2 responses from Ms Jill Salmon, Ford Park Community Group
1. Ms Jill Salmon, Ford Park Community Group : 12 Aug 2011 14:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston North
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Please see my previous response regarding a small enabling development on this site which is less than 7% of the total area of Ford Park. Ford Park Community Group are committed to retaining the main area of the park as a community amenity. They have nominated the main field of Ford Park to become a Queen Elizabeth II Playing Field which, if elected, would secure it as an open space in perpetuity. The development of RN178 would enable the group to become financially sustainable and continue to manage and develop the park for the enjoyment of the whole community. Ford Park Community Group are currently installing a Natural Play Scheme and restoring and extending the old coach house as a new community centre with cafe and visitor centre. Further plans are being drawn up to restore the walled Kitchen Garden. Ford Park Community Group has received national acclaim for its work in developing Ford Park and the contribution it makes to community benefit. Trustees of the group have developed a sound strategy to create a secure future for Ford Park which includes sacrificing this small area of land to secure the remainder in perpetuity.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
See previous response to M11M
2. Ms Jill Salmon, Ford Park Community Group : 12 Aug 2011 15:06:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston South
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
M11M
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
I strongly object to the proposal to allocate M11M for retail. Allocating this land for retail would open the door to an 'out-of-town' superstore development which would have a serious impact on Ulverston Town Centre shops and on Ulverston's economy generally. Let people who want to shop in these kind of stores/supermarkets go to Barrow or Kendal and leave Ulverston as a characterful market town with small individual shops.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
2025 seems a long way off and there could be many changes meaning decisions made now could be inappropriate or irrelevant that far down the line.
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Not sure either options is quite right. I can understand the need to plan infrastructure for larger developments but public consultation on land allocations seems to stir up local people who, quite understandably, get upset about any proposed changes on their doorstep. Perhaps a mixture of the two with smaller developments coming under Option B and larger developments only offered for consultation once the proposals are more fully formed.
