Response from Mr & Mrs Peter Duxbury (Individual)
1. Mr & Mrs Peter Duxbury (Individual) : 14 Dec 2015 20:10:00
Discussion Paper section
6. Options for Meeting the Objectives and Delivering the Vision
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
SITE B31
this proposal would double the size of the caravan site - Slackhead a short distance to the north is already massively busy when the 4 large caravan caravan sites to the south are fully utilised - the area cannot withstand yet more strain on its infrastructure
SITE B73
this area is a nationally designated toxic waste dump with steel upstands dotted around the site that vent toxic gases - a more ridiculous place for housing development is hard to credit - regardless a development on this scale will do nothing for the local ambience that visitors seek in the wooded area around the site - the road system is inadequate to serve more housing development
SITE B74
the road past the site is inadequate to serve more housing development - there are no sewer services to the site - the junction at Slackhead and the and the bridge over the Leighton Beck are pinch points that are getting increasingly busy
SITE B75
this area is common land and should not be presented for housing development by presumably the local estate who have 'manorial rights' to it I believe - there are no sewer systems and it is located at a busy intersection of small roads - if anything it should be developed as car park (free) for vacationers / walkers wishing to access the 'Fairy Steps' - there is presently nowhere for people to park other than on the verge of Leighton Beck Rd., which due to the volume of traffic on this narrow country road is an unsafe option
SITE B76
this area is massive in relation to the existing housing developed in the 60's - it has no safe road access, no mains sewerage, is partly on designated limestone pavement and has been thoroughly objected to by signed petition by local residents which was placed on the SLDC website less than 2 years ago - it is totally unsuited for housing development on a number of grounds
SITE 109
this is a large development relative to what presently exists in a village that has no services - the road system is already challenged and has had traffic calming measures applied not with total success
Are there any topics or issues that you think we have missed or that you wish to raise?
the various large caravan sites and the impact they have on the local infrastructure should not be ignored - the no.s of people they bring to the area already stresses the roads (pollution / noise / danger to walkers / cyclists) heavily to varying levels trough the year - more houses won't improve the situation
Do you have any comments to make on the Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (Nov 2015) associated with the Issues and Options Discussion Paper?
the AONB is somewhere for people to relax and unwind in and needs to be carefully protected and watched over otherwise it will cease to serve the purpose it has been designated for - as the UK gets ever more crowded and busy we should be very mindful of the danger of development that will degrade the area - the AONB should resist any opportunist attempts to develop it in inappropriate directions
one only has to look at what an unpleasant mess has been made of the area around the motorway jnc36 to see what can happen to unspoilt ground when development is not very carefully contained in this very special part of the world
