2 responses from Mr Peter Yare (Individual)
1. Mr Peter Yare (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 22:02:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN257#
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
At least 19 + Properties visual amenity would immediately be impacted on by any potential development and would impact on residents satisfaction of the surrounding area. The owner of the view is not necessarily the legal owner of the land.
There would be an adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II listed building in the village “The Church” from where the proposed development would be visible from.
The planned areas are an inappropriate extension of the village limit into the surrounding countryside serving no benefit to the existing community.
Increased traffic volumes to and from the village on roads that are currently notorious for accidents could increase the risk to existing and any new residents.
Increased traffic volumes passing existing properties and the School is a potential problem/risk for residents and their properties with many properties being near any potential access roads. Also dependent on where access is granted to any development site the increase in traffic volume could pose a safety risk to residents.
Grayrigg village has very little artificial light during the night time with limited street lighting creating a countryside setting, ideal for night time wildlife such as bats and owls that are regularly heard and seen in the fields referred to as RN257#. Any proposed development could generate an increased level of artificial lighting thus again impacting on the visual amenity and privacy of existing residents as well as having an impact on the local wildlife.
Increased noise levels during any construction period and increased noise levels due to an increase in traffic using the roads to access any development would and could cause unnecessary suffering to existing residents removing their right and reasons for living in a quiet rural location.
The existing infrastructure of the village is in my opinion insufficient to support additional housing, with no services such as shops a limited size school, or major local employer and an increase in population would threaten the existing balance between residents and the countryside and spoil the rural feel of the village. The rural feel of the village is one of the many reasons existing residents moved here and have remained here.
The settlement of Grayrigg`s character would be adversely impacted on through any excessive development removing all the reasons why many existing residents have chosen to live here.
The proposed sites if developed would erode the rural character of the village.
Any development could have an impact on local wildlife and upset any existing natural habitat balance.
Having lived in the village for over 10 years there has never been to my knowledge any demand from residents for an increase in housing within the villages boundaries. The number of current residents who would be looking to take up any local occupancy housing in the village is limited and the clause would eventually be opened up potentially to the wider South Lakes Area thus the development may serve little or no use to the existing residents and their offspring.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
22 Years is too long a period for control of applications and decisions to be led by central decision makers to provide a quick fix to any housing needs that could be regretted when it is too late.
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
I believe that any decision on the needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside are best made with neighbourhood plans and locals involvement as opposed to central/local government decisions being made with no regard to local residents. Every individual surely has a right to have their say and be heard on matters that impact on them and their property. In the current climate we must retain our rights to voice our opinion or else we run the risk of becoming led by beurocrats who make little or no consideration to the wellbeing of existing residents but are more concerned about increasing development of rural areas just to increase housing when there may be no need for more housing for the existing residents.
2. Mr Peter Yare (Individual) : 1 Sep 2011 22:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Grayrigg
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN258#
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
At least 19 + Properties visual amenity would immediately be impacted on by any potential development and would impact on residents satisfaction of the surrounding area. The owner of the view is not necessarily the legal owner of the land.
There would be an adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II listed building in the village “The Church” from where the proposed development would be visible from.
The planned areas are an inappropriate extension of the village limit into the surrounding countryside serving no benefit to the existing community.
Increased traffic volumes to and from the village on roads that are currently notorious for accidents could increase the risk to existing and any new residents.
Increased traffic volumes passing existing properties and the School is a potential problem/risk for residents and their properties with many properties being near any potential access roads. Also dependent on where access is granted to any development site the increase in traffic volume could pose a safety risk to residents.
Grayrigg village has very little artificial light during the night time with limited street lighting creating a countryside setting, ideal for night time wildlife such as bats and owls that are regularly heard and seen in the fields referred to as RN257#. Any proposed development could generate an increased level of artificial lighting thus again impacting on the visual amenity and privacy of existing residents as well as having an impact on the local wildlife.
Increased noise levels during any construction period and increased noise levels due to an increase in traffic using the roads to access any development would and could cause unnecessary suffering to existing residents removing their right and reasons for living in a quiet rural location.
The existing infrastructure of the village is in my opinion insufficient to support additional housing, with no services such as shops a limited size school, or major local employer and an increase in population would threaten the existing balance between residents and the countryside and spoil the rural feel of the village. The rural feel of the village is one of the many reasons existing residents moved here and have remained here.
The settlement of Grayrigg`s character would be adversely impacted on through any excessive development removing all the reasons why many existing residents have chosen to live here.
The proposed sites if developed would erode the rural character of the village.
Any development could have an impact on local wildlife and upset any existing natural habitat balance.
Having lived in the village for over 10 years there has never been to my knowledge any demand from residents for an increase in housing within the villages boundaries. The number of current residents who would be looking to take up any local occupancy housing in the village is limited and the clause would eventually be opened up potentially to the wider South Lakes Area thus the development may serve little or no use to the existing residents and their offspring.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
22 Years is too long a period for control of applications and decisions to be led by central decision makers to provide a quick fix to any housing needs that could be regretted when it is too late.
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
I believe that any decision on the needs of small villages, hamlets and open countryside are best made with neighbourhood plans and locals involvement as opposed to central/local government decisions being made with no regard to local residents. Every individual surely has a right to have their say and be heard on matters that impact on them and their property. In the current climate we must retain our rights to voice our opinion or else we run the risk of becoming led by beurocrats who make little or no consideration to the wellbeing of existing residents but are more concerned about increasing development of rural areas just to increase housing when there may be no need for more housing for the existing residents.
