Response from Mr David Alexander (Individual)
1. Mr David Alexander (Individual) : 22 Jun 2017 16:04:00
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.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for your consultation invitation for this re-considered site.
Given that there is no supporting material, in the consultation from the AONB planning authorities, of the landscape and biodiversity site assessment, or of the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations assessment, significant questions need to be asked over the local need to consider adding this site for housing provision. It is a greenfield site wikthin an AONB with a potentially very sensitive impact on the natural, built and historic environment of the area, which in itself is a rich tapestry of developed, open land and woodland. The current boundary would seem to be soundly left as it is, since there is a serious concern that any development of even part of this site could lead to more of the whole site being put forward for future development.
It is unclear from the consultation invitation what the capacity of the site would be and what design and layout issues need to be considered. There must be very serious issues over access from St John's Avenue, itself a cul-de-sac, while there is no clarity over whether affordable housing is the aim and whether such a need cannot be met more satisfactorily elsewhere.
From the diagram attached to the consultation, there is clear recognition of a sensitive edge along the line of the current boundary.There also seems something of a conflict between the key views that are to be retained and the new, enhanced planting which is shown along the boundary pf the proposed new site ad which could well affect the key views. It is always bad news when new planting is referred to a 'screening', since it raises the question of what exactly is it that there is a wish to hide! The openness and key views of this part of the AONB should be retained as they are.
While the proposal intends to retain the present footpath, development such as is proposed will reduce the quality of that footpath for walkers, both amongst local residents and those who visit this quality AONB and add to its economic wellbeing.
In summary, and bearing in mind the paucity of the information provided for those seeking to make a con sultation response, there seems to be no fundamental reason for proposing this site for development within a sensitive part of the AONB. Applying the precautionary principle suggests that this site should not be added to those available for necessary local housing need.
