Local Development Framework Consultation

4. Vision and Objectives

Firstly, I would like to make a general comment that the title: Area of Outstanding NATURAL Beauty (AONB) uses the word natural. Additional housing, let alone so called "affordable housing" is man-made and therefore contrasts with the natural geography of the area.

Additional housing should be dictated by genuine needs and not by policy from central government.

The document speaks of additional employment. Where is this additional employment? In the 15 years I have lived in Silverdale I have not seen any significant local increase in job opportunities.

Any housing to support additional employment should be as close as possible to where these jobs are. An additional 72 houses could mean an excess of hundred additional motor vehicles travelling daily to the larger towns of Lancaster, Morecambe and Kendal on roads with very limited capacity for additional traffic.
Transport links by road to both Silverdale and Arnside are both limited to a single road with one carriageway in each direction, (ie Stankelt Rd and Sandside Rd, respectively). All other roads are singletrack with passing places. During the summer, particularly due to tourism, the roads can be congested and occasionally blocked altogether through recreational vehicles, caravans etc.
Both villages have rail links and thought needs to be given to developing housing within walking distance of the stations allowing access to employment opportunities in a much larger area, but only if it is not possible to build affordable housing close to the new jobs.

The AONB area relies on tourism any new jobs are likely to be in this industry. This has increased recently, particularly in Silverdale through resulting from programmes such as 'Autumnwatch'. Care therefore needs to be given not to disturb the ambience of the area so tourism can be sustained for even expanded.

In the Silverdale area, with which I am most familiar, many of the proposed development sites are inpractical. I would not wish to spend time going through these individually but the two nearest my house on Elmslack Lane i.e. 43 and 51 are cases in point.
Site 51 is on a steep slope has no access, and forms a boundary of Eaves Wood. The landowner was recently forbidden to cut down trees, yet this is now being proposed for development!

Site 43 has multiple landowners, very little access and any potential access would be onto singletrack road with passing places this site is also larger than 1 ha and therefore constitutes a "major development" (as are several other proposed sites). The site is also visible from Eaves Wood, particularly the pepperpot and therefore would become something of an eyesore.

The third site (45) along Cove Road is actually a private house.

There are several other proposed sites which are now prime farmland e.g. site 50. These should not be disturbed as they form part of the local economy, and would become an eyesore as being overlooked by prime areas e.g. site 50 is overlooked by Eaves Wood. These areas with hedgerows form natural habitats for wildlife which would be destroyed through development.

Various areas of "important open space" are afforded protection but there is nothing in a document to say how these may be developed or access granted where this is not already available.

The document repeatedly comments on how the AONB should be protected but says little about how facilities could be enhanced. To give a couple of examples, there are several disused quarries within the AONB how could these be developed, or are they to remain a scar on the landscape? Arnside viaduct has had the enabling works for a footpath/cycle track laid, this offers the opportunity to develop a path for pedestrians and cyclists across to the other side of the bay and would significantly enhance the tourist appeal of the area. There must be many other examples of how the area can be enhanced and with this employment opportunities and a real need for affordable housing.