5 responses from Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual)
1. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 21:49:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN330#
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
Access to this land would only be possible if R189M was also developed and then all vehicles would be using Askewgate which is a narrow lane without pavement, not suitable for additional traffic and has a poorly sighted junction with the A595. This land is highly visible from the estuary and so housing here would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity.
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
If the Land Allocation document is to be used then it should be reviewed regularly to keep up with changing circumstances. A shorter period is therefore more appropriate.
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
Such planning issues should be under the control of local parish groups.
2. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 21:53:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
EN58#
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
Road access to this site is poor via Beckside Lane which is very poorly sighted for traffic returning to the A595. This lane had no pavement but is extensively used by pedestrians accessing the Church and Village Community centres/playing fields. Vehicles associated with deliveries to employment premises would put these pedestrians at risk.
3. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 21:55:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN13#
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
This land is far too difficult to access safely. Beckside Lane is very narrow and cannot support additional vehicles.
4. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 22:04:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
R211#
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
This land would have good, safe access via the cul-de-sac end of Burlington Close. The Close has good sighting for vehicles joining the A595 in both directions.
There would be safe pedestrian access to the school, shops and community centre without the need to cross the A595. Visual impact of housing here would be low since the land is not significantly elevated compared to existing housing.
5. Mr Michael Tyrrell (Individual) : 5 Sep 2011 22:08:00
Settlement (e.g., Natland)
Kirkby-in-Furness
Site reference number (e.g., RN298#)
RN11#
Please indicate below whether you support, support in part or oppose the suggestion that this site be included in the Land Allocations document.
Support in part
Please explain your reasons/add your comments below
This land would provide good, direct access for vehicles to the A595 and would allow children to access the school without crossing the main road. However, the boundary shown on the consultation map shows this area actually bounded by the existing pylon lines. I would expect that development of housing is not permitted directly under this line, especially as there would seem to be proposals to upgrade the capacity of the line, possibly on the existing route.
