Response from Ms Ceri Hutton (Individual)
1. Ms Ceri Hutton (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 09:50:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# 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 oppose the proposal to a) designate E19 and any part of M11M for mixed use and b) designate MN6 for employment/housing. My objections are based on a concern for the immediate area, traffic safety issues, serious concerns about the real threat of 'ribbon development' which such land allocations would bring, and more general concerns about the potential undermining of Ulverston as a vibrant and thriving market town should any significant retail outlet be allowed at yet another out of town site (Booths already existing in Ulverston at Canal Foot).
1.M11M is currently covered by Green Gap protection for good reason - it enhances the area, preserves the distinct characters of Swarthmoor and Ulverston and vitally does not allow for ribbon development along the A590. This site should be preserved as a greenfield site, and not allowed for any development at all ideally.
2. The loss of the greenfield site would also have a highly practical difficulty in relation to drainage, with water being carried onto it and then courses to the fields. Conversion of greenfield to concrete would exacerbate the appallingly bad drainage which already exists at the Hillfoot/Pennington Lane every time it rains.
3. The only justification for removing this greenfield site from Green Gap protection would be if it makes a significant and higher value contribution to the economic development of the area. As SLDC's own Sustainable Community Strategy points out, retail is NOT higher value, it is low value in terms of the income it generates for the people who work there, and subsequent potential to reinvest back into the area. M11M should definitely, therefore, not be allowed to be retail under any circumstances.
4. Sainsbury's is proposing the redesignation of this site as retail and I would note that a large out-of-town supermarket of this nature would have a seriously detrimental effect on the economy and the vitality of Ulverston. Whilst shops in Ulverston are struggling with the recession, there is still a good representation of independent retailers which, as recent national and local media articles testify, provide a primary draw for tourists and visitors to the town. Ulverston does not have one major attraction (such as a castle) - its tourist and visitor attraction depends, vitally, on the mix of the small shops, events and festivals it offers. These would be seriously undermined from having a second supermarket (Booths already existing) which is out of town.
4. How Planning say that a mix of uses is 'preferable' for the site. This is completely challengeable. It is not preferable in terms of the kind of jobs it would generate which are demonstrably primarily low-paid (and higher-paid jobs are often filled by out of town managers who drive in to work). Furthermore, there is no evidence at all from SLDC's retail assessment, or even a retail assessment undertaken recently in support of a supermarket (on the Brewery Site) to suggest that there is anything like the sufficient capacity for such a large-scale retail development to be supported. All evidence speaks to the fact that there is NO NEED AT ALL FOR A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (I.E. SUPERMARKET) OF THIS SIZE. Ulverston's unique locus needs to be in relation both to its independent retailers and the boosting of various higher value job sectors, such as high-tech jobs.
5. A supermarket would generate traffic chaos on the A590. It would be entirely car-based, and the number of car trips generated from dawn to night would mean that an already busy and often congested part of the A590 was subject to severe pressures which would result in further delays with the knock on inconvenience to residents, and to those retailers and industries in Barrow which rely on the road for their trade. A light industrial development, where only the staff were going in and out, would have nothing like this impact.
6. Finally, redesignating this site would be contrary to the LDF and the government planning policy which states that authorities should 'positively plan for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks or knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries'. Retail is no such thing - it is low value.
I urge that the M11M site be kept as a greenfield site under its Green Gap Protection. I further urge that under no circumstances whatever should Green Gap Protection be dropped for a low-value, traffic-based retail development which would ruin the town, create traffic chaos, undermine the local economy and be in direct contravention of local and national policy.
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
Long-term decisions need to be made in planning in order to ensure that land allocations are not subject to the vagaries of policy and political changes. Sustainable development relies on this. I would not support any substantial reduction as a result.
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 A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
'B' is an appalling option, potentially usable by developers (who operate in entirely commercial, rather than public, interests) to bully residents and local authorities to accept proposals which are 'smoke and mirrors'. Developers are notoriously not from the area - they come in, make arguments, put forward dazzling business cases and then leave, leaving the residents and councils to pick up, often, on the fallout of what they have done. Option 'A' has to be the way forward - it must go through a process susceptible to consultation and influence, albeit in a limited manner.