Local Development Framework Consultation

Site B120 High Cote,High Cote Lane, Slackhead, Beetham.

In addition to my comments and observations submitted on the Arnside & Silverdale AONB: Development Plan Document(DPD): Issues and Options Consultation in December 2015, I would like to make a number of comments on this site which has been added to the list of sites for consideration in Question 27.

This site must be assessed against the considerations set out in the introduction to the DPD. These stress the importance of the area as an AONB with the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty; the importance of character and special qualities behind this designation; the requirement in government policy to give great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty; the priority in the AONB Management Plan to meet local community needs,priority affordable housing and the use of brownfield sites( para.1.6).

Slackhead itself is an unsustainable area without any services and entirely functions by means of daily car journeys and vehicle deliveries to and from neighbouring and more sustainable settlements.It should probably never have originally been allowed to develop the existing housing layout, which remains visually intrusive from outside the immediate vicinity even to this day, and in line with the discussion paper and proposed DPD, any further development should be limited to local needs only, with any proposed development being focussed around the more sustainable settlement of Beetham village itself, which does hold a number of basic daily services and jobs.

Site B120 is largely a greenfield site of 2.21 ha.in a sensitive part of the AONB and might potentially hold a significant residential development opportunity. Not only is this unlikely to satisfy local housing need, it is also likely to be out of scale and at odds with the area's intimate AONB landscape and the infrastructure of roads, utilities and broader community services. The access from 'outside' is difficult at the best of times( e.g Beetham and Leighton Beck Bridge) and would only be accentuated by sustained, additional traffic from further residential settlement.

Assessed against the strategic settlement planning policy framework, its AONB status and the practicalities of development when set in the wider context of many more sustainable sites, including those outside the AONB, this large site should be dismissed as a significant development opportunity. It is understood that an application for up to around 9 houses on a part of the site was refused some years ago. There is no reason to consider that circumstances have materially altered in the interim.

Site S127 Bottoms Lane Silverdale
The purpose of the AONB designation will be at the heart of the DPD. On these grounds this site is unsuitable for development as it would harm the designation on all counts.
Outstanding Landscape and spectacular views - these would be harmed and degraded not least for the thousands of walkers who use Bottoms Lane and its adjoining network of footpaths.
Unique Limestone Geology - a conspicuous rib of limestone close to the surface runs across this pocket of land.
Rare and Precious Habitats - the site is lowland calcareous grassland which is a BAP Priority Habitat
The Sustainability Appraisal also highlights the need to protect and conserve landscape features such as walls, hedgerows and in-field trees, all of which are present at this site.

Site 127 Land West of Bottoms Lane.
As regular visitors to Bottoms Lane Caravan Site, we were horrified to hear that the land west of Bottoms Lane is being assessed for development. The site seems totally inappropriate. We believe the local infrastructure of highways and drainage would not be able to sustain such a large development. Any development on the proposed site would scar the beautiful tranquil landscape and destroy local wildlife habitats. The large oak tree which stands so proud and is such a dominant feature of the area would be at risk. We question what is the purpose of having a designated area of outstanding natural beauty and then building on it.

We request that the Field or Green, as it is known, which is part of the Silverdale Village Institute, Spring Bank, Silverdale, Carnforth LA5 0TE should be protected as a Local Open Green Space from any development (including any form of permanent fixture). People have moved to Silverdale because of its AONB setting and diverse range of facilities and activities covering all ages. The Field’s long history and peaceful, visual amenity have attracted people to reside by it. Any dramatic “change of use” proposals such as there are at present for MUGAs or Combi/Skate Bowls would be totally out of character for its rural setting and would cause great stress and anxiety for neighbours. Since 1908, the land and buildings have been held in trust with the object of providing and maintaining a village hall to improve conditions of life for villagers. The Field is a village green – a tranquil open space for retreat and reflection - a natural recreational and leisure time amenity – where one can sit, relax, play, run, jog or walk. Occasional village fetes and cricket matches have been part of this village green’s tradition. It was never and should not be allowed to become a commercial sports park. The Field was never conceived as a formal and compulsory urban-style sports park. The urban hazards of hard surfacing, fencing, netting, meshing, edging, walling, floodlights and “dawn to dusk” noise would have a serious adverse impact on close neighbours, pets AND the Field's ages-old turf and tree dependent ecosystem. Song birds, pigeons, crows, magpies, terns, finches and rabbits prevail in this natural amphitheatre. We've also seen owls, sparrow hawks, deer, pheasants AND three protected species - hedgehogs, bats and swifts. 50 bat movements have been recorded in half an hour. Local and migrating swifts, for long periods, swoop high and low over the whole open Field. The whole vital Field has been foraged for a century. It has important wildlife links to other local habitats. This special and valued heritage Local Open Green Space and village green must be protected. Its traditional, physical, wildlife and ambient circumstances are unique.

Sites S126 and S127
Both of these sites are in the Arnside and Silverdale AONB area and are as such Green field sites.
Silverdale does not need these sites to be developed and both sites are on roads / lanes that are very restricted for vehicular access.
With Silverdale not having mains sewerage it also has the added problem of septic tank/ sewage system.

As the owners of the field in Bottoms Lane we advise you that we wish to have this site removed from the consultation process as we no longer wish to have our field considered for development.

Please confirm that this is in order.

Regards

Randy & Gail Coldham

Reference Number B120 High Cote, High Cote Lane, Slackhead.

We object to developing the above site for the following reasons:-

Any development on this site would severly impinge on the AONB's special qualities, especially on the flora & fauna & limestone pavements.

The surrounding access roads are single track, already challenging & have significant additional traffic in the summer months from the local caravan parks.
There is no street lighting nor pavements.
There are no mains sewage or drainage systems.
There is no public transport.
There are no local services in Slackhead other than a post box.
There are no facilities for children or young people.

B118 & B119.
These two sites form part of the (original) B81
I repeat my comments submitted in December 2015:-
“This site should be used for housing. At present it is a bit of an eyesore and not at all in keeping with an AONB.”

B121.
This appears to be identical to the (original) B116.
I repeat my comment submitted in December 2015:-
“This site should be excluded. It is greenfield and has severe access difficulties which are not capable of resolution at a sustainable/economic cost.”

B122.
Approximately half the site, the southern half/the old coal yard, is part of the (original) B81. In respect of that part, I repeat my comment submitted in December 2015:-
“This site should be used for housing. At present it is a bit of an eyesore and not at all compatible with an AONB.”
I note that B118, B119 and the southern part of B122 comprise almost all of the (original) B81, apart from Quarry Lane.
With regard to the northern half of B122, this is greenfield and should not be developed.

B123.
This is an isolated site. It is often waterlogged and is prone to flooding. It is greenfield.
It should not be developed.

B124.
This is part of the (original) B81.
I repeat my comment submitted in December 2015:-
“The site should be used for housing. At present it is a bit of an eyesore and not at all compatible with an AONB.”
B125. (The Ship Inn.)
This is a completely new site.
If the (original) B81 is to be redeveloped as housing, then there is some logic in including this site within that development.
However, the existing pub is a useful asset to the village and area, it is also a local landmark and focal point.
It has considerable character and the building should be retained.

B120, S126, S127 and W128.
I have no comments regarding these sites.

Site S126
To develop on every pocket of land would have an adverse impact on the landscape and character of the AONB. This is a 'greenfield' site and therefore it is inappropriate for development. It would create a precedent for other isolated developments adjoining housing to be built on in the countryside.

Site S127
I believe this site has now been withdrawn. For the record I would object as this is a 'greenfield' site and a space to conserve for future generations. We must protect the AONBs natural beauty and in accordance it deserves the highest status of protection.

Comments relate to Site B120: High Cote, High Cote Lane, Slackhead.

I understand the Government has tasked you with identifying sites for possible future housing.
I believe this site is unsuitable for a number of reasons.

* The access to this site via Beetham and Leighton Beck Road is already unsuitable due to the high number of vehicles using it daily. Cars have to tuck into the entrances to houses on the hill between Beetham and Slackhead to pass. At various times of the day the road gets log-jammed. It only takes three or four vehicles trying to travel the route to block it. There have been numerous accidents.
As the main access route to any new housing – this would make this not just more dangerous but unworkable.
*The steep hill is untreated in winter and each winter there are numerous small accidents due to ice despite provision of roadside grit bins.
*Current delivery operators complain about the access to the current houses and the delays they encounter when the road from Beetham gets clogged up. Adding to an exisiting problem does not seem sensible.
*Water pressure for houses adjacent to the proposed site are already under the national minimum making use of energy efficient combi boilers not practicable. Despite years of asking the water company has not been able to improve the supply.
*Local amenities are strictly limited to one small shop with basic supplies, a pub and a church.

The exisiting houses adjacent to the site built in the early 1970s should probably never have been built in such a sensitive area and access is barely adequate for these. Suggesting further development is laughable.
Given the main access roads are small country lanes and not able to be improved it is surprising this site was even suggested.
Local landowners may well be happy to sell the site to make a profit, they have a good track record in that regard, however the fundamental problem of limited safe access is not one that will disappear.
The site is unrealistic and should be disregarded.

Dear Sir/Madam,
We wish to comment on the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD Issues and Options Consultation Map Book - Additional Sites, March 2016 as follows:

Site B120: High Cote, High Cote Lane, Slackhead

We object to any development on this site for the following reasons:-
01 The site sits on part of the Limestone Pavement which we understand has a Limestone Pavement Order on it.
02 There will be increased traffic from the site into Beetham via Leighton Beck Road
This road is almost single lane; it has no footpaths and already can get congested as vehicles try to pass each other. It is extremely dangerous for pedestrians.
03 The higher parts of Slackhead already suffer from very low water pressure. Several incidents have been recorded with United Utilities and pressure loggers have been installed to monitor the situation. An increase in housing in this area would make this situation worse and United Utilities could have a major problem on their hands.
04 There are no facilities in Slackhead, no public transport, and no footpath down into Beetham. As such this site is not suitable for Affordable Housing.
05 Houses in this area are generally too expensive for local people. There are currently 4 properties and a plot of land on High Cote Lane and Leighton Drive that are for sale and some of which are unoccupied. This questions the need for more development if the current supply cannot be fulfilled.
06 Already Slackhead is very visible from the South and we must say it has a negative impact on the topography and relief of the woodland landscape. We are sure the Slackhead development would not have been granted in the first instance had the AONB been in existence at the time. Extending the development would only add to the problem.
07 Important woodland and wildlife habitat will be destroyed. With the increase in woodland diseases we need more than ever to protect our woods within our AONB.
09 All dwellings in Slackhead are on septic tanks as there is no mains drainage available.

Yours faithfully,

Dr James A Edwards &
Dr Katharine Parrott-Edwards

AONB DPD Extra Sites Consultation
The land at Silverdale Institue, Spring Bank, Silverdale should be a protected green space for the people of Silverdale to enjoy as this was left as a gift to the community. The present application for a skate board bowl would be detrimental to A.O.N.B and against the majority of the Silverdale Community.

Response to Arnside & Silverdale AONB DPD - Extra Sites Consultation

Site 127 land west of Bottoms Lane
Any development on this site would be detrimental to the AONB and the character of Silverdale village
- Building on this site would be ribbon development and epitomise everything that the Town and Country Planning act was brought in to prevent.
- It is a green field site away from the village footprint.
- It contains older more species rich grassland which is sadly very scarce even in the AONB.
- It has a magnificent oak tree which I think is protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
- It is bounded by drystone walls and hedgerows which are part of the significant features and special character of the AONB.
- It is clearly visible from the popular National Trust viewpoint 'The Pepperpot' a much visited part of the Eaves Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Site B120: High Cote, High Cote Lane, Slackhead
Development on this site would be detrimental because :-

- Slack head is very visually prominent particularly from the South and east.
- The site adjoins the Underlaid Wood SSSI and shares many of its important and scarce features - oak/ash woodland;gorse and heath it is likely to contain the same declining and threatened wildlife species.

Site 126 is an elevated and isolated site presently maintained as part of Silverdale Golf Club.
Any development on this site would be visually intrusive in the AONB and help to destroy the purpose and designation of the AONB.
Site 127 is a greenfield site on Bottoms Lane which is unsuitable for housing or commercial development in the AONB. Greenfield sites should only be considered as a last resort. This is a speculative site that should be resisted.
Site 128 is another speculative site that has been changed from being used and managed as part of a farming enterprise to a mixture of what appears to be rubbish, a few pigs and various abandoned items. It is at the end of Sand Lane which only has housing on one side, and would create a serious visual impact. Any development would stretch the village boundary and negatively impact on the visual and amenity aspects of the AONB.
All three sites if approved for development would set precedents very difficult to counter in most other parts of the AONB.
This should be resisted if the Planning system is serious about the importance of the AONB and its policies.
Development should be prioritised on redundant brownfield sites.

S127 land west of Bottoms Lane
This site should be rejected in the interests of visual amenity and the proper planning of a rural area within an AONB for the following reasons.
The proposed site is a green field beyond the present limits of the established village core. It cannot be considered as either infill or rounding off,
and would lead to increased urbanisation of a rural lane in the heart of Silverdale and within a designated AONB.
Any development would set a precedent encouraging further applications for development of adjacent land as infill which would then be difficult to resist and would lead to ribbon development along the lane.
Nearby barns were sensitively converted within the existing footprints of the buildings to maintain the vernacular integrity of the original farmstead. New development of additional modern buildings would inevitably detract from the character of this quaint farmhouse and outbuildings complex.
The site contains at least one mature tree protected by a TPO and is part of a larger parkscape landscape. Any development would be seriously detrimental to the visual amenity of the landscape and especially the quintessential rural character of Bottoms Lane.

S126 hole 2 Silverdale Golf club
This site should be rejected in the interests of visual amenity and the proper planning of a rural area within an AONB for the following reasons.
The proposed site is grassland and scrub, beyond the present limits of the established village core and of Redbridge hamlet. It cannot be considered as either infill or rounding off, and would lead to increased urbanisation of a rural lane within a designated AONB.
Any development would set a precedent encouraging further applications for development of adjacent land as infill which would then be difficult to resist and could lead to ribbon development .
Nearby cottages and barns have been sensitively converted within the existing footprints of the buildings to maintain their vernacular integrity. New development of additional modern buildings would inevitably detract from the character of the existing hamlet at Redbridge.

B123 Land west of Sandside Lane, Srorth-Arnside
This site should be rejected in the interests of visual amenity and the proper planning of a rural area within an AONB for the following reasons
The proposed site is a green field far beyond the present limits of the established village core of Storth or of Crag Bank hamlet. It cannot be considered as either infill or rounding off, and would lead to increased urbanisation of a rural lane within a designated AONB. In such an isolated exposed location , any development would be seriously detrimental to the visual amenity of the overall landscape

W128 Land rear 1-2 Howard Cottages, Warton
This site should be rejected in the interests of visual amenity and the proper planning of a rural area within an AONB for the following reasons
The proposed site is beyond the present limits of the established village core of Warton leading to increased urbanisation of a rural area within a designated AONB. Any development would not only be visible from the road but also from the nature reserves on Warton Crag and would be seriously detrimental to the visual amenity of the overall landscape

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

I would like to make some general comments, before I discuss individual sites.
I am extremely concerned that 'Green Field' sites keep appearing as potential development areas.
In an AONB this should not be allowed.
Every time 'Green Field Land' is used for houses, we weaken the AONB designation, and leave it vulnerable for future generations.
There have to be limits to development.
In Silverdale, the AONB status, plus the sewerage situation, should limit any further building.
If this does not happen, I fear for our area of outstanding natural beauty.

With this in mind,I would now like to comment specifically on the two extra Silverdale sites and the one near Carr Bank
.
S127.
I have heard today that this site has been withdrawn. This is excellent news.
However, I would still like to enclose my comments.

Land to the west of Bottoms Lane.
I wholeheartedly believe that this site should be rejected.
Bottoms Lane is a rural Lane, with pastoral views in all directions.
The listed Farmhouse sits comfortably with the converted Barns. Great care was taken to lessen the visual impact of the Barn conversions, and development had to be in the footprint of the existing Farm - buildings. No add -ons were permitted.
Thankfully this was achieved, and as a result everything blends in. All this would be ruined, if this land were to be developed.
Other reasons to reject this site.
Safety on the Lane, caused by increased traffic would be a problem, especially as the Lane is narrow, and the potential site is close to a bad bend. Two footpaths access this Lane at this point - so they would also be compromised.
It would not be a good location for Affordable Housing.
Wildlife habitat would also be affected - especially on Burtonwell Scroggs to the east of the Lane- this is a Biological
Heritage site.
Sewerage would be a major issue - as it was when the Barns were converted.
The site lies on a bed of limestone, with an outcrop running along one of its edge. As I understand it, limestone like this, is protected.
This is a 'greenfield' site with a beautiful old oak tree in the middle of it - the tree has a TPO on it.
The development cannot be seen as infill, and is outside the core Village development.
Development here, could set a precedent.

This development would contravene AONB criteria, and as such, I believe it should be rejected.

I would also like to comment on Site S126;

a.Once again, this is a 'greenfield' site.
b.It is located on a corner, on a busy, rural Lane.
c. It would be visually intrusive. The land is sloping, so at the top end, the buildings would be very prominent.
d. It is situated well out of the Village, so would not be appropriate for Affordable housing.
e. Sewerage would be an issue.
f. It is not infill.
g. Does part of this not belong to the Golf Course?

In an AONB, this should be rejected.


B123;
My objections against this are;
This also is a 'green field' site well out of the Villages of Carr Bank, Storth and Arnside.
As far as Affordable Housing is concerned, it is in a very poor location on a busy road.
It is boggy land.
Sewerage would be an issue.
It would set a precedent for further development - in its isolated position.
Visually, it would be intrusive.

In an AONB, this should be rejected.


A final plea;
I would ask Planners to check ' offered' sites before they are put forward for public consultation. Those not acceptable, could then be removed at this point.This would save hours of time, money, effort and heartache!!!
At the moment, I believe that once sites are offered, they are put directly onto the consultation list, without anyone doing 'on-site' checks?
All this does is cause upset!


Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

It is suggested that the field on Spring Bank, Silverdale, which is owned in trust by Silverdale Village Institute be designated a Protected Open Green Space. The land was a gift to the whole community of Silverdale but unfortunately the present errant controlling committee seem determined to erect a concrete skate bowl in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the Silverdale Community.

Re High Close, Arnside ( REF - A7)


High Close is a single property set in extensive pastureland on the north slopes of Arnside Knott. The site is a prominent and substantial part of the landscape, consisting of open fields visible when viewing the Knott from below or from Knott Lane, and also an important part of the view down from the Knott itself.

The AONB has the statutory purpose of "conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area" and an important part of that purpose is stated as "to protect the setting of and the views out from and into the AONB".

It is impossible to imagine a development at High Close which would not damage the view from and of Arnside Knott; the site is intrinsic to the natural beauty of the AONB. A further consideration is that the site is adjacent to Knott Lane which is an important access route for the many walkers and cyclists who enjoy easy access to the Knott. An increase in residential and commercial traffic would not only damage the character of Arnside Knott for all visitors, it would also be an increased hazard for those using Knott Lane.

The development of High Close would damage the unique appeal of Arnside Knott and contravene the central purposes of the AONB.

I do realise that this comment relates to a site noted in the original consultation. That consultation escaped my attention which is hardly surprising given the complexity of the paperwork and web access ! If this submission is considered too late for consideration at this stage, please contact me and let me know how my comments can be redirected.

Many Thanks. B J Lunt

S127 Possible development of land on Bottoms Lane Silverdale
As a regular visitor to this particular area of Silverdale, I was extremely peturbed and confused as to why
this site has been put forward for possible development. The land in question is unsuitable for the
following reasons; Bottoms Lane is a beautiful quiet lane with cottages and barn conversions that are
complimentary to the natural surroundings. Further development would not enhance the area but create
a 'blot' on the landscape. Any development would give the area a 'built up' feeling and would close in the
Lane which is narrow and in poor repair-it cannot cope with extra through traffic.
The site concerned contains trees that are under a preservation order. As a visitor I feel I must protest and make my feelings known.
This site is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and as such should be saved and kept in its original state.
It should not be used for development.

The additional site in Silverdale west of Bottoms Lane is, I believe wholly unsuitable for development.
Travelling down Bottoms Lane, south to north one can appreciate one of the most idyllic views in the village. The barns to teh south were converted a few years ago under very strict planning criteria to remain in character and retain the beauty of this part of the village. Affordable housing built in this area would undoubtedly destroy the tranquility of this part of the village and reduce its appeal to residents and visitors alike. In addition, Bottoms Lane is narrow and mostly single track with sharp bends to the south and the north of the proposed site. The road would need substantial improvement and widening to accommodate additional traffic that would ensue. There are many other more suitable sites in the Lancaster area for additional housing which would also be closer to employment opportunities.

it is notable that looking at the development plan the field in the centre of Silverdale, belonging to the residents of Silverdale in trust to the Silverdale Village Institute has not been designated a protected open space. The land, on the road Spring Bank was given to the village in 1908 for recreational purposes the purpose of this cannot be changed and the land not sold unless all beneficiaries agree. I would suggest that this land is designated as it should be as a protected open space functioning as a village green as it has done forever 100 years.

1. I kindly request that the Silverdale Institute Field/Green is considered as a 'protected open green space'. This land was gifted to the Silverdale community in 1908 for the benefit of all Silverdale residents. It is the Village Green and used for natural recreational activities; as such, it should also be protected from any urban sports development.

2. Silverdale is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; all development proposals which contravene AONB guidelines should be rejected, and especially where there are suitable Brownfield sites near to local towns, employment and public transport. There is also the local issue of the septic tank sewage system to be considered.
Referring to Site 127, Bottoms Lane, for example, this is a narrow, winding, unlit, unpaved, rural lane in open countryside with panoramic landscape views in all directions. This Site includes areas of limestone, wildlife habitats such as Burtonwell Scroggs, a large oak tree and two footpaths crossing the narrow lane near a sharp bend.
Surely the AONB was set up to conserve such beautiful areas that Site 127 typifies? I question why housing development proposals on such sites are being assessed.

Site S127 - Bottoms Lane, Silverdale
For 30 years during my working life, at the end of my day, I used to drive down Bottoms Lane. Not the quickest way home, but beautiful and tranquil. When you turn off into the top of Bottoms Lane, after 100metres you are back in old Silverdale. On the left of the narrow twisting road you may pass pigs and poultry in the field to the left, while on the right is a wood, a biological heritage site. Further down on the left is some pasture and gardens (the suggested site for development), then a S-bend takes you past an inconspicuous caravan site on the right beside a traditional stone farmhouse. Often in summer the farmer, now retired, sits outside in the sun to pass the time of day with hikers and walkers. On the left of the road now are some barns sensitively converted to homes. Further down on the right is a disused limekiln, an open field on the left which gives way to a wood, and grazing land for sheep and cattle on the right, before ending up at the junction with Park Road beside the village cemetery.
This is the type of countryside which is vanishing, and which organisations such as the AONB and CPRE were founded to protect for our descendants. I cannot imagine for more than a moment that the AONB would consent to the siting of any housing here, much less the uninspiring monotonous urban style housing which has been contemplated elsewhere in Silverdale. But other problems also exist. The road itself is narrow and without pavements, adequate with care for the present users which include many walkers, but not for increased vehicular use. Silverdale has no mains sewerage. As more houses are built, the pollution to our land increases. This should be a major factor in inhibiting future housing expansion here. Even the most modern small treatment systems used in Silverdale essentially remove the lumps and the smell, and the grey water (150 litres/person/day), with some bacteria and viruses, detergents, phosphates, nitrates and hormones pass on into the ground water. Please leave Silverdale with its village atmosphere. W.G Park, 7 Whinney Fold.

We wish to comment on Section 6 of the Issues and Options Discussion Paper as follows:-

Site B120: High Cote High Cote Lane, Slack Head, Beetham
We object to any development on this site for the following reasons:-
01 There will be increased traffic from the site into Beetham via Leighton Beck Road
This road is almost single lane, it has no footpaths and already can get congested as vehicles try to pass each other. It is extremely dangerous for pedestrians.
02 The higher parts of Slack Head already suffer from very low water pressure. An increase in housing in this area would make this situation worse and United Utilities could have a major problem on their hands.
03 There are no facilities in Slack Head, no public transport, and no footpath down into Beetham. As such this site is not suitable for Affordable Housing.
03 Houses in this area are generally too expensive for local people.
04 Already Slack Head is very visible from the South and we must say it has a negative impact on the topography and relief of the woodland landscape. We are sure the development would not have been granted in the first instance had the AONB been in existence at the time. Extending the development would only add to the problem.
05 Access to the site is very restricted.
06 Important woodland and wildlife habitat will be destroyed. With the increase in woodland diseases we need more than ever to protect our woods within our AONB.
07 All dwellings in Slack Head are on septic tanks as there is no mains drainage available.

Site W128. This would be a real extension to the periphery of Warton Village being nearly 1.5 km from the village centre and school. Quite inappropriate to satisfy the villages housing needs: not just the provision of housing but housing that would support the village infra-structure, school etc.

Site S127 - land west of Bottoms Lane, Silverdale
Whilst putting together these comments I have learned that the above location has been withdrawn from consideration as a possible site for affordable housing. Nevertheless I would still like to add my voice to that of the many others who have made it clear that development on this site would be wholly inappropriate.
My objection would have been based on several grounds:
Need - Before any site is earmarked for development I would like to see clearer evidence that there is a genuine need for affordable housing in Silverdale. What is the exact number of local people, with local employment, who require such housing? If the case can be made for the provision of more of this kind of housing in Silverdale there is no compelling reason why any of the proposed green-field sites should be utilised, given the considerable negative impact which would be the consequence of their development.
Practical difficulties – site S127 would be served by a minor country lane, unlit, never gritted in winter despite tight bends and being located on a hill, a lane where in several places it is not possible for two cars to pass without one needing to pull on to the grass verge. Nevertheless the Lane is regularly used as a thoroughfare by traffic wishing to by-pass the Village centre. Vehicles often travel at speeds wholly inappropriate to the conditions. There would be severe health and safety issues whilst the site was subject to major development. There would be similar issues for subsequent residents.
Any kind of housing would place considerable sewerage demands on this site which it would be incapable of coping with. The drainage fields required by septic tanks or other treatment plants would have to be too extensive if they were to comply fully with building regulations. Treatment plants in particular can have a damaging visual impact since the limestone bedrock can make excavation extremely difficult. Sewerage is now a major issue throughout the Village as a whole.
Undesirable development – any development on this site would be completely contrary to the most important of the A.O.N.B.’s aims and principles. The site is agricultural land and formed part of Bottoms Farm, one of the most important large open green spaces within the Village. No part of the Farm has yet been subject to any new building development. The conversion of redundant farm buildings into dwellings stayed within the footprint of the existing site, was generally sympathetic and subject to tight planning controls. The nearby farmhouse and lime kiln are both listed.
Housing development on site 127 would have an enormous and serious visual impact. This could easily be imagined now by anyone walking or driving down the Lane. In addition the site, which is characterised by exposed limestone, contains trees with T.P.O’s on them and, like similar sites in the area, is home to orchids.
In conclusion, the site’s development is not required and would set an extremely damaging precedent. It might not be a popular view but, if the Village as a whole is to retain its “special character”, it can withstand very little further development, whether that be for affordable or any other kind of housing.

S127 Land west of Bottoms Lane Silverdale.
If the primary purpose of the AONB is to preserve the natural beauty of our area then this site should be rejected.
This area features outstanding views west over a unique limestone,pastoral landscape. It includes rare and precious habitats.
The mature oak tree within the site is protected and forms part of a wider area of mature preserved oaks.
Bottoms Farm/ Barns has a distinct, vernacular character. Including a listed farmhouse with associated cluster of stone built agricultural buildings ( now converted).
The site is off a narrow ,unlit lane with poor sight-lines and access. There is no footway.
Development is not appropriate as it is a distance from core amenities ie transport and shops.

S126 & S127
I object for the following reasons:-
Both these proposed sites are "green fields" and outside the village core.
Bottoms Lane is a particularly tranquil part of our village and well away from the centre and further development here would be inappropriate and badly affect the surrounding property. Do we have to fill every green space with houses????

I refer to the recent consultation on the above and to my previous response on this matter. I attach my comment on the two additional sites identified in Silverdale, using the same format as in the Appendix to my previous response.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Site S127: Land West of Bottoms Lane, Silverdale.
To develop this site would have a detrimental effect upon this natural setting area of Silverdale.
Access to any development would congest/endanger the use of Bottoms Lane.
The whole natural landscape and wonderful views would be lost.
Alan Reeves

I would like to request that the land known as The Silverdale Village Institute Field be designated as a 'green open space' and as such no building should be allowed on this field. This open green space is integral to the village and as such should be protected.

The land on Bottoms Lane should be protected from further development. We have no mains drainage in the village and until this issue is resolved no further development should be allowed.

The area known as the Silverdale Village Institute Field - this field should be protected as an 'open green space' for future and current generations. No development or building should be allowed on this open space.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Ref Site S127 off Bottoms Lane , Silverdale
Firstly the proposed site is along a narrow country lane with bends. There are many paths which cross the surrounding fields and use short lengths of the lane to connect, it is already hazardous for pedestrians with the current volume of traffic. Access to any housing would increase the vehicles and cause further risk to all road users.
Silverdale is a rural community,this site is located within an AONB, any development here would adversely affect the views from surrounding paths, potentially affect the local wildlife and ecology and cause strain on the limited resources in the village.
What is the point of the designation of Silverdale as an AONB site if development is allowed on green fields.

I am concerned about any development on greenfield sites in the AONB and suggest that only brownfield sites should be available for development, otherwise we will no longer have an AONB

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
Please note that the supporting signatures have been redacted/removed to maintain confidentiality.

Comment on all sites in Silverdale. The ground conditions in Silverdale and lack of public sewerage system mean that it is not possible to develop any site without worsening the known groundwater contamination caused by discharges from septic tanks or package sewage treatment plants. It is not possible to meet EA requirements and Building Regulations for construction of drainage fields with the housing densities which will be proposed. Until the sewage disposal arrangements are improved no development should be permitted. The European Urban Wastewater Directive calls for all agglomerations of > 2000pe to be provided with wastewater collection systems. The current housing plus caravan population already exceeds this value. A development moratorium should be put in place until these issues are clarified or rectified.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Site S127 - land west of Bottoms Lane, Silverdale.

This site is well outside the built-up area of the village, adjacent only to a group of carefully-converted barns, the Grade II listed Bottoms Farmhouse, and a small, discreet, caravan site. A Grade II listed limekiln is adjacent to Bottoms Farm. There is a fine ancient oak tree which I understand is the subject of a TPO. The open land of this site forms part of the natural beauty of this part of the AONB and is visible from many roads and footpaths. If the AONB has any value in preserving the "Outstanding Natural Beauty" of the area, this site should be protected by that designation.

Development here would set a dangerous precedent for the whittling away of the panoramas of gently rolling fields, dotted with trees and boulders, which are a key characteristic of the cherished landscape of this part of Silverdale.

Bottoms Lane is narrow, winding, has no pavements, and is much frequented by pedestrians: both local residents seeking healthy exercise for themselves and their dogs, and the visitors on whom so much of the local economy depends. It is not a suitable road to accommodate extra residential traffic.

This plot of land should not be considered suitable for development.

Site B120: High Cote, High Cote Lane, Slackhead

Development on this land would be visually intrusive across a wide area of the AONB.

The access roads, from Leighton Beck bridge or the Beetham direction, are narrow, pavement-less, and dangerours for pedestrians. The site is remote from bus routes, schools, or any other facilities, so would be inappropriate for housing for all but multi-car families: this is inappropriate in the AONB.

This plot of land should not be considered suitable for development.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Many thanks for your communication dated 29th March 2016.
The Constabulary has no observations or comments to offer in respect of the Extra Sites Consultation.

Extra Sites Consultation: Arnside & Silverdale AONB DPD

I refer to the consultation received on 29 March 2016 for comment on the additional site suggestions submitted to South Lakeland District Council in response to the Issues and Options consultation in December 2015.

We have no comments to make on specific sites put forward at this stage other than to request that the sequential test is applied during the site selection process so as to ensure new development is steered away from areas of flood risk.

The Environment Agency’s Flood Map will be updated in the coming months to incorporate information gathered from the flooding events in December 2015.

Yours sincerely

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

Thank you for letting me have sight of the additional site suggestions.

I have nothing further to add to my comments already provided in response to your December 2015 consultation.

Kind regards,

Steph

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT}

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

The Network Rail Mining Team is responsible for mitigating the risk associated with surface and underground mining operations. As no such operations are proposed as part of this Development Plan the NR Mining Team has no comment on this Document, however, the contents are noted.

Regards

Nick Smith

The Ramblers' Association wishes to comment on the following sites.
B120, B123, B126, B127, B128
We consider that these are not suitable for development within the AONB.
Mostly because they are in open country or visible in such a way as to detract from the AONB purposes.

Comments on additional sites
These are mainly ‘brown’ coastal sites in Storth and conspicuous hilltop sites at Slackhead and green open fields at Silverdale and Warton. They are precisely the sort of controversial sites that led to the designation of the AONB in 1972.

A high standard of design that results in development that adds to the outstanding quality of the landscape still remains the fundamental requirement for any of these additional sites. I can think of very few developments during the last thirty years that have achieved this.

Sustainable development
“The presumption in favour of sustainable development” of the present National Planning Policy Framework is part of a long process of declining standards in planning and public service (imposed by government) and as I have said before this provides wide opportunity for developers to question the fundamental basis of conservation policies and their interpretation.

A good example of how this operates in practice, is the recent planning application at Whinney Fold, Silverdale, where Lancaster City Council had given equivocal preliminary advice to a developer that encouraged a planning application to proceed, supported by a whole range of expensive and largely irrelevant surveys to make a case for a totally unnecessary and unwanted development in an AONB! Now withdrawn (20 April 2016).

The only truly sustainable development in this area is likely to be small scale, self contained eco-housing for people who already live and work in the area, or are employed locally (no further than Carnforth or Milnthorpe) and can preferably travel to work on public transport, cycle or walk. An example of how this might be tackled is the referendum in St. Ives next month on a proposal that new-build homes should be available only to the local community http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/03/st-ives-second-home-referendum-financial-cleansing?CMP=share_btn_fb#_=_

Individual sites
My comments on the individual sites will be sent separately by email

Roger Cartwright April 2016

[PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS]

Silverdale Parish Council have some further comments to make regarding the AONB DPD as follows:

S126 Silverdale Golf Club. This site currently part of a golf course, adjacent to two older properties and just within a 30mph zone. In an unsustainable location, too far from village centre. On higher ground so any development would be visually intrusive.

S127 Bottoms Lane.
Greenfield site, surrounded by fields/woodland on three sides. Woodland is a Biological Heritage site (Burton Well Scroggs). Adjacent buildings are barn conversion from 16 years ago, TPO active on tree in field. Away from village centre on an unrestricted road. Development would have significant visual impact.
Yours Sincerely,
Denise Challenor
Clerk to Silverdale Parish Council

Site ref S126: Hole Two, Silverdale Golf Course
The plan appears to show that part of the Golf Course would be lost to development. Sport England object to this allocation until such time as either:
1) an up to date and robust Needs Assessement (carried out within the last 3 years) clearly demonstrates the land is surplus to requirements to meet the requiremnts of paragraph 74(i) of NPPF; or
2) the part of the golf course is replaced by an equivalent or better quantity and quality to meet the requirements of paragrapgh 74(ii)
3) Sport England strongly advise consulting with England Golf to ascertain whether this part of the Golf Course is surplus to requirement or should be replaced.

The friends of Silverdale are a group of like minded people who live in and love Silverdale and who wish to promote all that is good about our village for the benefit of all and the detriment of none.
The Friends group would ask you respectfully to consider the Silverdale Institute land as a 'protected open green space' to be enjoyed by future generations. The present planning application to erect a concrete skate bowl and MUGA would be detrimental to an A.O.N.B.
As a gift to the community for the improvement of the lives of the said inhabitants it is the opinion of the majority of the village that it remain an amenity green open space.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]