3 responses from Mr Colin Patrick (Individual)
1. Mr Colin Patrick (Individual) : 15 Dec 2015 14:52:00
Discussion Paper section
6. Options for Meeting the Objectives and Delivering the Vision
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.
s 6.20
Proposed site 32.
This site is out of sympathy with the historic form and character of the village, which is ribbon development along
roads not blocks of housing. It will damage views out from the church, and views from river into the village. The
effect of massing of houses will be magnified by the slope. Access to the site is poor, along narrow Mill Lane, and
the route from the A6 is complicated. The site was rejected in the recent LDF exercise, why has it surfaced again ?
access poor along Mill Lane, route from A6 problematic
2. Mr Colin Patrick (Individual) : 15 Dec 2015 14:56:00
Discussion Paper section
6. Options for Meeting the Objectives and Delivering the Vision
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.
s. 6.20
proposed site 109. This block of housing is out of character with the ribbon development of the village. Access
will be poor and traffic on the narrow approach road will be increased. There are already times of day when traffic
is too heavy.
3. Mr Colin Patrick (Individual) : 15 Dec 2015 15:02:00
Discussion Paper section
6. Options for Meeting the Objectives and Delivering the Vision
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.
s 6.20
site 13
This is the abandoned Slackhead Tip. It was used for domestic and toxic waste disposal, records of what was
dumped are poor or non-existent. It was cited in a Friends of the Earth report about 25 years ago as a possible
source of radio-active pollution. It has been generating methane, shown by vent tubes. Has methane generation
finished ? A letter from the NRA to Beetham Parish Council dated 27 June 1991 stated "The landfill was not
engineered to containment principles...". Presumably this means insufficient compaction and no surface seal.
Disturbance of the surface will affect water ingress and movement, with new routes for drainage within and from the
base of the tip. Altered flow patterns and amounts, together with changed water chemistry, could remobilise
pollutants.
If the tip is insufficiently compacted it will not be stable enough for building. Alterations in water flow could increase
instability in an already poorly compacted mass. Any tendency to settle may be accentuated by the tip lying in a
doline, a natural subsidence hollow in the limestone caused by solution of the underlying limestone. Rock solution
could be increased by changes in water flow in the tip mass, with changes in water chemistry, leading to further
settlement.
Public Health England's interactive radon maps indicate that radon is endemic in the area. Disturbance of the tip
may cause radon to be channelled preferentially via the tip to any buildings above..
Road access to Slackhead is already poor, there is too much traffic on the road up the hill from Beetham.
Additional traffic will make the situation much worse.