Response from Miss Jane Lambert (Individual)
1. Miss Jane Lambert (Individual) : 28 Jun 2017 13:53:00
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 the opportunity to comment on Site S50.
Once again I am very disappointed that we are faced with the 'same old' situation.
How many times do we need to go through this!?
We live in a designated AONB - for which I am truly grateful - but if we are to take this designation seriously,
we must put an end to planning applications of this nature. If there is a need for Affordable Housing in the
Village - and this must be verified- then this should be the only type of planning application considered.There is
certainly no need for anymore BIG Houses in Silverdale.
The Planning Dept, in my opinion, should not be approving anything that does not fulfil the needs of the Village.
Too many sites have been allowed to be developed with the wrong type of Housing.
There should definitely be no further development on Green Field Sites.
If Site S50 were to be approved for building, it would completely 'blow out of the water' all that is going to be
achieved in the AONB Development Plan.
So apart from the above, I disagree with the potential development of S50 on the following grounds.
In no particular order;
1.Site S50 is an ancient field that sits perfectly into the landscape. Its two Footpaths command excellent views
and are walked (and enjoyed) every day by scores of people.
2. It is a highly visible site, and any development would 'stick out like a sore thumb'.
From the Jubilee Monument/Gait Barrow it would represent significant development of 'green land'.
3. Access to the Site from Emesgate Lane is already congested, with Schools either side of the entrance road.
There is also a Church nearby, which adds to the congestion, if there is a Service /Event.
Additional properties on Site S50 would make St Johns Avenue a dangerously busy cul de sac.
4.Drainage is a major issue - as identified in all planning issues in Silverdale. We already contravene draining
regulations, and I cannot see how this development would be any different.
Added to which, run off into adjoining fields could exasperate the existing flooding issues we have on Bottoms
Lane/at the Cemetery.
We know that there are underground water sources running from Lamberts Meadow beneath the Cemetery,
and then under Townsfield to the Cove. Increased run off from this development could increase the possibility
of flooding in these areas. The extension to the Cemetery was refused because of flooding.
5. The field has wildlife visiting on a regular basis. Roe Deer, Red legged Partridge, and one of the Marsh
Harriers from Leighton Moss have all been seen here.
6. We all know what happens when part of a field is developed!!!! It is too easy for the rest to follow suit.
This would be unthinkable at this location and would seriously damage the AONB designation.
In summary. Site S50 is totally unsuitable - in every way - to development.
If we have such a Housing shortage, Councils/Government should begin to think 'outside the box'.
Don't destroy Green Fields ( we need to remember they dont make more land!), look for other ways to solve
the problem. For example, incentives to large House owners to rent off sections of their House at affordable
rates. Or convert large properties into other dwellings.
With the DPD in place, I hope this is the last time I will need to comment on this type of development in an
AONB.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Site S50, where it to be developed, contravenes all that was agreed in the AONB Development Plan.
It would mean that all that will be achieved through alot of hard work - over many years - would be wasted.
Why do i disagree.
First.
The Site is a lovely ancient field with spectacular views over the surrounding countryside. Its footpaths are walked
