Local Development Framework Consultation

Holme

R677

Support in part

I would support that this site is included in the Land Allocations document if the developer would guarantee to devote at least 35% of the properties to affordable housing and also guarantee that all the properties were subject to local occupancy restrictions. For Holme to thrive as a community, I believe SLDC has a duty to ensure any new residential development will provide homes for people who are actively participating in the local community on a daily basis because they are employed in it or have an existing family connection. Twelve of the thirty-nine properties that are next to this site on Holmefield, Farleton View and Sheernest are already second homes, holiday lets or rented out on shorthold tenancies so I would strongly oppose this site being included in the document if local occupancy restrictions could not be guaranteed.

I am also very concerned that the development of this site could cause damage to the Holme Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary of this site. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal. How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during the building project and after any development of the site?

With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?

There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?

As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?

There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?

In summary, I would support the inclusion of this site in the Land Allocations document so long as any subsequent development can be shown to be for the long term benefit of the village, and that the development would not impact adversely on the Coke Ovens, the canal frontage, the oak tree, existing households and road safety.

Support

I support a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document because it should be in response to need.

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

Land should be developed for housing and emploment to serve the needs of its community.

Holme

RN293#

Support in part

I would support that this site is included in the Land Allocations document if the developer would guarantee to devote at least 35% of the properties to affordable housing and also guarantee that all the properties were subject to local occupancy restrictions. For Holme to thrive as a community, I believe SLDC has a duty to ensure any new residential development will provide homes for people who are actively participating in the local community on a daily basis because they are employed in it or have an existing family connection. Twelve of the thirty-nine properties that are next to this site on Holmefield, Farleton View and Sheernest are already second homes, holiday lets or rented out on shorthold tenancies so I would strongly oppose this site being included in the document if local occupancy restrictions could not be guaranteed.

This site is part of site R677 in which the Holme Coke Ovens are situated. I am very concerned that the development of the site could cause damage to the Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal. How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during the building project and after any development of the site?

With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?

There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?

As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?

There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?

In summary, I would support the inclusion of this site in the Land Allocations document so long as any subsequent development can be shown to be for the long term benefit of the village, and that the development would not impact adversely on the Coke Ovens, the canal frontage, the oak tree, existing households and road safety.

Support

I support a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document because it should be in response to need.

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

Land should be developed for housing and emploment to serve the needs of its community.