Response from Mrs Sandra Armstrong (Individual)
1. Mrs Sandra Armstrong (Individual) : 9 Sep 2011 12:03:00
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
As a nearby resident, I strongly believe that this should be left under Green Gap protection. Otherwise development will create a blur between Ulverston and Swarthmoor, with ribbon development and traffic chaos that this will bring. Ulverston will lose its character, and town boundaries will blur.
Under no circumstances should the suggestion that this be designated for retail be approved because:
a) It will undermine Uvlerston's vitality and vibrancy
b) It will put traders out of business and lose the heart of the town
c) Retail only brings low value jobs - and Ulverston needs high value jobs
d) Such a development would also inevitably lose jobs so balancing this out, it would result in a net loss (cf New Economics Foundation calculations - 274 jobs on average lost when a large retail development comes)
e) It would create chaos in the building
f) The road is dangerous enough already without more cars, with thousands of trips per week being generated
I oppose any retail designation, and wish to see the land kept as a greenfield site
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
People must be allowed to have a say
