Burneside Neighbourhood Plan 2017
​​
Burneside Neighbourhood Planning Team
Land Allocation Sessions – Bryce Institute

Tuesday 7 March and Thursday 9 March 2017
Feedback from both sessions

Note, The following are the actual verbatim comments from members of the team - this analysis together with all other information gained over the last months will now go for professional assessment.    The consultation process will be live for many more weeks and your contributions are always welcome. . . . .

PLAYGROUND
Contentious. However a) people don’t notice the playground b) potentially dangerous crossing main road
Should be re-located in a better place
Could be re-located, so long as a similar or better playground can be found. Otherwise, leave well alone
It’s a good location. But, what about an alternative facility? Where and what would it be used for in another location?
Do not build. Open space to use for pub garden and ball games for children. Use corner of school for new playground?
Leave well alone. Too contentious for the time being. Why compromise this NP when there is so little gain.
Should not be developed.
I feel strongly that taking all green space from the children is wrong. This is in the centre of the village and is used daily. I see strong objection.

BOWLING GREEN
Good location. Replacement for bowling green on sports site?
It would be preferable having some leisure/green sites witin village rather than all on the edge. Facility could be provided elsewhere but removing to edge has less community feel.
Leave as village resource.
Consider as an element/space for potential energy centre, for distribution of community-owned energy centre (small shed size only).
Should be considered as part of a recreational/sports/leisure strategy.
Established. Not necessary, Should not be moved.
Leave well alone, unless better site can be found. Nice to have green space and sports facility next to residential sites.
I see advantages and disadvantages of grouping sports all together.
Same feeling as with Holmes Houses re. entrance and exit.
Very heavy (traffic?) at this side of village.

BEHIND HOLME HOUSES
Flood risk? Access?
Not necessary, if allocations up road along to Bowston.
Traffic already a massive issue.
Parking a nightmare.
Already taking away our green space opposite (at Willink Field). Aren’t we entitled to some green space?
Entrance to the site a worry.
Very heavy (residential?) at this side of the village
Impact on residents and children etc.
Housing will overwhelm.
Loss of amenity for Holme Houses residents, but good infill.
Access? Otherwise, perfect as residential, instead of sprawling towards Bowston. More people centrally located.
Good site if it enables local residents to park behind houses.
Very logical infill.
Excellent site. Infill and compact. Flood issues? Access?
Retain footpath/access along river edge.
Excellent site. Access?

BOWSTON SW/SE
Good sites, but what about improved road infrastructure to cope with access and more traffic.
(SE)Reduce plot to tie in with southern end of SW plot.
(SW)Good for commercial/housing mix
Both sites excellent, to development Bowston, as mixed use sites
It would enhance the new brewery business in Bowston. What a marvellous little enterprise.
Unsure about these sites

BOWSTON ROAD NW/NE
Good idea.
Good choice. But watch access, as it is near blind brow on the road.
(NE/NW/SE/SW) These new residential units, built to very high efficiency, could potentially benefit from ‘low grade’ heat generation e.g water /ground source heat pumps and off site solar PV generation.
Has potential. Quite natural extension. Of village boundary.
Better some development on edges and keep some green /leisure facilities more central.
Full support proposed new development on both sides of Bowston Road. A natural extension to the village. Keep and create more green space within the village.
Unsure about these sites.

BOWSTON ROAD SW/SE
See above

HOUSEMAN TENEMENT NE/SW
Good idea
(NE) Flood risk for Tenement barns
(NE) No mains drainage. Drainage from septic tanks could cause more flooding.
Field below turns into a lake and backs up into farmyard, lifting drains.
Good location. Go for it.
Landscape issue. Very prominent site hillside.
(NE) flooding risk for Tenement Farm, which flooded in 2015. Too far from village. House owners would drive to Kendal and would not be involved in rejuvenating the village.
Too far out from village. A development here won’t encourage use of village facilities.
Development would spoil rural aspect of the area.
Inappropriate development, outside of the village. The existing development is appropriate. Any more would be obtrusive and unnecessary. Surely there would be opposition from existing residents?
Roads unsuitable for increase in traffic.
Road over Sprint Bridge already congested. Traffic constantly has to back up for oncoming cars, vans etc.
Garnett Bridge Road also too narrow to these location, even if only short distance to the farm.
Beyond this site onto Garnett Bridge totally unsuitable for more traffic – and more people will take that route to the A6 for Shap and M6.
More housing here likely to be bought as holiday homes. No benefit to Burneside.
A development here isn’t necessarily going to improve the village feeling of Burneside, which is, I think, our main objective. It’s too far out to be considered part of the village.
Surely, any housing development should be either within the village or immediately adjacent to it.
From this development people will get in their cars and once in they are likely to go to Morrisons, Aldi etc. or into Kendal or Windermere. More traffic, no benefit to Burneside.
Nature of ground at this site. Flooding to existing properties has already happened. And may do again. A new development would exacerbate the problem.
In view of hardcore, footings, driveways etc. major engineering project. Could lead to further fields being ‘developed’. Till sprawl joins us to Kendal. Not Burneside’s planning team’s objectives.
Flooding. Access road not good for two cars.


ENGINE SHEDS
Prime for development. Shops, markets once a week. This could be a key site if train station is moved.
Good for housing.
So ugly now. Underused. Anything better (houses/stalls/shops). Bring life to this area.
An excellent development site, when considered with Station Yard, Melmore and Church Car Park. Fully support. Could potentially regenerate our village, with possibility of new station, shop, café, market. Lots of scope here.
What about underground car parking (an idea to consider for all new development)?
Prime position in centre of the village.
Good site.
Needs attention.

STATION YARD
Looks good for development, as proposed.
Active usage but ripe for development for housing once suitable site found in village for existing businesses.
An excellent site for housing development. With cohesive development at Engine sheds, Church car park and Melmore, it could create a really important central residential area.
Good land need further development.
Wasted space.
Is needed.

MELMORE GARDENS
Good location for houses.
Good location for housing.
Very good plot for housing. Close to heart of village. Easy access.
Excellent site, when considered with the surrounding development potential.
It’s central. A good site

SCHOOL
With more residences can the current school size cope?
Where would the new school be sited?
I feel that this is taking a step too far. I feel that the village would be up in arms. Perhaps a step too far. I understand it is a great site, very central and a great core to the village but isn’t a school already that. As a parent I am proud of the space and the facilities and as much as I appreciate that we could build a better and bigger I don’t think we could take this on.
If current is developed, would there be money to do it?
Heart of the village. Perfect location
School should NOT be developed
Must NOT be developed. Would create too much unnecessary opposition and would compromise the plan.
Don’t change the school.

GOWAN LEA
Why on earth consider this site. It would precipitate undue opposition.
Impractical due to age of existing buildings
Well chosen development.
Not impinging visually.
Central to village. Infilling area.
Good for housing.
Hidden by other buildings.
I think there would be opposition from the village.
Provides the community with a needed building.
Been updated recently.

HALL PARK NW
Too close to settling tanks and road.
Where would access for cars come from?
Flows naturally from Hall Park, as long as shielded from Tanks etc.
Good site for housing.
Near village.
Natural extension to Hall Park. High quality, sustainable housing to enhance the existing estate.
A good site to think about.
Extension of what’s there already.


SETTLING TANKS
Problems with flooding?
Fields often sodden in winter.
A step too far for this neighbourhood plan. Maybe something to work towards for the future.
If the whole site was available perhaps but with the tanks there very unsure. People will be looking into a busy estate. Is this a problem?


SETTLING TANKS FRONTAGE
Isn’t there bigger siteS to consider with better advantages?
Why not just make this area more green and attractive somehow? I proving the look of the village. It’s one of a number of small sites around the village that could be improved visually.

HALL PARK EXTENSION
Would need very careful landscaping or keep green.
Sensitive site, would need careful landscaping and design.
The surrounding green space (between development, The River Sprint and Kent, looking towards the golf club, could be an important asset to the village, as informal recreation.
Would access be across the River Kent from the Burneside Road?

CARLING STEPS
Concerned regarding access to the site – where would it be?
Seems good infill. Access?
Access?
Flooding is a real issue. Difficult access. Encroaching on green space between village and Kendal (however small).
Railway?
Good central position.
Few houses there. I can’t see a big issue with entending bungalows?
Floods.

CARLING HILL
Good location for houses
Looks good as desirable location.
Access?
Family homes.
Extension to the village entrance.
Road speeds up at that corner.

BEHIND CHURCHYARD
Landscape. 1 way traffic. With car parking spaces
So ugly! It is lacking in any design or attraction or landscaping
Pedestrianise? Potential to widen partially.
Pedestrianise and landscape. Mitigate against flooding.
Risk of flooding. Is a worry.
View of the Mill too close/noise.
Natural flow around village.

STEELES ROW
A prime site for a creative village centre.
Perfect for the development of the village core or centre, as shown in the Vision for Burneside.
Flooding.
People’s homes moving them and rehousing them.

CHURCH CAR PARK
It is used during the week as a car park (also on Sundays).
What is the alternative site for cars?
Do not develop. If you do where will people park?
It seems good within village development. A non-space at present, really dreary.
Would need to consider alternative parking options.
Great place for development. Currently an eyesore, especially the old loo block.
Connection at mill, church and potential new train station.
Prime for development.
Good central development. Shop/café or housing.
If mixed or otherwise, where would the residents & businesses park, without turning the middle of the village into yet more car parking?
Perhaps car parking behind/below for ¾ co-share cars and other cars/vans need to be parked peripherally. See Halton co-housing model.
Excellent development site for housing/shops etc. Would start to create a village high street, marrying in with the pub/chip shop etc.
Eyesore at the moment.
I think people would agree with this.

LAND BEHIND MILL (commercial)
We will need land for industrial units with the |Mill already being there. I suppose it’s a good site.
Strongly agree with this for commercial development.
Commercial development could include tourism, services and facilities perhaps.

NORTH OF MILL
A good tie for commercial development
All commercial development centrally located around the Mill would give the village real vibrancy. Think about movement and connectivity between sites and the village.
Sensitive landscaping around the boundary of commercial development could enhance the village.


ROGER ROW
A prime commercial site, showing off the Mill to the village, visitors etc., perhaps with shops, cafes etc. A great site for a heritage centre, celebrating the Mill, paper-making and our heritage generally.
Relocate housing alongside the river that flood

SOME GENERAL COMMENTS
In all these developments consider the ‘flow’ of people and their daily activity. Is there a way of ensuring an element of ‘intersection’/mixing, bumping into etc.
How will more hard surfaces exacerbate the local flood risk from ‘run off’ water?
If Burneside gets 300 more residential units, how do we stop the village from becoming a car park for another 600 cars?! Need to consider solutions/incentives/carrots and sticks!
Sports & Leisure: Consideration required of potential flow of children from school using these facilities – safety implications.
South of Football Pitch. Positive. A continuation/consolidation of sporting & amenity facilities

Feedback from Roe Baker – Alston Moor Partnership (invited as an observer)

Hi Tony and John

Thanks so much for your generosity and hospitality last night. I really enjoyed meeting some of the Burneside community.
I’m impressed with the enthusiasm and commitment you’re all putting into the process – it’s really inspiring to see people taking part and making the vision a reality.
My feedback from the meeting:

The maps and visuals (images) were really helpful – made the whole process so much more accessible. I personally struggle when just looking at a map and have been to consultations in the past where I’ve been able to input very little – simply because I don’t know where they’re talking about – having the images really supported the process, so it was well worth the time and effort this must have taken. I’ll certainly follow your lead on that.
·
Good to see SLDC and LDNP in attendance – it certainly felt like it was a partnership approach rather than an “us and them”.
·        
Talking to one participant – she mentioned how hard it was to allocate land without jumping ahead and thinking about what buildings and architectural designs would be situated on them – and I can see how hard that must be. I wondered once you have the land allocations confirmed whether you can utilise (budget permitting) some computerised visualisations of possible structural scenarios – I’ve seen this done for other things – (like a mine water treatment plant) and they can show the structures and surrounding landscapes in changing seasons – I found that really useful – so where there’s a natural tree line hiding commercial structures in summer – how this looks in winter, footpaths etc.

Thanks to Alan (?) who took me under his wing at the meeting and had a good chat about things, I think he does the Burneside past and present Facebook page – lots of lovely pictures and information / day to day happenings going on!
·        
Great to see how supportive and positive the Parish Council are and their drive.
·        
Process – transparency all important. Inclusivity – vital.

You’re not going to please everyone – you can only do your best!
I got a really quick impression of Burneside from my first visit in a dying light – how the mill dominates the village and the expanse of it. But even in that short time I saw walkers, cyclists, dogs, horses, people going to classes, the chip shop, kids, retirement residences, the mill and workers coming out – all gave the impression of a really dynamic community. I’m going to try and arrange an Alston mini bus visit – currently looking at late May, probably to co-inside if possible with a visit to the Lancaster Housing Coop and the Lune Hydro. Really looking forward to it and seeing you all again.

Thanks, I hope that’s helpful.

Look forward to hearing how things progress. I’m also now part of the Penrith Neighbourhood Planning Group so it will be interesting to see how they approach the process.