2 responses from Mr Chris Byron (Individual)
1. Mr Chris Byron (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 22:15:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
South Ulverston
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
E19# MN6# ie 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 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. As a resident on a personal level I strongly object to the general noise, disturbance, pollution and loss of privacy which a superstore 'open all hours' would bring. Access onto the A590 is at present difficult and would be impossible with any further increase in traffic.
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
In my opinion option B prevents individuals putting forward unsuitable schemes for financial gain at the expense of the wider community.
2. Mr Chris Byron (Individual) : 7 Sep 2011 22:30:00
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