Response from Mr Nigel Dyson (Individual)
1. Mr Nigel Dyson (Individual) : 4 Apr 2016 09:14:00
Please make your comments in the box below and refer specifically to the reference number of each site you are commenting on.
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.