Response from Mr Mark Jameson (Individual)
1. Mr Mark Jameson (Individual) : 5 Apr 2011 13:03:00
Settlement
Heversham and Leasgill
Map Number
23 Heversham and Leasgill
If none of the above then please state here what your comment is about
LDF proposal of 99 dwellings for Heversham and Leasgill is totally disproportionate
Housing
Support in part
Employment
Support
Retail
No view
Community uses
No view
Open space
No view
Please explain your reasons
The LDF proposal or 99 new dwellings (representing a 35% increase in the size of the villages) is totally disproportionate.
The proposed LDF classifies Heversham and Leasgill as ‘smaller villages’ not ‘local service centres’. There is no local shop, no P.O., no Doctor, no Dentist no library and very little business (for local employment), nor is there a secondary school. Yet Heversham and Leasgill have been allocated a greater number of new dwellings than the larger local service centres of Levens, Natland and Storth...
Furthermore there is no proven need for 99 new dwellings in the village, quite the opposite - eight houses have been on the market in the village for more than 6 months. I recently took my own property (at the lower end of the price scale) off the market after over a year, due to lack of realistic interest.
Nor is the village infrastructure suitable for such a big increase in the number of new houses, particularly the extra traffic they will generate. Danger from Traffic is already a real concern to parents walking children to school or cycling in / around the village. There is no footway along much of the road and many narrows and blind bends.
99 new houses are not needed inappropriate and will add to existing traffic danger on the village roads.
While there is no need for 99 new dwellings, there is a real and proven need for an appropriate number of new houses in the village, particularly for local families - the most recent housing needs survey identifies a local need for 5 new dwellings (just 20% of the LDF number!).
Such small numbers can easily be accommodated through the proposed revisions of the development boundary and new definitions of “infill”, “rounding off”. Up to a dozen houses can be integrated into the village in this way, without distortion of the villages or a 35% increase in traffic.
In conclusion a dozen houses thropugh infill and rounding off would be apropriate and no more.
