Response from Mr Richard Simpson (Individual)
1. Mr Richard Simpson (Individual) : 2 Sep 2011 17:07:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Heversham
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN326# and RN316#
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
1. Development of these sites could add 140 houses to the village. This is too many additional houses for a village the size of Heversham and would change the character of the village.
2. Development on this scale is unsustainable. The new residents would inevitably have to travel to work - this at a time of rising fuel prices,traffic congestion and concerns over environmental pollution.
3. The site is valuable green open space in the middle of the village. Its loss will lead to a large and unsightly block of housing in place of a rich rural landscape.
4.Development will detract from views to and from Heversham Head.
5. In all likelihood each property will have at least two cars. Use of these will create dreadful pressures on our minor road network, particularly such as Woodhouse Lane, a shortcut to M6 junc 36. Should traffic be permitted through the Dallam School site similar problems will occur in the village.
6.The site represents amenity open space for villagers, it is contiguous to the old railway line now being developed as the Hincaster Trailway, and should be designateed as such.
7.Present residents of Heversham & Leasgill chose to live here because they ARE small villages. This would no longer be the case if these sites were developed for housing.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
Please indicate which of the options for the future housing and employment land needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside you would support.
Option B - Communities and/or developers bringing forward sites for housing and employment for consideration under relevant Core Strategy policies, through neighbourhood plans and/or other local initiatives
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
Option B may well give more local control over development and each site may be considered on its own merits rather than already have a designation and a presumption for development.