster and the Mayfair they have more in common with a Monopoly board.

“If Kendal is to retain any of its unique charm then the design, quality and sensitivity of any new builds should reflect that.”

Dozens of letters submitted to the council questioned whether Kendal had enough employment for its new residents. They also said the new homes would ‘overlook and shadow’ existing properties, while the estate would ‘destroy’ the area’s character.

But planning committee members said they were bound by land allocation plans, which identified Natland Mill Beck as one of 88 sights suitable for development in the area.

“If we were to object to this we would be blown out of the water on appeal,” said Councillor David Williams.

Coun Brian Cooper continued: “I can see the residents objections, but I have to agree with Councillor Williams...we’ve really got to go with this one I’m afraid.”

Councillors voted to approve the plans, with delegated authority, on the condition that 26 of the homes be ‘affordable’.

“I’m just devastated,” said a distraught Mrs Livesey after the meeting. “The last seven months have been hell and I’m just so upset the plans have been approved.”

But Daniel Barton, on behalf of the developer, told councillors: “We want it to be a high quality and sustainable development.”

He said Story Homes would provide new bus stops and improved road crossing, and create cycle links.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:30pm Tue 3 Dec 13

snuggle-bunny says...

shame the people who are complaining didnt think about that when they bought and moved into their homes which where once green fields etc- the phrases 'I'm allright Jack' and 'not in my back yard' spring to mind. If they don't like it they can allways move
shame the people who are complaining didnt think about that when they bought and moved into their homes which where once green fields etc- the phrases 'I'm allright Jack' and 'not in my back yard' spring to mind. If they don't like it they can allways move snuggle-bunny

9:54pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Lakeuk says...

So the local plan comes into effect, submit a plan for one of the 88 sites for guarantee of getting the rubber approval stamp.
So the local plan comes into effect, submit a plan for one of the 88 sites for guarantee of getting the rubber approval stamp. Lakeuk

1:45pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Red Doc says...

snuggle-bunny wrote:
shame the people who are complaining didnt think about that when they bought and moved into their homes which where once green fields etc- the phrases 'I'm allright Jack' and 'not in my back yard' spring to mind. If they don't like it they can allways move
There is a difference between a community growing organically over centuries and, as in this case, adding an estate of 76 houses on to a community of 19 houses. Some people like living in cities, some in towns and some in the country, there should be room for people to make there choice in this matter, without their choice being taken away from them. To say people can move is just plain stupid, moving at the best of times is expensive, but when your property has got planning blight, for ordinary working people is just impossible.
[quote][p][bold]snuggle-bunny[/bold] wrote: shame the people who are complaining didnt think about that when they bought and moved into their homes which where once green fields etc- the phrases 'I'm allright Jack' and 'not in my back yard' spring to mind. If they don't like it they can allways move[/p][/quote]There is a difference between a community growing organically over centuries and, as in this case, adding an estate of 76 houses on to a community of 19 houses. Some people like living in cities, some in towns and some in the country, there should be room for people to make there choice in this matter, without their choice being taken away from them. To say people can move is just plain stupid, moving at the best of times is expensive, but when your property has got planning blight, for ordinary working people is just impossible. Red Doc

5:05pm Wed 4 Dec 13

snuggle-bunny says...

growing organically over the centuries- we're on about a cultural backwater not a tree. I cant wait for them to be built as Im hoping to buy one.
growing organically over the centuries- we're on about a cultural backwater not a tree. I cant wait for them to be built as Im hoping to buy one. snuggle-bunny

5:16pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Red Doc says...

snuggle-bunny wrote:
growing organically over the centuries- we're on about a cultural backwater not a tree. I cant wait for them to be built as Im hoping to buy one.
We can do without people like you for a neighbour!
[quote][p][bold]snuggle-bunny[/bold] wrote: growing organically over the centuries- we're on about a cultural backwater not a tree. I cant wait for them to be built as Im hoping to buy one.[/p][/quote]We can do without people like you for a neighbour! Red Doc

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