Local Development Framework Consultation

Ulverston

35 (2 of 5) Ulverston North

R90M

Oppose

Our objections are to both the general massive development of Ulverston’s housing stock and also more specifically to this particular field.
Ulverston – development of low cost housing.
We note the many empty shop premises in Ulverston, lack of schools, NHS dentists, hospital wards, doctors and the large numbers of houses currently up for sale for long periods of time. Where is this demand for housing coming from? Have you properly researched this?
Moreover, employment opportunities are shrinking within Ulverston businesses with the major employers Glaxo Smithkline, Acrastyle, the NHS, and more recently Oxleys who are shedding 40 jobs, and BAE systems certainly not expanding to any great degree at present. It would seem unlikely that industries will be attracted to the area with the long and under-developed A590 and poor rail connections.
On a more positive note, if we really do need more housing, there are plenty of brown field sites available and surely these should be developed ahead of green field / green belt sites. One site in particular comes to mind and that is Stone Cross mansion and grounds. This has stood empty and decaying for several years and represents a good flat plot within excellent access of Ulverston by foot and also immediate access to the A590 without the need to further jam up Ulverston’s already overloaded on-way system. Moreover, this particular site is practically invisible at present so the impact on any other properties or interests will be minimal. Have you considered the impact on Ulverston’s road system with any of these proposed development sites?
We would support the development of the Canal Head area (M28). This represents a real eye-sore right at the entrance to Ulverston and any changes here would surely benefit the town.
We would also support the building of higher cost properties to attract more talented and wealthy individuals to Ulverston in order to boost the economy and reverse the trend towards empty shops.
Development of R90M
We oppose this development specifically for all of the above reasons and also the more detailed concerns below:
On site measures would be required to prevent known flooding problems in the area. An enhanced drainage and water supply system would be required.
The traffic at the mini-roundabout at the bottom of Soutergate already regularly comes to a stop and generally grinds along at a slow pace. Further houses in this area will only exacerbate this problem.
Many of the buildings in this area were built with conditions in the planning whereby the houses had a minimum build cost. This was intended to provide an area of high quality housing, which it succeeded in doing. A mix of low cost and high cost in such close proximity was not desirable then and remains undesirable now.
This is good farming land which if developed will be lost forever.

Have the health and safety issues been fully researched? Soutergate is already a very busy road and is further restricted by cars constantly parked on both sides. This parking issue spreads onto Churchfields Avenue and the bottom stretch of Whinfield Road itself. Further buildings will only increase the problems. We also note that children regularly play at the junction of Whinfield Road and Churchfields Avenue and also at the junction of Whinfield Road and Town View Road.
There will be a negative visual impact and in fact our property will be deprived of light and TV reception. We originally bought our property because of the peace and proximity of open fields and this will be destroyed in housing is erected. If this goes ahead one leading industrial player will be leaving Ulverston as we do not wish to remain in a town where planning is not properly controlled or thought through.
We are also very disappointed that proper consultation has not been carried out, we have had no correspondence from you about this matter and found out only by chance that these plans are proposed.