Residents have objected in droves to controversial plans for around 160 homes on the edge of Kendal.
Objectors are concerned that the project on land to the east of Hayclose Road would make traffic issues worse, lead to flooding and place further strain on services.
Alan Bell, working with planning consultant Steven Abbott Associates, is seeking outline permission for around 160 properties. They would be built on grassland currently used for agricultural purposes and a third field used as Kendal driving range.
But residents have expressed grave concerns about the project.
Julia Patten, of Hayclose Crescent, said: “I went online recently to make a GP appointment and had to wait six weeks. Newcomers to this area will add to the existing burden on overstretched GPs and some hospital services.
“Whoever is responsible for granting planning permission has to ensure that local services are not overwhelmed.”
Ken Leech, of Howe Bank Close, said roads in the Kendal Parks area were narrow and ‘inevitably restricted by parked cars all the time’.
“The buses already struggle to make reasonable headway along Hayclose Road,” he said.
“Much of the traffic that would be generated by this proposed development would find its way into Kendal Parks, causing even more congestion.”
Lucy Maclennan, of Hayclose Crescent, said: “The sun rises to the rear of my property. In winter months, when the sun is lower in the sky, it is often already partially obscured by the trees at the top of the embankment.
“A density of solid houses and a screen of trees and hedgerow would serve to effectively block out all sunlight and overshadow the existing properties.”
Consultee Larissa Robson, of Howe Bank Close, which is adjacent to the proposed site, said the development land had ‘little existing capacity’ to absorb rainfall ‘particularly after heavy downpours’.
“If housing, roads and pavements are to be built on this, it will only funnel water downhill into existing houses,” she said.
Cumbria County Council’s highways department recommended the application for refusal on the grounds that ‘insufficient information is provided’.
The county council also, in its capacity as the lead local flood authority, recommended the application for refusal on the grounds of ‘insufficient information’ and an ‘inappropriate drainage proposal’.
Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service raised no objections.
