Response from Miss Jane Lambert (Individual)
1. Miss Jane Lambert (Individual) : 27 Apr 2016 22:10:00
Please make your comments in the box below and refer specifically to the reference number of each site you are commenting on.
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I have heard today that this site has been withdrawn.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.
