Local Development Framework Consultation

South Ulverston

E19# MN6# M11M#

Oppose

I strongly oppose the proposed retail development of this green gap site which is outside the Development Boundary of Ulverston for the following reasons:

1.OUT OF TOWN development such as the rumoured huge superstore would lead to the total demise of Ulverston as a viable market/tourist town. A site as large and expensive to purchase as this means every acre would have to be utilised - encompassing every type of retail from food/electrical/clothing/opticians/pharmacy etc Why no one need ever go into town again - because no other business could hope to compete with development on this scale.
Any low paid employment created would be of low added value merely replacing those jobs lost in the closure of town centre shops, with no economic contribution to the area.

2.Traffic on the A590 is already extremely high volume and dangerous.Living on it we have witnessed countless accidents & near misses.It is a pedestrian nightmare running through residential areas with narrow and in places no pavement as well as narrow collision black spots. More RIBBON development such as proposed would exacerbate the congestion and the frequent stationary traffic we already suffer on a daily basis. It is accepted that ribbon development increases congestion, so couple that with continuous superstore traffic at both ends of Ulverston will surely result in more traffic misery with a narrow urban corridor that will be like a 'bypass' of the town centre.

3.The green gap at M11M# provides valuable drainage to both the A590 & the B roads whose run off water is carried onto it and then courses down lower to our fields. Any loss of greenfield to concrete would have an adverse affect on the A590 which despite efforts to rectify has standing water at Hillfoot/Pennington Lane Ends every time it rains and is flooded long after the rest of the carriagway is dry.

4. The proposed retail (superstore)use of this site would for residents have a huge impact on an already difficult blind 'pull out'whether by car or cycle due to the increase in traffic. Presently we have known quiet traffic times but with retail there would be a 24/7 element and increase in traffic, disturbance and noise that at present is predictable and we do get some respite from. Also residents would have loss of privacy and increased smells/pollution.

5. M11M# is home to many species of wildlife you expect to find in farmland including bats,small mammals, foxes, owls and recently we have been seeing the red kites here too. It is designated Green Gap and should not be sacrificed so that an individual can profit at the expense of the town. It would be unheard of to reinstate fields - when its gone that's it!!

We feel there is no justification for the release of MIIM#, in part or as a whole, from its current Green Gap allocation consistent with the LDF and Government current and future planning policy,the development of a large supermarket would be completely contrary to that policy as well as undermining the vitality and viability of Ulverston Town Centre.

I strongly oppose the change to the above Green Gap land to retail use as proposed by land agents acting on behalf of sainsburys. This is for the following reasons

1 OUT OF TOWN DEVELOPMENT-This is contrary to SLDC own 'Local Plan Document for the future of Ulverston' which states'it is important that the overall vitality and viability of the town centre is protected and enhanced. To achieve this, the Local Plan will seek to improve the attractiveness of the town centre whilst at the same time limiting new retail development which would jeopardise the vitality of the existing shopping area. Small scale development and re-development schemes will be allowed in the centre, providing that they are appropriate in scale and character'
If this goes ahead Ulverston will be lost as a market/tourist town as the small,unique shops we have would be gone along with tourists who come and spend money in our town.

2. Jobs would be lost. A temporary increase in low paid retail jobs would occur but where superstores arrive there is a resultant net loss of jobs. In 1998, a report by the National Retail Planning Forum (quoted by the Competition Commission in its major report on superstores ten years later), based on a study of a number of superstore openings, reported that each new superstore actually resulted in a net loss of 276 jobs within a 15km radius.]

3. Traffic- recent traffic surveys have estimated over 16,000 vehicles with a large HGV component use this stretch of trunk road. Ribbon development schemes such as this proposal massively exacerbate the urban corridor further. Presently this is an extremely dangerous section of the A590 with some residential properties a metre from the road! properties in Swarthmoor have driveways that lead to them reversing into one of the busiest roads in Cumbria. Some sections have NO pavement and the road is so narrow in places HGVs & other traffic frequently collide! Any further increase in traffic volume will lead to more congestion, risk taking and accidents.

4.Ouside the development boundary of Ulverston.Need to preserve the Green Gap between Swarthmoor village and Ulverston. This land is rich with wildlife and should not be developed for the greed of individuals and faceless supermarkets.

5.Drainage is a problem here. These fields are at present acting as a natural soakaway and absorb the run off water from the A590 and Pennington.

6. I strongly object to the general noise, disturbance, pollution and loss of privacy which a superstore 'open all hours' would bring to local residents. Access onto the A590 is at present difficult and would be impossible with any further increase in traffic.

No view

Option A - Allocating sites for houses and employment in the Land Allocations document

Option B would give developers carte blanche to bring forward unsuitable developments