Response from Mr Alastair Pell (Individual)
1. Mr Alastair Pell (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 21:08:00
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.
Please note my strong objection to this proposed development site due to the following facts:
1/ None of the roads leading into the village are currently suitable for the level of traffic that already exists, any significant development can only exacerbate this situation, both during construction and occupation.
2/ Whilst Silverdale has a very good train service of roughly an hourly service, there is no way of getting to it, there is no safe way of walking to the station and it has no public parking, the bus service, should it survive, is unreliable and can miss connections from time to time making it unsuitable if you have appointments to keep. Before any substantial developments are even considered, the road and cycle/footpath arrangements in and out of the village would require upgrading.
3/ The lower end of St Johns avenue and, in particular its junction with Emesgate lane, cannot cope with any extra traffic, this junction is already very dangerous with parked cars restricting access and generally poor visibility. This point in itself prohibits any significant increase in the properties accessed via this junction. Furthermore, this junction is very close to St Peters Primary School, any increase in traffic will make access to the school, many on foot, difficult.
4/ The Silverdale Parish Plan states that : "New housing (and other building) in the parish must be kept to an absolute minimum, and confined to “brownfield sites”, that is land which has already been used for commercial or domestic purposes. Any attempt to build on “greenfield” sites, i.e. take up yet more countryside, should normally be resisted."
5/ Clearly Site 50 is not only a greenfield site, the visual impact of a substantial development in this particular area, will affect the visual outlook over a much larger area including a significant number of public footpaths enjoyed by many residents and visitors.
6/ There is no requirement for this size of development, a 'Rightmove' search edited to cover an area of approx. 15 minute drive from Silverdale (excluding areas north of Milnthorpe, east of Burton in Kendal, Morecambe and Lancaster), results in 338 houses for sale (some less than £100k) and 38 rental properties. Include Morecambe and Lancaster and that increases to more than 1000 houses for sale and 441 rental properties. Clearly with such a large nearby housing pool, many of which have been up for sale for long periods, there is no justification or requirement for such urbanising house building plans within an AONB.
7/ Sewage disposal is already a significant problem as all existing properties are on septic tanks, increasing the number of properties in such a development will significantly increase the risk of environmental damage in the locality.
8/ The proposal extends the boundary of the village unnecessarily; there are other more discreet sites that could provide more suitable small scale developments without such an adverse impact on the locality, visual amenity and the cherished special village character.
