Response from Mr Tom Bowden (Individual)
1. Mr Tom Bowden (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:33:00
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 think that this should be kept as a greenfield site under its current Green Gap Protection. This is to avoid the substantial risk of ribbon development happening along the A590.
If anything is to be developed, I strongly oppose attempts to designate this site for retail use. If any development is to happen, and Green Gap protection is to be lost, it must be for high value (not lower-value retail) use. That would be the only justification for development on this land. High value light industrial (e.g. high tech) would also mean that traffic problems were not so acute as they inevitably would be if it were a retail development.
I also strongly oppose any attempt to designate this site for retail use because:
1) It would undermine the vitality and vibrancy of Ulverston. Ulverston's unique selling point is its small shops and independent retailers and this would be seriously undermined by any superstore being developed of this nature
2) The retail would be out of town - a death knell for the centre of town
3) The traffic chaos at this particularly difficult corner would be huge, potentially, undermining both Ulverston's and Barrow's access routes.
I strongly oppose this development
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
