Response from Mr Michael Jackson (Individual)
1. Mr Michael Jackson (Individual) : 28 Aug 2011 11:57:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston East
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN246#
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 is a large area of land with the potential for a significant number of houses (700-800?)
Housing development on this land has many disadvantages:
1. The area has the potential to flood (I have witnessed first-hand the devastation and expense this causes).
2. It is a very large area. If planning was requested and approved for the whole allocation it could result in a very densely populated area. I don't believe this would be right for the character of Ulverston. Also, have medical, transport, employment and educational needs been considered for the significant increase in people?
3.Old iron mines have the potential to collapse and there has been seepage from former waste disposal sites - building on unstable and contaminated land is not acceptable.
4. It is not clear where road access would be. Daily difficulties are encountered by passing cars on the road from Booths to Plumpton. Increased traffic here would not be possible and if the road was made bigger it would alter the nature of this rural area. If access was given along the canal path, this would spoil the enjoyment of the many walkers and cycles who use this route.
5. The area includes a Geological SSSI and is close to the coastline. Development would have implications for nesting birds and hedgerows.
6. It is outside the Ulverston Development Boundary.
I can only assume this consultation has been done in accordance with government guidelines and timescales. Personally, I have not found the consultation to be well-communicated, and the timing of it during school holidays means that many people will be away. If there are very few responses to this land allocation proposal I believe these may be contributing factors. If you were to re-publicise this, in plain English, you would generate more responses.
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
Planning periods needs to be longer-term, rather than shorter. It costs the tax payer time and money to revisit decisions uncessarily. However, decisions need to be made on a sound basis and sufficient time for the consideration of all implications for people, the community and the environment is essential (which is not the case with this consultation).
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
Planning needs to be done in a structured way, rather than on an adhoc basis, in order to consider the best interests of the community as a whole. It also avoids personal neighbour/community disputes and potential or perceived unfairness.
