Response from Mr Robert Sutton (Individual)
1. Mr Robert Sutton (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 11:45:00
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 this should be kept under Green Gap Protection.
It should definitely NOT be designated retail use, for the following reasons:
a) Potential for harmful ribbon development
b) Traffic chaos - this would be a car-based development, generating numerous trips, and bring chaos to an already congested and often flooded area of the A590
c) Undermining fundamentally the vitality of Ulverston's town centre, with an out of town development, stocking all products, providing a serious threat to the small traders, of whom I am one (bookshop)
d) Out of town supermarkets do not provide significant economic growth - they are low value developments as noted under the SLDC Sustainable community strategy
e) There is absolutely no 'need' for such a development, as shown by SLDC's own retail assessment and indeed the retail assessment undertaken for an alternative supermarket site (Brewery development)
I strongly oppose designating this as retail for these reasons, but fundamentally would oppose any development whatsoever and wish it to be kept under Green Gap Protection
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
Democratic consultation must be allowed
