Response from Mr Christopher Patching (Individual)
1. Mr Christopher Patching (Individual) : 5 Apr 2011 12:41:00
Or, other document if it does not appear in the list above
land allocations development plan document
Page
appendix 2 evidence base page 52
Paragraph no.
site reference R75 - Suitability/Viability
Do you support, oppose or support in part this section of the document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
We are confused by the remarks made in Appendix 2-Evidence Base for site R75 on Page 52.
Suitability - Says very good site near residential and benefits from good access off A6 and Princess Way. However the South Lakeland Employment and Housing Land Search Study identifies Site 2 (R75- Heversham and Leasgill) that the proposed access would be unacceptable to Cumbria Highways.
It goes on to say that it is pastoral grazing field set within largely pastoral area west of the A road. However it is located to the East of the A6.
Viability - says it is a level greenfield site. However it has been identified, in the fact file on page 6, that this field slopes steeply from the road (A6) and the topography of site would make development difficult. There are power lines and electricity sub station.
We are also surprised by the remark that there would be minimal visual impact experienced by residential properties which overlook the site.
Our house is built on the road side (with no paths) facing West over site R75. Behind us, to the East, the land rises sharply and because of this our house is built into the hillside at the back with all rooms facing to the front (to the West) over site R75.
The summary of the main issues raised by members of the public during consultation (Page 11 of the interim consultation statement) included concerns regarding the impact on existing residential amenity and the loss of existing local amenity such as views, environment quality and landscape character.
We have tried to expressed, through the consultation process, the damage not just to our own loss of views, privacy and outlook; but that of the wider community through the loss of an existing local amenity at this valued viewpoint over open countryside towards the coast. People often stop outside our house to take in the open views over towards the coast from the village.
It is also a prominent steep site which would have an adverse visual impact on character of village from the coastal path where public access is widely used. The significant impact on views was identified on page 6 of the fact file for site R75 and we feel it should therefore be reflected in the evidence base (as it was site R109 and R164 ).
It is also adjacent to the flood zone and regularly floods at the access point to the site along the A6.
P.S. We cannot find the original response we submitted back in February 2009, to which this relates, on your consultation database. However we did receive an acknowledgement of our response from Alastair McNeill at the time dated 9th March 2009. Your Ref: AmcN/60.12.43.
Please can you look into this and confirm that you still have this on record.
