Local Development Framework Consultation

Holme

RN293#

Oppose

The proposal put forward by Barden Planning Consultants would result in unbroken housing from the start of the village at Farlton View cottages and detract from the present break up of development within the village. The proposal is falacious on the grounds that it merely facilitaties development for the builder, therefore makeing it easier for them to increase profitablilty against the development of the proposed site on the opposite side of the canal.I do not accept that the bus route 555 which runs adjacent to the site is a reason for development. It assumes that people will buy there rather than walk up Sheeernest to reach the bus route.
Whilst I accept that eventually this site may be deemed suitable for development I support many of the reasons submitted by Mrs Julie Henderson.
Should this application prevail,I believe that the developer should guarantee to devote at least 35% of the properties to affordable housing and also guarantee that ALL the properties were subject
to local occupancy restrictions. For Holme to thrive as a community, I believe SLDC has a duty to ensure any new residential development will provide homes for people who are actively participating in the local community on a daily basis because they are employed in it or have an existing family connection. Twelve of the thirty-nine properties that are next to this site on Holmefield, Farleton View and Sheernest are already second homes, holiday lets or rented out on short tenancies so I would strongly oppose this site being included in the document if local occupancy restrictions could not be guaranteed.

This site is part of site R677 in which the Holme Coke Ovens are situated. I am concerned that the development of the site could cause damage to the Coke Ovens which are of historical importance to the village and are located on the boundary. The conservation of the Coke Ovens (which is funded by Cumbria County Council, SLDC and British Waterways) will become even more significant with the planned restoration of the Lancaster to Kendal canal.
How would SLDC ensure that the future of the Coke Ovens is safe both during
the building project and after any development of the site?

With regard to the canal restoration project, how much independent and professional consideration would be given to the impact that development of this site would have on the canal frontage, both aesthetically (in relation to the coke ovens) and environmentally?

There is also a large, established oak tree included in the hedgerow that provides the boundary to the site. Is this tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not? Who is responsible for the protection of this tree?

As the resident of one of the properties which directly overlook the
proposed site, I am naturally concerned about privacy infringement and loss of light if this site were to be developed. How much consideration would be given to the fact that three properties each have two bedroom and two lounge windows overlooking this site and another three properties have side aspects overlooking this site?

There have been a number of incidents involving vehicles exiting Holmefield colliding with vehicles travelling in either direction on Burton Road because of poor visibility due to parked cars on Burton Road. Burton Road is currently used for parking by the residents of Farleton View, Sheernest and Primrose Bank and for overflow parking from Holmefield (where the 4 visitor
parking spaces are woefully inadequate). If this site was developed, how much land would be allocated to parking? Would this be sufficient to ensure no further risk to safety caused by yet more parking on Burton Road?

Holmefield itself was originally proposed with 5 fewer houses than currently exist, and this has resulted in more intensive housing that was originally agreed due to builders creep.
What guarantees would the local authority be prepared to give that the proposed site would not include a majority of intensive housing, if the proposal by Barden was accepted, thus turning the south of the village into yet another large soulless housing estate. The village needs to retain its 'village' feel and not turn into a sprawling development on the underbelly of the Lake District.

Support in part

The world moves on and by 2020 it should be clear whether or not the restoration of the Lancaster canal is actually going to happen.

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

This option gives more local control to proposed development sites