3 responses from Mrs Rose Byron (Individual)
1. Mrs Rose Byron (Individual) : 6 Sep 2011 23:27:00
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 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.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
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
The Land Allocations' process goes through a democratic, consultative process which residents have a better chance of influencing.
Developers and powerful land agents who only want to make money would would exploit option B
2. Mrs Rose Byron (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 22:32:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN1F8
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
The allocation of this small portion of land for possible low cost town centre homes could ensure the future of Ford Park for the town. The group work tirelessly for the benefit of Ulverston and the community they live in and this allocation as I understand it would be a 'safety net' should they need to realise finances to ever save Ford Park from disappearing to a large development in dire times.
The size of allocation seems to be small and would be next to existing housing and within easy walking distance of the amenities in the centre.I am sure covenants and clauses could ensure no pricey executive homes would be built but designate affordable housing which we need in Ulverston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
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
3. Mrs Rose Byron (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 22:00:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN178
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
PLEASE NOTE DUE TO TYPING ERROR WITH THE REFERENCE NUMBER ON MY LAST RESPONSE I HAVE HAD TO RE SEND THIS WITH THE CORRECT REF. NO.
The allocation of this small portion of land for possible low cost town centre homes could ensure the future of Ford Park for the town. The group work tirelessly for the benefit of Ulverston and the community they live in and this allocation as I understand it would be a 'safety net' should they need to realise finances to ever save Ford Park from disappearing to a large development in dire times.
The size of allocation seems to be small and would be next to existing housing and within easy walking distance of the amenities in the centre.I am sure covenants and clauses could ensure no pricey executive homes would be built but designate affordable housing which we need in Ulverston.
Please indicate whether you support, support in part or oppose a reduction in the time span of the Land Allocations document
No view
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
