2 responses from Mrs Elaine Fishwick (Individual)
1. Mrs Elaine Fishwick (Individual) : 18 Dec 2015 10:21:00
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.
Affordable Homes - I note that there is an estimate of the number of homes required in the five years to 2019. I think that there should be some attempt to gauge when these homes would be required, I am concerned that once given the "green light" sites will be developed as per the "Whinney Fold" development in Silverdale. When this site was finished there were too few local people in a position to proceed with occupancy at the time of completion and the homes were offered in the Manchester area in order to fill some of the properties. Any building should be phased so that they actually benefit local people.
Employment and small scale industrial sites - again where is the evidence of companies wishing to locate to or expand within the AONB - I am very concerned that this document has been produced using some ration or percentage figures produced by central government, rather than local evidence.
Are there any topics or issues that you think we have missed or that you wish to raise?
The sites put forward for inclusion in the draft plan do not reflect the sensitivity of the local area - many will include large tracts of tree felling, many are in open countryside. With regard to more homes - the existing infrastructure is very limited. we have a CO-OP and butchers but these do not cater for one's entire weekly needs, so trips to Carnforth and further afield have to be made on a weekly basis. All the roads in and out of Silverdale are difficult making the area unsuitable for more employment sites - even small scale businesses rely on deliveries by large trucks, the village is often congested now with deliveries to local businesses.
Car transport is the main mode of transport as the buses are infrequent and the railway station is too far from the village - we do currently have the subsidised shuttle bus - but this is still expensive for those not eligible for a bus pass also if funding is withdrawn the station will become totally in accessible for many people.
2. Mrs Elaine Fishwick (Individual) : 18 Dec 2015 11:40:00
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.
S48 - East of Lindeth Close - this would be visually intrusive and require significant tree felling.
S50 - East of St Johns - This site should not be included as more houses on this site will erode an important open space and be intrusive and insensitive to the surrounding area.
S51 - This site would lend itself to no more than a couple of dwellings - any more would be too intrusive and require encroachment into the woods at the back.
S54 - This land should not be considered as the area is prone to flooding at the lower end and the access onto Cove Rd is very dangerous to both motorists and pedestrians. The narrow road is also the main route to Holgate's caravan site used by regular convoys of cars and caravans as well as delivery wagons and tractors and trailers going to and from the caravan site. This suggested allocation is between the two fields owned by the National Trust and any development here would destroy the uninterrupted flow of the landscape and adversely affect the setting of the ancient Farmstead at Bank House farm.
S52 - Hawes Villa - This area is unsuitable for any development due to the terrible access over the railway and at the junction at the top of the road.
S55, S57, S98 are all unsuitable for either homes or employment use - visually any developments would be detrimental and there are access issues.
Are there any topics or issues that you think we have missed or that you wish to raise?
I am concerned that the evidence included in this local plan has been largely based on overall national forecasts and trends and does not reflect the actual need at local level.
Silverdale has been a place of beauty and relaxation for many years, a place where people can escape from busy lives in towns and cities. ( caravan sites, RSPB, Leeds Children's holiday camp + day visitors throughout the year who enjoy the walks and trails in the area). We need to build on this and avoid the danger of becoming yet another mini town trying to be "all things to all men".
We need more up to date consultation with local people to determine who needs what and when.
Unfortunately affordable starter homes are not suitable for expanding young families - young couples are often forced to move on after the birth of their second child and consequently are back to square one being priced out of the market.
Similarly it is important for older residents to be able to move to a smaller property with in the area in order to be able to maintain existing social networks which are so important as people age.
We need to:
Be creative in how needs are met such as shared ownership of larger properties, conversion of single dwellings to flats or semis.
Look at learn from and explore successful projects in other areas such as shared ownership, self build eco homes etc.
Silverdale is a very special place so let's take the opportunity to make sure all needs are met in innovative ways that are not detrimental to the natural beauty of this area.
