Local Development Framework Consultation

South Ulverston

E19# MN6# M11M#

Oppose

I completely oppose any development on this site, which should be maintained under its Green Gap Protection. This is for a variety of reasons, including the preservation of the wildlife, avoidance of traffic chaos, maintenance of the standards of life of local residents who will be severely disrupted by the development (please note I am NOT a local resident, but an Ulverston Town Centre resident). Perhaps most of all I am concerned about the serious implication for ribbon development if this site is given planning permission - with Ulverston 'leaking' along the A590 towards Swarthmoor, creating vague town boundaries, ultimately joining up with other distinct settlements. Ribbon development of this kind is notoriously undermining of the heart and soul of towns and villages, and I oppose it totally.

If development on the land was absolutely necessary, then I would vigorously oppose any attempt (I gather put forward by Sainsbury's agents) to designate this land for 'retail'. My reasons for opposing any change of use to retail are:

1. It would create traffic chaos, at a very difficult point on the road anyway. This would be a car-based supermarket and that means serious amounts of traffic. It would also impact on a very difficult 'blind pull' for residents.

2. It would undermine the small local retailers for which ULverston is proud. It would be an out-of-town supermarket, and so people would be tempted to do all their shopping there (the size proposed is huge). There are numerous examples of out of town stores killing the centres of market towns stone dead. This would be fundamentally against any sustainable economic strategy in the region and simply serve to ensure that Sainsbury's profits increase whilst the profits of local retailers, suppliers decrease. And incidentally such profits, when generated by a supermarket, leave the area - they don't stay in it. It would be economic suicide.

3. M11M would be better used, if it has to be used at all, for high-value industries for which ULverston is known - developing this would bring far more money into the local area, and also avoid the disruption of traffic which a supermarket would inevitably bring.

4. There is no need for another supermarket in Ulverston. SLDC's own retail assessment says that there is no need for anything like this size (in fact it says there is only 'need' for a further 570 sq metres. Where would the spending in this supermarket come from? Aggressive and competitive underpricing of goods in the first instance by supermarkets ensures that they scoop up local trade quickly, putting local traders out of business. This is why supermarkets now have a 97% share of all convenience goods - not by 'enhancing' local businesses, but by undercutting them and putting them out of business.


In short, I think that Green Gap protection should be maintained but if any development is to happen a retail development must NOT be allowed - it would be death to the town, traffic chaos would ensue, and no economic benefit would accrue. Indeed, Ulverston's vitality and vibrancy would be severely, permanently and criminally undermined.

Oppose

I think land allocations should take a long term view.

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

Though Option B says communities could bring forward sites this is risible - in practice, it would be the geared-up, funded developers who would then vie with one another to snaffle up various sites depending on the money they think they can make from them, not the needs of the local residents. It must, must, must be Option A.