Response from Ms J Swift (Individual)
1. Ms J Swift (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 10:32:00
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.
General Objection to development within the AONB.
1)Arnside /Silverdale AONB is small but beautiful- local businesses are already here and thrive because of this. Please don’t squeeze the neck of the goose that’s laid the golden egg.
It is not very far to Milnthorpe, Carnforth (outside the AONB). The infrastructure is better there and it’s not very far to travel to–even on foot! New housing/businesses should be developed there-outside the AONB or perhaps a new “rural eco village” could be created East of the A6.
2 I not sure why such a small area of outstanding natural beauty needs more building sites/businesses to develop? Surely we should be protecting Greenfield sites and developing the natural beauty of the landscape.
If building needs are identified- Brownfield sites (e.g. Site of Leeds holiday home, Old Kays nursery,) should be used first and there are plenty of existing building plots-that no one seems to want to buy or build on. Planning permission could be more lenient to building in large gardens. Perhaps more “family houses” could be created from bungalows by building upwards and dividing into semis. Although recent family size houses seem to take ages to sell or end up as holiday lets.
If a need for local housing is required -local occupancy clauses should be used on new planning permissions and existing housing restriction to “second home use only” for example eg Hazelwood Hall lifted. Perhaps existing planning permission for “lodges” could be used for houses instead eg Old Slackwood Nurseries or existing Static caravan sites used for housing eg Static Caravan site down Bottoms Lane.
With specific reference to St John Ave Site 50
1) Detrimental to AONB and village character (see above)
2) This is a Greenfield site outside the village footprint.
3) Could set a precedent for further development parallel to St Johns Ave/ Hazel wood Ave and other Greenfield sites around the village. NB Why was the original larger proposed site withdrawn?
4) Loss of valuable agricultural land in an AONB that may be of use to other farmers or NGO for future conservation development.
5) Visually obtrusive – the field is visible from ‘The Pepperpot’ National trust viewpoint, Gait Barrow , top of Trowbarrow LNR and footpaths .
6) Loss of amenity value to walkers –the existing footpath (Church to the Green) is an open/elevated space with far reaching views to the Howgills, Farleton Knott this will become an enclosed urban space.
7) Development could have impact on water quality and on water dependent habitats. There is no mains sewage, there will be the potential for leaks from septic tanks. There are potential hydrological links to Leighton Moss RSPB and Hawes water NNR?
8) There will be increased traffic on country lanes, resulting in increased air pollution, accidents, noise pollution and parking issues. All routes into the village involve narrow access roads not suitable to a increase in traffic .There is already increasing congestion/parking around junction into St Johns Ave resulting in cars unable to turn into the Avenue The junction is next to two schools, the church and on the Lancashire Cycle way which already creates traffic problems.
9) Potentially negative impact on Nationally important birds.For many years in the summer the male Marsh harrier has hunted over the field. Waders including Oystercatchers, Curlew, and Lapwing roost and forage on the field in the winter time.
