Response from Mr Robert Harvey (Individual)
1. Mr Robert Harvey (Individual) : 27 Jun 2017 16:29:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on these proposals. My wife and I are opposed to inclusion of additional sites B116 and B79 as these are currently green fields used for agricultural and equestrian purposes and given the special protection given to such areas in an AONB should not even be considered for development of any sort.
These fields have previously been considered for development by SLDC and rejected. To quote from the SLDC's site assessment spreadsheet - "Site B79 is not being taken forward because of significant landscape impacts. Farmland adjoining residential development. Same owner as 77. Site not suitable for development: cannot mitigate landscape impact of developing site"
"Site B116 is not being taken forward because of significant landscape impacts. Same as B121. Farmland adjoining Sandside. Site not suitable for development. Poor road access. Big area of surface water flood risk (1 in 30). Cannot mitigate landscape impact of developing site."
National planning policy sets out guidance that local authorities need to follow when determining development in an AONB and this suggestion to amalgamate the additional fields (B79 & B116) in the development of the brownfield sites seems contrary to that guidance in many respects but especially in the requirement "to conserve and enhance landscape quality and character, tranquillity, dark skies, local distinctiveness, settlement character, pattern and local vernacular architecture, habitats and species, geodiversity and the historic environment". National planning policy does not allow major new developments in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty except in exceptional circumstances. The brownfield sites already cover an area of 2.95 hectares which could be classed as major development, however given that these sites need improving I am happy to see these areas developed. However adding these fields would add considerably to the size of the development. I also note that new roads are classed as a major development so the proposal for a road across these sites also seems contrary to planning guidance.
I would also like to see Quarry Lane retained as a through route for vehicles because the tide regularly floods the road at the junction of the B5282 and Storth Road and when this becomes impassable Quarry Lane acts as an alternative route into Storth.
Finally a development of this size is just not needed. Housing needs in Storth and Sandside have been assessed and our needs are being met by developments in adjoining communities such as Milnthorpe which has better facilities and transport links than Storth.
