Response from Miss Lorraine Stobbart (Individual)
1. Miss Lorraine Stobbart (Individual) : 10 Nov 2015 15:10:00
Discussion Paper section
5. Policy Issues
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Question 7. Houses should be restricted to people who will be using them as a main residence in order to maintain the vibrancy of the community, no holiday homes should be allowed at all. They shouldn't be solely limited to locals although priority should be given to young people who have grown up in the area, followed by people from SLDC and Lancaster Council areas. Young people from the Lake District are already priced out of the market within their own areas so have to look further afield, with the AONB being a good compromise-it would be disappointing if this choice was also taken from them.
Question 9. Limited housing development in rural areas should not be completed discounted if it can be managed to avoid spoiling the nature of the area. In this instance the local community could be enhanced without causing inconvenience, distress or discomfort to the existing residents, who have chosen to live in a rural location with immediate access to open spaces. For example sites 100 & 102 should be discounted due to the levels of disruption and distress caused to a number of existing residents.
Question 11. Yes where possible brownfield sites should be used, as well as areas next to brownfield sites in order to reduce the impact on the natural environment.
Density should also be highly limited (with specific reference to the more rural areas of Beetham and the Yealands). New affordable housing tends to be very dense and this would not suit the setting or indeed the people who would choose to live in such an area. People who would like to live here wish to do so because of the open spaces and views, not because they wish to live in large housing estates. This is not normally a considerations for new or affordable homes and given the unique location should be treated with high priority.
Question 13. Live work spaces would be a good idea to promote small scale local business opportunities. The re-use of old or derelict buildings should be prioritised before new building works. It is important to remember that many employment opportunities already exist in the local area with excellent transport links to these with the A6 and railway line.
Question 15. Services and in particular access and highways is a key issue in deciding which developments and which sites should be allowed to progress. Only sites with direct access from a main route should be considered in order to protect rural roads from overuse and damage. For example 99, 101 & 103 should be considered more favourable than 100 (which should be immediately discounted) due to poor access from very narrow roads which could not cope with the increase in residential traffic, let alone construction traffic.
Question 20. The land to the North and East of The Meadows should be designated as open space because the housing density of that particular area is already fairly high for the area. In order to protect the nature and feel of the local area additional housing should not be added within this vicinity.
Question 21. Very limited development, if any should be allowed in the most rural areas of Beetham and the Yealands in order to limit damage to the settlement identities and the local landscapes. Instead priority should be given to suitable developments in larger settlements where the effect will be felt less and where there are more services and amenities already in existence.
Are there any topics or issues that you think we have missed or that you wish to raise?
Road safety for site 100. Access to the Meadows is very narrow and extra traffic could cause incidents to occur. Most importantly the main access route to this site is directly past the village play area, putting local children in danger from general traffic and especially construction traffic. If children were prohibited from using this area due to safety concerns it would be very damaging to the local community. Site 100 should be immediately removed from the plans as it is not suitable for many reasons.