Local Development Framework Consultation

Arnside site A9 Hollins Lane


My husband and I object strongly to the development plan for Arnside; especially to the development of 8 properties on the field on Hollins Lane. We have many concerns regarding this proposal.

The proposed development for 8 houses on Hollins Lane will mean a large increase in traffic on Hollins Lane; this could be as great as an extra 16 vehicles. Hollins Lane is a single-track lane with limited passing places for vehicles, and currently struggles to accommodate the traffic that uses it, particularly in rush hour. There are no passing places near the proposed development and any vehicles parked on the road would make it impossible for other vehicles to pass. The potential increase in traffic could be very hazardous; especially alongside the possible growth in numbers of young children. The positioning of the development is near a blind corner, on a single track road with no pavement. Both my husband and I have experienced near misses when walking along this stretch of road. As adults we were able to have the sense to quickly move to the side of the road when hearing vehicles approaching, small children may not do that. This could have tragic consequences. Hollins Lane is much busier during the holiday season when it is frequently used by tourists as a shortcut from Silverdale Road to Black Dyke Road.

Home Housing recently explored the possibility of building six houses on Hollins Lane. They found that that the land was unsuitable for the planned development. After considerable time surveying the drainage available they decided that the sewers on Hollins Lane did not have the capacity to support the additional waste from six properties and because of the density of limestone in the field there was not enough natural rainwater drainage on the land to sustain the development. This raises questions regarding the feasibility of a development of 8 properties and the ability to create suitable, sustainable drainage for domestic waste and rainwater..

The development on Hollins Lane will have a marked impact on the properties at the south side of the field; especially because of the gradient of the field. As a result of the Prescription Act of 1832, the windows of our property have earned a right of light by having well over the required 20 years of unobstructed daylight. This law also applies to our garden; which must receive adequate daylight on March 29th of every year. Because of the slope of the land on Hollins Lane any development on the field would cast a shadow over our house and garden restricting the amount of light to our property. Therefore the development would need to be built well away from our property and others on the south side of the field. This would ensure the quantity of light to the garden and windows is not adversely affected; causing the amount of light to fall below the accepted level, constituting an obstruction.

The Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 offers protection for a person’s private and family life. It has previously been used to extend protection to a person’s office space as well as his or her domestic home. My husband and I feel that the protection of private life and the home is relevant to decisions made in the development plan for Hollins Lane as any development on the field on Hollins Lane would adversely affect our enjoyment of our property which may be an interference with our rights under Article 8. Because of the angle of the road and the incline of the proposed plot anyone in the gardens of the proposed development would be able to see directly into our bedroom, part way up the field they can see directly into our kitchen. This is not acceptable as it impinges on our privacy. Both the rear and side garden would have absolutely no privacy unless a high fence were erected, which would contravene the Prescription Act of 1832 as it would take the light from our property.

The case for privacy has recently been highlighted in the Yorkshire Dales when a planning officer dismissed an appeal against refusal of permission for three two-bedroomed property on land at Spedding. This was because the proposed development would severely harm on the privacy of neighbours.


We feel that the field has been chosen for the development solely on the grounds that it may be available as opposed to being suitable. One has to question why other more suitable sites have not been chosen as there are many other more suitable sites in Arnside. Sites that have much easier access to the amenities that Arnside has such as the primary school, the playground, local shops and the doctors surgery.