2 responses from Ms. Jacqueline Knight (Individual)
1. Ms. Jacqueline Knight (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 16:13:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R656, R138 , R471, R98, , RN305, RN323, RN42 and RN43
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
Whereas I understand the need to democratically consider alternative proposals, it should be noted that all these suggestions for Ackenthwaite have been suggested by only a very few individuals, who do not reside in Ackenthwaite itself.
Site R656 has been resurrected from an initial consultation proposal; it was then taken no further- the North of Milnthorpe was designated a non-preferred option.
This site and the other remaining sites in Ackenthwaite are wholly unsuitable and unsustainable for many reasons including topography,the wildlife supported here, the importance of the area agriculturally and the road infrastructure but additionally for the following reason: development of these sites would constitute a reversal of the principals defined in the Core Strategy Document (CSD):
Namely:
• CSD—has at its heart the designation of a series of Green Gaps , protecting green infrastructure, preventing coalescence and also preventing the creation of large urban areas which have a reduced inter-relation with the surrounding open countryside.
—the expansion and closing off of these Green Gap areas in Ackenthwaite would however do just that.
Also, Ackenthwaite is a very distinct area which has as its western boundary Kirkgate Lane and then merges into varied and rich countryside to the East and North. The SLDC Site Options document notes that to the South and West :
'When travelling through/past Ackenthwaite, there is a distinct sense of leaving Ackenthwaite...before entering Milnthorpe...Sites RN42 and RN43 contribute most to the sense of separation between the two places ...'
• The CSD-stresses the importance of the maintenance and enhancement of the natural, historic and other distinctive features that contribute to the character and biodiversity of local settlements and landscape
—Ackenthwaite , designated as part of an important ‘County Landscape’( this from the Core Strategy ) has its own historic roots, is an area of natural beauty, supporting a wide variety, in all seasons, of wildlife, birdlife and plantlife within the age-old hedgerows and on the floodplain , of which R656 is a part - known historically as 'The Ponds '.
St.Anthony’s Tower itself is also seen as important : the ‘Local Development Framework Document' states that any development must conserve and protect the open setting of a feature such as St. Anthony’s Tower—designated ‘an important local landmark ‘ .
• CSD-The Core Strategy Document also makes much of the need for the provision of open-spaces and community recreational amenities
-- Ackenthwaite already provides such an informal open space and amenity; the lanes of the hamlet are used regularly by many in Milnthorpe and other surrounding hamlets as a safe place to walk, push a pram, cycle, horse-ride and exercise whilst enjoying unspoilt open views. One small lane forms part of the National Cycle Route. It can be argued that if Milnthorpe provides Key Services for Ackenthwaite, then the hamlet provides an important reciprocal recreational function for the more developed parts of Milnthorpe.
For all these reasons I strongly oppose the alternative and new proposals for Ackenthwaite. To quote once again the SLDC, in its Site Options Document, Ackenthwaite is described as having
‘an identity which is quite distinct from the nearby much larger village...of Milnthorpe’.
The SLDC recognises this distinct identity and I would urge this body to adhere to its core principals and provide sustainable, balanced and sympathetic development of preferred sites in Milnthorpe as decided last Autumn 2010.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A reduction in time would not be in local interests-far better a longer time span to allow for a measured assessment of actual, rather than projected needs.
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
As in 1st response above.
2. Ms. Jacqueline Knight (Individual) : 8 Sep 2011 14:54:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ackenthwaite
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN281
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
This new site, proposed by 3 individuals (including the landowner), is to the North of the Dallam School site in Ackenthwaite. Its inclusion for consideration is in direct contravention to previous SLDC conclusions from their ‘Green Gap Assessment ‘ document which clearly states
‘A Green Gap be designated to cover .......several fields to the North of Dallam School between Milnthorpe and Ackenthwaite. ‘
For this reason, as well as all the reasons summarised below for the other plots of land in Ackenthwaite, I oppose its inclusion for consideration.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Oppose
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
A reduction in time would not be in local interests-far better a longer time span to allow for a measured assessment of actual, rather than projected needs.
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
Takes into account the views of local residents and takes away the more remote views of planners.
May encourage more 'organic' development which is dictated by demonstrable local need .