Response from Mr Jason Halfpenny (Individual)
1. Mr Jason Halfpenny (Individual) : 7 Apr 2011 22:53:00
Settlement
Swarthmoor
Map Number
41 Swarthmoor
Site reference number (e.g. R62) - If your comment is about a specific site you must indicate the correct site reference.
RN109M
Other designation - if you want to comment on something that doesn't have a site reference e.g., development boundary, town centre boundary, green gap, please select it here
Green Gap
Housing
Oppose
Employment
Oppose
Retail
Oppose
Community uses
No view
Open space
Support
Other (as specified above)
No view
Please explain your reasons
I felt compelled to respond to the Local Development Framework plans to build up and add houses to numerous locations in and around Swarthmoor. I strongly oppose these plans for a number of reasons:
1) the plans completely ignore green gaps and essentially bring an Ulverston/Swarthmoor conurbation a virtual reality (the communities of Ulverston, Swartmoor and surrounding communities would be vehemently opposed to the erosion of greenbelt land. The risk of coalescence between Ulverston and Swarthmoor cannot be tolerated and this is what would happen with any additional housing.)
2) RN109M housing would be completely separate from the Swarthmoor village, separated by the very busy A590 road and would therefore have no community identity whatsoever.
3) there would be a major impact on infraststructure i.e. traffic management problems (access), increased maintenance costs (wear&tear on roads), water resource demands, requirement for increased sewerage capacity, waste collection, potential increased risk of flooding on roads and land which already flood now! After any significant rainfall there are floods on roads e.g Main Road and Pennington Lane by Rowe Head Farm.
4) the housing plans remove agricultural land forever, which is illogical, in a time of rising food costs. The land should be used to provide for local communites not just to mindlessly and needlessly increase populations in an area.
5) There is insufficient employment & industry in the local area for there to be a demand for additional housing in these areas. Barrow borough has a number of alternative planned developments which would meet any initial housing demand in Furness and this is where the employment will be. GlaxoSmithkline seems to be on a closure stratey for its Ulverston plant.
6)The addition of new houses would damage the local housing market which is still in the grips of the global economic crisis
7)The open aspect of the area be lost forever.
8)Pennington school is aleady full and will continue to be full for the forseeable future as it is a very successful education facility. New housing will require additional schools and jeopardise the success of Pennington school. Traffic management and access is once again a significant issue.
9) Existing sports and recreational facilities are insuficient for additional housing.
10)There is insufficient car parking now! Adding housing will only worsen the situation.
11)Housing development on RN109M would have a signigicant impact on the landscape.
12) Hedgerows and wildlife will be destroyed.
13) There are no local amenities which can support additional housing.
Fundamentally:
- who can afford to buy the emerging sites?
- who can afford to build on the land?
- Where is the demand for the housing?
- who can afford to buy the houses?
- The overwhelming majority of local residents are opposed and do not want the development.
- There is no demand.
- The Government Highways agency must be formally consulted regarding traffc management impacts.
- Proposed developments destroy greenbelt land forever, place a uneccessary overwhelming burden on infrastructure and are not in the best interests of the communities, which the Council purports to look after
It beggars belief that SLDC and other councils and agencies around the land are wasting hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of taxpayers pounds when no one wants these developments. The whim of the former Deputy Prime Minister is a legacy no one wants or can afford. The only useful thing Mr Prescot has done is made a semi-humourous advert for MoneySuperMarket.com! That is it!.
These plans should be scrapped postehaste, they are ill-conceived, unwanted, ridiculous and tremendously damaging to the well-being of existing communities.
Do you think that your area needs new or improved community facilities? If so, what sort of facilities and where?
Please explain the types of improved and/or new community facilities your community may need in the next 15 years
Road maintenance requires improvement.