Local Development Framework Consultation

Ulverston

35 (2 of 5) Ulverston North

R90M

Oppose

Oppose

Oppose

Support

Support

1: Requirement
The requirement for increasing new housing capacity allegedly to meet the “development needs of the District up until 2025” is not clearly demonstrated for the Ulverston area. The requirement for additional housing appears to be based on forecasts based on data from The 2006 Housing Needs Survey (Core Strategy Submission Document Section 1.18). The economic situation in the UK has significantly changed in recent years and this does not appear to have been taken fully into account.

As identified in the Core Strategy Submission document (section 1.12) Glaxo – Smithkline a major employer has (amongst others) significantly reduced staffing levels over recent years and if this trend continues it could be assumed that the requirement for new housing through any new employment opportunities within the community would be balanced against this. There is no clearly identified new major employment requirement that would typically drive a requirement for a significant increase in housing stock, the requirement related to employment is speculative at best.

The adequacy of housing stock levels is further underlined by the fact that new housing developments in both the Gill and Stanley Street areas of the town completed in the last two or three years remain largely unoccupied indicating that either prices are too high or that there is little current requirement for new additional accommodation within the town. Ulverston is already identified within the “Land Allocations and Consultation” document as an area of South Lakeland where housing is most affordable. Further there is no evidence that employers are rejecting development in the area due a lack of housing stock. The number of estate agencies within the town has increased in the last few years also indicating that housing stock availability is not an issue.

Given that there is little in the way of justification for an increase in the bulk housing capacity, the validity of the assumptions in the document should be appropriately challenged with up to date information at each stage prior to embarking on such a large scale housing expansion as is suggested.

2: Safe Access and Egress
The suggested site for housing (R90M) is situated adjacent to Town View Road. Access is severely congested at the Soutergate, Church Fields Avenue and Whinfield Road junctions with many vehicles parked on both sides of Church Fields Avenue and on the east side of Whinfield road. Parking arrangements on Soutergate close to the junction and the curve of town bank road both significantly reduce visibility when exiting onto Soutergate from the Junction giving rise to safety issues.

This congestion is created by previously existing and increased restrictions to parking in Soutergate and Town bank forcing residents and visitors in these areas to find somewhere else to park. Increasing parking restrictions further would be impractical and simply exacerbate the problem by creating further congestion.

Children often play in the area of the junction of Church Fields Avenue and Whinfield Road. Site traffic during any construction phase and the eventual increase in residential traffic to the proposed development would significantly increase the risk of an accident in this area.

Any potential access via Belmont to the south east of the suggested site is also compromised by narrow access roads. Consideration of Chittery Lane should be discounted as this access is very narrow and would create additional negative visual impact. All of these potential access roads are all poorly maintained and are not gritted or cleared of snow in winter periods. None of the roads has well connected to the main A590, requiring all traffic to travel via the town centre.

3: Impact on Open Space
The Field in which suggested site R90M is proposed has a public footpath that is regularly used by walkers and dog walkers to access Hoad Monument. This provides a valuable amenity of green space with recreational benefit for the people using this access. The suggested housing development would remove an open space with through public access, and the character of the area and approach to the monument would be somewhat diminished. By definition this is in effect a public open space The South Lakeland Local Development Framework Land Allocations Development Plan Document states that “There is a presumption that these spaces will not be developed except in very exceptional circumstances”

4: Landscape Visual Impact
R90M is positioned high on the Skyline at an elevation of approximately 65m and construction at this elevation will have a negative visual impact that intrudes on the outlook of the residential properties of Town View Road and Whinfield Road which are at lower elevations and will reduce light throughout the early morning when the sun is low on the horizon. Section 5.6 of The South Lakeland Local Development Framework Land Allocations Development Plan Document (Emerging Options Consultation Edition) states “the overall development strategy for Ulverston is for an extension of the urban area to the south. This will ensure that: landscape impacts are minimised” R90M located to the north of the town is clearly not in keeping with the stated strategy and this is confirmed in section 5.7; the lack of suitable development areas should not be used as an excuse to develop unsuitable sites and circumvent stated strategy.

5: Television Reception
Because of the elevation there is the potential for interference to television reception for residential properties at the top of Whinfield road and Chittery Lane whose line of sight to Winter Hill transmitter would be obstructed by the suggested housing development.

6: Green Field Extension to the Development Boundary
R90M Lies outside the current Identified Development Boundary, developments outside the existing boundary should be the last resort. Development of green field areas should be avoided especially where there are existing opportunities for redevelopment of existing disused sites. In the Ulverston district one immediate example is the Stone Cross School building which has good links to both the town and the A590 and would have low visual impact is just one area available for redevelopment, during the housing boom developer hoardings local to the site indicated it would be developed on yet this land apparently stands idle with a derelict building and has done so for several years. This site is not shown on the development plan. And the lack of progress in developing this site further underlines the economic argument against further new housing development.