Response from Mr Philip Campbell, Helme Lodge Homes & Gardens Ltd
1. Mr Philip Campbell, Helme Lodge Homes & Gardens Ltd : 6 Sep 2013 11:45:00
Please add your response below, quoting the further proposed main modification reference number or relevant document title including reference to section / page / paragraph: (limit 3000 words)
For the Attention of: Mr Simon Berkeley, Government Planning Inspector.
From: Philip Campbell, representing Helme Lodge Homes & Gardens Ltd.
Reference: R97M+MN34# Referred in latest documents as: MM079
Land south of Natland Mill Beck Farm
In response to your request for final submissions, we would like to make one last observation. Whilst we obviously continue all our original objections about allocating land for housing on the old Helme Lodge, greenfield, ‘Low Park’ area, and the proximity of over 70 houses between two Grade 2 listed Buildings, loss of amenity etc., we submit that the question of proper and safe access to the site has yet to be finally answered.
SLDC’s final proposal was for all vehicular traffic (except ‘Blue Light’ -- which would enter from Natland Mill Beck Lane) to access the site from the South Western tip of the land allocation proposed, from off Natland Road. SLDC also repeated it’s commitment to honour the re-watering of the Lancaster Canal, which would necessarily entail the canal crossing under Natland Road – presumably involving a road bridge -- at this exact access point i.e.: proposing that the traffic from 70+ houses, as well as traffic from the proposed commercial site / or canal basin / to be allocated for the other side of the road (M31N), should all be exiting at this very point which is also a national cycle track and major pedestrian walking route.
SLDC’s own Highways report from AEcom (March 2013) stated that access would therefore only be possible if it involved using land from outside the allocation to the south of the proposed access point.
We submit that, suddenly including that extra, as yet undefined, land (which could be several hundred metres in length) is both unfair and unsound procedure. The extra land had not been mentioned before during the 4 years of the planning process. Had we / or others / known, we could well have raised other objections, but we had no opportunity so to do. You surely cannot suddenly alter the goal posts in such a fundamental manner without prejudicing the "soundness" of the whole proposed allocation?
Secondly we believe, from discussions with the Canal Trust, that their engineering meetings with Story’s Homes (the developer who last week, August 29th. 2013, submitted an application to build 76 homes on the site, before your Hearing has even reported) are still to take place to devise a suitable road / canal crossing. When they do, we are advised that, given a bridge at that proposed location, the access road would have to be lengthened at least 200 metres on land outside the allocation, but that probably they would have to move the crossing site south by some 300 metres, therefore necessitating a huge extra driveway in and out of the site. Such a huge access road would be neither environmentally acceptable, with every car travelling over half a kilometre extra each time it wanted to get in and out onto Natland Road -- which is already narrow, busy and taking increased traffic from the other developments in Natland village itself.
Consequently we, Helme Lodge, remain fundamentally opposed to this area, R97M+MN34#, being allocated as suitable for housing in any form, and also submit that the access would be unsafe, impractical, over elaborate and certainly pouting with the extra meter-age each vehicle would have to take to use it.
I am, yours sincerely, Philip Campbell.
(Director, Helme Lodge Homes and Gardens Ltd.)
