We are happy to support the principle of retractable canopies on buildings in the Conservation Area where they help to maintain or enhance a vibrant town centre economy and do not obscure important architectural detail as there is a history of similar structures shown by old photographs elsewhere in the town. We would obviously prefer that the detailed design was consistent with being in a Conservation Area and was of a traditional appearance, but note that detail is not clear from the plans or examples of similar canopies on other buildings provided with the application.

We strongly object to Item 1- Change of RWP and gutters materials from aluminum to plastic. Black colour finish will be kept.

This is not in accordance with guidance provided on the SLDC website relating to the Article 4 Direction and we do not feel it is appropriate in the Conservation Area, particularly as no details of profiles or sizes have been supplied that indicate the appearance would be similar to cast iron.

While we still have strong reservations regarding the scheme as a whole, we are pleased to see that a high quality specification has been adopted for the top rails and glass panels proposed for this location.

On the accompanying glass panel details drawing the notes say that “Stone cladding and coping stone detail to be as agreed in PAIDS and in accordance with the approved sample panels”. We have seen the current panel built with a soldier course of coping stones with the corners removed and consider that to be worse than the previously displayed low quality wonky square section soldier course. We consider that the area below the glass and indeed on all sections of the wall should be topped with lengths of substantial natural stone coping in lengths as has been used elsewhere in Kendal on bridges and walls on Aynam Road.

We note that nearly half of the proposed glass panels will be hidden from any but the closest views of the river or bridge by the large building proposed as part of the Stock Beck pumping station which will result in a walkway of considerably less than two metres width for most of its length and question and would question if it is necessary to have glass there at all.

We also note that the floodgates proposed at this location are expected to remain closed when not in use, in contrast to other floodgates proposed. This will present a large expanse (over six square metres) of blank black painted steel in a very prominent part of the Conservation Area and forming part of the setting of a Scheduled Monument. We do not consider that is an adequate response and would expect a more sympathetic treatment to be adopted, perhaps incorporating some artwork, either in relief or painted.