3 responses from Mr Graeme Murray (Individual)
1. Mr Graeme Murray (Individual) : 10 Apr 2011 21:23:00
Settlement
Endmoor
Map Number
8 Endmoor
Site reference number (e.g. R62) - If your comment is about a specific site you must indicate the correct site reference.
M41M
Housing
Support in part
Employment
Oppose
Retail
Oppose
Community uses
Oppose
Open space
Oppose
Other (as specified above)
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
Within the SLDC Consultation documents, it is specified that extensions to Local Service Centres will only be permitted where there is a clear need for development, significant environmental impacts can be avoided and once previously developed land has been utilised. The proposed development of this site goes against all of these requirements. There is no clear need for any such Commercial development, with poor current transport links and many local facilities continuously "For Let" and other more suitable "Brown field" site available for development.
(a) Many alternative sites are available within walking distance of Endmoor amenities –Summerlands; Gatebeck Lane; Gatebeck ( 3 brownfield sites);Crooklands; Moss End; New Auction Mart site, Moss End to-gether with existing sites in Endmoor –L& W Wilson and Caravan Parks
(b) A number of these sites could be improved to bring them up to current standards suitable for Knowledge Based employment
(c) A number of other sites are known to be available e.g. at Gatebeck crossroads
(d) The 3 brownfield sites at Gatebeck (EN 20;EN 26;EN 33) are described in the Gatebeck Fact File as being ‘in open countryside and a less sustainable option than sites in or near Endmoor ’
Any development on this land will require significant investment for sewage treatment facilities, with the local treatment works incapable of coping with this demand. Investment should be directed to more important sites to ensure suitable treatment is provided.
Cumbria County Council population projections do not support SLDC’s housing projections. The increase in the planned period is shown as 4800—which would imply housing needs of 2400. The population increase is 4.6% ,the 6000 houses shown as needed in South Lakes is 11.5 % increase on the existing housing stock in South Lakes and the 68 projected for Endmoor is 26.7% of the existing housing stock in Endmoor village
It is reported within the Consultation paper that the village presents an unacceptable Northern edge, an edge which was accepted by previous SLDC Planning depts. The proposed development of this site would increase the village footprint by some 30% and increase this northern edge by some 300%, a very large impact on the local area. Any development should only be on the western edge of the site ( to leave the side of the school clear)as public open space which would also give an element of future proofing should expansion of school facilities be necessary.
The proposed housing density levels suggested in the Consultation document are too high for this area, not inkeeping with the guidelines set out by the Gov't inspector.
It would be essential for high level, high quality landscaping to be carried out to meet the requirement to soften the northern edge of the approach to Endmoor—and to separate any new development from the existing.
2. Mr Graeme Murray (Individual) : 10 Apr 2011 21:32:00
Settlement
Endmoor
Map Number
8 Endmoor
Site reference number (e.g. R62) - If your comment is about a specific site you must indicate the correct site reference.
R83M
Housing
Support in part
Employment
Oppose
Retail
Oppose
Community uses
Oppose
Open space
Oppose
Other (as specified above)
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
The proposed development of this site would not increase the overall footprint of the village and thereby keep the "Rural Cumbrian Village" feel. Access would be a problem, through a current estate and then onto Gatebeck Road. Any such development would need to be considered for access by emergency vehicles. Proposed Housing density is higher than Gov't inspector recommends for such villages and should be inkeeping with local area. There would be problems with sewerage –both the capacity problem with Endmoor WtWW and because there is a ‘no build over ‘ restriction on the current sewer to north of site
3. Mr Graeme Murray (Individual) : 10 Apr 2011 21:37:00
Settlement
Endmoor
Map Number
8 Endmoor
Site reference number (e.g. R62) - If your comment is about a specific site you must indicate the correct site reference.
R670
Housing
Oppose
Employment
Oppose
Retail
Oppose
Community uses
Oppose
Open space
Oppose
Please explain your reasons
(a) The main access point –Enyeat to Woodside then immediately to A65 is already a dangerous junction –a problem which increased traffic flow would worsen
(b)-The designated access point to the site is at a dangerous cross road –Enyeat/Dovenest Road /un-named lane
(c)-That un-named lane would become a ‘rat run’ –increasing the danger
(d)-Any alternative access from A65 to southern end of site would not be feasible
(e)-Site RN119 was rejected from LACD because of the adverse visual impact development would have. Such impact would be worse if R670 were to be developed therefore the precedent has already been set
