231 responses.
1. [NAME WITHHELD] (Individual) : 7 Jul 2017 16:15:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to raise the following questions and comments with regards to the development of houses on this site.
Highway safety
Hollins Lane is a very well used single track road with a blind corner, no pavement and no passing places (vehicles are forced on to the verges to pass each other). As well as cars, lorries and vans regularly use this road creating additional hazards for pedestrians (elderly and children frequently walk, scoot and cycle on this lane) and cyclists. An increase in traffic would make further compromises to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Having already spoken to the SLDC planning department I have been made aware the Highways Agency are to be consulted on these matters. How, therefore, can residents of Hollins Lane be assured that adequate safety measures are put in place to manage this increased risk?
Drainage
The increase of hard surface on the development site will, presumably, increase water run off. Furthermore it is understood much of the development site is limestone, there is no natural drainage and sewers/drains in the immediate vicinity are running at full capacity with some properties already experiencing problems. What are the plans therefore for drainage design?
Residential Amenity
By reason of overlooking, overshadowing and the 'Right to light' law the proposed builds will have an adverse impact on houses situated on both Silverdale Road and Hollins Lane. Sensitive housing construction would be a necessity so not to obstruct light from existing properties.
Privacy
The natural incline of the development site and the proposed position of the dwellings, walkways and public access land would inevitably result in some houses on Hollins Lane loosing their privacy, both within their homes and their gardens. What plan is in place to mitigate this loss of privacy?
Proposed Enhanced Planting
The proposed plan comments on new enhanced planting. What would this entail and would existing householders have opportunity to influence the planting?
2. Mr David Alexander (Individual) : 22 Jun 2017 16:04:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for your consultation invitation for this re-considered site.
Given that there is no supporting material, in the consultation from the AONB planning authorities, of the landscape and biodiversity site assessment, or of the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations assessment, significant questions need to be asked over the local need to consider adding this site for housing provision. It is a greenfield site wikthin an AONB with a potentially very sensitive impact on the natural, built and historic environment of the area, which in itself is a rich tapestry of developed, open land and woodland. The current boundary would seem to be soundly left as it is, since there is a serious concern that any development of even part of this site could lead to more of the whole site being put forward for future development.
It is unclear from the consultation invitation what the capacity of the site would be and what design and layout issues need to be considered. There must be very serious issues over access from St John's Avenue, itself a cul-de-sac, while there is no clarity over whether affordable housing is the aim and whether such a need cannot be met more satisfactorily elsewhere.
From the diagram attached to the consultation, there is clear recognition of a sensitive edge along the line of the current boundary.There also seems something of a conflict between the key views that are to be retained and the new, enhanced planting which is shown along the boundary pf the proposed new site ad which could well affect the key views. It is always bad news when new planting is referred to a 'screening', since it raises the question of what exactly is it that there is a wish to hide! The openness and key views of this part of the AONB should be retained as they are.
While the proposal intends to retain the present footpath, development such as is proposed will reduce the quality of that footpath for walkers, both amongst local residents and those who visit this quality AONB and add to its economic wellbeing.
In summary, and bearing in mind the paucity of the information provided for those seeking to make a con sultation response, there seems to be no fundamental reason for proposing this site for development within a sensitive part of the AONB. Applying the precautionary principle suggests that this site should not be added to those available for necessary local housing need.
3. Mrs Ann Armitage (Individual) : 27 Jun 2017 10:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
4. Mr Robert John Ashton (Individual) : 18 Jul 2017 09:50:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
We live at XX Stankelt Road, Silverdale LA5 0TH and previously lived at XX Hazelwood, Silverdale LA5 0TQ which overlooks the field in question.
The point we raise is that the village already has a major problem
with sewerage, with it eventually flowing into the bay. There are a lot
of old cesspits and septic tanks in the village. We were instructed
by the Environment Agency to install a treatment plant when I did
a large alteration on my house in 2006. I then had a lengthy dispute
with my neighbour about their cesspit's waste going on to my drive.
They also had to install a treatment plant. Also at the time, their other
neighbour's tank was overflowing directly on to Stankelt Road.
This matter will not be resolved without the use of mains sewers.
All cesspits, septic tanks and our type of treatment plant need to be
emptied about once a year. This very much relies of people keeping
a watch on their tanks, especially with heavy rain, which is very
common here.
We were told originally when we moved to the village in 1994, that
further developments of houses in the village were not possible because
of the limestone in the village. This is mostly only 6 inches below the surface.
This meant that additional septic tanks and such could not let the
sewerage soak away very easily.
Before that, we lived on Hazelwood and on a few occasions our sceptic tank
overflowed. Its natural flow was down St Johns Avenue, where the proposed
development is planned. That is not going to be very good for those people
living in that area.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Ashton and Annie Riley
5. Mrs Muriel Attwell (Individual) : 21 Jul 2017 11:39:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
6. Ms Barbara Baldwin (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 16:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
7. Mrs Kay Ball (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 10:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
8. I M and A P Bashforth (Individual) : 7 Jul 2017 10:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
9. Mr Ray Beale-Pratt (Individual) : 8 Jul 2017 23:07:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to object to the proposed development on part of S50 in Silverdlale for th efollowing reasons
Lack of main sewerage in Silverdale and limit of natural flow to cope withh any more sewerage pressure;
Additional traffic at a difficult location close to the village school.
The village needs affordable housing, not high value housing or holiday accommodation. A recent new development was turned into holiday accommodation and lost to the local housing market.
Amenity value of the location - well used public footpath with open rural views, open pasture land
A key site on the approach to the village - the new development would be clearly visible from a main entry road into the village.
Development in this field begins to set a precedent to extend the village boundary beyond St Johns Road and into the whole of this next field.
The open fields within the village are a key element of the character of the village and have significant historic context.
If development is approved (and I hope it isn't), it should be clear that tourist rental market is excluded and that the development is for affordable housing only.
10. Mr & Mrs Mike & Ann Blezard (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 13:15:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
A lane, in one of the generally accepted meanings of the word, is narrow and often bounded by hedges, walls or fences. Such lanes, in urban areas, are rare and need to be protected from too much change. Hollins Lane currently meets this definition in the section bounded by the wall and hedge of this A8/A9 proposal, and if adopted, just over half of this would disappear and the lane would be considerably widened. The character of the lane would disappear and there would be a loss of wildlife habitat. Also the current field holds sheep and gives a rural feel to the environment. All over the country, in towns and villages, every little plot of green land is being built on, with little thought to the change in character of the habitation. Arnside has a certain uniqueness and should be careful it does not lose this.
This section of the lane is only wide enough for one vehicle. Two vehicles can only pass if they do this very slowly and carefully and are able to use driveways at any point in the lane.If the proposed 14 homes were built then there could be about 28 owners cars plus service traffic accessing Hollins Lane and we think this could significantly increase the danger to pedestrians. Apart from local use, Hollins Lane is used as a shortcut (sat. nav. prompted) to and from the Silverdale Road and often pedestrians have to dodge into a drive to get out of the way of a car going at speed. Pedestrian use is not only by local adults and children, but by walkers heading for Arnside Knott.
Our suggestion is that Hollins Lane should be closed to motorised traffic near the point where the lane meets Plantation Avenue. This closure need only be for a few metres, enough to ensure that the lane could no longer be used as a viable short cut to Silverdale Road. A narrower entrance to the development could be provided, allowing a considerably longer stretch of wall and hedge to be preserved. Vehicular access to A8/A9 would only be possible from the Silverdale Road, allowing the residents of Hollins Lane from this road, down to the house called “Sandpiper”, to have safer access to their homes. The rest of Hollins Lane would also become safer for pedestrians and cyclists because only drivers with a need to be on the lane would use it.
Hollins lane appears to have only two drain holes in its entire length, both near to the junction with Plantation Avenue. A8/A9 will significantly impact surface water drainage into and from the lane. During normal rainfall, water runs down the upper part of Hollins lane and if it misses the two drain holes, it continues to flow down Hollins on the east side of the road, possibly impacting all the houses on that side, in the event of an exceptional downpour. There is a public combined sewer running down part of the lane, and if it is the intention to use this for surface drainage, without modification, for A8/A9, then it is essential that the water company will guarantee that it is fit for this purpose. We bought our house on Hollins Lane this year and noted that the water company did not answer a search question as to whether our house is at risk of internal flooding due to overloaded public sewers.
We understand that 14 houses are proposed for the development plot and this seems to be a high density when compared with existing housing to the east and the west of the plot. The visual impact could be significant.
New public open space is to be welcomed but we would suggest that there should be some public debate about its use and maintenance. There would need to be a physical barrier to vehicular access to the Public Open Space, and thought given to improving wildlife habitats (e.g. more hedges and trees) as well as an area for children.
11. Mr Wesley Blondel (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 19:58:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I write to express my objection to the proposed planning proposal at the above site for the following reasons:
1) Traffic levels at the junction of St John's Ave and Emesgate lane could hugely increase posing a risk to children at the local school. The village centre is already becoming hugely and dangerously congested.
2) Access/road visibility. The junction is often blocked at busy times with another 50 cars using the junction from (?25 new homes) this would add to the congestion/safety.
3) Sewerage is a big issue in Silverdale as we have no mains sewerage and rely on septic tanks -how will this be dealt with and where will surface water run off to?
4) In the AONB qualities report November 2016: it states that 'much of the village is fringed by small-medium sized pastures which are enclosed by a characteristic pattern of limestone walls...These open areas are a very important part of Silverdale's character.
The AONB also state in the same document that new development should respect and be in keeping with historic settlement character.
AONB go on to say that open green spaces are an important aspect of this character - a public footpath going through this land demonstrates an important feature of this resource for public recreation.
If development starts in the field - it poses the risk of further extension down to Bottoms lane and The Green.
5) There is a distinct lack of employment locally, so where would these new people work?
6) Silverdale has very poor local/public transport
7) Is there a need for low cost housing in this village? Recent builds near the station have become holiday lets because they couldn't be sold.
12. Mr Gareth Bolton (Individual) : 7 Jul 2017 09:31:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Re: Proposed Development East of St John's Avenue Site S50 Silverdale AONB
I write to express my objection to the proposed planning proposal at the above site for the following reasons:
Traffic levels at the junction of St John's Ave and Emesgate lane could hugely increase posing a risk to children at the local school. The village centre is already becoming hugely and dangerously congested.
Access/road visibility. The junction is often blocked at busy times with another 50 cars using the junction from (?25 new homes) this would add to the congestion/safety.
Sewerage is a big issue in Silverdale as we have no mains sewerage and rely on septic tanks -how will this be dealt with and where will surface water run off to?
In the AONB qualities report November 2016: http://www.arnsidesilverdaleaonb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ASAONB-Special-Qualities-Report-FINAL-1.pdf
What is special about Arnside & Silverdale Area of ...
www.arnsidesilverdaleaonb.org.uk
3 1. Introduction Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is a unique landscape of national importance and was designated in 1972.
it states that 'much of the village is fringed by small-medium sized pastures which are enclosed by a characteristic pattern of limestone walls...These open areas are a very important part of Silverdale's character.
The AONB also state in the same document that new development should respect and be in keeping with historic settlement character.
AONB go on to say that open green spaces are an important aspect of this character - a public footpath going through this land demonstrates an important feature of this resource for public recreation.
If development starts in the field - it poses the risk of further extension down to Bottoms lane and The Green.
There is a distinct lack of employment locally, so where would these new people work?
Silverdale has very poor local/public transport
Is there a need for low cost housing in this village? Recent builds near the station have become holiday lets because they couldn't be sold.
Whinney Fold and Lindeth Close struggled to be filled by local need which then opened it to regional and national advertising, which is not benefitting local people.
The farmland in the proposal is green agricultural land and has a public footpath running through it - scores of walkers use this to enjoy the views (tourists being a valuable additional income to our shops and pubs/local economy)
The proposal poses a threat to the views from Eaves wood from the village looking outwards - this is a unique view now under threat!
Extending the outer parameter of the village is unacceptable when there are alternative sites or a more discrete nature.
The field is a hub for wildlife -deer, red legged partridge and marsh harrier being spotted recently (again all under potential threat of their habitat.
I look forward to your considered response.
13. Mr Terence Bond (Individual) : 4 Jul 2017 13:47:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
1/ adverse impact on a sensitive landscape within local area and from viewpoints such as Pepper Pot.
2/ Will extend the peripherary of the village. There are sufficient sites within the building boundary of the village to accommodate housing
3/ allowing such a development would set a precedent allowing piecemeal development of that field
4/ traffic at the junction of St Johns Ave/Emesgate Lane would increase in an already congested part of the village road system
5/ given recent planning decisions, this is likely to provide for more housing of the wrong type in this village, when will planners stop allowing 4/5 bed executive homes?
6/ More importantly than above, the effect of more dwellings on the drainage system in this area, already prone to flooding will be detrimental. The run-off from this area will affect existing flood prone areas such as that by the cemetery [where a recent planning app was refused because of potential flood risk].
14. Mr John Booth (Individual) : 30 Jun 2017 16:16:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Dear sirs
Proposal for residential development in the field to the East of St John's Site s50
I would like to make the following observations and objections to the Silverdale - part
of S50
In no particular order
1 The avenue leading to the site is already causing traffic problems on a daily basis
particularly at school times when it is virtually impossible to get in or out of
St John's Avenue safely.Any further increase in traffic would be unthinkable especially
for emergency vehicles and residents alike.
2 There is no integrated sewage disposable in Silverdale and any further influx of
Houses would put unnecessary pressure on existing system and could cause
untold problems.
3 Lack of full time employment in the village.
Therefore people would have to travel by car/train where there is a small car park
for approximately 6/7 cars at best.The station is over one mile away down unlit
road and no public footpath.
4 The AONB which is one of the smallest in the country which has the highest status
of protection in relating to landscape and scenic beauty and by breaching the
existing boundary of the village is a highly significant step.The sight in question
has a public footpath through it and is used by many walkers of various abilities
throughout the year.It is also used by the only Dairy Farm left in the village.
5 Does anybody really want to build on this greenfield site which would lose valuable
farmland forever which would go against all of which AONB stand for,apart from
a small group of mercenary people who appear to have little or no interest in the
Welfare of the village now or indeed for our future generations .
Yours faithfully
John T Booth
15. Mrs June Booth (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 09:51:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I would like to make the following objections to the site Silverdale S50
In no particular order
1 Sewage in the village has always been a major problem and any further additions
to the system will cause even more problems
2 This is a green field agricultural site set in one of the smallest AONB in the country
which is farmed all year round (Sheep,Hay,Dairy & Beef Cattle) It also holds
extensive wild life.Once turned to concrete our precious farmland is gone forever
and once out of the EU could be even more precious.
3 To build out of the settlement of the village changing visual impact and character
of existing views that help make the area AONB enjoyed by so many from near
and afar.
4 This should not be built on until all Brown Field and Council land has been
exhausted.If built on would set precedence for more development thus diminishing
the AONB even further.
5 The obvious traffic problems in Silverdale are well documented and any further
increase in this particular area surrounding the site S50would only increase the
existing problem even further.
16. Mr Derek Boots (Individual) : 27 Jun 2017 11:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
17. Mr Simon Boyd (Individual) : 11 Jul 2017 20:28:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Comments on the site proposed for allocation on Hollins Lane (A8/A9) to include an alternative area for development and publicly accessible open space.
Access comments
The primary vehicular access to the proposed development is earmarked from Hollins Lane which is one of the narrowest roads in Arnside. At best Hollins Lane is a rural lane of single carriageway width with passing places to allow two-way flow. This road already has more traffic than it was designed for (being used as a 'rat run link' between Silverdale Road and Briery Bank and Black Dyke Road via Swinnate). There are no pavements so pedestrians and cyclists have no safe refuge. Hollins Lane is certainly a route that school children use both ways daily to access bus stops on Briery Bank.
Any development would see further increase in vehicular traffic increasing safety risks for all road users. The proposed access to the new development is at one of the narrowest points on Hollins Lane so how can the existing carriageway be widened satisfactorily to meet current highway design standards whilst providing required visibility splays and sight lines to benefit all users and pavements to ensure safe walking routes.
Any development here would suggest that this lane will change from its rural character to an urban one which seems to be at odds with the ANOB management plan and the clear concerns raised over the urbanisation of villages and rural roads and the avoidance of this outcome.
The proposal further encourages pedestrian access onto Silverdale Road via the end of the narrow shared driveway which provides residential access to three houses (91, 93 and 95). This driveway is maintained jointly at the expense of these three properties. This driveway additionally runs parallel to the gardens of two further properties. This pedestrian access would see a consequential loss of privacy for these 5 properties, increased potential for noise and light disturbance, littering, and damage to planting, increased conflict and safety risk for pedestrians from resident’s cars accessing their properties along a narrow lane and increased maintenance burden of the shared driveway upon three properties due to increased footfall.
Silverdale Road is a busy road (acting as one of the signposted road links between Arnside and Silverdale) and is without pavement provision for pedestrians at this point. Sight lines at the proposed access onto Silverdale Road are poor. Silverdale Road is part of the national cycleway Sustrans route 700 adding further to the mix of non-vehicular and vehicular traffic encountered and is a walking route for families taking their children to Arnside Primary School. Any development on Hollins Lane will add further pressure to the existing limitations of Silverdale Road.
Site comments
Previous descriptions from earlier survey work describe site A8/A9 as forming part of the historical development of Arnside and forming an integral part of the urban mosaic which defines this part of Arnside. If development did occur it would seem to conflict with a number of existing management plan policies. How would resident’s access village services safely given the relative distance and limitations of both Hollins Lane and Silverdale Road?
The privacy of properties on both Silverdale Road and Hollins Lane would be adversely affected by the proposed development. Silverdale Road properties have gardens which would be overlooked by any development. Two properties to the NW corner have narrow gardens meaning these houses are much closer to the proposed development site with the risk that any new houses are overbearing.
The development and open public space suggested makes houses bordering the development site on both Silverdale Road and on Hollins Lane vulnerable to crime as anyone walking along the public space will have a direct view into homes creating an opportunity to seeking unlawful entry. The public open space created within the proposed development also creates potential for other low level crime such as littering, vandalism and nuisance behaviour.
Home Housing planned to build 8 houses on the same site a few years ago; they found the plot completely unsuitable for development. The underlying bedrock is limestone with very shallow topsoil above so there is no natural drainage on the site.
Foul sewer capacity and highway drainage are further cause for concern in any proposed development. Previous potential developers have concluded that existing drain and sewer infrastructure is running at full capacity. Surface water discharging from Silverdale Road down Hollins Lane during wet weather is an existing problem. How would any development which introduces more impermeable surfaces adequately address such foul and surface water drainage concerns and deal adequately with potential displacement issues?
Policy and need comments
The AONB management plan has clearly identified policies which seek to provide levels of protection. Relevant policies in respect of this proposal would seem to be the following:
• AS07 – this policy protects areas of land within settlements that are not publicly accessible but which are important to the settlement character and the wider ANOB landscape.
• AS08 – requires new developments to protect and enhance the historic environment, historic character and heritage features of the ANOB.
• AS511 – ensures appropriate new infrastructure is provided where needed in the ANOB but any new infrastructure does not harm the ANOB’s landscape character. It also gives priority to support walking, cycling and public transport.
• AS13 – ensures that consideration is given to the management of water quality, sewerage systems and drainage.
In earlier work the AONB contracted a surveyor to ascertain the suitability of each site in Arnside. The surveyor found that the site A8/A9 forms part of the historical development of Arnside and forms an integral part of the urban mosaic which defines this part of Arnside. Development of site A8/A9 would therefore appear to be in direct conflict with the policies above.
The inspectors report in 2014 further stated:
‘some of the sites proposed for allocation add to my misgivings. At the hearing session, the Council confirmed that the land proposed to be allocated for housing at Station Road (RN337#), Hollins Lane (RN225-mod) and Redhills Road (R81) is considered to currently perform a greenspace function. I am told that the Council judges these sites to have amenity value, in that they contribute positively to the character and appearance of the settlement and thus of the AONB, to some degree. From my site visits, I concur with that analysis.’
The housing needs survey 2014 undertaken by the Cumbria Rural Housing Trust identified the following need. The survey shows that that 16 respondents in Arnside Parish are in need of affordable housing within the next 5 years. Who is in need? • The largest need is for family accommodation, mainly 3+ bedrooms and some 1/2 bedroom accommodation. • Respondents in private rented accommodation make up largest group in need. Many stating that they wish to move/buy or have more security. • Five of the respondents in need are adult children who are living at home with their parents and wish to set up home for the first time. • One of the respondents made a preference for sheltered housing.
There are sites that are far more suitable in Arnside that have previously been identified which could provide this need. These sites have more suitable infrastructure access to local amenities such as the primary school, doctor’s surgeries, public transport and local shops.
Mr S and Mrs R Boyd
18. Mrs Marie Bradley (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 11:47:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
19. Mrs Margaret Brennand (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 11:16:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I would like to raise my concerns as a resident of St John’s Grove, Silverdale which is adjacent to St John’s Avenue about the proposed development above. St John’s Avenue appears to get a lot of traffic due to the existing housing stock, added to which on the lower part of the avenue parents park when dropping off or collecting their children from the school.
As a recent resident to Silverdale, I find the traffic at the junction of St John’s Avenue and Emsgate Lane is already a cause for concern, particularly during the times of the beginning and end of school, which is situated just 100 yards from the end of St John’s Avenue.
When trying to exit from St John’s Avenue at any time it can be problematic as cars are parked opposite the junction and subsequently when turning right you are forced onto the right hand side of the road facing a blind bend.
There is a dire public transport shortage as you are unable to use a bus service to get anywhere in the locality, forcing you to use your car for transport out of the village. The building of any more houses would lead to more people using their vehicles for work and leisure purposes.
In this area of outstanding natural beauty, the proposed location of the housing estate is on farmland, thus detracting from the scenic views there are of the lower Lake District. There is a public footpath through the area that is to be built on and I see many walkers using this. In fact I use it regularly myself. This area is a very important part of the village’s character and the open spaces behind my property was what attracted me to live here.
Also this development will affect the wildlife that live in and around the field e.g. deer, partridge and pheasants.
Yours faithfully,
Margaret Brennand.
20. Mr Peter Brennand (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 11:21:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I would like to raise my concerns as a resident of St John’s Grove, Silverdale which is adjacent to St John’s Avenue about the proposed development above. St John’s Avenue appears to get a lot of traffic due to the existing housing stock, added to which on the lower part of the avenue parents park when dropping off or collecting their children from the school.
As a recent resident to Silverdale, I find the traffic at the junction of St John’s Avenue and Emsgate Lane is already a cause for concern, particularly during the times of the beginning and end of school, which is situated just 100 yards from the end of St John’s Avenue.
When trying to exit from St John’s Avenue at any time it can be problematic as cars are parked opposite the junction and subsequently when turning right you are forced onto the right hand side of the road facing a blind bend and on coming traffic.
There is a dire public transport shortage therefore you are unable to use a bus service to get anywhere in the locality, forcing you to use your car for transport out of the village. The building of any more houses would lead to more people using their vehicles for work and leisure purposes.
In this area of outstanding natural beauty, the proposed location of the housing estate is on farmland, thus detracting from the scenic views there are of the lower Lake District. There is a public footpath through the area that is to be built on and I see many walkers using this. In fact I use it regularly myself. This area is a very important part of the village’s character and the open spaces behind my property was what attracted me to live here.
Also this development will affect the wildlife that live in and around the field e.g. deer, partridge, pheasants and many others.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Brennand
21. Mr P Brindle (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 18:27:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
my wife and I wish to object to the inclusion in the development plan of this site east of st johns avenue.
This site potentially for 15/25 further properties will bring a lot more traffic into the village. Road access into Silverdale is only by narrow, twisty roads all of which have narrow pinch points which already cause congestion and hazards and with maybe 50+ extra vehicles per day will only exacerbate this. Also access to the proposed site is through narrow housing estate roads (St Johns ave) and out onto a poor junction opposite primary school that usually has plenty of parked cars in the vicinity. There is also inadequate room for car parking in the village centre at the moment and a further increase in vehicles will further perpetuate this problem.
North Lancs rural roads are already known to have a high number of rta`s and further increase in traffic volume will make this more of a concern.
Effluent drainage in Silverdale is solely by septic tanks and so one must ask is continued increase in sewage drainage by this method environmentally sustainable in an area of such fragile environment and natural beauty, that the aonb is supposed to look after and care for.
The inclusion of this site in the development plan will obviously encourage further potential development of the field of which this site is part of. This and the "drip drip" development of other small sites around the village eg Whinney Fold,opposite railway station will steadily erode Silverdale`s attraction of being a small village both to residents and many holiday makers and day visitors alike which is all part of the mandate of the aonb to maintain these attractive qualities.
The mandate of the aonb and national trust (which has a large landholding in silverdale) is to encourage and increase the diversity of flora and fauna. Wildlife cannot thrive in increasingly isolated pockets due to a steady trickle of future
development .
One of the main aims of the aonb "is to meet the needs of the quiet enjoyment of the countryside". Further development will surely impinge on this for nature lovers, ramblers, cyclists, existing residents and all those who are encouraged to visit this area to enjoy and experience the qualityof the countryside. Again development is at odds with these policy aims which are promoted by local authorites for the health and wellbeing of the public. This site appears to be a development of more than 10 houses ie major development as referred to inparas 2.17 and 2.18 of development plan documents. This is therefore not appropriate in the aonb as according to national guidelines aonbs are considered to have such natural beauty it is desirable that they are conserved and enhanced, and that local authorities must take into account the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of aonbs. Such a development is in breach of these principles. One of the criteria of the aonb is that it is "area of outstanding landscape whose distinct character and natural beauty are so precious that it is in the nations interest to protect them" and they were created "because of their fragile natural beauty and the primary aim is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape." Large developments such as this will impact on what the aonb criteria is supposed to be protecting. The site includes a well used public footpath and will also be visible from many surrounding viewpoints including pepper pot.
This development will impinge on an area of small/medium size pasture surrounded by limestone walls and the aonb has stated that these a re a very important part of silverdales character.
Developments can interrupt and fragment vital natural corridors/environs for all sorts of wildlife. Throughout the aonb there are current projects being undertaken to encourage threatened/endangered species eg butterflies,red squirrels, hedgehogs, birds, plants, into the area, further encroachment by housing and vehicles are at odds with all these aims.
22. Mr Martin Brown (Individual) : 25 Jun 2017 21:11:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
XX St John’s Avenue
Silverdale
CARNFORTH
Lancashire
LA5 0SU
24 June 2017
SLDC Development Plans Team
South Lakeland House
Lowther Street
KENDAL
Cumbria
LA9 4DL
Dear Sirs
Proposal for Residential Development in the field to the East of St John’s Avenue: Site S50
I and my wife reside in St John’s Avenue, Silverdale and came to Silverdale in 1994 having built a property on Stankelt Road and then moved to St John’s Avenue in 2002. That said, we can see that the environ around Silverdale would be adversely affected if a development of numerous houses were introduced to the village area.
The site considered at St John’s would not be, in our opinion, to the overall advantage of the village.
There is the serious problem of ingress and egress from site S50. At present, at the exit to St John’s, onto the main road through the village, is difficult because of sight lines both to the right and left as cars are parked opposite the exit to the main road and along the exit Avenue. On numerous occasions cars turning onto St John’s have had to reverse onto the main road to allow for cars exiting the avenue. Also, the amount of additional traffic to and from St John’s and the new development would exponentially increase the traffic flow to uncontrollable numbers. There is already a problem in the village requiring a 20mph speed restriction.
There are two schools in close proximity to St John’s. The primary school is less than 200 yards from the junction and more traffic along the roadway could cause a foreseeable accident so the risk to the health and welfare of children should be at the forefront of any planner’s considerations. However, to greater concern to the planners should be the presence of Bleasdale School, an outstanding school (as indicated by Ofsted). Bleasdale School is a specialist school for children and young adults with profound and multiple learning difficulties. The school is situated on a split site on either side of the main road through the village and this necessitates the carers pushing wheelchairs across the road from one site to the other. Any additional traffic flow would cause danger to these vulnerable members of the community.
There has always been a question of sewerage for the village and the effluent flowing into the bay area which affects the ecology of the area. A further influx of housing would put additional unnecessary pressure on the systems presently in place. This would not be corrected by each house having its own klargester because then there is the question of to where the treated water would flow.
The recommendations now seems to be that such klargester should not be placed near to neighbours’ property so gardens would have to be out of proportion to the house positioned on the plot. Could additional housing cause flooding of drains with the run off of rain water?
Most of the inhabitants of Silverdale have views over the local woodlands and pasturelands which would be reduced by additional development. The village is an ancient village within an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and this must be respected and considered if any development were to be considered, not only at site S50, but any other in the village surrounds.
Of the inhabitants of the village, anyone who still works must travel out of the village because there is limited employment and hence more vehicles would clog up the area, the amenities and the roads in and out of Silverdale (there really is only three exits to the nearest towns). The public transport for the area has been reduced in recent years following government directions so that places more reliance on private transportation in and out of the village, namely cars.
Then, finally, there is the threat to the indigenous wildlife that is in and around Silverdale. There are deer, protected birds and, of course, the RSPB Reserve. The wildlife is an important part of the character of the village and induces walkers/ramblers and twitchers to the village which in turn increases the viability of the village.
Overall, we are sympathetic to the development and sustainability of a village. However, as set out above, the proposals for Site S50 and/or any other development of Silverdale would be detrimental to the overall character of this village and to the safety to its residents and visitors.
Yours faithfully
Martin Brown Joyce Brown
Copy to: Planning and Housing Policy Team
Town Hall
Marine Road East
MORECAMBE
LA4 5AF
23. Mr. David Brown (Individual) : 30 Jun 2017 16:05:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
24. Mrs Joan Brown (Individual) : 30 Jun 2017 16:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
25. Mr Colin Brunt (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 09:48:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
The area behind the properties of Storth Road are green fields unlike the brown field land of the former Builders Supply Company and Travis Perkins.
Whilst this brownfield area could benefit from sympathetic development, I object that the green field area behind the existing properties on Storth Road is now also being considered for development.
The Cumbria Landscape Design Toolkit classes this area of land as 3b, Wooded Hills and Pavements. It states you should ‘Protect village fringes from unsympathetic peripheral development.
Core strategy policies seek to ensure that proposals should be sympathetic to the landscape character and features of the AONB, and should protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities of the AONB, including the setting of and views into and from the AONB.
Further to the policies of the Core Strategy, paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be attached to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB, which along with the National Parks have the highest status of protection in relation to scenic beauty.
The proposal to consider development of the identified greenfield area behind the properties on Storth Road, being mindful of paragraph 115 of the Framework, in my opinion should be removed from the Development Plan Document DDP.
26. Mr Walter Burrow (Individual) : 23 Jun 2017 13:25:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I have seen no publicity regarding this Pre-public Consultation which I find disappointing.
The issue I have with this plan is the impact on the already over used highway, Hollins Lane. It is narrow with no official passing places , only the junction with Swinnate Road and private driveways, and no pavements. Hollins Lane from Silverdale Road to the proposed site entrance is a little wider than from the proposed site access to Swinnate Road junction. Vehicles exiting the proposed access road would pose a serious hazard to traffic travelling up Hollins Lane towards Silverdale Road, not helped by the plan to retain the existing trees/bushes.
If access to through traffic could be prevented then the risk could be reduced.
Hollins Lane from the access road to Silverdale Road could be two way traffic with the remainder of Hollins Lane being one way from Briery Bank.
Hollins Lane and Swinnate Road should also be designated 'Access for residents only' or 'No entry except for access'
27. Mr Roger Cartwright (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 14:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I was disappointed to receive this additional consultation that appears to go back on or undermine some of the emerging policies in the Development Plan. Such as:
Policy
Q6 – Agreed that affordable housing should be a priority for any new development. We think the proportion should be more like 60%. The AONB is special and therefore it merits special guidelines for development.
Q7 – Yes, new housing should be for local people to meet identified needs and should be for use as main residence. Much of it should be for rent. Where affordable property is owned, we believe that, on re-sale, for a stated period local people should have the first option to buy.
Q8 – Only applications which propose housing that meets real ecological sustainability targets (eg. high energy efficiency) and caters for identified needs (eg for small/affordable/disability-friendly housing), should be considered for consent. We cannot offer advice on how this approach could be promoted.
My brief, mainly landscape comments on the further additional sites are attached.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
28. Mr Roger Cartwright (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 14:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I was disappointed to receive this additional consultation that appears to go back on or undermine some of the emerging policies in the Development Plan. Such as:
Policy
Q6 – Agreed that affordable housing should be a priority for any new development. We think the proportion should be more like 60%. The AONB is special and therefore it merits special guidelines for development.
Q7 – Yes, new housing should be for local people to meet identified needs and should be for use as main residence. Much of it should be for rent. Where affordable property is owned, we believe that, on re-sale, for a stated period local people should have the first option to buy.
Q8 – Only applications which propose housing that meets real ecological sustainability targets (eg. high energy efficiency) and caters for identified needs (eg for small/affordable/disability-friendly housing), should be considered for consent. We cannot offer advice on how this approach could be promoted.
My brief, mainly landscape comments on the further additional sites are attached.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
29. Mr Roger Cartwright (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 14:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I was disappointed to receive this additional consultation that appears to go back on or undermine some of the emerging policies in the Development Plan. Such as:
Policy
Q6 – Agreed that affordable housing should be a priority for any new development. We think the proportion should be more like 60%. The AONB is special and therefore it merits special guidelines for development.
Q7 – Yes, new housing should be for local people to meet identified needs and should be for use as main residence. Much of it should be for rent. Where affordable property is owned, we believe that, on re-sale, for a stated period local people should have the first option to buy.
Q8 – Only applications which propose housing that meets real ecological sustainability targets (eg. high energy efficiency) and caters for identified needs (eg for small/affordable/disability-friendly housing), should be considered for consent. We cannot offer advice on how this approach could be promoted.
My brief, mainly landscape comments on the further additional sites are attached.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
30. Mr Brian Catterall (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 21:01:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
We are responding to the proposal to build behind Hollins Lane. We object to the proposal for the following reasons:
Access comments
The primary vehicular access to the proposed development is earmarked from Hollins Lane which is one of the narrowest roads in Arnside. At best Hollins Lane is a rural lane of single carriageway width with passing places to allow two-way flow. This road already has more traffic than it was designed for (being used as a 'rat run link' between Silverdale Road and Briery Bank and Black Dyke Road via Swinnate). There are no pavements so pedestrians and cyclists have no safe refuge. Hollins Lane is certainly a route that school children use both ways daily to access bus stops on Briery Bank.
Any development would see further increase in vehicular traffic increasing safety risks for all road users. The proposed access to the new development is at one of the narrowest points on Hollins Lane so how can the existing carriageway be widened satisfactorily to meet current highway design standards whilst providing required visibility splays and sight lines to benefit all users and pavements to ensure safe walking routes.
Any development here would suggest that this lane will change from its rural character to an urban one which seems to be at odds with the ANOB management plan and the clear concerns raised over the urbanisation of villages and rural roads and the avoidance of this outcome.
Site comments
Previous descriptions from earlier survey work describe site A8/A9 as forming part of the historical development of Arnside and forming an integral part of the urban mosaic which defines this part of Arnside. If development did occur it would seem to conflict with a number of existing management plan policies. How would resident’s access village services safely given the relative distance and limitations of both Hollins Lane and Silverdale Road?
The privacy of properties on both Silverdale Road and Hollins Lane would be adversely affected by the proposed development. Silverdale Road properties have gardens which would be overlooked by any development. Two properties to the NW corner have narrow gardens meaning these houses are much closer to the proposed development site with the risk that any new houses are overbearing.
The angle of the proposed building site means that residents in the new properties will have look directly into the properties on Hollins Lane thus invading on their privacy.
The development and open public space suggested makes houses bordering the development site on both Silverdale Road and on Hollins Lane vulnerable to crime as anyone walking along the public space will have a direct view into homes creating an opportunity to seeking unlawful entry. The public open space created within the proposed development also creates potential for other low level crime such as littering, vandalism and nuisance behaviour.
Home Housing planned to build 8 houses on the same site a few years ago; they found the plot completely unsuitable for development. The underlying bedrock is limestone with very shallow topsoil above so there is no natural drainage on the site.
Foul sewer capacity and highway drainage are further cause for concern in any proposed development. Previous potential developers have concluded that existing drain and sewer infrastructure is running at full capacity. Surface water discharging from Silverdale Road down Hollins Lane during wet weather is an existing problem. How would any development which introduces more impermeable surfaces adequately address such foul and surface water drainage concerns and deal adequately with potential displacement issues?
Policy and need comments
The AONB management plan has clearly identified policies which seek to provide levels of protection. Relevant policies in respect of this proposal would seem to be the following:
• AS07 – this policy protects areas of land within settlements that are not publicly accessible but which are important to the settlement character and the wider ANOB landscape.
• AS08 – requires new developments to protect and enhance the historic environment, historic character and heritage features of the ANOB.
• AS511 – ensures appropriate new infrastructure is provided where needed in the ANOB but any new infrastructure does not harm the ANOB’s landscape character. It also gives priority to support walking, cycling and public transport.
• AS13 – ensures that consideration is given to the management of water quality, sewerage systems and drainage.
There are sites that are far more suitable in Arnside that have previously been identified which could provide this need. These sites have more suitable infrastructure access to local amenities such as the primary school, doctor’s surgeries, public transport and local shops.
Mr and Mrs Catterall
31. Mrs Jennifer Catterall (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 10:27:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I feel very strongly regarding the increase of traffic if the proposed development plan on Hollins Lane goes ahead. Hollins Lane is a very narrow lane with a blind corner and is used as a cut through for Silverdale Road and Black Dyke Road causing potential danger. I often walk my young grandchildren to and from their home in Hollins Lane. We always use torches in the dark as the street lighting is inadequate. We very often have to step aside to avoid cars which travel up and down at great speed. Early in the year when my husband was walking the grandchildren home, he jestured to someone to slow down. The driver stopped the car and reversed back to him and started an argument. The driver was at fault as he was going far too fast as do many others.
The Lane has no pavement and is far too narrow for more traffic. I see it as an accident waiting to happen or at worst a death.
In my opinion whether this site is adopted for development or not there should be speed bumps and sights at the top and bottom saying access only and a speed restriction of 20 miles per hour.
32. Mr T Chetham (Individual) : 22 Jun 2017 16:02:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
1. This is a greenfield site. Greenfield sites should only be developed as a last resort, particularly in an AONB.
2. Hollins lane is a single lane road, with passing places (mainly in private driveways). This road already has more traffic than it was designed for (being used as a 'rat run' between Silverdale Road and Briery Bank), and recent patch repairs have left many areas still requiring attention. There are no pavements on this road and any increase in traffic would be dangerous - perhaps the council should be looking at ways to reduce traffic on Hollins Lane, not increase it.
3. The proposal pays no respect to the existing landscape or streetscape. It introduces a new vehicular route across an open field. I fail to see how this is classed as sustainable development, and am not aware of any demand or need for a publicly accessible space in this location.
4. I note that there was a previous planning application for housing on this site (SL/2007/1104), which at least respected the existing fabric, however I am not aware of any public consultation on the draft plan (referred to).
33. Mr & Mrs John Clark & Chad (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 14:29:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Wed.05/07/17 - We wish to object to the proposed development off Hollins Lane, Arnside. We have lived at xxx xxxx, Arnside since December 2005. Before we purchased the property we were assurded by the previous owner that the field behind us was not suitable for development due to the narrow single-track road Hollins Lane which has no footpath or width for one and the entrance to the field was unsuitable for vehicle access. After we decided to purchase the property which was a 2 x bedroom detached dormer bugalow we applied for and were granted permission to add an en-suite bedroom over the double garage with a balcony overlooking the field to the East. On the side of the balcony overlooking next doors bungalow No.xxx we were not allowed to have glass due to protection of their privacy and had to choose wood or brick and we chose wood. If any properties were to be built in the field behind us the occupants would have no privacy as we would overlook them due to the slope of the land. The field in question has little top-soil and consists of solid limestone making any foundation and drainage very difficult. In addition the wall which divides us from the field is very old and in a poor state and would be unsafe and a danger to anyone particularly children being close to it. There are no pavements in Silverdale Road from its junction with Briary Bank to a point past our cul-de-sac towards Hollins Lane which causes problems for pedestrians and is very dangerous for children and parents pushing prams.
34. Mrs Debra Clifford (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 14:12:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I write to express my objection to the proposed planning proposal at the above site for the following reasons:
- St Johns Avenue leading to the site is already causing traffic congestion on a daily basis
particularly at school times when it is virtually impossible to get in or out of
Avenue safely. Any increase in traffic to this junction it would be unthinkable especially
for emergency vehicles and residents alike.
- The sight in question has a public footpath through it and is used by many walkers daily.
- Is there a need for low cost housing in Silverdale? Other sites in the village struggled to
be filled by local people
- Two homes recently constructed in the village (near the train station) have become holiday lets as they were
unable to sell these properties.
- Sewage disposable in Silverdale has always been an issue and any further influx of
Houses would put unnecessary pressure on existing system and could cause
untold problems.
35. Mr Simon Clifford (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 16:29:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I would like to make the following objections to the site Silverdale S50
Access/road visibility. The junction is often blocked at busy times with another 50 cars using the junction from (?25 new homes) this would add to the congestion/safety.
Sewage in the village has always been a major problem and any further additions
to the system will cause even more problems
The obvious traffic problems in Silverdale are well documented and any further
increase in this particular area surrounding the site S50 would only increase the
existing problem even further.
This should not be built on until all Brown Field and Council land has been
exhausted.If built on would set precedence for more development thus diminishing
the AONB even further.
Is there actually a need for low cost housing in this village? Recent builds near the station have become holiday lets because they couldn't be sold.
36. Mr Mark Coulton (Individual) : 27 Jun 2017 10:39:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
We have three comments regarding the draft DPD.
1.
Firstly this extract from the AONB planning document online says:
“As a key early step in the preparation of the Arnside & Silverdale AONB DPD, the Councils invited suggestions for sites to be considered for inclusion in the plan. Consultations on these took place in 2015 and 2016.
All the relevant information gathered was evaluated and the Councils prepared a Draft Plan which was formally consulted upon between 10th November 2016 and 5th January 2017.”
Who was consulted? We certainly were not.
It is disgraceful that we did not have the opportunity to comment on the original plan to site 8 houses directly opposite our front door, over a very narrow lane.
Those “in the know”, with a vested interest in the plans going through, no doubt, were informed, so that their affirmative comments could be recorded, but we, who will be directly affected, had no official notification that this plan was afoot. We are shocked that we have got to June 2017, well into the process, and this matter has only now been brought to our attention, by a neighbour.
There seems to be a certain amount of cloak and dagger going on here.
How are residents supposed to know what is going on? We should have been sent an official notification so that we could comment.
2.
Hollins Lane is an extremely narrow road. Little more than a metalled farm track. Housing development on either side of it means that there is no room for 2 cars to pass other than by going into residential driveways.
There is no footpath, so pedestrians including school children, dog walkers and ramblers as well as the local community all have to walk in the road, sharing it with the vehicles.
There is a dangerous bend, which cars and lorries negotiate at speed without much thought of what they will encounter head-on round the bend.
Hollins Lane has become a cut-through for traffic from Briery Bank to Silverdale Road, and is very busy as a result.
To introduce yet more housing with cars and all the attendant service vehicles, to this already cramped space, will just increase the chances of accidents.
Houses facing onto Hollins Lane will increase this accident hazard as people enter and leave their properties.
3.
Regarding the changes to the plan, to set the proposed development perpendicular to Hollins Lane as opposed to facing onto it:
By nature of the fact that all the houses will be accessed from one point on the lane, instead of all disgorging separately, the accident hazard should be reduced, it is therefore a much better proposal.
However, as residents of Hollins Lane, we do NOT want the field, which at present is grazed by sheep, to become a residential development.
This area of Arnside is already over-congested with houses, and the field provides a much needed breathing space for the local residents and visitors. It is a valuable asset to the AONB to leave it as it is.
37. Mr Mike Coyle (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 15:02:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
With reference to the consultation plans concerning Storth
There are a few concerns re the plan:
1 Access
The proposed new access to Park Road involves shutting off Quarry Lane, which is an important route for vehicles (including emergency) at high tides. The proposed access through the adjacent field for emergency vehicles, which will lead into a narrow single track lane with no footpaths, would require creating a new access for vehicles onto Yans Lane. Also the proposed new access to Park Road will reduce the Ship Inn's car park, which does get very busy at weekends particularly
2 Drainage
There are already issues in the village, particularly the lack of mains drainage close to the proposed site, with surface water drainage from the roads discharging from the roads into fields.
3 Commercial Developments
There is and has been for some time unused plots within the proposed area as well as
at the ear of Booths, so why create more? Suggest change the proposed commercial plots in Quarry Lane to housing development.
4 Public Transport
Creating new homes may also exacerbate the shortage of public transport
Regards
Mike Coyle
38. Mrs K B Craker (Individual) : 11 Jul 2017 11:23:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
39. Mr Edward William Craker (Individual) : 11 Jul 2017 11:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
40. Mr Richard Daly (Individual) : 2 Jul 2017 10:56:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I support the redevelopment of brownfield land at this location. However, the development of greenfield land within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be avoided unless it is absolutely essential. The greenfield elements of this proposal would have a significant negative impact on the setting of Storth village. These fields are the only undeveloped green space remaining anywhere near the village centre, and are very prominent in views from Quarry Lane and Yans Lane. The playing field is not sufficient to meet this need; it is surrounded by development, and includes play equipment, parking, and Heron Hall and its curtilage. The two fields north of Yans Lane are therefore important to the feel of the village, reflective of its roots in farming, and a lovely transition between developed areas and woodland. All this would be lost by the development proposed.
41. Mr Roy Richard Davies (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 11:40:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
We would like to object strongly to the proposal to build houses on site S50 St. John's Avenue, Silverdale. It is vitally important for our AONB that no building should take place on green field sites and this site could not be any greener!
There is little or no demand for low cost housing in Silverdale, recent new builds and vacant properties in this category have struggled to attract local residents.
Of major concern would be the significant increase in traffic levels at the junction of St. John's Avenue and Emesgate Lane, particularly in school term time, seriously compromising safety. The junction is already often blocked by parked cars at school drop off and pick up times.
Other important concerns are sewerage (no main drainage in Silverdale), lack of local employment, poor public transport any the effects on wildlife.
Roy and Sylvia Davies
42. Mr Andrew Davies (Individual) : 15 Jul 2017 10:22:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Site S50 to the east of St John's Avenue, Silverdale is unsuitable for a relatively large housing development. It will be a visual intrusion. Silverdale does not have mains drains. The mature lime tree on the site will loose its context. The only merit the site would seem to have is that it is not susceptible to flooding.
43. Mr Keith Douglas (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 18:38:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I object to the Silverdale development on the following grounds
1 the development is outside the existing village boundary.
Developments should be;
A. On brown field sites first.
B. Within the existing village development using in fill areas before any new developments outside the existing boundary line
2 increase traffic to the junction with Emesgate Lane and St John's Avenue, this is dangerous at present when then school is open an increase to traffic with a development of 18 new house will make this road junction.
44. Mrs Patricia Dracup (Individual) : 30 Jun 2017 16:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
45. Mrs Patricia Dracup (Individual) : 3 Jul 2017 12:08:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
46. Mr. Alan Drummond (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 11:01:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
The following comments relate to consultation requested by SLDC and Lancaster City Council concerning suggestions received in response to the draft DPD dated 2016/17 for Storth and Sandside located within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB.
1 The designation of B79 and B116 as “Key Settlement Landscape” in the draft plan of 2016/17 has been challenged by developers and/or landowners on the grounds that development of the brown field sites B36, B38, B81 (2 parcels), B125, and green field site B117 would not be feasible without development of additional portions of land in B79 and B116.
I strongly object to any proposal which would affect the present state of B79 and B116 which, together with B224 (Storth Playing Field), form a unique area of open land which currently is used for countryside pursuits such as the stabling of horses (B116), the rearing of young bullocks in the summer months (B79) and a community resource (B224).
These activities support the original designation of “key settlement landscape” – there is no other similar landscape within the environs of Storth and Sandside. Opening these areas of land to development would undermine the purpose of AONB status.
2 Without greater detail on the type and scale of development contemplated for B79 and B116 by landowners and developers it is not possible to make any reasoned judgement about the economic viability of developing, on their own, the brown field sites mentioned above. Indeed the nature of the development of the brown field sites is at present unclear. The arguments of developers and landowners, therefore, would carry greater weight if they attempted to propose innovative ways to respond to the opportunity of the brown field sites, before suggesting development within green field sites. This is particularly pertinent since our District Councillor suggests that the predicted housing demand over the next 15 years in Storth & Sandside would be satisfied twice over by suitable development of the brown field sites.
3 I am also concerned by the suggestion of creating emergency vehicle access across the middle of B79, joining the cul-de-sac (suggested as access to the “development platform”) to Yans lane. There are three issues.
First, although the emergency access route is also described as a footpath/cycle way there is no suggestion as to how it can be prevented from becoming effectively a through road.
Secondly, any emergency vehicles turning from the route onto Yans Lane (wherever the junction is placed along the length of Yans Lane) will encounter the same difficulty in manoeuvering towards existing housing as entering Yans Lane from Storth Road as at present. Therefore, improving Quarry Lane from the Ship Inn to Storth Road as a footpath/cycle way with access for car traffic during the occasional high tide (which makes Park Road impassable at the foot of Storth Road) would bring greater benefit to Storth residents and visitors to the AONB at no loss of safety. Of course, due consideration would also have to be given to prevent this section of Quarry Lane becoming a through road.
Thirdly, the route of the cul-de-sac and footpath/cycleway suggests that, if it was allowed to happen, it would be a possible argument in favour of opening up the remaining green field portion of B79 to further development. I would not like this suggestion to prove to be a Trojan Horse.
47. Mrs Lesley Drummond (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 10:32:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Re The SLDC and Lancaster City Council consultation on responses to the draft AONB DPD dated 2016/17 for Storth and Sandside :
1 I strongly object to any proposal which impacts on B79 and B116 - currently open fields with a view to the hills beyond Kendal from Yans Lane. For me these fully deserve protection as “key settlement landscape”.
2 I am also concerned by the idea of an emergency vehicle route across the middle of B79, joining the cul-de-sac (suggested as access to the “development platform”) to Yans Lane. An emergency vehicle turning from the route onto Yans Lane would meet the same narrow access problems as entering Yans Lane from Storth Road.
48. Mrs B. A. Dryer (Individual) : 21 Jul 2017 11:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
49. Mr John Edwards (Individual) : 18 Jul 2017 11:21:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
My primary objection to this draft relates to the safe pedestrian use of the Hollins Lane highway that in my opinion is already marginal. If this, or any other proposal, for extra dwellings accessed from Hollins lane is adopted then in my opinion Hollins Lane should be closed to through motorised vehicular traffic wider than say 1000mm by the provision of bollards or similar control measure, such that unrestricted vehicular access to the lower part of Hollins lane up to, but excluding Swinnate Road, should be only from Briery Bank and similar access to the upper part of Hollins lane, down to and including Swinnate Road should be exclusively from Silverdale Road. I believe that such a traffic management scheme would protect and enhance pedestrian safety whilst preserving the considerable amenity and charm of the Hollins lane environment.
I am also concerned that a robust provision for the management of the “public open space” should be a pre-condition of any planning adoption based on the current suggestion.
John Edwards
50. Mrs Patricia Ellis (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 12:01:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
51. Mr Stuart Ellis (Individual) : 13 Jul 2017 10:55:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
My comments for consideration are in relation to 93 Arnside (development off Hollins Lane).
1. Safety.
I have lived on Hollins Lane for almost twenty years and can confidently say it is an unsafe lane, cars rush through between Silverdale Road and Briery Bank usually at speed.
Apart from a few yards (outside my door) there is no pavement on the lane and necessitates walking on the road.
Despite the fact both ends of the lane have signs stating it is unsuitable for heavy vehicles this deters no one from cutting through as noted above.
The lane is so narrow it is not passable by two cars in most sections.
It is regularly blocked by delivery drivers or inconsiderate car drivers who just "stop and get out" seemingly unaware of the width of the lane.
We already have a small number of children who walk this was route to and from the local school and school bus, increasing this number would surely increase the risk of accident.
The alternative route to the local school and school bus is via Silverdale Road, which also has precious little pavement available to walk on.
As I wrote this email, two delivery vans speeding through came perilously close to colliding outside the front door.
2. Suitability.
The ground under the houses on Hollins Lane is limestone, making drainage often a problem. I feel if you created a further water barrier by have housing foundations running the length of the field it could create a problem for water flowing away from the house and down the hill. Also you will have taken away half the 'soak away' area of the field which may affect the houses lower down the hill.
3. Alternatives.
As a laymen in these matters, the alternative areas identified (Redhills Road & Briery Bank) appear much more suitable and have wide roads and have pavements for families to move in and out of the homes safely.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these issues.
52. Mrs Pat Emerson (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 10:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
53. Mrs Elizabeth Ann Emmett (Individual) : 23 Jun 2017 09:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
54. Mr Steven James Emmett (Individual) : 13 Jul 2017 14:46:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
55. Mr Mike Farrer (Individual) : 9 Jul 2017 19:14:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
We don't want any building on the two fields given in the plans. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty and it would spoil the look the village. We don't want to see Quarry Lane closed as it's used by cars when the main road is flooded and where would the emergency vehicles go? I am a retired builder and I question the drainage in the area as these fields are known to flood as well, which would not make a good site for a development.
56. Mr James Ferguson (Individual) : 15 Jul 2017 11:18:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I oppose the proposed development of site S50 for the following reasons:-
1 - it is a greenfield site and development would would have an adverse visual impact on the village
2 - if approved it could / would encourage future development of adjacent greenfield lands
3 - would exacerbate existing traffic problems at the intersection of St Johns with Emesgate Lane
4 - could have a detrimental impact upon land drainage and any underlying water courses
5 - would set a far reaching precedent for future development within the village and AONB
57. Mr Ian Fisher (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 22:52:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to object to the re-introduction of S50 for the following reasons:
Estate type development in large blocks does not fit with the natural development of Silverdale as a linear settlement. Although this organic growth was compromised in the 1970's through the attachment of several estates, there is no reason to repeat these mistakes. Land for development should be sourced in small parcels, with a maximum of 5 houses, aligned to existing roads and taking the opportunity to use brown field sites where applicable e.g land adjacent to the railway station.
In the last 5/7 years tourism has increased considerably in Silverdale as evidenced by new tourist type shops in the village, regeneration of the Royal Hotel, planning application for a new cafe and the expansion of the Wolfhouse cafe and restaurant. This development, although not large in itself sets a a precedent for future development, which in these fields and beyond would harm the views and the relationship of the village to its landscape setting and may compromise the growth of Siverdale as a tourist destination and the associated economic benefits economic benefits.
Access to the estate would further disturb the tranquility of the church and its situation as well as compromising the long distance views Eastwards. Access to Emesgate Lane would also be problematical, especially at school peak times.
The proposal compromises a veteran Lime tree (Tilia cordata, evidence of the ancient woodland, which once occupied this area) and also an ancient footpath.
The AONB cannot continually absorb development of this mass, without slowly compromising the biotic resources and systems, which rely on a robust and extensive green infrastructure.
Development is required but if it is insensitive to site and designation and compromises the character of the AONB and Silverdale village as a destination, it will restrict the potential of the area as a tourist resource.
58. Mrs Janet Fisher (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 22:33:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to object to the proposal for the following reasons:
The area proposed for new development is within the immediate visual envelope of four separate rights of way and at least two distance ones, in particular the view from the Pepper Pot view point. These rights of way are part of a larger network of paths that contribute to the increasing popularity of Silverdale as tourist destination. This development site will compromise the edge of the village and its relationship to the surrounding agricultural land and the experience of visiting walkers.
Located at the lowest point in the immediate surrounding fields, drainage could be a problem and the sudden increase in sceptic tanks and their discharge could create future problems.
The site has an important veteran tree within its boundary, which is a relict of previuos woodland. Any development would compromise its survival.
Is housing actually required in the village? Houses built next to the station remained unsold and eventually had to be let as holiday homes.
Future development needs to be of a scale commensurate with the future role of Silverdale as a tourist destination within the AONB. A balance must be struck between development per se and the conservation of the landscape character as a means of generating income, which could then suport local employment at the required scale.
59. Mrs Sarah Fishwick (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 15:52:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[see attached document]
60. Mrs Elaine Fishwick (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 09:51:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I herby register my objections to the proposal to include part of site S50 in the development plan. I object to this on the following grounds:
Environmental - Flooding and pollution - Any further development which would increase the flooding which regularly occurs in the areas of the graveyard, Cove Road and Townsfield should be resisted. Sewerage is a big problem in Silverdale as is the rainwater run off which would be generated from a small estate at the proposed S50 site which would converse to the Cove Rd area. Other sites which would have been detrimental to these areas prone to flooding have already been dropped from the development plan.
Special Qualities of Silverdale/Arnside AONB http://www.arnsidesilverdaleaonb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ASAONB-Special-Qualities-Report-FINAL-1.pdf
It states that “much of the village is fringed by small to medium sized pastures which are enclosed by a characteristic pattern of limestone walls. Pockets of development are interspersed with woodlands and pastureland that form attractive open spaces and pastures follow a pattern of ancient enclosures in some areas. THESE OPEN AREAS ARE A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF SILVERDALE’S CHARACTER.”
The same AONB document talks of visual permeability saying that this is also an important element in the character of the Silverdale settlement. It urges that new development should respect and be in keeping with historic settlement character. All attempts to “build up” and “densify” areas such as developing corners of fields as per site S50, together developments in paddocks and ‘garden grabbing’ in the AONB should be refused as being contrary to the AONB Special Qualities Report dated November 2016.
The AONB Special Qualities Report also states that “open green spaces are an important aspect of settlement character. They can allow public views in to and out from within the settlement and can provide a recreational resource for the community” This shows that the public footpath going through the land in question is an important resource.
Lack of local employment – it should be recognised that Silverdale is successful in attracting tourism for those wishing to escape their urban lives, providing tranquillity and beauty for walkers and cyclists and people as well opportunities for the study wildlife at the RSPB. All attempts to encroach on open spaces and green areas should be resisted otherwise Silverdale will no longer offer the unique opportunities to savour the natural environment described above.
Poor public transport services – new build sites should be centred around employment areas such as Carnforth and the Lancaster area where better transport links exist.
Is there really a need for low cost housing? The recent new builds by the station have become holiday rentals as they couldn’t be sold! Again affordable housing needs to be centred in areas where there are more employment opportunities and transport links. Whinney Fold and Lindeth Close low cost housing struggled to find local needs residents and had to be filled by means of Regional and National advertising so where is the local need?
Road Safety - Traffic levels at the junction of St Johns Avenue/ Emesgate Lane could increase hugely thus affecting safety. The school is not far away.
Access/ road visibility. This junction is already often blocked at busy times. With another, say 25 homes off St Johns Avenue this could mean, at a conservative estimate, at least another 50 cars using that junction. The parking is very bad before and after school already.
Additionally the footpath through the fields to Bottoms Lane and the Row and the Railway station is used by walkers, school children and the elderly -generating more traffic would be dangerous.
Harm to amenity - The land in question although farmland has amenity value as there is a public footpath through it. In the summer scores of walkers use this path and enjoy the views it offers.
Destruction of unique views both of the village (from Eaves Wood, Gait Barrows and Park Road) and from the village looking outwards.
Extension of the outer perimeter or boundary of the village when there are alternative sites of a more discreet nature.
Wildlife spotted in the field recently. Deer, red legged partridge, marsh harrier.
61. Mr Stephen Gibbs (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 11:18:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
62. Dr. June Greenwell (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 14:25:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Comments on proposals for using part of Site S50 for housing development
Silverdale needs more affordable housing to buy or rent but there are two substantial reasons for questioning the appropriateness of using this particular site for housing development.
One relates to the practicality of providing a wastewater disposal system capable of meeting required regulatory standards, an aspect well covered in the response from Silverdale Parish Council. What process will be used to determine this matter? Will a decision be made on the basis of a preliminary layout drawings and a ground investigation report, or only after a full and detailed study? The Parish Council should be kept informed at each decision-making stage.
My second concern relates to landscape protection. Arnside-Silverdale AONB’s planning notes gives this quote from the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty’, adding that ‘the great weight test is one of the most stringent tests that can be applied under planning law’.
Scenic beauty is not strictly defined, not can it be, but there are strong reasons for claiming that Site 50 justifies this description. The stunning view from the ‘Pepperpot’ hill includes this site, and the patchwork of fields, woods, distant hills, and shore line is undeniably one of ‘scenic beauty’. The importance of this visual landscape is further exemplified by the provision of a detailed viewfinder table alongside the ‘Pepperpot’.
Use of site S 50 for housing would not only be regrettable in itself, but would inevitably lead to increasing pressure to develop the adjacent land and further diminish landscape value.
The objections raised to using this site do not negate the need for more affordable and appropriate housing in Silverdale. Housing need has been an ongoing concern in Silverdale for the past 20+ years, and there are lessons to be had from looking at responses over that time. Two small sites have been developed, with three homes on one site and six on the other. Neither has had a significant adverse impact on the local landscape, nor has a larger development of retirement housing.
With both affordable home developments, a key factor was the use of small sites, and there is much to be said for taking a similar approach now. I recognise that this would make greater demands on planners’ and developers’ time and resources than use of a single site, but see this as a price worth paying to protect one part of a unique landscape.
June Greenwell
63. Ms Susan Hadden (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 08:06:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I would like to object in the strongest terms at the possible inclusion of site S50 in the AONB Development Plan
1. Access
Access is limited at present to a small lane serving Clarence House and Clarence Cottages, not wide enough for large vehicles, and a potential access from St Johns Avenue. There are already a great number of properties using vehicular access from St Johns Avenue onto Emesgate Lane, the main and only through route in the village, which is already very congested for a lot of the time. It is the bus route in both directions and the route for the Coop delivery wagons, service vehicles of all sizes and other works and delivery vehicles. Any increase in car movements from the site would only exacerbate an already busy and dangerous junction. Yellow lines and restrictive parking measures are not an option as there is already a severe shortage of parking places locally and yellow lines would urbanise the village. St Johns Avenue is used regularly as an overflow parking area for the church and primary school and events at the Institute. Finally I would be very worried about access for emergency vehicles.
2. Extension of the boundary of Silverdale village
When compared with many of the sites already considered, but not selected for inclusion in the final DPD, this site would result in the village peripheral boundary being extended into open countryside. To avoid development boundary sprawl, I would hope that smaller more discreet sites within the existing peripheral boundary should be chosen over site S50.
3. Amenity Value
There would be a hugely adverse impact on the sensitive local landscape within the immediate area and from viewpoints at Gait Barrows, the Pepper Pot and Eaves Wood, for example. Not to mention the outward views towards the Howgills, much enjoyed by the dozens of walkers who use the public footpath through the field on a daily basis. This amenity use is a very important and valued aspect which should not be lost from the AONB. If any houses were to be built on the site they would block these publicly accessible views forever. The tree screening proposed would create a false barrier in summer and in winter when the leaves fall the houses would be visible from all directions. So how could these key views possibly be maintained?
This is reinforced in The AONB Special Qualities Report - What is special about Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? November 2016
• 3.4 Grasslands. The grasslands of the AONB form a distinctive pastoral landscape, a patchwork of fields enclosed by drystone walls and hedgerows managed with grazing animals and dotted with field trees and interspersed with woodlands and other habitats. Pastures within the villages are integral to the rural settlement character of the AONB villages, in particular Arnside, Silverdale and Storth. Views over farmland from all settlements contribute to the area’s rural character.
• 9. Distinctive settlement character. …it is the stone buildings and settlements created during the last 800 years which contribute so strongly to the character and quality of the landscape today. This contribution lies not only in the strong vernacular traditions of the area but also in the settings of many of the buildings and the character of individual villages and hamlets.
• 9.2.3 Silverdale. Much of the village is fringed by small to medium sized pastures, which are enclosed by a characteristic pattern of limestone walls. Pockets of development are interspersed with woodlands and pastureland that form attractive open spaces and pastures follow a pattern of ancient enclosures in some areas. These open areas form a very important part of Silverdale’s character.
The field wall behind St Johns Avenue forms a distinct boundary between the properties and the open fields. Each spring these fields are grazed by sheep, then the grass is left to grow to produce a crop of silage and then, as now, cattle graze. This is mixed farming at its best which also gives open space and tranquillity for the varied and sometimes very rare birds and other wildlife which frequent it.
4. Waste and run- off water disposal
The cemetery, which is one field below the proposed site, was refused planning permission for an extension because of groundwater concerns. The County Council have been trying for years to reduce the water flow and levels which cause long term problems and often flooding in properties on Townsfield, Cove Road, Cove Drive, Elmslack etc.
The waste water disposal arrangements are a huge concern for the residents of Silverdale as there is no public wastewater system available. Therefore a private wastewater system would have to be provided. In the absence of a suitable running water course, which is the case at the proposed site, the Environment Agency requires (BS6297) that all currently available treatment plants mandate on their outflow a tertiary treatment and ground infiltration system. In Silverdale one of the biggest problems regarding this requirement is that there needs to be an area of reasonably level ground together with suitable soil/rock conditions for this mandatory system. If reference is made to Lancaster City Council planning application 15/01400/Ful relating to Whinney Fold, Silverdale, (Drawing number 00860294.pdf—Flood Risk and Drainage Fig3), this indicates how large an area is necessary for a typical, compliant, tertiary treatment and ground infiltration system. If such an area were to be allocated within the proposed development site, the space remaining for homes would be very limited and likely to undermine the commercial viability of the site. Apparently this system would have to be located in an area that is not built upon, nor hard surfaced, in order to allow oxygen to be absorbed into the soil to sustain the biological processes. If the system were to be located within the agricultural field outside the boundary of the site, similarly to that proposed at Whinney Fold, the ground engineering works to create a suitable, reasonably level site of the required area is likely to be large, incongruous and an obvious variation of the natural lie of the land and have a detrimental impact on the landscape assessment.
Also BS6297 requires a detailed analysis of the underlying ground structure, both subsoil and bedrock, to determine its suitability to contain a tertiary treatment and ground infiltration system. The soil cover in most areas of Silverdale is thin or very thin and is underlain by fractured, free draining limestone. To create an effective system, requires sufficient depth of suitable soil to allow for the biological tertiary treatment process to take place. If this is not available and part treated wastewater drains away too quickly into the fractured limestone, it has the potential to rapidly contaminate the groundwater systems. Experience from many excavation activities in Silverdale, including the recent laying of fibre broadband ducts for the B4RN community broadband system, finds that in most places there is too little soil to provide for a correctly functioning tertiary treatment and ground infiltration system.
5. Setting of a precedent.
If the proposed site were to be included in the PDP as a potential development site, it is likely that a precedent could be set such that through the normal Development Management processes, approval would be sought for further section of the field to be developed.
6. Actual housing need.
There are currently 22 houses for sale in the village. Recent events at the Keepers Green development have left a sour taste in the mouths of many residents when what had been supported by the Parish Council as small low cost housing became holiday homes. The developer had tried to sell these properties but apparently had no takers. Also in the past I believe that both the Lindeth Close Development and Whinney Fold, which were built as low cost housing as a result of the ongoing assessment of local housing needs, had to be advertised regionally as there were nowhere near enough locals interested in moving into these homes.
64. Mr John Hammond (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 12:28:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Comments on site s50, St.John's Avenue, Silverdale.
I would like too urge that this site be removed from development plan for the following reasons:
1. There is no strong evidence of any need for further housing in Silverdale.
2. In the light of this absence of need there are strong reasons for not adopting this particular site:
(a) Traffic congestion on adjacent Emesgate Lane and the nearby school entrance would be exacerbated by further development on this site.
(b) Further development would also exacerbate the existing sewerage problems afflicting Silverdale.
(c) The present open character of the village would be adversely effected by the removal for development more of the existing pastureland which is an integral feature of the village.
(d) There is little opportunity for employment in the village and poor public transport to facilitate commuting.
Consequently, in the absence of a serious need for housing and the deleterious effects on the quality of life development would cause, there should be no development on this site.
65. Mr Andy Hampson (Individual) : 4 Jul 2017 11:05:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
With reference to the proposal for the development of site S50 at St John’s Avenue we would wish to record the following objections:-
1. Silverdale and the surrounding area are characterised by a mosaic of relatively small and discrete residential developments interspersed with areas of woodland and pasture. Open spaces such as the meadow which constitutes this site are a key element of this diversity. Any development which encroaches upon the meadow must compromise this feature of the landscape which the AONB status is intended to protect and there must inevitably be concerns that once compromised, the area is vulnerable to further and larger scale exploitation.
2. The age and architectural style of the existing buildings around the proposed site, particularly the church and the cemetery, are very much consistent with the character of Silverdale and the area as a whole. Any new development would seriously compromise the integrity of this part of the village.
3. The public footpaths that cross the site are well used by both local residents and visitors. Even if they can be preserved, much of their amenity value will be lost if the views of Eaves Wood and the surrounding area are obstructed by new housing.
4. There are very limited employment opportunities in the immediate area and there is little evidence of a realistic and realisable demand for housing from local people.
5. Traffic volumes and parking facilities within the village are already problematic, particularly at weekends and school holidays. Any increase in the number of vehicles would only add to these problems.
6. Access to and exit from St John’s Avenue and St John’s Grove from Emesgate Lane is often restricted due to parking for the local school at drop-off and pick-up times. The exit point is very close to a bend with poor sight lines. Again, any increase in the volume of traffic would only exacerbate these problems and use of the junction by construction traffic would create serious health and safety concerns.
7. Issues around the lack of mains sewerage and surface water drainage in Silverdale are well documented and must represent a significant obstacle to any proposed development at this site.
Taking all these factors into consideration it is our view that the site identified at S50 is not suitable for residential development.
66. Mrs Juliet Harman (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 14:43:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Proposed development of part of site S50 in Silverdale
I would like to raise a number of concerns:
1. This greenfield site is in a prominent location with two public footpaths. Any development would detract from the visual impact of the natural environment much valued in the AONB. The open views from this field offer a valuable amenity to walkers.
2. Most households in Silverdale need a car and a small housing estate off St John's Avenue would cause increased traffic and congestion, particularly at the junction of St John's Avenue and Emesgate Lane. The road near that junction is often full of parked cars, given its proximity to the school and church and limited parking facilities in the village.
3. Sewerage is a big issue as is drainage, particularly as this site is elevated in relation to houses and fields to the north. Any increased water run-off could exacerbate the flooding of the north end of Bottoms Lane (near the cemetery) after heavy rain.
4. Building on this agricultural land would set a precedent, which could well lead to more extended development of it in the future.
67. Ms Rosie Harman (Individual) : 15 Jul 2017 13:56:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I would like to register my objections to the proposal for part of site S50.
The proposed development site is a greenfield site outside the developed part of Silverdale in a designated AONB of internationally significant scientific interest for birdlife, butterflies and flora. Red legged partridge and marsh harriers have recently been recorded in the site. It offers beautiful, unspoilt open meadow and pastureland which is a key aspect of the local village and natural environment.
The site stands in a raised and prominent location on a hill slope running down across the valley towards Bottoms Lane and the Row, and would be widely visible across this area.
It offers extraordinary views across the landscape, whose destruction by the development could not be mitigated.
It is crossed by well frequented public footpaths enjoyed by both residents and visitors whose character would be seriously compromised, impacting on the quality of life for those living both nearby and across the village who regularly use this route.
The meadow abuts the area around the grade II* listed St John’s Church. The development would be clearly visible from this location, negatively impacting the outlook and historic value of this heritage site.
The development is likely to have a negative environmental impact, especially through water pollution given the lack of mains sewerage in the area. This is particularly of concern given the several internationally important protected water bodies nearby, such as the RSPB Leighton Moss Reserve. There have already been recorded problems with water pollution; further development is not sustainable in relation to the needs of the AONB given that the village is already at full population capacity as specified by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.
The local infrastructure is not designed to cope with the influx of people and cars that the development would aim to bring, which would impact on the peaceful character of the village valued by residents.
There is no practical benefit to new housing stock on this scale given the difficulties local residents have faced in recent times in selling existing properties.
Development of this site would set a precedent for future greenfield site development beyond its current borders. This would have catastrophic effects upon the distinctive rural character of the village and its scientifically unique and delicately balanced natural environment.
Given all these considerations, I request in the strongest terms that the proposal should be rejected.
68. Mr John Harris Jones (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 11:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
69. Mr Robert Harvey (Individual) : 27 Jun 2017 16:29:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on these proposals. My wife and I are opposed to inclusion of additional sites B116 and B79 as these are currently green fields used for agricultural and equestrian purposes and given the special protection given to such areas in an AONB should not even be considered for development of any sort.
These fields have previously been considered for development by SLDC and rejected. To quote from the SLDC's site assessment spreadsheet - "Site B79 is not being taken forward because of significant landscape impacts. Farmland adjoining residential development. Same owner as 77. Site not suitable for development: cannot mitigate landscape impact of developing site"
"Site B116 is not being taken forward because of significant landscape impacts. Same as B121. Farmland adjoining Sandside. Site not suitable for development. Poor road access. Big area of surface water flood risk (1 in 30). Cannot mitigate landscape impact of developing site."
National planning policy sets out guidance that local authorities need to follow when determining development in an AONB and this suggestion to amalgamate the additional fields (B79 & B116) in the development of the brownfield sites seems contrary to that guidance in many respects but especially in the requirement "to conserve and enhance landscape quality and character, tranquillity, dark skies, local distinctiveness, settlement character, pattern and local vernacular architecture, habitats and species, geodiversity and the historic environment". National planning policy does not allow major new developments in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty except in exceptional circumstances. The brownfield sites already cover an area of 2.95 hectares which could be classed as major development, however given that these sites need improving I am happy to see these areas developed. However adding these fields would add considerably to the size of the development. I also note that new roads are classed as a major development so the proposal for a road across these sites also seems contrary to planning guidance.
I would also like to see Quarry Lane retained as a through route for vehicles because the tide regularly floods the road at the junction of the B5282 and Storth Road and when this becomes impassable Quarry Lane acts as an alternative route into Storth.
Finally a development of this size is just not needed. Housing needs in Storth and Sandside have been assessed and our needs are being met by developments in adjoining communities such as Milnthorpe which has better facilities and transport links than Storth.
70. Dr Jean Haworth (Individual) : 18 Jul 2017 09:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
71. Mr & Mrs Lynda and David Hill (Individual) : 22 Jun 2017 09:41:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
We would wish to make the following observations to be considered in drawing up the Development Plan Document.
1) There are relatively few current job opportunities in Silverdale village, with no evidence that the situation will change. Extending the number of residential properties, will almost certainly extend the number of journeys to work in the surrounding towns of Carnforth, Lancaster, Kendal or beyond.
2) These journeys will create their own carbon footprint, avoidable if new housing is erected in proximity to better job opportunities.
3) There is no integrated sewage disposal in Silverdale; more residential provision will require more septic tanks.
4) Silverdale is characteristic of rural villages with their own cultural and historical identity. Inappropriate extra building will threaten these features without confering compensation benefits.
5) Additionally, even a relatively modest estate, will detract from the amenity provided by the area's status as an AONB.
6) Breaching the existing boundary of the village to extend into a field is a highly significant step, and almost certainly will lead to further developments in that field.
Yours Faithfully
Lynda & David Hill
72. Dr Brooke Himsworth (Individual) : 15 Jul 2017 11:50:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to make two comments about the proposals to build on land in the Sandside/Storth area :
1. The sites on the sea front at Sandside (B35, B81) are brown field sites and are ideal for building purposes. The other two areas (B116 and B79) are good agricultural land. One of the sites (B116) directly adjoins an area with a Limestone Pavement Order. We should not be building on these sites, especially in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The sites should be for agricultural use only, and not for building purposes.
2. The plan proposes to close Quarry Lane to traffic at the top end where it joins Storth Road, and will be for pedestrian/emergency vehicles only. Quarry Lane is used by local traffic when the Sandside Road is flooded by high tides. This happens several times a year, and traffic is forced to divert along Quarry Lane. Global warming is expected to raise seas levels in the future, and the frequency of flooding is expected to increase. Quarry Lane will need to be widened and enhanced to allow diverted traffic to use it more easily. Alternatively, proper sea wall defences should be installed at Sandside to prevent flooding.
73. Mrs P.H. Himsworth (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 10:19:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
74. Mrs Jeanne Hirstle (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 12:50:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
75. Mr/s J.M. Hock (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 10:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
76. Mr Derek Holdsworth (Individual) : 29 Jun 2017 10:37:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I consider the extensive proposals for the sites off Quarry Lane and running behind properties on Storth Road are totally out of scale for the needs of both the village and surrounding area. By all means develop the brownfield site off Quarry Lane as light industrial and consider housing, hotel or similar for the brownfield site on Sandside Road which I believe would satisfy the future needs of the village for the next 30 years. There are still undeveloped industrial sites at Milnthorpe and the proposed large scale housing development in Milnthorpe on Beetham Road should cater for increased population in this area.
I therefore wish to be registered as strongly objecting to the extension of development beyond the 2 existing brownfield sites.
77. Mrs Rachel Horrobin (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 21:09:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am responding to proposals to amend the boundary of the site proposed for allocation on Hollins Lane to include an alternative area for development and publicly accessible open space. I fully object to this proposal for the following reasons:
Access:
Hollins Lane is one of the narrowest roads in Arnside and there are few passing places. There is no pavement and I believe that when I am walking on Hollins Lane with my children and elderly parents we are in danger. Many people who live in the village as well as visitors use Hollins Lane as a 'cut through'. My concern is that this road is already a danger to anyone walking and the proposal will lead to an increase in traffic thus increasing this risk. The proposal is in breach of AS511
Drainage:
I am concerned that any development on the field will result in drainage problems for the surrounding houses. A previous plan to build on this land highlighted that much of the land is Limestone and there is no natural drainage on the site. The previous plans found the sewers/drains on Hollins Lane are running at full capacity. Due to the angle of the field I am also concerned that rainfall that is currently absorbed by the field will cascade into my property causing flooding
Private life:
The Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 offers protection for a persons private and family life. The building of houses on the field will have a negative impact on the privacy in our family home. Due to the angle of the field the residents of the new development would be able to see directly into bedroom windows. I do not believe that any proposed 'new enhanced planting' will address this issue. I am also concerned that the current privacy we enjoy in our rear garden will be completely lost.
Potential for crime:
I am concerned that by opening up part of the field for 'public space' will mean that there is a walkway directly behind my house as well as viewing into my house. This would create a potential opportunity to those seeking unlawful entry to my home.
78. Mr Andrew Horrobin (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 21:11:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am responding to proposals to amend the boundary of the site proposed for allocation on Hollins Lane to include an alternative area for development and publicly accessible open space. I fully object to this proposal for the following reasons:
Access:
Hollins Lane is one of the narrowest roads in Arnside and there are few passing places. There is no pavement and I believe that when I am walking on Hollins Lane with my children and elderly parents we are in danger. Many people who live in the village as well as visitors use Hollins Lane as a 'cut through'. My concern is that this road is already a danger to anyone walking and the proposal will lead to an increase in traffic thus increasing this risk. The proposal is in breach of AS511
Drainage:
I am concerned that any development on the field will result in drainage problems for the surrounding houses. A previous plan to build on this land highlighted that much of the land is Limestone and there is no natural drainage on the site. The previous plans found the sewers/drains on Hollins Lane are running at full capacity. Due to the angle of the field I am also concerned that rainfall that is currently absorbed by the field will cascade into my property causing flooding
Private life:
The Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 offers protection for a persons private and family life. The building of houses on the field will have a negative impact on the privacy in our family home. Due to the angle of the field the residents of the new development would be able to see directly into bedroom windows. I do not believe that any proposed 'new enhanced planting' will address this issue. I am also concerned that the current privacy we enjoy in our rear garden will be completely lost.
Potential for crime:
I am concerned that by opening up part of the field for 'public space' will mean that there is a walkway directly behind my house as well as viewing into my house. This would create a potential opportunity to those seeking unlawful entry to my home.
79. Mr Jeffrey Howell (Individual) : 3 Jul 2017 11:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
80. Mrs Alice Howell (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 14:06:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
81. Mr Jonathan Howes (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 08:33:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Please find my objections below to the proposed inclusion of site S50 into the AONB DPD
• There are currently 22 houses for sale in the village. Recent events at the Keepers Green development have left a sour taste in the mouths of many residents when what had been supported by the Parish Council as small low cost housing became holiday homes. The developer had tried to sell these properties but apparently had no takers. Also in the past I believe that both the Lindeth Close Development and Whinney Fold, which were built as low cost housing as a result of the ongoing assessment of local housing needs, had to be advertised regionally as there were nowhere near enough locals interested in moving into these homes.
• If the proposed site were to be included in the DPD as a potential development site, it is likely that a precedent could be set such that through the normal Development Management processes, approval would be sought for further section of the field to be developed.
• When compared with many of the sites already considered, but not selected for inclusion in the final DPD, this site would result in the village peripheral boundary being extended into open countryside. To avoid development boundary sprawl, I would hope that smaller more discreet sites within the existing peripheral boundary should be chosen over site S50.
• Access is limited at present to a small lane serving Clarence House and Clarence Cottages, not wide enough for large vehicles, and a potential access from St John’s Avenue. There are already a great number of properties using vehicular access from St John’s Avenue onto Emesgate Lane, the main and only through route in the village, which is already very congested for a lot of the time. It is the bus route in both directions and the route for the Coop delivery wagons, service vehicles of all sizes and other works and delivery vehicles. Any increase in car movements from the site would only exacerbate an already busy and dangerous junction. Yellow lines and restrictive parking measures are not an option as there is already a severe shortage of parking places locally and yellow lines would urbanise the village. St Johns Avenue is used regularly as an overflow parking area for the church and primary school and events at the Institute. Finally I would be very worried about access for emergency vehicles.
• There would be a hugely adverse impact on the sensitive local landscape within the immediate area and from viewpoints at Gait Barrows, the Pepper Pot and Eaves Wood, for example. Not to mention the outward views towards the Howgills, much enjoyed by the dozens of walkers who use the public footpath through the field on a daily basis. This amenity use is a very important and valued aspect which should not be lost from the AONB. If any houses were to be built on the site they would block these publicly accessible views forever. The tree screening proposed would create a false barrier in summer and in winter when the leaves fall the houses would be visible from all directions. So how could these key views possibly be maintained?
This is reinforced in The AONB Special Qualities Report - What is special about Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? November 2016
I. 3.4 Grasslands. The grasslands of the AONB form a distinctive pastoral landscape, a patchwork of fields enclosed by drystone walls and hedgerows managed with grazing animals and dotted with field trees and interspersed with woodlands and other habitats. Pastures within the villages are integral to the rural settlement character of the AONB villages, in particular Arnside, Silverdale and Storth. Views over farmland from all settlements contribute to the area’s rural character.
II. 9. Distinctive settlement character. …it is the stone buildings and settlements created during the last 800 years which contribute so strongly to the character and quality of the landscape today. This contribution lies not only in the strong vernacular traditions of the area but also in the settings of many of the buildings and the character of individual villages and hamlets.
III. 9.2.3 Silverdale. Much of the village is fringed by small to medium sized pastures, which are enclosed by a characteristic pattern of limestone walls. Pockets of development are interspersed with woodlands and pastureland that form attractive open spaces and pastures follow a pattern of ancient enclosures in some areas. These open areas form a very important part of Silverdale’s character.
The field wall behind St Johns Avenue forms a distinct boundary between the properties and the open fields. Each spring these fields are grazed by sheep, then the grass is left to grow to produce a crop of silage and then, as now, cattle graze. This is mixed farming at its best which also gives open space and tranquillity for the varied and sometimes very rare birds and other wildlife which frequent it.
• The cemetery, which is one field below the proposed site, was refused planning permission for an extension because of groundwater concerns. The County Council have been trying for years to reduce the water flow and levels which cause long term problems and often flooding in properties on Townsfield, Cove Road, Cove Drive, Elmslack etc.
The waste water disposal arrangements are a huge concern for the residents of Silverdale as there is no public wastewater system available. Therefore a private wastewater system would have to be provided. In the absence of a suitable running water course, which is the case at the proposed site, the Environment Agency requires (BS6297) that all currently available treatment plants mandate on their outflow a tertiary treatment and ground infiltration system. In Silverdale one of the biggest problems regarding this requirement is that there needs to be an area of reasonably level ground together with suitable soil/rock conditions for this mandatory system. If reference is made to Lancaster City Council planning application 15/01400/Ful relating to Whinney Fold, Silverdale, (Drawing number 00860294.pdf—Flood Risk and Drainage Fig3), this indicates how large an area is necessary for a typical, compliant, tertiary treatment and ground infiltration system. If such an area were to be allocated within the proposed development site, the space remaining for homes would be very limited and likely to undermine the commercial viability of the site. Apparently this system would have to be located in an area that is not built upon, nor hard surfaced, in order to allow oxygen to be absorbed into the soil to sustain the biological processes. If the system were to be located within the agricultural field outside the boundary of the site, similarly to that proposed at Whinney Fold, the ground engineering works to create a suitable, reasonably level site of the required area is likely to be large, incongruous and an obvious variation of the natural lie of the land and have a detrimental impact on the landscape assessment.
Also BS6297 requires a detailed analysis of the underlying ground structure, both subsoil and bedrock, to determine its suitability to contain a tertiary treatment and ground infiltration system. The soil cover in most areas of Silverdale is thin or very thin and is underlain by fractured, free draining limestone. To create an effective system, requires sufficient depth of suitable soil to allow for the biological tertiary treatment process to take place. If this is not available and part treated wastewater drains away too quickly into the fractured limestone, it has the potential to rapidly contaminate the groundwater systems. Experience from many excavation activities in Silverdale, including the recent laying of fibre broadband ducts for the B4RN community broadband system, finds that in most places there is too little soil to provide for a correctly functioning tertiary treatment and ground infiltration system.
82. Mr Peter Howlett (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 09:28:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to express my opposition to the proposal to develop the meadow to the north and west of Hollins Lane.
Of all the sites originally proposed in Arnside for additional housing, the Hollins Lane site has to be, by far, the most unsuitable. Hollins Lane is an extremely narrow country lane, with a few pinch points making the road even narrower. There is a relatively sharp blind bend half way along its length. There are no footpaths apart from a very small length of pavement towards Silverdale Road. Vehicles and pedestrians are obliged to share this narrow road, creating a very unsatisfactory and unsafe situation especially for children, the elderly and the disabled. Vehicles are unable to pass each other. One vehicle has to give way and stop often on someone's drive.
From my front garden to the other side of the road is just 4.6 metres. There is very little scope to improve the situation and alleviate current difficulties along the length of Hollins Lane. The dangers to all will only increase with more houses, more adults, more children and more vehicles. The proposed access to the Hollins Lane site is extremely close to the small lane situated on the opposite side of the road. This small lane is the only access to four properties. The owners of these properties have a total of eight vehicles at the present time. Great care has to be taken when attempting to enter Hollins Lane from this lane as I know from personal experience. The position of the access road for the proposed housing development almost creates a crossroads situation, a recipe for even more chaos and danger.
I acknowledge all the important factors that many residents will have raised, such as privacy, security and loss of open environment. In addition there are problems with surface water drainage and sewerage drainage, both of which I have experienced whilst living in Hollins Lane. However, the primary and overriding factor has to be personal safety. I believe that to proceed with the Hollins Lane development proposal will only increase the likelihood of a tragic accident. Movement along Hollins Lane is already a dangerous activity, to make matters worse would in my opinion be lunacy. I have every confidence in the Officers working in the Planning Departments of South Lakeland and Lancaster. I am sure they are competent and qualified some will even be experienced. Surely everyone can see the dangers and risk to life should this development plan go ahead. There can be only one conclusion. The Hollins Lane development is unviable.
83. Mrs Coral Howlett (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 09:38:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to express my opposition to the proposal to develop the meadow to the north and west of Hollins Lane.
Of all the sites originally proposed in Arnside for additional housing, the Hollins Lane site has to be, by far, the most unsuitable. Hollins Lane is an extremely narrow country lane, with a few pinch points making the road even narrower. There is a relatively sharp blind bend half way along its length. There are no footpaths apart from a very small length of pavement towards Silverdale Road. Vehicles and pedestrians are obliged to share this narrow road, creating a very unsatisfactory and unsafe situation especially for children, the elderly and the disabled. Vehicles are unable to pass each other. One vehicle has to give way and stop often on someone's drive.
From my front garden to the other side of the road is just 4.6 metres. There is very little scope to improve the situation and alleviate current difficulties along the length of Hollins Lane. The dangers to all will only increase with more houses, more adults, more children and more vehicles. The proposed access to the Hollins Lane site is extremely close to the small lane situated on the opposite side of the road. This small lane is the only access to four properties. The owners of these properties have a total of eight vehicles at the present time. Great care has to be taken when attempting to enter Hollins Lane from this lane as I know from personal experience. The position of the access road for the proposed housing development almost creates a crossroads situation, a recipe for even more chaos and danger.
I acknowledge all the important factors that many residents will have raised, such as privacy, security and loss of open environment. In addition there are problems with surface water drainage and sewerage drainage, both of which I have experienced whilst living in Hollins Lane. However, the primary and overriding factor has to be personal safety. I believe that to proceed with the Hollins Lane development proposal will only increase the likelihood of a tragic accident. Movement along Hollins Lane is already a dangerous activity, to make matters worse would in my opinion be lunacy. I have every confidence in the Officers working in the Planning Departments of South Lakeland and Lancaster. I am sure they are competent and qualified some will even be experienced. Surely everyone can see the dangers and risk to life should this development plan go ahead. There can be only one conclusion. The Hollins Lane development is unviable.
84. Mr Ronald Hughson (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 12:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
85. Mr & Mrs C Jackson (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 11:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
86. Mr & Mrs DE and S Jordan (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 12:33:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
87. Mr Michael Kemp (Individual) : 3 Jul 2017 12:27:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Dear Sirs
I note with interest the proposals in respect of the above.
I lived in Arnside for several years and still have family and strong connections with this wonderful place. However, over the years I have found myself feeling both sad and let down for the village that none of the problems that have dogged the village for so long are never seen to be tackled and solutions found. The on road parking, continuous delays along Station Road, no maintained car or coach parking for locals and visitors and so many other things are just not being addressed by those elected to solve these problems.
Added to this has been a complete lack of affordable new build to attract and keep young people in the village and a complete stop on sensible building solutions for older residents occupying houses that have become too large for them, allowing them to move into carefully designed retirement single storey bungalows - well designed and spacious or developments similar to Ashleigh Court - which has been a great success over the last 20+ years.
It is noted that several ‘bungalows’ in the village are actually being turned into large houses - completely contrary to the needs of the local community and ignoring the usual requirement of ‘roof line’ compatibility with neighbouring properties.
Arnside resident’s have needs and these needs are being continually ignored by those in a position to improve things simply because they do not have the ability to counter those people who continue to find ways of thwarting everything that is proposed for every enviremental argument that can be dredged up.
Please let common sense and locals needs prevail for once so that retired people can stay in Arnside when they need to down size or young people can live in suitable and affordable accommodation within the village.
Yours faithfully
M.D,Kemp
88. Mr and Mrs Ken and Ann Kitchen (Individual) : 11 Jul 2017 14:35:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
We understand that the new consultation document does not show what the council is minded to allow but only gives an artist’s impression of what the owner of the land might like to do. This could have been made clearer so that everyone realised that they were not being asked to comment on things like public access and footpaths, simply whether the land could be considered for building at a later stage.
We assume that things such as highways safety, neighbours comments etc would be expected at the planning application stage and not before. However we can see the reasoning that if there are insurmountable difficulties in developing the site they should be stated now.
One main problem is safety. Hollins Lane alongside this field at the moment is dangerous. Whatever happens cutting the hedge back to 3ft high and 3 ft wide would allow a pavement to be made which would improve pedestrian safety considerably.
The present hedge/trees are very overgrown and need to be thinned and laid, otherwise they will become a tangled thicket of trees of limited life.
Much is made of keeping views across the field. Walking up and down the road at the moment these views are almost totally obscured by the hedge. Even at the entrance to the field one must walk down to the gate to see across.
A line of houses following the outline of the ones above as in our initial submission would allow the views to be seen between the houses.
The artist’s idea of a footpath onto Silverdale Road is a nice idea but probably impractical from a safety point of view. You would be funnelling people onto Silverdale Road, a main artery with no pavement. At least the lower section of Hollins Lane is quieter, and leads onto Briery Bank which has a pavement.
Many respondents are worried that the section of the field marked for open space would become a paradise for dog walkers and also reduce the security of their homes. We have much sympathy with that view but it should not be the reason for turning down a better proposal for building.
We come down to the fact that Arnside needs affordable housing and we are very short of suitable sites. There are no perfect sites. This one if developed sensibly could meet some of the need.
Our feelings are that Site 8/9 should be considered as a potential site but this in no way means that we agree that the particular proposal for housing shown is the correct one.
Ken and Ann Kitchen
89. Mr Graham Lake (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 10:57:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
1.The increase in traffic will affect safety at the junction of St Johns avenue and Emesgate Lane. Frequently vehicles are parked from the junction of Emesgate lane up to and around the corner into St Johns Grove particularly when there are events on at the school or church and Saturday mornings when visitors using Gaskell Hall also park in St Johns Avenue. Turning left off Emesgate Lane into St Johns avenue is particularly hazardous as the view is obstructed by the hedge & parked cars. The problem is exacerbated by vehicles parked on Emesgate lane opposite the junction.
2. The large flatter area of the proposed site becomes very waterlogged in periods of heavy rain, the run off from which runs down through Churchfield and on into the field surrounding the cemetery. Any development is going to increase the amount of run off and how is this going to be managed?
3. There is no mains sewerage in Silverdale, as the site is already subject to periodic flooding what is going to happen to the effluent from the septic tanks?
4. A footpath runs through the field and is in constant use by both locals and visitors who come to enjoy the unique character of Silverdale which is made up of pastureland enclosed by limestone walls and woodland. The visitors help keep the local businesses viable.
5. There is very little local employment, where are these people going to work? Public transport is very poor resulting in more people commuting by car along narrow country roads.
6. There are a number of properties in the village which have been for sale for some time and have failed to secure a buyer, do we need more housing? Recent low cost housing developments have failed to attract enough local interest & have had to be filled by regional & national advertising as have other schemes throughout the area. Other developments have been used as holiday homes.
7. Extension of the perimeter of the village when there are more discreet sites available. Is this development going to set a precedent for future expansion into the fields.
8. The local GP surgery is already under pressure with appointment waiting times over two weeks. The surgery is currently only open four mornings a week. With the current state of affairs in the NHS this is likely to get worse.
9. The area also attracts a variety of wildlife, Roe deer are seen frequently, Partridge both red legged and Grey have successfully nested in recent years. Large numbers and a wide variety of songbirds are present all year round together with the occasional raptor including the local Tawny Owls. The rough grassland also attracts amphibians and Hedgehogs. When the area becomes waterlogged large numbers of waders are present probing for worms and insects.
10. The area is clearly visible from Eaves Wood and the Pepperpot and will have a detrimental affect on the overall view of the village so much admired by visitors. Open areas such as this field are a very important part of Silverdale's character.
90. Miss Jane Lambert (Individual) : 28 Jun 2017 13:53:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Site S50.
Once again I am very disappointed that we are faced with the 'same old' situation.
How many times do we need to go through this!?
We live in a designated AONB - for which I am truly grateful - but if we are to take this designation seriously,
we must put an end to planning applications of this nature. If there is a need for Affordable Housing in the
Village - and this must be verified- then this should be the only type of planning application considered.There is
certainly no need for anymore BIG Houses in Silverdale.
The Planning Dept, in my opinion, should not be approving anything that does not fulfil the needs of the Village.
Too many sites have been allowed to be developed with the wrong type of Housing.
There should definitely be no further development on Green Field Sites.
If Site S50 were to be approved for building, it would completely 'blow out of the water' all that is going to be
achieved in the AONB Development Plan.
So apart from the above, I disagree with the potential development of S50 on the following grounds.
In no particular order;
1.Site S50 is an ancient field that sits perfectly into the landscape. Its two Footpaths command excellent views
and are walked (and enjoyed) every day by scores of people.
2. It is a highly visible site, and any development would 'stick out like a sore thumb'.
From the Jubilee Monument/Gait Barrow it would represent significant development of 'green land'.
3. Access to the Site from Emesgate Lane is already congested, with Schools either side of the entrance road.
There is also a Church nearby, which adds to the congestion, if there is a Service /Event.
Additional properties on Site S50 would make St Johns Avenue a dangerously busy cul de sac.
4.Drainage is a major issue - as identified in all planning issues in Silverdale. We already contravene draining
regulations, and I cannot see how this development would be any different.
Added to which, run off into adjoining fields could exasperate the existing flooding issues we have on Bottoms
Lane/at the Cemetery.
We know that there are underground water sources running from Lamberts Meadow beneath the Cemetery,
and then under Townsfield to the Cove. Increased run off from this development could increase the possibility
of flooding in these areas. The extension to the Cemetery was refused because of flooding.
5. The field has wildlife visiting on a regular basis. Roe Deer, Red legged Partridge, and one of the Marsh
Harriers from Leighton Moss have all been seen here.
6. We all know what happens when part of a field is developed!!!! It is too easy for the rest to follow suit.
This would be unthinkable at this location and would seriously damage the AONB designation.
In summary. Site S50 is totally unsuitable - in every way - to development.
If we have such a Housing shortage, Councils/Government should begin to think 'outside the box'.
Don't destroy Green Fields ( we need to remember they dont make more land!), look for other ways to solve
the problem. For example, incentives to large House owners to rent off sections of their House at affordable
rates. Or convert large properties into other dwellings.
With the DPD in place, I hope this is the last time I will need to comment on this type of development in an
AONB.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Site S50, where it to be developed, contravenes all that was agreed in the AONB Development Plan.
It would mean that all that will be achieved through alot of hard work - over many years - would be wasted.
Why do i disagree.
First.
The Site is a lovely ancient field with spectacular views over the surrounding countryside. Its footpaths are walked
91. Ms Tracey Lawther (Individual) : 13 Jul 2017 11:35:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am writing in support of the proposed amendments to the ANOB Local Plan for the sites in Arnside, Silverdale and Storth.
There is a significant demand locally for affordable housing in the area, and I can only see that this will continue to grow.
We live in area of outstanding beauty and in an enviable location this has resulted in an increase in people buying property as 2nd homes for weekend retreats , holiday let's etc. .,and this has affected property prices locally.
Young people are struggling to get on the property ladder .Existing home owners are not moving up the ladder to release property for 1st time buyers , and it is becoming increasingly difficult for first time buyers to find a home in the local area where they and their families have lived for many years.
I want to live in an area with generations of families, and in a community where people look out for each other, which in turn will be of benefit to all.
I feel the proposal will have minimal affect and disruption and will benefit our community for generations to come.
92. Ms Tracey Lawther (Individual) : 13 Jul 2017 11:36:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am writing in support of the proposed amendments to the ANOB Local Plan for the sites in Arnside, Silverdale and Storth.
There is a significant demand locally for affordable housing in the area, and I can only see that this will continue to grow.
We live in area of outstanding beauty and in an enviable location this has resulted in an increase in people buying property as 2nd homes for weekend retreats , holiday let's etc. .,and this has affected property prices locally.
Young people are struggling to get on the property ladder .Existing home owners are not moving up the ladder to release property for 1st time buyers , and it is becoming increasingly difficult for first time buyers to find a home in the local area where they and their families have lived for many years.
I want to live in an area with generations of families, and in a community where people look out for each other, which in turn will be of benefit to all.
I feel the proposal will have minimal affect and disruption and will benefit our community for generations to come.
93. Ms Tracey Lawther (Individual) : 13 Jul 2017 11:36:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am writing in support of the proposed amendments to the ANOB Local Plan for the sites in Arnside, Silverdale and Storth.
There is a significant demand locally for affordable housing in the area, and I can only see that this will continue to grow.
We live in area of outstanding beauty and in an enviable location this has resulted in an increase in people buying property as 2nd homes for weekend retreats , holiday let's etc. .,and this has affected property prices locally.
Young people are struggling to get on the property ladder .Existing home owners are not moving up the ladder to release property for 1st time buyers , and it is becoming increasingly difficult for first time buyers to find a home in the local area where they and their families have lived for many years.
I want to live in an area with generations of families, and in a community where people look out for each other, which in turn will be of benefit to all.
I feel the proposal will have minimal affect and disruption and will benefit our community for generations to come.
94. Mr Noel Livesey (Individual) : 13 Jul 2017 15:01:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to endorse al and every objection to the plans for site S50
95. Ms Rowena Lord (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 15:49:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
If a development needs to be hidden behind a thick belt of trees, it seems likely it is an inappropriate development in the wrong place. This is a greenfield site on the edge of the village. The proposal looks odd on the plan. It does not seem to sit any better on the ground - but would be a heavily screened projection into the surrounding landscape, which is open pasture immediately adjacent and extensive grazed parkland beyond.
I note the Councils will carry out landscape and visual impact assessments but I would doubt whether the proposal would meet the landscape requirements in sections 3 and 4 of the draft DPD. Would a development on this site, for instance, 'complement the character and visual amenity of the local landscape and reflect the capacity of the landscape to accommodate it'? (3.1.3)
It would have a significant impact on the open and extensive views to the east, which stretch as far as the Howgills, from part of the popular public footpath that runs north/south along the edge of the field. It would also impact on the views and amenity of the higher part of that footpath and two nearby footpaths by significantly closing down the sense of openness.
There is also the risk that, as it is a greenfield site on the edge of the village, with an impact on extensive views and visual amenity, any development permitted here would set a precedent for other unsuitable sites elsewhere in the AONB.
If any development is permitted on this site, it should be used specifically for meeting locally identified housing needs as set out in the draft DPD (4.1.1, 4.1.6, AS04)
96. Mrs Lindsay MacFarlaine (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 22:33:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Dear Sir/Madam
"Storth, proposal to extend the areas proposed for allocation on Park Road and Quarry Lane to include additional sites, including areas to be kept open"
As a resident of Storth and a council tax payer I feel it is my duty to communicate feedback to you regarding the above proposal. I wish to address the consultation in broad terms.
1 The purpose and rationale for this consideration.
2 My thoughts on what I believe this proposal to be about.
3 The purpose and duty of my council to engage in meaningful consultation.
This proposal was brought to my attention on Facebook via a resident communication. Having studied the wording of the proposal I would ask for clarification as to the objectives of further development of the areas as follows "The Draft Plan Consultation established that a comprehensive approach to the redevelopment of the areas proposed for allocation on Quarry Lane and Park Road is appropriate and necessary to ensure that the best outcomes can be delivered from these sites. The redevelopment of these sites is dependent on new access being created from Park Road. During consultation on the Draft Plan, concerns were expressed by the landowners that this could not be achieved without some development taking place on additional portions of land, beyond those already identified.
Their proposal is that B79, B116 and B117 should be re-considered as extensions to the area proposed for development at Draft Plan stage and that this would include additional development and an emergency access to the south of the site that would serve day-to-day as a pedestrian link to the village centre and would support the viability of the access from Park Road.
In the Draft Plan, B79 and B116 were identified as Key Settlement Landscapes for protection and B117, a greenfield site, was not allocated for development."
In essence, who is asking for further development of this area. What are the objectives and what is the demand for commercial development? The consultation document is vague and therefore it is not possible to engage in a practical manner at this stage. It appears the drive for this inclusion is for commercial reasons from a developer or landowner. Without relevant information it is not possible to be precise in the feedback.
Before council funds are further spent on assessments, site visits and meetings it is preferable for the residents and tax payers to be furnished with more concrete proposals on which to base our relevant feedback.
2 If this proposal relates to further housing and business premises in the village of Storth then here are my concerns.
The village of Storth albeit peaceful and popular has grown extensively over the past 54 years since my family settled here. The facilities within the village are not condusive to further housing development. The preservation of open spaces are crucial to maintaining the village and its natural habitat.
Furthermore, if the proposal is for affordable housing this is not an ideal site for families who have to travel to work to towns and cities nearby given the poor public transport network and the cost of travel.
If for housing, I would question the demand for houses in South Lakeland and respectfully ask that you and your councillors consider the need for expanding villages to accomodate families where young people who can afford to live here find it difficult to socialise, travel and experience life generally.
If for commerical premises then again I would question the demand for workshops, factories, offices in this particular area given the rates and the location. I have some first hand experience of running a business in this area at the location in question. A pleasant place to work, but a very expensive one. It is feared that empty premises blight an area rather than rejuvenate. Careful thought is needed.
3 Finally on the subject of consultation. As this is at an early stage, perhaps one should be asking 1 Who is driving this? 2 What is the demand for housing and commerce on this site? 3 What are we actually consulting on and how are we to communicate this to the council tax payers? There will be many residents who are not online who need a voice also. Relying on one member of the community to pass the word on is not, in my opinion, effective nor satisfactory. The detail of the report does not fully explain the proposal. This leads to confusion. I respectfully ask if consultation is needed more information is given to your tax payers in a plain English format. I have worked in the public sectors for three decades and appreciate the nature of strategic planning but also think that more information is required if the quality of your consultation is to be meaningful.
In short, I do not believe there should be development in the areas of Storth on your proposed plan. I reject the proposal on the grounds that development in the AONB should be met elsewhere and if we as residents are to be "published" then so too should interested parties and developers with an interest.
Yours faithfully.
97. Mrs Clare Martin (Individual) : 18 Jul 2017 12:34:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
98. Mr & Mrs John & Sue Mellor (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 10:59:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD Pre Publication Consultation
I wish to raise objections to 'Suggestion 2: Storth - Proposal to extend the areas proposed for allocation on Park Rd and Quarry Lane to include additional sites including areas to be kept open'.
I do not agree with the landowners that there should be any development beyond those already identified on brown field sites.
My reasons are as follows:-
1. I have it on authority that the official Housing Needs Survey shows that sufficient housing can be provided on brown field sites for the next 15 year plan. In fact two and a half times the number of houses could be built sufficient for this plan on brown field sites alone. There is no need to encroach on any green field sites.
2. The extended areas proposed i.e. B79, B116 and B117 are key settlement areas and green field sites in the AONB, which is one of only a few lowland limestone habitats in the whole of Europe and is therefore a very special environment with its own flora and fauna. This should be preserved.
3. The proposal to link these sites with a pedestrian and emergency vehicles only track to the village centre would not be practicable due to the narrowness of Yans Lane where this track would egress. The lane is exceedingly narrow and this is compounded by resident parking. The best access, as now, is by Storth Rd. Egress on to Storth Rd could be achieved by a road or track emerging from Quarry Lane which , again , would preserve the green field sites.
4. Apparently there are also questions about the capacity of the Milnthorpe Sewage Works to accommodate any large developments without expensive extension.
I fully support the development suggested for the brown field sites, but for the above reasons would object strongly to the landowners proposal for extension to green field sites.
John Mellor
99. Mrs Susan Mellor (Individual) : 15 Jul 2017 17:35:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to raise objections to the proposal to extend the areas proposed for allocation on Quarry Lane .
I do not agree with the landowners that there should be any development beyond those identified on brown field sites.
My reasons are as follows:-
1 The official housing needs survey shows that sufficient housing can be provided by use of the brown field sites. There is no need to encroach on any green field sites.
2 The extended areas proposed , B79, B116, and B117 are key settlement areas and greenfield sites in the ANOB, which is one of only a few lowland limestone habitats in the whole of Europe and is therefore a very special environment with its own flora and fauna. Also in recent years there have been sightings of wild hares in this exact location. This area should be preserved .
3 I would also object to the proposal to link these sites with a pedestrian and emergency vehicle only track to the village centre for two reasons. a) This would not be practicable due to the narrowness of Yans lane at both exits, Throughs Lane and Storth Road. The Storth Road junction is single track only and also a blind junction.
b) Also from my own experience I can say that I witnessed the problems caused when an emergency call was made for a local resident who had collapsed in this vicinity. One of the first things the First Responder did was to ask someone to clear the parked cars in order that the ambulance could attend the patient.
If the brown field sites on Quarry Lane are to be used an alternative would be to make the egress at the junction of Quarry Lane and Storth Road a footpath with emergency vehicle access only for the required distance from junction to new housing. This would allow access but limit vehicle use.
I fully support the development suggested for the brown field sites, but for the reasons stated above would object strongly to the landowners proposal for extension to green field sites.
Sue Mellor
100. Mr James Mitchell (Individual) : 27 Jun 2017 10:29:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to comment about the amendment to the Hollins Lane plan. Whilst we wish to protect Arnside from over development, this proposed change would surely provide a greater variety of housing for all the community and not just meeting the necessary affordable housing requirements. The previous plan for Hollins Lane would have resulted in entire loss of the views.
James Mitchell
101. Ms Audrey Nelson (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 15:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
102. Ms Audrey Nelson (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 15:29:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
103. Mr John Nelson (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 15:44:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
104. Miss Sharon Newey (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 22:41:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposals. I would firstly like to say that I find it unusual that a development on this scale has only been offered a 1 month public consultation and that the timing of this is poor due to the holiday season. A development on this scale would I understand usually be given a 3-month consultation.
I would like to register my strong objection to the proposal of including the additional sites B116 and B79. Both are green field sites and given the special protection given to such areas in an AONB should not even be considered for development of any sort.
Also, these fields have already been considered and rejected for development by SLDC. To quote from the SLDC's own site assessment spreadsheet - "Site B79 is not being taken forward because of significant landscape impacts. Farmland adjoining residential development. Same owner as 77. Site not suitable for development: cannot mitigate landscape impact of developing site"
"Site B116 is not being taken forward because of significant landscape impacts. Same as B121. Farmland adjoining Sandside. Site not suitable for development. Poor road access. Big area of surface water flood risk (1 in 30). Cannot mitigate landscape impact of developing site."
I also wish to state that the current proposals contradict the planning guidance that local authorities need to follow when determining development in an AONB and this suggestion to amalgamate the additional fields (B79 & B116) in the development of the brownfield sites seems contrary to that guidance in many respects but especially in the requirement "to conserve and enhance landscape quality and character, tranquillity, dark skies, local distinctiveness, settlement character, pattern and local vernacular architecture, habitats and species, geodiversity and the historic environment".
National planning policy does not allow major new developments in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty except in exceptional circumstances.
The sheer scale of the proposed developments is excessive and I do not see how the current village infrastructure can support the proposed developments.
1. The proposed emergency vehicle access down Yans lane.
This is a single-track road accessed by 2 small single track roads past the village post office and the road past The Old School.
The road in front of the post office is constantly used by local traffic and access for emergency vehicles would be most difficult.
2. Currently when the main road at Sandside is flooded, Quarry lane is used by villagers in Storth, Carrbank and Arnside to access our villages and homes.
If this ceased to be the case, what is the proposed alternative? ~
The only one I can see is via the Dallam Estate and Cockshot lane, or Beetham and then Cockshot lane. Either way both these routes are essential single track with passing places. Neither are viable options considering the volume of traffic.
3. While I recognise that there is value in developing the brown field parts of this proposal as the existing old Travis Perkins site provides a good opportunity for light commercial development, a hotel, or some housing the scale of the additional proposed housing is not required by Storth Village.
The village cannot provide work. Villagers travel and families mainly have 2 cars.
Public transport is not an option for work travel. I understand that housing needs in Storth and Sandside have already been assessed and village needs are being met by developments in Milnthorpe which has better facilities and transport links than Storth.
I would also like to state that commercial premises are currently vacant on quarry lane and have been for years. There are also vacant premises in Milnthorpe so building further light commercial space does seem questionable
I therefore wish to be registered as strongly objecting to the extension of development beyond the 2 existing brownfield sites.
105. Mrs Ruth Nuttall (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 11:53:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
106. Mrs Joanna Elizabeth Osborne (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 19:25:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I write following the invitation for comment on the proposal to reconsider B79, B116 and B117 as extensions to the area proposed for development within the AONB
The sites in question are greenfield sites. I do not believe that these sites should be considered for development, particularly when there is a perfectly suitable brownfield site on Park Road ie the former Travis Perkins site. I believe that the site in question will meet the desired quota for housing adequately.
Including greenfield sites for development would set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to the development of further greenfield sites in this or another AONB. The area is designated as AONB on account of the landscape and its picturesque surroundings. Development of such sites is, in my view, wholly inappropriate.
The width of and congestion at Yans Lane in the village will also make the creation of emergency access difficult and will undoubtedly lead to numerous problems with residents’ vehicles potentially hindering any emergency vehicles.
I therefore believe that these areas should not be included and that the Travis Perkins site should be considered for development.
107. Mr John Osborne (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 19:28:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I write following the invitation for comment on the proposal that B79, B116 and B117 should be re-considered as extensions to the area proposed for development at Draft Plan stage.
I note that these are all greenfield sites within the AONB. I strongly object to the suggestion that such sites should be considered for development. I believe that the required quota of housing will be met by another nearby site, specifically the site previously occupied by Travis Perkins.
Inclusion and subsequent development would also set an unwanted precedent for development on greenfield sites that should be protected by the fact that they are situated in the AONB in the first place.
It would also be very problematic to develop emergency access to any development via Yans Lane which is already heavily congested with vehicles at all times of day and night an would lead to an unnecessary amount of extra traffic on very narrow roads.
108. Mr Wallace Park (Individual) : 7 Jul 2017 15:28:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for allowing my comments on Site 50 (part)
1. Drainage. As the Environment Agency explain, each one of us in the UK puts out 170 litres/day (35 gallons) of grey water, from baths and showers, toilets,dishwashers and washing machines. This is particularly relevant in Silverdale which has no mains drainage, and this site slopes down to the northwest corner. While the septic tanks and their more efficient replacements remove the solids, but allow the grey water containing nitrates, phosphates, detergents and hormones to pass on and pollute the groundwater. In 1994 the EA declared Silverdale to be a particularly sensitive area, and introduced rules to mitigate the problem. Any further housing only adds to the pollution.
2. Is there really a need for further housing here? Are people looking for houses, or are houses looking for people?
3. At present a walk down the field is very pleasant, with views on the right to distant hills, and leaving the field past the old gnarled linden tree. Another lovely Silverdale attraction would be spoiled.
4. On the map of the site there are described 'key views to be retained'. Hardly retained for several of the present householders on St John's Avenue who will have their views at least partly blocked by the development. Please reconsider - our AONB is being eroded imperceptibly by the day. Thank you. W. G. Park
109. Mr Keith Parnell (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 23:48:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
1. There is no justification for further encroachment on greenfield sites within the AONB.
2. Given that the traffic environment in the area is already poor - mixture of people in a hurry and people
not in a hurry - cars getting bigger - country lanes not - added to other road users, walkers, cyclists, horse riders, visitors unfamiliar with the place, etc., who, by the way, don't seem to be enjoying themselves, on our roads on their way to, presumably,
footpaths,
why would the AONB want the inevitable additional traffic that would be a result of this development?
3. There is no justification for adding to population in a village that cannot support additional employment opportunities as this would only result in more commuting.
110. Mr Nicholas Pearce (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 21:45:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I consider that the proposed development on Hollins Lane, Arnside should not be approved on the following
grounds.
Traffic – Hollins Lane is not suited to carry additional traffic that would, inevitably, be associated with the
proposed development. It already carries significant traffic, much of it using Hollins Lane as a shortcut
between Silverdale Road and Briery Bank, and vehicles frequently travel excessively fast creating hazards for
pedestrians.
School children walk up and down Hollins Lane daily to catch school buses at the Briery Bank stop or walk to
Arnside Junior School. Additional vehicles will unacceptably increase hazards for these children.
The junction between Hollins Lane and Briery Bank has appalling sight lines for vehicles entering Briery Bank.
Additional vehicle movements will increase the risk of collisions at this junction.
Water Run Off – In storm conditions Hollins Lane is subject to excessive storm water running down the
highway and on to Briery Bank. Houses, including ours, with entrances to the East side of Hollins lane have
driveways sloping down from the road towards our properties and in storm conditions the run-off down
Hollins Lane nearly overtops the kerb and flows across our property. Increased water run-off from the new
development would put our property at risk of flooding.
Amenity Area – Inclusion of the amenity area in the proposed development is of marginal value and its long
term future is imperilled if inevitable subsequent applications are made proposing it is reduced in size by
further development. If this development is approved, it should be on condition that title to the amenity area
passes to Arnside Parish Council or SLDC to ensure that it is protected from subsequent development requests.
111. Mrs Ann Pearson (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 11:49:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I object to the proposal for part of site S50 to be reconsidered for residential development.
Any proposal would be contrary to the aims of the Arnside and Silverdale AONB.
There would be major practical problems, particularly in terms of traffic congestion and
sewerage, should any development occur on this site.
However, the main problem would be the precedent set. Should the site be deemed suitable
for residential development and should any subsequent planning application be successful
there would then be no reason why proposals for other sites in this area of the Village and
other applications could not also succeed. Any decision about part of S50 is in effect a decision about the whole of this area.
The "red line" which has existed since the Clevelands Ave/St John's Avenue development almost fifty years ago should not be crossed.
112. Mr Robert Peck (Individual) : 8 Jul 2017 20:07:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Reintroducing this area into the plan threatens to undermine the settlement character of Silverdale as described in the AONB report of November 2016. Pockets of development and open areas are key as is the visual amenity looking out of and into the village. There are other factors to be carefully considered related to drainage, traffic flows and highway safety.
113. Mr Alec Peet (Individual) : 12 Dec 2017 12:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
114. Mr Alastair Pell (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 21:08:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Please note my strong objection to this proposed development site due to the following facts:
1/ None of the roads leading into the village are currently suitable for the level of traffic that already exists, any significant development can only exacerbate this situation, both during construction and occupation.
2/ Whilst Silverdale has a very good train service of roughly an hourly service, there is no way of getting to it, there is no safe way of walking to the station and it has no public parking, the bus service, should it survive, is unreliable and can miss connections from time to time making it unsuitable if you have appointments to keep. Before any substantial developments are even considered, the road and cycle/footpath arrangements in and out of the village would require upgrading.
3/ The lower end of St Johns avenue and, in particular its junction with Emesgate lane, cannot cope with any extra traffic, this junction is already very dangerous with parked cars restricting access and generally poor visibility. This point in itself prohibits any significant increase in the properties accessed via this junction. Furthermore, this junction is very close to St Peters Primary School, any increase in traffic will make access to the school, many on foot, difficult.
4/ The Silverdale Parish Plan states that : "New housing (and other building) in the parish must be kept to an absolute minimum, and confined to “brownfield sites”, that is land which has already been used for commercial or domestic purposes. Any attempt to build on “greenfield” sites, i.e. take up yet more countryside, should normally be resisted."
5/ Clearly Site 50 is not only a greenfield site, the visual impact of a substantial development in this particular area, will affect the visual outlook over a much larger area including a significant number of public footpaths enjoyed by many residents and visitors.
6/ There is no requirement for this size of development, a 'Rightmove' search edited to cover an area of approx. 15 minute drive from Silverdale (excluding areas north of Milnthorpe, east of Burton in Kendal, Morecambe and Lancaster), results in 338 houses for sale (some less than £100k) and 38 rental properties. Include Morecambe and Lancaster and that increases to more than 1000 houses for sale and 441 rental properties. Clearly with such a large nearby housing pool, many of which have been up for sale for long periods, there is no justification or requirement for such urbanising house building plans within an AONB.
7/ Sewage disposal is already a significant problem as all existing properties are on septic tanks, increasing the number of properties in such a development will significantly increase the risk of environmental damage in the locality.
8/ The proposal extends the boundary of the village unnecessarily; there are other more discreet sites that could provide more suitable small scale developments without such an adverse impact on the locality, visual amenity and the cherished special village character.
115. Mrs Alice Pell (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 22:28:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
The proposal for new builds off St. John's Avenue would cause a very busy junction onto and off Emesgate Lane. Not only would this make it difficult for residents to the avenue exiting and entering the road but at peak times of day around school opening and closing time this would make an extremely busy if not dangerous period for families crossing the roads between construction lorries and regular daily traffic of cars, buses and delivery lorries that need to come early in the morning. There are no designated 'safe' pedestrian crossing areas on Emesgate Lane near the school at all neither is there a 'road crossing patrol person' for the school or on St. John's Avenue so for pedestrians this build up of heavy construction traffic would increase the risk to parents safely crossing the road with small children.
The local roads entering and exiting the village of Silverdale are narrow and single carriageway in any direction and to compete with long building supply lorries would cause difficulty for local road users let alone getting the local village bus which needs frequent access to the village.
Not only is the thought of having more traffic on the immediate road of St. John's Avenue cause for concern for during proposed building periods but also for in the future. The concern for the future would be more traffic on St. John's Avenue, and ultimately round the village which at the best of times can be tricky to navigate round increasing numbers of cars etc.
What about the emergency access to the village on its local roads if it were needed into/out of St. John's Avenue as well as large vehicles entering and exiting the construction site? Would this be compromised?
As the document states, this "Is" an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, so how can filling the local environment with loud building and construction worksites and extra heavy plant vehicles contribute to this AONB recognition?
Have local wildlife inhabitants been considered in this proposal? There have been regular sightings of 'Greater Spotted Woodpeckers and also the Green wood pecker have been sighted on the road and in gardens. Owls are heard at night time in the surrounding trees in the gardens. Also a family of small brown deer are frequent visitors up the avenue and the worry that they would be scared off and worried by any construction work. It would be sad for the younger children of primary school age growing up in the immediate area not to have seen that said wildlife if machinery and new land development drove them all away.
I hope you will read and take these views into consideration.
116. Dr Allan Pentecost (Individual) : 8 Jul 2017 09:48:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am opposed to the building and or development of the two fields above Quarry Lane between Sandside and Storth. This land belongs an area designated as part of an area of outstanding natural beauty and it should remain as it is. The Arnside and Silverdale AONB contains on of the few lowland hard limestone areas in the whole of the UK and is even recognised internationally as a rare habitat with an unusually high biodiversity. Any reduction in green field area will have an adverse effect on that remaining. The seed bank will be reduced along with foraging habitat for mammals and invertebrates. The local hydrology will be affected along with passage corridors for birds and small mammals. While development on the 'brown field sites' close to the estuary must be accepted, planners are reminded that increasing the human population within the AONB needs to be strictly controlled. More people means more water pollution. The sewage treatment works at Milnthorpe, as I understand, does not have tertiary treatment for nutrients therefore, additional nutrient loading will result in the Kent estuary. Adding even more dissolved phosphorus and nitrogen to the estuary will increase algal blooms and could lead eventually to its serious deterioration.
I am also concerned with the possible closure of the Quarry road. This is shown on the Ordnance Survey maps as a public road and is therefore for public use. It should remain so, not least because it acts as an alternative route for emergency vehicles when the coast road is flooded
117. Mrs Andrea Pentecost (Individual) : 8 Jul 2017 20:21:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I do not want to see this development extended to the two fields above Quarry Lane. I spend much of my time in the AONB observing the wildlife and I have noted, along with other neighbours that both fields often have hares in them. The brown hare is an animal that needs a constant supply of food because it does not hibernate and its natural habitat is meadowland fringed by hedges which it will need for shelter, such as the fields mentioned above. The brown hare has declined in England by 80% over the past 100 years and the UK government has placed it as a priority species in the Biodiversity Action Plan in an attempt to increase numbers. An area such as the Arnside & Silverdale AONB should be protecting its wildlife, not building over its habitat and therefore should set a good example to other AONB's and National Parks. Other wildlife in decline could also be mentioned such as the hedgehog, also seen in these fields. Also I dont want to see Quarry Lane closed. For the hare see www.hare-preservation-trust.co.uk for more information.
118. Mrs Catharine Perrin (Individual) : 18 Jul 2017 11:36:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
My comments:
1) Although the site is fairly small i.e. tucked down at the bottom of the field near existing dwellings, to allow house building would be the erosion of the natural landscape. In particular, the view towards the Howgills and the intervening landscape would be interrupted. This is after all, within a designated area of outstanding natural beauty.
2) To allow just a small portion of the field to be built upon would be the tip of the iceberg. In future years it would be likely that there would be more applications for development.
3) There are at any time in Silverdale properties for sale. People vacate their homes through death or to move to live near to relatives.
4) Silverdale is at its optimum size as a viable village due to house building in the past which includes the development of Cove Drive and Birch Drive in the 1960s presumably and then St. John's Avenue in the 1970s. It doesn't need to be bigger.
Catharine Perrin
119. Mrs Lorna Perris (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 11:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
120. Mr J. Martin Perris (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 12:04:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
121. Mrs Enid Phelps (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 11:55:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
1. Parking is already a big problem for vehicles exiting into Emesgate Lane. There are always vehicles parked at the entrance into St Johns avenue making the turn from Emesgate Lane very hazardous, vehicles also park opposite the junction making the manouver even more difficult. This is particularly bad when parents are collecting their children from school.
2.Wildlife is always seen in the area including Partridge, Deer, Hedgehogs numerous bird species including rarities, so it is important the area is preserved.
3.A public footpath runs up the side of the field and is used by numerous holiday people as well as local residents who come to enjoy the open views fro the area.
4.The doctors surgery is only open four mornings a week and a further influx of people will only put more pressure on the service. Patients already face an appointment waiting time of at least two weeks.
5. Silverdale has no mains drainage and uses septic tanks, the field is very wet at times, where is the excess water going to go and more importantly effluent drainage from the septic tanks.
6. This development would set a precedent for further development of the field.
7. Does Silverdale need more houses? Recent low cost housing developments failed to secure enough local interest & had to be filled by advertising nationally. Recent new builds of large detached houses do not blend well with the character of the village.
8. Local employment is extremely limited, public transport is also poor & the bus service likely to be lost.
122. Mrs Margaret Pierce (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 14:53:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Hollins Lane is one of the narrowest roads in Arnside; there are few passing places and the road struggles at times to accommodate the traffic that uses it. There are no footpaths on either Hollins Lane or for parts of Silverdale Road; I feel that any pedestrians walking along either road are in some danger. This is especially the case in the summer when both roads are used by tourist visiting the area. Fourteen houses could mean 28 more cars and maybe 28 children. The potential increase in traffic could be extremely hazardous especially with the possible increase in the number of young children using the either of the roads to get to and from school.
The development and open public space suggested make houses on Hollins Lane vulnerable to crime as anyone walking along the public space will have a direct view into the homes of most dwellings thereby being able to ascertain whether there are any residents present. This creates an opportunity to those seeking unlawful entry to a property. The public open space created within the proposed development also creates potential for other low level crime such as littering, vandalism and nuisance behavior.
Properties on Hollins Lane and Swinate have problems with drains there is least one resident on Swinnate that on some occasions has raw sewage seeping into the back garden. Some houses on Hollins that have water seeping into the garage after heavy rain. There is usually a stream that flows down Hollins Lane after a downpour.
The privacy of the properties on Hollins Lane would be adversely affected by the proposed development. Because of the incline of the field and the positioning of the proposed development the residents of the development would be able to see directly into bedrooms windows. People walking along the proposed walkway would have a direct view into the windows of many of the houses on Hollins Lane. The rear gardens of properties along Hollins Lane would have absolutely no privacy. In the Yorkshire Dales a planning officer dismissed an appeal against refusal of permission for a 2 bedroomed property on land at Spedding, the proposed development would be overbearing and severely harm the neighbours’privacy.
There are sites that are far more suitable in Arnside that have previously been identified. There are sites with more suitable access to local amenities such as the primary school, doctor’s surgeries, public transport and local shops.
The inspectors report in 2014 stated:
‘some of the sites proposed for allocation add to my misgivings. At the hearing session, the Council confirmed that the land proposed to be allocated for housing at Station Road (RN337#), Hollins Lane (RN225-mod) and Redhills Road (R81) is considered to currently perform a greenspace function. I am told that the Council judges these sites to have amenity value, in that they contribute positively to the character and appearance of the settlement and thus of the AONB, to some degree. From my site visits, I concur with that analysis.’
The Cumbria Rural Housing Trust published the results of the housing needs survey for the Arnside & Silverdale AONB in September 2014. The site allocations contained in the AONB DPD that had been drafted prior to the public consultation in the winter of 2016, provided more than enough development land to satisfy the housing needs outlined in the CRHT survey. There is no evidence to suggest that a need for more development land has been proven since that survey. The Hollins Lane site is currently designated as an Open Green Space, and in my opinion it should remain so.
123. Mrs Susan Premru (Individual) : 28 Jun 2017 15:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
124. Mrs Susan Premru (Individual) : 1 Jul 2017 13:32:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Re the Hedge between Hollins Lane and the field A8/9 in Arnside
This was so important that it should be saved for all its wild-life and trees that I had already spoken to the various authorities at the very start of the Pre-Publication Consultation.
I am sorry that I didn't put it as one of my comments in the first part of my response.
125. Mrs Susan Premru (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 15:42:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Re the sad news of Ashmeadow having to be sold by the Crossfield Housing Society (see Westmorland Gazette 6th July p. 5 ) and recently on view in the Comments with their hopes that the proceeds might be used for housing the elderly in new bungalows, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that such an offer could certainly fulfil our obligation to build a certain number of affordable dwellings here in the AONB area.
There is an area here in Arnside which looks ready-made for such development.
The elderly by their very constitution do not manage hills or rough ground as easily as they used to. They are more cautious of traffic. They need a shop and doctors within a short walk, they are less likely to own a car, and often enjoy riding a mobility scooter.
They may need easy access for a regular care visitor.
The old orchard just along Briary Bank offers a firm pavement on level ground a short walk from a shop, bus stop, church, dentist and doctors. The land is already designated for development. Where better?
The access to all these amenities together with like neighbours makes it possible to form a congenial community which would give an enclosed, comforting environment with a quiet area to sit out in.
Perhaps the Crossfield Housing Society has been following the Comments on this site and could give it some consideration.
A.S.Premru 14 July 2017
126. Mrs Shirley Pyzniuk (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 11:15:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Hollins Lane Development Plan
The Cumbria Rural Housing Trust published the results of the housing needs survey for the Arnside & Silverdale AONB in September 2014. The site allocations contained in the AONB DPD that had been drafted prior to the public consultation in the winter of 2016, provided more than enough development land to satisfy the housing needs outlined in the CRHT survey. There is no evidence to suggest that a need for more development land has been proven since that survey. The Hollins Lane site is currently designated as an Open Green Space, and in our opinion it should remain so.
The AONB contracted a surveyor to ascertain the suitability of each site in Arnside. He found that the site A9 forms part of the historical development of Arnside and forms an integral part of the urban mosaic which defines this part of Arnside. Development of site A9 is in conflict with some of the policies these being:
• AS07 – this policy protects areas of land within settlements that are not publicly accessible but which are important to the settlement character and the wider ANOB landscape.
• AS08 – requires new developments to protect and enhance the historic environment, historic character and heritage features of the ANOB.
• AS511 – ensures appropriate new infrastructure is provided where needed in the ANOB but any new infrastructure does not harm the ANOB’s landscape character. It also gives priority to support walking, cycling and public transport.
• AS13 – ensures that consideration is given to the management of water quality, sewerage systems and drainage.
Hollins Lane is one of the narrowest roads in Arnside; there are few passing places and the road struggles at times to accommodate the traffic that uses it. There are no footpaths on either Hollins Lane or for parts of Silverdale Road; I feel that children walking to and from school down either road are in some danger. This is especially the case in the summer when Hollins Lane is frequented by tourists who use it as a cut through from Silverdale road to Black Dyke Road. Fourteen houses could mean 28 more cars and maybe 28 children. The potential increase in traffic could be extremely hazardous alongside the possible increase in the number of young children.
The consultation with the HSE stated the National Planning Policy Framework (Para 172) requires that planning policies should be based on up to date information on the location of major accident hazards. I may be alone in thinking that the risk that even one child may be injured or worse walking to school to be a major accident hazard.
Cumbria constabulary suggested that the council encourage developers to consult with the Crime Prevention Design Advisor prior to application. The intention of this is to address potential vulnerability in the layout of a proposed development. The development and open public space would certainly make houses on Hollins Lane vulnerable as anyone walking along the public space will have a direct view into the homes of most dwellings thereby being able to ascertain whether there are any residents present. This creates an opportunity to those seeking unlawful entry to a property. The constabulary go on to state that location, layout, landscaping and lighting must be considered as part of the design of new developments.
The Spatial Planning Team identifies a need for sustainably located local transport to be a key consideration when assessing development proposals. There is a bus stop on Briary Bank with an infrequent service that can be accessed via Hollins Lane, a single track lane without pavements. Spatial planning state that policy should include the availability of safe walking route (e.g. footpath and crossing) between sites and key attractions like schools and doctors surgeries. This development would certainly not comply with this.
Home Housing planned to build 8 houses on the site a few years ago; they found the plot completely unsuitable for development. Home housing found much of the land is Limestone and there is no natural drainage on the site. They also found the sewers/drains on Hollins Lane are running at full capacity, some properties already have problems with drains and I know of at least one house on Swinnate that on some occasions has raw sewage seeping into the back garden. I are all aware of the stream that cascades down Hollins Lane after a downpour.
The density of the development is certainly not in keeping with the houses surrounding the field, the suggested 14 houses on the plot marked for development is tight. There are only 8 houses from Hollins Lane that back onto the field in that area and less properties backing onto the field on Silverdale Road.
There is a plot of land on Redhills Road that has not been included in the development plan. The land has planning permission for 14 apartments, seven of these being affordable. The land has recently been sold. The housing needs survey identified a need for eight 1 or 2 bedroomed apartments; this development could fulfill most of those needs. The survey also identified a need for 1 or 2 bedroomed flats for over 55’s. There are apartments for over 55’s advertised at Millom Court. A need for 5 x 3 bedroomed houses was also identified, I suggest that as Home Housing found it was totally unsuitable and in no way cost effective to build 8 homes on the field on Hollins Lane it would be even less effective to build 5 x 3 bedroomed houses. There are currently several 3 bedroomed properties for sale in Arnside that could possibly be acquired by housing associations in order to be rented out as affordable housing. I think this would be a better solution for people needing affordable housing and far cheaper than creating sustainable drainage, increasing the capacity of sewers and building new properties.
The Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 offers protection for a person’s private and family life. The privacy of the houses on Hollins Lane would be adversely affected by the proposed development which may be an interference with our rights under Article 8. Because of the incline of the field and the positioning of the proposed development the residents of the development would be able to see directly into bedrooms windows. People walking along the proposed walkway would have a direct view into the window of many of the houses on Hollins Lane, some of the windows being bedroom windows. The rear gardens of properties along Hollins Lane would have absolutely no privacy.
The case for privacy has been highlighted in recent years in the Yorkshire Dales when a planning officer dismissed an appeal against refusal of permission for a 2 bedroomed property on land at Spedding. This was because the proposed development would be overbearing and severely harm the neighbours’privacy.
The proposed development on Hollins Lane would have a marked impact on the properties that back onto the field because of the gradient of the field. The Prescription Act of 1832 protects the windows of properties that have had the required 20 years of unobstructed daylight. The proposed development would cast a shadow over many of the houses that back onto the field restricting the amount of light to the windows of the properties. The proposed properties would have to be very low in order not to obstruct light from the properties on Hollins Lane.
There are sites that are far more suitable in Arnside that have previously been identified. There are sites with more suitable access to local amenities such as the primary school, doctor’s surgeries, public transport and local shops.
Extracts from the inspectors report 14/11/2013
214. However, in allocating sites for housing, the Plan as originally submitted is based on the uniform application of the aforementioned exclusion criteria. As such, sites below 0.3 hectares have not been considered. But in the context of its status of protection, consideration of smaller sites in the AONB amounts to a reasonable alternative. Indeed, it seems to me that smaller sites would be more likely to ensure that the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB is protected in the way envisaged by the NPPF.
215. Moreover, some of the sites proposed for allocation add to my misgivings. At the hearing session, the Council confirmed that the land proposed to be allocated for housing at Station Road (RN337#), Hollins Lane (RN225-mod) and Redhills Road (R81) is considered to currently perform a greenspace function. I am told that the Council judges these sites to have amenity value, in that they contribute positively to the character and appearance of the settlement and thus of the AONB, to some degree. From my site visits, I concur with that analysis.
216. Overall, in the context of the policy protection applying to the AONB, the combination of discounting smaller sites from the site selection process and the visual contribution made by some of the sites chosen for allocation, I consider the proposed housing sites in the AONB to be unsound.
I wish to reiterate that: The site allocations contained in the AONB DPD that had been drafted prior to the public consultation in the winter of 2016, provided more than enough development land to satisfy the housing needs outlined in the CRHT survey. These sites did not include Hollins Lane.
127. Mr Tim Pyzniuk (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 11:31:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
The AONB contracted a surveyor to ascertain the suitability of each site in Arnside. He found that the site A9 forms part of the historical development of Arnside and forms an integral part of the urban mosaic which defines this part of Arnside. Development of site A9 is in conflict with some of the policies these being: AS07 – this policy protects areas of land within settlements that are not publicly accessible but which are important to the settlement character and the wider ANOB landscape.
AS08 – requires new developments to protect and enhance the historic environment, historic character and heritage features of the ANOB. AS511 – ensures appropriate new infrastructure is provided where needed in the ANOB but any new infrastructure does not harm the ANOB’s landscape character. It also gives priority to support walking, cycling and public transport. AS13 – ensures that consideration is given to the management of water quality, sewerage systems and drainage.
Hollins Lane is one of the narrowest roads in Arnside; there are few passing places and the road struggles at times to accommodate the traffic that uses it. There are no footpaths on either Hollins Lane or for parts of Silverdale Road; I feel that children walking to and from school down either road are in some danger. This is especially the case in the summer when Hollins Lane is frequented by tourists who use it as a cut through from Silverdale road to Black Dyke Road. Fourteen houses could mean 28 more cars and maybe 28 children. The potential increase in traffic could be extremely hazardous alongside the possible increase in the number of young children.
The consultation with the HSE stated the National Planning Policy Framework (Para 172) requires that planning policies should be based on up to date information on the location of major accident hazards. I may be alone in thinking that the risk that even one child may be injured or worse walking to school to be a major accident hazard.
Cumbria constabulary suggested that the council encourage developers to consult with the Crime Prevention Design Advisor prior to application. The intention of this is to address potential vulnerability in the layout of a proposed development. The development and open public space would certainly make houses on Hollins Lane vulnerable as anyone walking along the public space will have a direct view into the homes of most dwellings thereby being able to ascertain whether there are any residents present. This creates an opportunity to those seeking unlawful entry to a property. The constabulary go on to state that location, layout, landscaping and lighting must be considered as part of the design of new developments.
The Spatial Planning Team identifies a need for sustainably located local transport to be a key consideration when assessing development proposals. There is a bus stop on Briary Bank with an infrequent service that can be accessed via Hollins Lane, a single track lane without pavements. Spatial planning state that policy should include the availability of safe walking route (e.g. footpath and crossing) between sites and key attractions like schools and doctors surgeries. This development would certainly not comply with this.
Home Housing planned to build 8 houses on the site a few years ago; they found the plot completely unsuitable for development. Home housing found much of the land is Limestone and there is no natural drainage on the site. They also found the sewers/drains on Hollins Lane are running at full capacity, some properties already have problems with drains and I know of at least one house on Swinnate that on some occasions has raw sewage seeping into the back garden and houses on Hollins that have water seeping into the garage after heavy rain. Residents of Hollins Lane are all aware of the stream that cascades down Hollins Lane after a downpour.
The density of the development is certainly not in keeping with the houses surrounding the field, the suggested 14 houses on the plot marked for development is tight. There are only 8 houses from Hollins Lane that back onto the field in that area and less properties backing onto the field on Silverdale Road.
There is a plot of land on Redhills Road that has not been included in the development plan. The land has planning permission for 14 apartments, seven of these being affordable. The land has recently been sold. The housing needs survey identified a need for eight 1 or 2 bedroomed apartments; this development could fulfill most of those needs. The survey also identified a need for 1 or 2 bedroomed flats for over 55’s. There are apartments for over 55’s advertised at Millom Court. A need for 5 x 3 bedroomed houses was also identified, I suggest that as Home Housing found it was totally unsuitable and in no way cost effective to build 8 homes on the field on Hollins Lane it would be even less effective to build 5 x 3 bedroomed houses. There are currently several 3 bedroomed properties for sale in Arnside that could possibly be acquired by housing associations in order to be rented out as affordable housing. I think this would be a better solution for people needing affordable housing and far cheaper than creating sustainable drainage, increasing the capacity of sewers and building new properties.
The Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 offers protection for a person’s private and family life. The privacy of the houses on Hollins Lane would be adversely affected by the proposed development which may be an interference with our rights under Article 8. Because of the incline of the field and the positioning of the proposed development the residents of the development would be able to see directly into bedrooms windows. People walking along the proposed walkway would have a direct view into the window of many of the houses on Hollins Lane, some of the windows being bedroom windows. The rear gardens of properties along Hollins Lane would have absolutely no privacy.
The case for privacy has been highlighted in recent years in the Yorkshire Dales when a planning officer dismissed an appeal against refusal of permission for a 2 bedroomed property on land at Spedding. This was because the proposed development would be overbearing and severely harm the neighbours’privacy.
The proposed development on Hollins Lane would have a marked impact on the properties that back onto the field because of the gradient of the field. The Prescription Act of 1832 protects the windows of properties that have had the required 20 years of unobstructed daylight. The proposed development would cast a shadow over many of the houses that back onto the field restricting the amount of light to the windows of the properties. The proposed properties would have to be very low in order not to obstruct light from the properties on Hollins Lane.
There are sites that are far more suitable in Arnside that have previously been identified. There are sites with more suitable access to local amenities such as the primary school, doctor’s surgeries, public transport and local shops.
Extracts from the inspectors report 14/11/2013
214. However, in allocating sites for housing, the Plan as originally submitted is based on the uniform application of the aforementioned exclusion criteria. As such, sites below 0.3 hectares have not been considered. But in the context of its status of protection, consideration of smaller sites in the AONB amounts to a reasonable alternative. Indeed, it seems to me that smaller sites would be more likely to ensure that the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB is protected in the way envisaged by the NPPF.
215. Moreover, some of the sites proposed for allocation add to my misgivings. At the hearing session, the Council confirmed that the land proposed to be allocated for housing at Station Road (RN337#), Hollins Lane (RN225-mod) and Redhills Road (R81) is considered to currently perform a greenspace function. I am told that the Council judges these sites to have amenity value, in that they contribute positively to the character and appearance of the settlement and thus of the AONB, to some degree. From my site visits, I concur with that analysis.
216. Overall, in the context of the policy protection applying to the AONB, the combination of discounting smaller sites from the site selection process and the visual contribution made by some of the sites chosen for allocation, I consider the proposed housing sites in the AONB to be unsound.
The Cumbria Rural Housing Trust published the results of the housing needs survey for the Arnside & Silverdale AONB in September 2014. The site allocations contained in the AONB DPD that had been drafted prior to the public consultation in the winter of 2016, provided more than enough development land to satisfy the housing needs outlined in the CRHT survey. There is no evidence to suggest that a need for more development land has been proven since that survey. The Hollins Lane site is currently designated as an Open Green Space, and in my opinion it should remain so.
128. Ms Jane Pyzniuk (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 10:28:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am a member of a number of walking/mountaineering groups and value the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty throughout the UK, but particularly in the North West of England, which are more easily accessible from my home.
I feel that the building of housing stock on greenfield sites must be rigorously opposed wherever possible and particularly where appropriate brownfield sites have been identified within the local area. The impact upon wildlife habitats, biodiversity and the changes to sensitive landscapes are all considerably more significant for greenfield sites.
I concur with many of the respondents here who describe Hollins Lane as a narrow road with no footpath in places and poor visibility. Any increase in traffic will exacerbate what is already a hazardous thoroughfare, busy at times and well used by pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and drivers.
I note with interest that another organisation (Home Housing) had planned to build 8 houses on the site a few years ago; they found the plot completely unsuitable for development since much of the land is composed of limestone and there is no natural drainage on the site. They also concluded that the sewers/drains on Hollins Lane are running at full capacity and that some of the existing properties already have problems with drains. The proposal to build 14 properties on a greenfield site that was found to be unsuitable for a development of only 8 properties, due to issues with surface water and sewerage drainage simply doesn’t make sense.
In conclusion, I also acknowledge all the important factors that many local residents have raised here, such as loss of privacy, loss of light, increased vulnerability in terms of unlawful access to existing properties and loss of a much-valued open environment.
129. Mrs Shirley Pyzniuk (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 16:06:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Objection to the Allocation for Housing Development and Public Open Space on Site A8/A9, Hollins Lane, Arnside
I was under the impression that SLDC were responsible for the development plan for the AONB and not landowners who stand to make substantial profit from this development. The suggested development is contrary to both the surveyors report that A9 is suitable for a development up to 6 houses and the inspectors report stating the site has amenity value and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the settlement and thus of the AONB.
I walked down Hollins Lane on Sunday from Silverdale Road to the junction with Swinate, the walk probably took a maximum of 5 minutes. During this time I had to stand in 8 times to allow vehicles to pass. There were 3 vans and 5 cars that were on the road during that time, there were also 2 cyclists. By developing plots A8/9 the traffic will increase and the safety of pedestrians will most certainly be put at risk.
A submission dated the 14 July 2017 has been made on behalf of the owner of site A8/A9 to amend the proposals and allocations for this site. Most respondents will not be made aware of the proposal now put forward, and all residents originally consulted should have the opportunity to assess and comment on the revisions. Would the Development Manager at SLDC please check the correct procedures that the local planning authority should follow in dealing with this late amendment? In light of the change to the proposals our supplementary comments are listed below.
The revised proposal hints at “providing an opportunity” to meet a wide range of housing needs. The housing needs survey found that in the next five years 2 affordable bungalows would be required for older people, I believe sites that meet all the housing needs identified by the survey have been located.
The revised proposal is for an increase in the area proposed for residential development. How can residents object to the development when in the original consultation document there is no reference to housing types or numbers. On the basis of this revised proposal, the outcome, if supported by the local planning authority, would be additional development, with no guarantee that it would meet the needs of those retiring in the local community. When permission is granted for development, and land sold to a developer, there is often pressure applied to build a different and more profitable scheme.
The revised proposal outlined 4 additional points. My comments respond to each in turn.
1. Indicative layout. If the layout should be indicative, why submit a revised layout with more land proposed for development? To be accurate (and to allow the public to fully understand what is proposed), the revised layout should also show the relocation of the cul-de-sac and the resulting loss of open space/greenspace.
2. Depth of the site. If the intention is to build bungalows for the retired of the community, surely manageable rear gardens would be preferred and larger rear gardens would not be required.
3. 99 and 101 Silverdale Road. Yes, there is an unsatisfactory relationship between the depth of the proposed housing development site and the amenities of numbers 99 and 101 Silverdale Road. The answer to this is to delete the development from this area and not to increase the area proposed for development.
4. Public Open Space v Greenspace. This proposal appears to be contradictory. If the majority of the open space should be for the use of the wider community, and assuming active use, there is no room for any meaningful greenspace, as the landowner is now proposing to increase the size of the housing development. Will the newly retired residents of the new development really be responsible for the management of the public open space?
130. Professor John Quinton (Individual) : 24 Jun 2017 14:36:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I would like to object to amendment of the boundary of this site proposal on the following grounds:
1. Safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users on Hollins Lane. Hollins lane is narrow road with poor visibility and no footpath provision in many places.. Any development would lead to increased traffic, increasing the risk to pedestrians, cyclists and car users. Of particular concern are older and disabled people moving into the development (how will they access the village services safely?) and young children who currently walk to school. Given the wide range of other green spaces in the village with good access to major roads this would seem an odd choice for zoning for development.
2. Loss of green space and character. Arnside is a mozaic of green space and housing. Infilling the green space will damage the character of the village when viewed from other locations in the AONB and Arnside itself. While there are few brownfield sites in Arnside, there are notable sites that could zoned for development: Station Yard, the telephone exchange. While there are access problems with some these - station yard - they offer far less danger to pedestrian than any development proposed for the Hollins lane site.
3. Public access. Easy access to the rear of houses in Hollins land for thieves.
4. Conversion of permanent unimproved grassland to other forms of use. I see that a biodiversity assessment has taken place. I haven't measured the area of the site, but the council will be aware that should it exceed 2 ha an EIA screening decision would be required.
5. Impact on views. It is difficult to imagine how build a series of properties on the site would not impact on views from Hollins lane (and from the houses surrounding the site).
The proposed zoning appears to be geared to benefit properties backing onto the North west corner of the site retaining clear views
and protect their views across the field rather than to the benefit of many other properties surrounding the field, as well as those who together with there children make make regular use of Hollins lane as pedestrians.
131. Mrs Angela Richards (Individual) : 27 Jun 2017 23:50:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I would like to object to East of St Johns Avenue site S50 on the following grounds:
1. The access road is small and parking is already difficult at the access to St Johns Avenue. Another 50 cars would make this junction dangerous.
2. Sewerage is a big problem as is the rainwater which would be generated from a small estate.
3. There are currently several houses up for sale in Silverdale, these are up for sale for some time, this shows we don't need more homes in Silverdale.
4. The open green space are an important aspect of Silverdale, this field is part of a pattern of ancient enclosures and should not be distrurbed and this estate would remove a valuable linking footpath within the network of walks.
132. Mr David Rimmer (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 15:48:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I object to the inclusion of site S50 in the AONB DPD for the following reasons:
1. Increased traffic at the already dangerous junction of Emesgate Lane/St. John's Avenue will pose an even greater safety risk.
2. Lack of infrastructure, poor transport services,local employment means the development is unsuitable for first time buyers/low cost housing.
3.Destruction of views,footpaths and wildlife in an area designated as an AONB.
133. Mrs Mary Ripley (Individual) : 27 Jun 2017 09:51:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Dear Sir,
I wish to submit my objections to the building of 20 homes on the site S50 leading off St. John's Avenue Silverdale.
This is land within the boundary of theAONB and appears on their publicity leaflets and is land currently in agricultural use.
There is need for low cost housing within Silverdale not middle or high cost homes.
As a governor of one of the local schools I know that staff there find the house prices in Silverdale too prohibitive to enable them to get a foot on the property ladder.
Practically the entrance to the site is far too narrow to enable a safe access/ egress onto St John's Avenue especially for construction and council vehicles.
I would therefore ask you to reconsider building on site S50.
Mary Ripley
134. Mrs Maggie Roberts (Individual) : 15 Jul 2017 10:31:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I cannot understand how these sites are worthy of consideration for building houses. The entry and exit to the houses is via Yans Lane which is s narrow that it only allows for one car width. The village does not have the infra structure to cater for more houses. The primary school is full to capacity so children would need to travel to Milnthorpe or Arnside which is not served by a bus route. Apart from the village playing field there are no social activities in the village for children. There is only a small shop with a post office inside. These are both run by volunteers. Without support from villagers these would close. More houses would bring more custom and if trade was increased the volunteers could not cope. We struggle to cover opening hours as it is, if more staff are required then the facility would obviously close. As chair of the community shop and post office this I know is a management committer this is a real possibility. Therefore there would be no shop at all the nearest being Milnthore, without a bus service families without a car would struggle. Surely there are better sites to provide the facilities that families need to survive. The site at Sandside which was industrial should be used for housing for the elderly. There are a very large proportion of elderly people living in Storth. When they need to move house through ill health or to downsize thet are forced to moe out of the village where many of them have livedcall their lives because of the lack of suitable accommodation. Please reconsider Storth as a suitable site for more houses on the sites selected.
135. Mrs Sarah Robertson (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 13:06:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
As a regular visitor to Arnside, I feel compelled to voice my concern for this development. I fully understand that villages need new housing & change to keep their communities alive. However, I feel that this development is in the wrong place to benefit the community.
Firstly, Hollins Lane is extremely narrow with no pavements. I have walked up this lane with my 2 young sons on many occasions & been concerned for their safety with cars passing a little too closely due to the nature of Hollins Lane. I believe that adding to the traffic on this lane is a serious safety concern for the young & elderly residents that already live on Hollins Lane, especially during the build phase when construction vehicles will need access to the site.
The field creates light and space for all the people living on the neighbouring roads, as well as being a haven for local wildlife.
The development itself looks very cramped and not in keeping with the space around neighbouring properties. Clearly, this is to maximise the profits from the scheme rather than fulfilling the needs of the community. Surely, there is brownfield site more suitable for this development?
Careful consideration for the drainage for such a site needs to be reviewed, especially given the development is at the top of the village. If drainage of surface water is not sufficient, it could lead to serious flooding for those homes on the lower roads.
Kind regards
Sarah Robertson
136. Mrs Margaret Robinson (Individual) : 2 Jul 2017 13:00:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
1. If there are only a few comments received from Silverdale residents, this is not because of apathy but because the consultation exercise has not been effectively publicised in the village. Following the closure of the Library in the village centre, the Silverdale Hotel has become the only location of maps and information, but is not in the village centre. Also, when I went there to look at the map, I was told it had been removed without permission, and had not been replaced. I suggest that future consultation exercises be publicised in the Parish Magazine.
2. The proposed access to S50 is from St John's Avenue, a quiet cul-de-sac, totally inappropriate for heavy construction traffic. In addition, the junction of St John's Avenue and Emesgate Lane is already hazardous because of inconsiderate parking creating poor visibility. Additional traffic would exacerbate this problem.
3. The lack of mains drainage is a problem for the whole of Silverdale. There is already an issue with sewage pollution along the shore, and any further housing developments in the village would be detrimental to the environment.
4. The land proposed for development in Silverdale is agricultural - to allow its use for housing would set a disturbing precedent within the AONB, especially for the remainder of the area S50 in which the proposed development is situated.
137. Mr John Robson (Individual) : 8 Jul 2017 14:44:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am a Silverdale resident, who is not directly affected by the proposal to have part of site S50 included in the development plan as available for housing. Nonetheless, I am concerned for the future of the village and wish to register my objections to the inclusion of S50, for all the reasons expressed by those who have already commented, including:
1. The unnecessary extension to the village boundary, whereas there is sufficient land within the village to meet any demand, if such demand exists;
2. The destruction of the wonderful amenity offered by S50. The views from surrounding land and the views of the village from local viewpoints would be lost forever. It appears that the footpath may be retained, should this land be developed, but walking through a housing estate is not the same as walking through an open field;
3. The affect on local wildlife. Others have commented on roe deer, red legged partridge and marsh harriers. I have seen these myself and cannot imagine what damage development would do to their habitat;
4. Traffic considerations are huge. Others have written about the congestion in the village, and I agree that the St Johns/Emesgate Lane junction is a particular hotspot. Two schools, the parish church and the fire station are all close to this junction. More cars would simply exacerbate an already difficult situation. The lack of job opportunities in Silverdale increase the need for more travel by car, either ouf of the village for work, or to the railway station, where parking is very limited;
5. Sewerage and surface drainage is a real problem, due to the propensity for flooding in the immediate vicinity. This has been mentioned by others, including United Utilities.
I just cannot see S50 is under consideration for inclusion in the development plan. Its use for residential development flies in the face of all local policies and advice. There is no established need for more housing in Silverdale - indeed, the current housing stock more than meets local needs, including the perceived need for affordable housing.
I strongly oppose the inclusion of S50.
138. Mr/s C J Rogers (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 12:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
139. Mrs Pauline Rowlands (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 11:46:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
1. Traffic levels at the junction of St.Johns Avenue/Emesgate Lane will increase hugely thus affecting safety.
2. Access for emergency vehicles will be compromised.
3. The farmland in question has a public footpath, unique views across the countryside and an abundance of
wildlife which should be preserved for future generations - these open areas are a very important part of
Silverdale's character.
4. There is already a significant problem with flooding due to a "run off" of water from Burton Well and this
proposed development would simply serve to exacerbate the situation.
140. Mrs Linda Saleh (Individual) : 13 Jul 2017 11:17:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
There are several reasons why this land should not be developed:
We enjoy a quiet aspect in our small lane and there is a lot of wildlife in that field.
There are several local brownfield sites which could be re-developed. This greenfield site is enjoyed by many walkers and has at least two public footpaths for locals and tourists.
Traffic danger particularly near the school and church from the increased number of cars.
We have no plumbed sewers in the area and there is considerable flooding. Increased building would worsen the drainage problem leading to increased flooding. We already have a lot of flooding downhill from this site with some paths impassable.
Building a small development on this agricultural land would set a precedent. We know you would just build more in the future.
141. Mrs Iryna Sanders (Individual) : 8 Jul 2017 11:49:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I strongly object to any building on greenfield sites. I understand that sufficient capacity for housing developments has already been identified on brownfield sites in the area.
Hollins Lane is a narrow road with poor visibility and no footpath in some places. Passing places are limited on the road. Inevitable increased traffic would endanger pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. This would particularly impact children who regularly use the road to walk to school, local residents walking to the village and the large numbers of tourists who visit Arnside Knott.
The development of 14 houses would increase pressure on the sewers/drains which have already been identified as running at full capacity on Hollins Lane.
The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the properties that back onto the field, affecting open views and privacy of existing residents.
The proposed walkway would also affect privacy and increase vulnerability in terms of unlawful access to properties.
142. Ms Beth Sanders (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 21:10:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to make my opinion known on the proposal of building work on the field behind Hollins Lane.
The difference between greenfield and brownfield sites is this: One (brownfield) is a site that nobody cares about and can be ruined and the other (greenfield) is a part of the community’s identity and landscapes. The defacing of the latter will lead to great inconvenience for adults, children, wildlife and even the building company. The fact is, one of the major selling points in property for Arnside is the views. Take them away and you’ll find yourself with a very small demand for residence there. People, i.e. those directly next to the field will wish to move away and sell their existing houses. Houses which will be a pain to sell, as very few people’s prerequisites include ‘a room without a view’.
What’s more, the entire proposal is a potential safety hazard. It would confine traffic to more concentrated areas, meaning there will be busier roads which risks the lives of pedestrians, primarily school children. Not to mention the elderly residents who frequently use Hollins Lane to access the village.
In addition, the sewers, already running at capacity, will only have increased pressure put on, causing more over-flowing and drain leaks.
143. Mr Phil Sedgwick (Individual) : 13 Jul 2017 14:56:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
144. Mr Bill Seville (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 15:04:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am a resident in Silverdale,and I draw to your attention that the proposed site S 50 is prime farmland,which should not be considered for housing.
The application may hide under the cloak of affordable housing,however,it is simply an attempt to make a lot of money by the owners of the land,who,I understand do not live in Silverdale,so have no interest in the village nor the consequences of what happens here.
May I point out that St John's Avenue is a cul de sac and therefore there is only and can only be one exit and entrance which will lead directly into the main road through the village-Emesgate Lane.
The exit is a T junction into Emesgate Lane and there are always vehicles parked opposite the junction.Some of those vehicles belong to walkers who park and walk from there our local footpaths.The main users who park there are parents of schoolchildren,driving to and from school at different hours of the day.There are also buses from time to time which collect and deliver children to the school on the excursions arranged.
Exiting from the T junction the vision of a driver is obscured on the right,and on the left there is also the danger of many drivers who ignore the 20 mph speed recommendation.
Further up the village there is Bleasdale School which cares for mentally and physically disabled children,some as boarders and others for day care.Traffic to and from Bleasdale also needs to be considered.
Seventy yards to the left from the junction is the Parish Church,the car park for which is used daily and therefore there is always traffic heading to and from this area.
Apart from private vehicles,there is also the local bus service which passes the junction,there are the tractors and other farm vehicles,and the larger vehicles which deliver to the Co-op store,and the ambulance vehicles which drive to and from Bleasdale house.
The area of Site S50 contains a public footpath,much used by villagers and visitors alike.It falls within the area of our AONB of which we are proud and value highly.The field itself often has deer in it,a variety of local birds and also Marsh harrier and Buzzards are regularly seen above.The hedghogs(now endangered throughout the U.K ) would lose a necessary foraging area-this might mean little to the members of the planning department but there is a large number of us in the village who feed and encourage hedgehogs here.
Any houses which are built would mean at least one vehicle and possibly in some cases two vehicles per household.
As an ordinary resident I have little idea of the technical difficulties which arise from such a building scheme in site S50 however I can envisage the chaos which would ensue from such building and wish to express my opposition to any possible application now or in the future to the development of this site.
145. Mr Paul Shackleton (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 09:34:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I feel compelled to register my grave concerns over the prosed residential development of what I believe may be 20 plus houses.
The proposed development is being undertaken in a green field location which is just off the centre of the village.
It has a public right of way running down the edge of the field, this is one of the most heavily used amenities in Silverdale, used by countless walkers who come to the area to enjoy the specific views that this ANOB designated area has to offer.
With Silverdale being the largest village in the UK not connected to mains sewers there has to be significant concern as to how the planning application will deal with the new EU regulations regarding the correct treatment of household sewage and grey water, not connected to a main sewer, and the additional impact such implementation would have on the local amenity.
The adjoining field of the proposed development has a long history of flooding in the area of the boundary wall of St Johns cemetery.
The proposed development would only exacerbate this problem, (plans to extend the cemetery where turned down because of the flooding issue in the this field.)
Like many other villages I too have significant concerns as to the effect the additional car traffic will have on the junction from St John road to the centre of Silverdale.
With heavy congestion due to parents parking to drop off children to St Johns Primary School, the parking of Staff working at Bleasdale School who use the bottom of St Johns Road as a convenient “over flow” car parking, as there is insufficient parking in the School premises, which is most working days.
Result a long line of parked cars some very close to the junction which makes it more than interesting (dangerous) to get out into the main road.
The proposed and significant development in this part of the village is completely inappropriate, and goes against the principles of an ANOB.
What is even more evident from past “social housing” build is the great difficulty in selling it.
Why ruin a great amenity when with consultation with the villages, far more appropriate locations could be identified to go towards the contribution to Lancashire’s house build target and the UK’s need for more houses.
146. Mr & Mrs David & Lorna Shields (Individual) : 15 Jul 2017 15:15:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Silverdale is located within an area of outstanding national beauty, creating another housing estate will result in making the area more of a town than a village. There is a footpath through this field giving wonderful views across to Eaves Wood and Ingleborough, how sad that this wonderful area is under threat for our many visitors, offering a safe and tranquil environment. It will create havoc to the balance of the wildlife within this wonderful area.
This would be the tip of the iceberg with regard to this field and access to the area is totally unsatisfactory, exit onto a narrow roadway and then the junction at the end of St. John's Road onto Stankelt Road with the primary school almost opposite. Parking at school times is difficult and many cars are parked temporarily along St John's Road, additional traffic from any new development would only put the children at further risk.
There is the inherent problems of the sewage from any new development, this area is on septic tanks and there has been incidents of flooding in the area around the cemetery.
Lack of local employment will result in Silverdale becoming a commuter village. Why do we need more 4 bedroom houses, there are many large houses for sale within the village and people in the past have been allowed to develop smaller bungalows into larger houses. Young families who are looking for affordable houses want to be closer to their workplace, not commuting on our narrow lanes. People living in rural communities, want to live away from the hub and noise of large towns.
147. Mrs Dinah Shore (Individual) : 26 Jun 2017 08:35:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
The map suggests that. there is planned use of our shared driveway as public pedestrian access to Silverdale Road.
The driveway in question is privately owned by our neighbours at the Vicarage and is the sole vehicular access for three houses, 91, 93, and 95 Silverdale Road. The driveway is maintained jointly at the expense of these three properties.
We oppose the public use of this access, objecting on the following grounds:
Loss of privacy.
Potential for noise and light disturbance, littering, damage to planting.
Additional wear and tear on the driveway due to increased footfall, bicycles, baby buggies etc.
We also feel that there would be considerable risk to pedestrians using the driveway as public access. There is insufficient width for a vehicle to pass pedestrians on the proposed route. Additionally, there would be risk from vehicles turning out of the blind bend from our personal driveway at number 93, Silverdale Road.
148. Mr & Mrs Michael & Jo Silvester (Individual) : 15 Jul 2017 17:24:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
We wish to express our opposition to the proposal to develop the meadow to the North and West of Hollins Lane.
Of all the sites proposed in Arnside and surrounding areas, The Hollins Lane plot by far is the most unsuitable.
Hollins lane is an extremely narrow lane with pinch points, and few passing places. The road has blind bends and there are no footpaths and very few street lights, all made worse by very poor road maintenance.
Any development would result in an inevitable increase in traffic which would endanger pedestrians ,cyclists and other road users.
The surface water on Hollins Lane is currently a problem , resulting in a river running down it's length in moderate to heavy rainfall.
We feel the proposed development of 14 houses would have a detrimental impact on all the properties that face the field and in particular those that back onto the field, resulting in a loss of views and privacy and more worrying the potential increased risk to security and unlawful access to properties.
We conclude by saying that we believe the A8/A9 site is unsuitable/unviable, and in our opinion would make a dangerous lane more so.
149. Mr Basil Singer (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 14:02:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
It is very easy to nibble away at existing parts of the AONB but unless there are exceptionally good reasons to do this it should not be allowed, otherwise the area will soon fail to qualify as an AONB. In no circumstances should building be allowed just to satisfy a profit motive, as there are many sites in the village which are quite suitable for development so there is no need to impinge on this section, and equally there are only limited areas where the public can enjoy the benefits of being an AONB.
I believe there is a long term plan for the area which would not allow development as now proposed, and this plan was approved for good reasons which still remain valid, and should not be overturned.
150. Mr Kevin Spencer (Individual) : 24 Jul 2017 09:35:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
AONB - DPD - Site 50
May I make representations totally against the proposal to include this site for development in the new DPD.
1. Traffic levels would be increased in the area. Roads are already over congested in the centre of Silverdale and especially so around the primary school close to this site.
2. Sewage in Silverdale must now be a serious consideration. This village has almost 2000 residents, the largest in the UK without mains drainage. There should be no further development without mains drainage.
3. This is a green field site. There are ample brown filed sites available. We should not lose yet another green field.
There are presently many houses available for sale in the area. There is not a need for more housing.
151. Prof. and Mrs Malcolm and Val Stevens (Individual) : 21 Jul 2017 11:27:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
152. Mr Mark Stott (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 10:03:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
We wish to raise objections to 'Suggestion 2: Storth - Proposal to extend the areas proposed for allocation on Park Rd and Quarry Lane to include additional sites including areas to be kept as key settlement landscapes'.
We do not agree with the landowners that there should be any development beyond those already identified on brown field sites.
Our reasons are as follows:-
1. We believe that the official Housing Needs Survey shows that more than sufficient housing can be provided on brown field sites for the next 15 year plan and that there is no need to encroach on the green field sites specified.
2. The extended areas proposed i.e. B79, B116 and B117 are key settlement areas and green field sites in the AONB, which is one of only a few lowland limestone habitats in the whole of Europe and is therefore a very special environment with its own flora and fauna. This should be preserved.
3. The proposal to link these sites with a pedestrian and emergency vehicles only track to the village centre would not be practicable due to the narrowness of Yans Lane where this track would egress. The lane is exceedingly narrow and this is compounded by resident parking. The best access, as now, is by Storth Rd. Egress on to Storth Rd could be achieved by a road or track emerging from Quarry Lane which , again , would preserve the green field sites.
4. We are also concerned that a development of this magnitude would impact negatively on existing infrastructure e.g. the capacity of the Milnthorpe Sewage Works, the local school and public transport.
5. Quarry Lane is presently used by residents and emergency services to access Storth, Carr Bank and Arnside at times of high tides when the sea covers the road outside The Ship Inn. Therefore closing Quarry Lane will severely restrict access at these times. Placing an additional access across part of the existing car park of The Ship Inn will affect their business as the car park is frequently full and alternative parking is not available.
We fully support the development suggested for the brown field sites, but for the above reasons would object strongly to the landowners proposal for extension to green field sites.
153. Ms J Swift (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 10:32:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
General Objection to development within the AONB.
1)Arnside /Silverdale AONB is small but beautiful- local businesses are already here and thrive because of this. Please don’t squeeze the neck of the goose that’s laid the golden egg.
It is not very far to Milnthorpe, Carnforth (outside the AONB). The infrastructure is better there and it’s not very far to travel to–even on foot! New housing/businesses should be developed there-outside the AONB or perhaps a new “rural eco village” could be created East of the A6.
2 I not sure why such a small area of outstanding natural beauty needs more building sites/businesses to develop? Surely we should be protecting Greenfield sites and developing the natural beauty of the landscape.
If building needs are identified- Brownfield sites (e.g. Site of Leeds holiday home, Old Kays nursery,) should be used first and there are plenty of existing building plots-that no one seems to want to buy or build on. Planning permission could be more lenient to building in large gardens. Perhaps more “family houses” could be created from bungalows by building upwards and dividing into semis. Although recent family size houses seem to take ages to sell or end up as holiday lets.
If a need for local housing is required -local occupancy clauses should be used on new planning permissions and existing housing restriction to “second home use only” for example eg Hazelwood Hall lifted. Perhaps existing planning permission for “lodges” could be used for houses instead eg Old Slackwood Nurseries or existing Static caravan sites used for housing eg Static Caravan site down Bottoms Lane.
With specific reference to St John Ave Site 50
1) Detrimental to AONB and village character (see above)
2) This is a Greenfield site outside the village footprint.
3) Could set a precedent for further development parallel to St Johns Ave/ Hazel wood Ave and other Greenfield sites around the village. NB Why was the original larger proposed site withdrawn?
4) Loss of valuable agricultural land in an AONB that may be of use to other farmers or NGO for future conservation development.
5) Visually obtrusive – the field is visible from ‘The Pepperpot’ National trust viewpoint, Gait Barrow , top of Trowbarrow LNR and footpaths .
6) Loss of amenity value to walkers –the existing footpath (Church to the Green) is an open/elevated space with far reaching views to the Howgills, Farleton Knott this will become an enclosed urban space.
7) Development could have impact on water quality and on water dependent habitats. There is no mains sewage, there will be the potential for leaks from septic tanks. There are potential hydrological links to Leighton Moss RSPB and Hawes water NNR?
8) There will be increased traffic on country lanes, resulting in increased air pollution, accidents, noise pollution and parking issues. All routes into the village involve narrow access roads not suitable to a increase in traffic .There is already increasing congestion/parking around junction into St Johns Ave resulting in cars unable to turn into the Avenue The junction is next to two schools, the church and on the Lancashire Cycle way which already creates traffic problems.
9) Potentially negative impact on Nationally important birds.For many years in the summer the male Marsh harrier has hunted over the field. Waders including Oystercatchers, Curlew, and Lapwing roost and forage on the field in the winter time.
154. Mrs Katherine Talbot (Individual) : 13 Jul 2017 20:51:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Traffic at the junction of St John's Ave/Emesgate lane is already a problem, with parking right from the corner of the main road into the avenue. The amount of parking is increased with any big events at school or church, creating a safety hazard. Visibility from the Avenue to Emesgate Lane is also decreased by this parking. This development could potentially mean a further 40-50 cars frequently using this area for parking/accessing the new site.
Sewerage is already a big problem in Silverdale with no mains drainage. How would this be addressed on the new site?
An AONB report of November 2016 stated that open areas such as this field are a very important part of Silverdale's character. We do not want to lose them by building on this site and thereby irrevocably losing attractive open spaces & pastureland. The public footpath across this area is an important resource for the local residents and visitors to enjoy this recreational resource, and is very well used all the year round.
Wildlife is also spotted here frequently, e.g deer, red-legged partridge, marsh harrier. Building here could destroy wildlife habitats.
Is it certain that there is a need for this type of housing? Recent new builds by the station have been sold as holiday homes as there was no demand from local, permanent residents. Silverdale does not need further holiday homes.
Local employment is extremely limited, public transport is very poor and the bus service quite likely to be lost.
155. Mr David Talbot (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 17:02:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am very concerned about traffic levels entering and leaving St John's Ave as this is already difficult now with cars parked on the Emesgate Lane end of the road.
As we would assume at least another 20-40 cars would be using the area for this development.
Furthermore I am concerned about drainage in an area that already has more septic tanks than any other village in England.
156. Mrs Joan Taylor (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 19:55:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
*There is no mains sewerage system in Silverdale, how will a new housing estate affect this issue?
* if Silverdale is part of the ANOB why would planning be allowed on green belt land which is used for farming.
* The traffic levels would be significantly increased how would this be supported? The local school is exceeding close to this proposed development, what of the safety of the schoolchildren?
* There is little to no local employment, people would have to commute again causing traffic problems.
* The public transport systems are POOR. The local bus service does not run sufficiently to connect with the trains.
* There is a public right of way across this particular area, enjoyed by many, the views would be obliterated for the residents and walkers.
* The destruction of wildlife habitat.
* THis would be an extension of the outer boundary/perimeter of the village and there are already buildings sites for sale within the village area.
* There is a need for low cost housing HOWEVER an estate of 20+ houses, HOW many would be low cost to LOCAL people?
* Possible further future extension into the field towards Bottoms Lane and The Green!
* The roads leading out of the village are already narrow with vehicle passing places there NO PAVEMENTS for walking as it is, how much more dangerous will it become for walkers,cyclists and drivers.
* Will the emergency services be under even more pressure, ambulances from Lancaster/Kendal?
157. Mr Francis Toolan (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 12:20:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
158. Ms Ann Turnbull (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 15:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
159. Ms Ann Turnbull (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 15:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
160. Ms Ann Turnbull (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 15:22:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
161. Mr Frank Newman Vine-Hall (Individual) : 6 Jul 2017 14:50:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
As a previous owner occupier and regular visitor to of one of the properties involved directly with your ridiculous plans to put houses in this field I must object to any building in the region of Hollins Lane and the immediate surrounding area when any pedestrian or driver in Hollins lane will vouch that access to this field from Hollins lane is dangerous to say the least.
Hollins lane is very narrow and a single track road with NO pavements and is not wide enough to add any either.
How can you possibly even consider increasing traffic in this area?
Is this land compulsory purchase?
I ask this because when we lived off Silverdale and our property joined the field we were assured with absolute certainty that while the gentleman owners of the vicarage and of this field, would NEVER allow the building of houses on it.
The subject of building houses on this field was broached in recent times and the idea was given up on because of the access from Hollins Lane.
Why don’t you, the Council, consider the big flat field off Red Hills road?
There is already the start of an access road from the adjacent estate why not consider this area which has been on previous plans for the area instead of putting lives at risk in Hollins Lane which would also safeguard the privacy of the properties off Silverdale road and in Hollins lane.
162. Mr Austin Walker (Individual) : 1 Jul 2017 12:44:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Comments about proposed use for site:-
1. Very poor access. St Johns Ave already has problems and they would be made far worse, particularly during construction works
2. Additional drainage would exacerbate existing soggy land at damp times.
3.Valuable comparatively rare "Small Leaf Lime Tree" in middle of proposed site. Large tree which I believe has a preservation order on it. Would be impossible to keep tree with this scale of proposed development
4. Public Footpath traverses site
5. Already a "retirement village". Too isolated for reasonable employment propects.
6. Apparently little demand for "low cost social housing" in village
163. Mr & Mrs Jack and Audrey Walltham (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 12:43:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
164. Mr Paul Warren (Individual) : 21 Jul 2017 11:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
165. Mr Ben Waterhouse (Individual) : 21 Jun 2017 10:08:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Good Morning
Notification
I found out about this plan yesterday evening after another local resident knocked on my door to inform me. I feel strongly that the initial consultation was flawed as there were inadequate notices or information relating to the development. I drive down Hollins lane several times per day and have seen no notices for the site. To say that we are only able to comment on the proposed new changes seems absurd when it is the local residents to Hollins lane that are most affected.
Traffic
Hollins lane is already a very dangerous road. It is a single track road with very few passing places without utilising people’s private driveways. To increase traffic on this road would be extremely dangerous and would without doubt lead to accidents. There are already currently issues with cars parked inappropriately making it difficult to pass. This affects both cars and more importantly the emergency services (Fire Engines).
Development Platform
The site for the development platform begins directly at the foot of the current properties gardens on Silverdale Road. We have very low walls diving the field and our gardens. The new proposed properties would have direct line of sight into my garden, home and bedrooms and I would into theirs. Privacy and impact to current residents has not been discussed anywhere in this document. I live in a bungalow and the new properties would dramatically reduce natural light into my garden and home.
‘Key View to be retained’
I note a line of sight for the ‘key view to be retained’ – I fail to see how this can be added to the document – it is fantastic that you are thinking about ‘new’ residents – they will have a fantastic view onto the remainder of the field and line of sight to the estuary. Existing residents will have their ‘key view’ replaced with the rear of new properties.
I feel that the ‘consultation’ process has not been that. To have a consultation process all involved stakeholders have to be aware of the process. To have a development go through consultation literally on my door stop and not be made aware is ludicrous. Any visit to the site would see that Hollins lane is not appropriate for the amount of vehicles accessing it daily now and so increasing this would be a certain hazard.
166. Mr Daniel Waterhouse (Individual) : 21 Jun 2017 13:12:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Arnside:Hollins Lane
Consultation: Whilst I appreciate that by law you have requirements that mean you will have 'adequately' publicised and notified the residents of Arnside to this proposed planning, in my view you have not done so taking into account the needs of the residents of our village, many who are elderly and do not frequent the hillier parts of our village.
I cycle up and down Hollins lane frequently and have failed to notice any indication that there was a consultation going ahead. I also feel that the vast majority of residents in our village will not have the means to walk, ride, or drive past the step hill that is Hollins Lane and so will be denied the opportunity to see and comment of any planning consultation. There should be a central point to distribute these planning notices within the village that would allow everyone to see and make an informed choice about the proposal.
Hollins Lane: Hollins lane is a steep, ill repaired road. It has high levels of traffic using it as a cut through to Silverdale Road, or to Briery Bank. Residents of Plantation Avenue and the adjoining roads. It is a narrow road that does not allow for two cars to pass and this is further compounded by the local residents and their parking needs. In my view adding traffic to this road would not only cause damage to the verges and residents property but will place pedestrians and other road users such as cyclists at risk of serious injury.
Whilst we all accept that the village needs to address the current rural housing need, it needs to be done with a mind to the existing residents and their needs and cares. South Lakeland need to be open and transparent in their approach and seek to work together with the residents and the Parish council to find a solution that supports all aspects of village life.
Kind regards
Daniel Waterhouse
167. Mrs A Waterhouse (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 10:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
168. Mr W John Webb (Individual) : 28 Jun 2017 15:21:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Currently there is insufficient detail to identify whether the revised development proposals would constitute a major development, a factor which applied to the original submission of this site.
However, other factors which I identified in comments submitted on 01/12/15, during earlier consultation on the DPD, do remain relevant.
Development would be contrary to policy by impacting on the landscape and scenic beauty of the area, having a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the AONB.
169. Mr Adginton Westhead (Individual) : 11 Jul 2017 16:22:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I have numerous objections to this proposal; Access for emergency vehicles. Increased traffic/congestion at the junction with Emesgate Lane - particularly at school times. Sewerage and rainwater runoff issues- Silverdale has no mains sewerage system, so it would require a treatment plant, which must generate some noise for residents in the area. Flooding has been an issue in the cemetery area in the past, which would only be exacerbated by development in the field, possibly escalating to flooding issues in the Townsfield area. The ANOB Special Qualities Report of Nov 2016 makes references to the importance of open areas, visual permeability, open green spaces etc, in relation to the settlement. There is a public footpath through the field and numerous sightings of wildlife. Past experience has shown there is no market for low cost housing in the area, plus poor transport links and a lack of local employment. Village boundary “creep” via incremental development.
170. Mr Richard Whittaker (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 09:22:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
R.E. Development of S50:
I wish to object to the further development of land at the rear of St Johns. The area identified is fertile agricultural land that is heavily utilised throughout the year. The land clearly falls outside of brownfield site development and the existing development boundaries and is therefore a progression into the Green Belt. The views and wildlife that this location affords makes it wholly unsuitable for development without significant damage to the environment in many ways. The access to the site has also reached saturation point in recent years whereby cars are now routinely being parked on St. John's from the overspill on Emesgate lane, the consequense being that the access road has now become a single track lane with viewing splays significantly reduced coming out onto Emesgate Lane. Any further increase in either parking or trafffic volume will further exacerbate this situation, this is evident during school times due to its closed promitmity to the primary school and Church.
171. Mrs Karen Whittaker (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 10:57:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to object to the development of land at the rear of St Johns Avenue.
The land is heavily used by the local farm and also boast a footpath that is used by many villagers and visitors a like.
This summer I have seen deer, a red legged partridge with chicks and bats in the evening on the field, photos taken if required.
The junction off St John’s Ave onto Emesgate Lane has already become a hazard, with cars parked at the junction from both local schools, as well as local residence that use the road to park on, from both St John’s Avenue and Emesgate Lane. At school times it could also be impossible for an emergency vehical to access St John’s Avenue.
172. Mr Paul Williams (Individual) : 8 Jul 2017 13:51:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I'm very concerned about the proposed inclusion of site 50- St Johns Avenue being included in the AONB Development plan.Firstly this is a green field which extends the village beyond its existing boundaries which adversely affects the character of the ANOB destroying local amenities ,views of the area and loss of animal habitat.
The village does not need another development of large private houses which is not in keeping with the character of the area.
The proposed development will have many negative affects template on the village community including the increased traffic from up to 50 cars on a junction almost opposite the primary school, more household waste to be treated in n a safe snvironmsenvironmental way.
173. Mr Simon Wood (Individual) : 12 Jul 2017 21:32:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am a walker who regularly escapes London, and one of my very favourite (easy) walks is over Arnside Knott. I am disappointed to hear that you are considering the development of any houses at all on this lovely field which I have passed often. I have seen brownfield sites close to the village which seem much better suited to development.
This field has a quant charm about it that I have watched for many years. I have seen owls (including I think, an Eagle Owl but it was in a tree now gone from the field) bats, deer, various birds of prey, a Black Redstart (my favourite) and of course the grazing sheep who bring a great sense of serenity after a vigorous stomp over the Knott. To put newly built houses there just seems wrong. Arnside's open spaces between groups of housing is great for birds and other wildlife, which of course helps the tourism (me). I always look for another Black Redstart in that special field! Please don't let it become an uncomfortable development that appears take away much more than it brings.
174. Mrs Val Woods (Individual) : 14 Jul 2017 12:48:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
175. Mr Tony Young (Individual) : 17 Jul 2017 11:38:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Concerning the above Site - Hollins lane Arnside. Having lived in this Village for many years along i think that there is a need for more Housing to cater for a range of needs .A development with mixed housing allowing some properties suitable for local people to downsize and remain here when they reach that point in their lives and also young families to purchase affordable housing and to be able to stay in Arnside where they have been brought up has got to be a good thing .On these matters i agree with Mr Michael Kemp that a balance has to be struck .
The matter of the road and access to the site is not without it's issues - could Hollins lane be Terminated where it meets swinnate road- preventing unwanted traffic and creating a cul-de-sac at the top of Hollins with a foot path.
176. Mrs Pam Davies (Individual) : 7 Jul 2017 14:24:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to object to the proposed inclusion of part of S50 as suitable for residential development.
1: The site is outside the envelope of the built up area of the village, and would impinge on the wide open space which is such a characteristic and much-loved feature of this part of the AONB and is recognised as such in the AONB Special Qualitied report of 2016.
2: A heavily-used and much-appreciated public footpath runs towards and through this site. It is used by both residents and visitors and benefits from the wide open views both ahead (going north) and to the east. Any residential development on this site would damage the experience of walkers on this path. It might be that a proposal would be made to divert the path round the outside of the development: while this would reduce the damage to views, it would lengthen the journey on what is used by many residents as a "getting from A to B" route.
3: Access to the plot of land is from St John's Avenue (a residential cul-de-sac which is wide enough for the traffic to and from existing properties but no more), which then enters Emesgate Lane at a junction with poor visibility very near to the village school. Emesgate Lane is often congested by lorries (eg the Co-op delivery) and buses (service and school, and minibuses with pupils of Bleasedale school), as well as parking, and an increase in residential users would be dangerous for all concerned. Given the paucity of buses and the length of walk to the station (on unlit, un-pavemented roads or field paths), the residents of any housing on this site would be likely to use cars for all journeys to work, school and elsewhere
4: Drainage is a major problem in the village and further run-off from sewage treatment for a substantial group of new homes would be likely to cause problems in the surrounding area.
5: The "thin end of the wedge" argument: if this piece of land is considered suitable for residential development, how long would it be before more and more of the area between the village and Bottoms Lane becomes built up, damaging forever the landscape qualities which lead to this being an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, whether viewed from surrounding roads, footpaths through the area, or more distant views from the Pepperpot and other local viewpoints?
This parcel of land should not be included in the Development Plan Document as a suitable site for residential development.
177. Mr Michael Nightingale (Individual) : 10 Jul 2017 10:38:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS]
178. Mr Michael Nightingale (Individual) : 19 Jul 2017 11:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
179. Mr Brian Stocks (Individual) : 9 Jul 2017 18:37:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
In response to the proposal for the residential developmental site S50 Silverdale, it is very disappointing when
an area that has been designated as an AONB is threatened by a proposed residential development where, not only is it not needed but would be potentially detrimental to the whole village (as put forward in the responses from Mrs Sarah Fishwick on 6th July & Mr Martin Brown on 25th June) & the affect it would cause on the natural environment. All to benefit the few who have no interest in our beautiful area other than to make money from it.
180. Mr Brian Stocks (Individual) : 16 Jul 2017 17:30:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I am a resident of Churchfield and I am very concerned about the proposal for the residential development in Silverdale (S50). The field is higher than our property & we do get some flooding in our soakaway after heavy rain. I consider that any properties built on higher ground to the South of Churchfield would cause extra water through the field onto our property & Churchfield as a whole. If excessive water was allowed to enter our septic tank & soakaway, it would make our house uninhabitable & cause environmental problems for all the houses in Churchfield.
181. Ms Lucy Barron, Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership : 13 Jul 2017 11:10:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
182. Ms Lucy Barron, Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership : 13 Jul 2017 11:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
183. Ms Lucy Barron, Arnside & Silverdale AONB Partnership : 13 Jul 2017 11:11:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
184. Mr Robert Pickup, Arnside & Silverdale Landscape Trust : 24 Jul 2017 09:23:00
AONB DPD Pre Pub CONSULT-new policies 17th July 2017 document closing date.
Our opinion is that none of these new additional proposed sites are needed in the AONB, and that should there ever be any need for further developments these can readily be met outside of the AONB , especially in the Carnforth and Milnthorpe Areas.
The AONB is a precious area equivalent in planning terms to a National Park, in order to maintain this landscape quality these new areas are not needed.
185. Ms Caroline Caudwell, Arnside Parish Council : 18 Jul 2017 11:58:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Arnside Parish Council Considered the Area A8/A9 Land on Hollins Lane Arnside and the inclusion of the area on Hollins Lane in the AONB Area Development Plan for limited housing development. It resolved that it continues to support a limited amount of development along the lower edge in the area covered as set out in the original consultation document.
Regards,
Anne-Marie Cade
Clerk to Arnside Parish Council
186. Mr John Scargill, Beetham Parish Council : 6 Jul 2017 15:26:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Main Objections:
1. Beetham Parish Council (BPC) supports the inclusion of brownfield sites adjacent to Quarry Lane in the AONB Development Plan Document (DPD), but objects to the inclusion of additional greenfield sites at the wetern end of the plan. Inclusion of the greenfield area is in conflict with the requirement for developments within the AONB area, since the required housing needs would be satisfied by development of the brownfield sites only.
2. The proposed plan defines the length of Quarry Lane to the west of The Ship Inn as 'Pedestrian Access'. The overall plan should maintain and improve this length of Quarry Lane to permit vehicular access along the whole length of Quarry Lane so as to provide an alternative route for vehicles when the B5282 is impassable due to high tides in spring and autumn.
Additional Comments:
1. BPC fully supports the provision for open space adjacent to Quarry Lane and retention of the defined 'Key Views'.
2. The vehicular access within the brownfield site should provide a second access point onto Quarry Lane to the west of the current access point near The Ship. This would negate the need for an Emergency Vehicle Connection from halfway down Yans Lane. Emergency vehicles would find it difficult to turn into the open space area due to the narrowness of Yans Lane. If access were needed, a better access point would be via the gate at the Storth Road end of Yans Lane.
3. The previous plan identified the overall site as being utilised for both residential and industrial use. Clarification of the preferred areas for these two activities within the 'Development Platform' would be helpful.
187. Sarah Burrow Trust (C/o Mrs K Wildman) , C/o Garner Planning : 14 Jul 2017 09:32:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
These representations are prepared on behalf of the Sarah Burrow Trust (c/o Mrs K. Wildman) the owners of land east of St. John’s Avenue (S50).
The suggested allocation of the site for residential development is supported.
There may be the need for both pedestrian and farm vehicle access to land beyond the site, but that is a matter that can be dealt with in the context of a formal planning application.
It is suggested that the layout is given indicative status only in the context of the Local Plan rather than be given development plan status.
188. Mr Tim Griffiths, C/o Garner Planning : 14 Jul 2017 10:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
189. Mr Tim Bettany-Simmons, Canal & River Trust : 6 Jul 2017 14:34:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thanks you for your consultation on the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD. The Lancaster Canal does not pass through the area covered by the DPD and as such the Canal and River Trust has no comment to make on the DPD.
190. Mr Tim Bettany-Simmons, Canal & River Trust : 6 Jul 2017 16:07:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thanks you for your consultation on the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD. The Lancaster Canal does not pass through the area covered by the DPD and as such the Canal and River Trust has no comment to make on the DPD.
191. Mr Tim Bettany-Simmons, Canal & River Trust : 6 Jul 2017 16:08:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thanks you for your consultation on the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD. The Lancaster Canal does not pass through the area covered by the DPD and as such the Canal and River Trust has no comment to make on the DPD.
192. Mr Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council - Spatial Planning Team : 28 Jul 2017 14:02:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
193. Mr Michael Barry, Cumbria County Council - Spatial Planning Team : 28 Jul 2017 14:03:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
194. Mr Eric Roberts, Electricity North West Ltd : 7 Jul 2017 09:56:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Arnside & Silverdale (AONB)
We have considered the potential development sites within our Network Distribution Area and conclude that they could have an impact on our infrastructure. With the information supplied, it is not possible to determine the exact impact on our assets.
As each development takes place, they will be reviewed during the usual planning application process.
The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity.
The applicant should also be referred to two relevant documents produced by the Health and Safety Executive, which are available from The Stationery Office Publications Centre and The Stationery Office Bookshops, and advised to follow the guidance given.
The documents are as follows:-
HS(G)47 – Avoiding danger from underground services.
GS6 – Avoidance of danger from overhead electric lines.
The applicant should also be advised that, should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus because of the proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the applicant. The applicant should be aware of our requirements for access to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair, or alter any of our distribution equipment. This includes carrying out works incidental to any of these purposes and this could require works at any time of day or night. Our Electricity Services Desk (Tel No. 0800 195 4141) will advise on any issues regarding diversions or modifications.
195. Mr Eric Roberts, Electricity North West Ltd : 7 Jul 2017 09:56:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Arnside & Silverdale (AONB)
We have considered the potential development sites within our Network Distribution Area and conclude that they could have an impact on our infrastructure. With the information supplied, it is not possible to determine the exact impact on our assets.
As each development takes place, they will be reviewed during the usual planning application process.
The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity.
The applicant should also be referred to two relevant documents produced by the Health and Safety Executive, which are available from The Stationery Office Publications Centre and The Stationery Office Bookshops, and advised to follow the guidance given.
The documents are as follows:-
HS(G)47 – Avoiding danger from underground services.
GS6 – Avoidance of danger from overhead electric lines.
The applicant should also be advised that, should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus because of the proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the applicant. The applicant should be aware of our requirements for access to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair, or alter any of our distribution equipment. This includes carrying out works incidental to any of these purposes and this could require works at any time of day or night. Our Electricity Services Desk (Tel No. 0800 195 4141) will advise on any issues regarding diversions or modifications.
196. Mr Eric Roberts, Electricity North West Ltd : 7 Jul 2017 09:56:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Arnside & Silverdale (AONB)
We have considered the potential development sites within our Network Distribution Area and conclude that they could have an impact on our infrastructure. With the information supplied, it is not possible to determine the exact impact on our assets.
As each development takes place, they will be reviewed during the usual planning application process.
The applicant should be advised that great care should be taken at all times to protect both the electrical apparatus and any personnel working in its vicinity.
The applicant should also be referred to two relevant documents produced by the Health and Safety Executive, which are available from The Stationery Office Publications Centre and The Stationery Office Bookshops, and advised to follow the guidance given.
The documents are as follows:-
HS(G)47 – Avoiding danger from underground services.
GS6 – Avoidance of danger from overhead electric lines.
The applicant should also be advised that, should there be a requirement to divert the apparatus because of the proposed works, the cost of such a diversion would usually be borne by the applicant. The applicant should be aware of our requirements for access to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair, or alter any of our distribution equipment. This includes carrying out works incidental to any of these purposes and this could require works at any time of day or night. Our Electricity Services Desk (Tel No. 0800 195 4141) will advise on any issues regarding diversions or modifications.
197. Ms Liz Locke, Environment Agency : 21 Jun 2017 12:41:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for consulting us on the suggestions relating to three land allocations for Silverdale (site S50), Storth (Park Road and Quarry Lane), and Arnside (Hollins Lane).
We have no additional comment to make further to our response dated 5 January 2017 ref NO/2012/104361/SD-04/IS1-L01. (see previous consultation)
Specifically, that we welcome the proposal that any residential development at Storth is located outside flood zone 3.
Yours faithfully,
Mrs Liz Locke
Sustainable Places Officer
198. Ms Liz Locke, Environment Agency : 21 Jun 2017 12:41:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for consulting us on the suggestions relating to three land allocations for Silverdale (site S50), Storth (Park Road and Quarry Lane), and Arnside (Hollins Lane).
We have no additional comment to make further to our response dated 5 January 2017 ref NO/2012/104361/SD-04/IS1-L01. (see previous consultation)
Specifically, that we welcome the proposal that any residential development at Storth is located outside flood zone 3.
Yours faithfully,
Mrs Liz Locke
Sustainable Places Officer
199. Ms Liz Locke, Environment Agency : 21 Jun 2017 12:41:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for consulting us on the suggestions relating to three land allocations for Silverdale (site S50), Storth (Park Road and Quarry Lane), and Arnside (Hollins Lane).
We have no additional comment to make further to our response dated 5 January 2017 ref NO/2012/104361/SD-04/IS1-L01. (see previous consultation)
Specifically, that we welcome the proposal that any residential development at Storth is located outside flood zone 3.
Yours faithfully,
Mrs Liz Locke
Sustainable Places Officer
200. Mr John Moran, Health & Safety Executive (HSE) : 23 Jun 2017 09:15:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
201. Mr John Moran, Health & Safety Executive (HSE) : 23 Jun 2017 09:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
202. Mr John Moran, Health & Safety Executive (HSE) : 23 Jun 2017 09:16:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
203. Mr Warren Hilton, Highways England : 21 Jun 2017 12:31:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for contacting Highways England to seek our views as to the re-inclusion of three sites that are located at Silverdale, Storth and Arnside .
In our previous consultation response, we noted that there may be additional small scale development proposals which come forward, but that these would be unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN and Mouchel. We therefore view the addition of these sites at Silverdale, Storth and Arnside within these terms, and so we therefore continue to support the Arnside & Silverdale AONB DPD policy overall.
Kind regards,
Warren Hilton, Assistant Asset Manager
204. Mr Warren Hilton, Highways England : 21 Jun 2017 12:31:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for contacting Highways England to seek our views as to the re-inclusion of three sites that are located at Silverdale, Storth and Arnside .
In our previous consultation response, we noted that there may be additional small scale development proposals which come forward, but that these would be unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN and Mouchel. We therefore view the addition of these sites at Silverdale, Storth and Arnside within these terms, and so we therefore continue to support the Arnside & Silverdale AONB DPD policy overall.
Kind regards,
Warren Hilton, Assistant Asset Manager
205. Mr Warren Hilton, Highways England : 21 Jun 2017 12:32:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Thank you for contacting Highways England to seek our views as to the re-inclusion of three sites that are located at Silverdale, Storth and Arnside .
In our previous consultation response, we noted that there may be additional small scale development proposals which come forward, but that these would be unlikely to have a severe impact on the SRN and Mouchel. We therefore view the addition of these sites at Silverdale, Storth and Arnside within these terms, and so we therefore continue to support the Arnside & Silverdale AONB DPD policy overall.
Kind regards,
Warren Hilton, Assistant Asset Manager
206. Miss Emily Hrycan, Historic England : 27 Jun 2017 11:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
207. Miss Emily Hrycan, Historic England : 27 Jun 2017 11:40:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
208. Miss Emily Hrycan, Historic England : 27 Jun 2017 11:41:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
209. Mr & Mrs Stephen & Eileen Davies, Individuals/Residents : 1 Jul 2017 12:20:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Pre-publication Consultation A8/A9 Hollins Lane, Arnside
We wish to lodge a complaint about the proposed development at the above site. The reasons for this are as follows:-
1) Hollins Lane is one of the narrowest roads in Arnside, without many passing places and is already used as a cut
through for motorists wanting access to Silverdale Road, Briary Bank, Swinnate/Plantation Road and we feel that with the added
traffic that the proposed development would bring, it is only a matter of time before there is a serious Road Traffic Accident.
As residents of Hollins Lane for the last 30 years the volume of traffic has increased significantly and the grass verge between our boundary wall and the road has been reduced by traffic erosion from being 1 metre wide to 1/2 metre. This is due the fact that motorists using the road show no regard for residents to trying to access/exit their drives by waiting patiently, they steam on
through mounting the verges where possible.
Also as dog walkers, you take your life in your hands when walking in Hollins Lane, as motorists seem incapable of slowing down and showing any consideration for pedestrians, this is particularly bad in the dark winter months.
2) It is our understanding that a housing association previously bought the plot of land several years ago with a view to builing homes. This project never saw fruition because of the solid limestone composition of the land and the fact that the main water/sewage systems were inadequate to take the additional properties.
If development was to go ahead on this site, the noise and mess from building works would be unbearable and as someone (Mr Davies) who works shifts and needs to sleep during the day this development would not only affect personal possessions ie house/cars (dust/mess) but would also affect my personal wellbeing for the duration of the builing works.
3) When we bought this property 30 years ago one of the main reason for buying was the peace/quiet of the area and the privacy aspect that the above field brought. If the proposed development is given the go ahead we feel that building between 8 & 14 houses would seriously impact on this not only from the houses but also the proposed walkway.
4) There are alternative sites in Arnside that are better suited for development ie- The Orchard on Briary Bank or the large field at the bottom of High Knott Road on Redhills Road (sheep field), as both of these would have direct access to the main roads in the village.
5) We understand that that there is a housing shortage and properties need to be built somewhere. However, choosing to develop a plot of land and giving access to possibly an additional 36 vehicles (2 per prop) on one of the narrowest roads in the village does not seem to be the answer. Possibly, if the Council restricted the number of properties in the village which were sold as holiday homes, then may be there would not be the shortage of properties for locals.
210. Mr Andrew Curtis, Lancashire County Council : 13 Jul 2017 13:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Please find attached a brief response from Lancashire County Council regarding the combined SLDC and Lancaster CC latest consultation. In response Lancashire CC School Planning do not have great concerns and comments regarding the three specified sites. We monitor the overall needs of housing within the districts of Lancashire but also across neighbouring districts and counties to understand potential impact within LCC managed schools.
LCC continue to have regular dialogue with Lancaster planning officers and welcome the opportunity to further communicate with SLDC and their emerging local plan
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
211. Mr Andrew Curtis, Lancashire County Council : 13 Jul 2017 14:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Please find attached a brief response from Lancashire County Council regarding the combined SLDC and Lancaster CC latest consultation. In response Lancashire CC School Planning do not have great concerns and comments regarding the three specified sites. We monitor the overall needs of housing within the districts of Lancashire but also across neighbouring districts and counties to understand potential impact within LCC managed schools.
LCC continue to have regular dialogue with Lancaster planning officers and welcome the opportunity to further communicate with SLDC and their emerging local plan
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
212. Mr Andrew Curtis, Lancashire County Council : 13 Jul 2017 14:00:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Please find attached a brief response from Lancashire County Council regarding the combined SLDC and Lancaster CC latest consultation. In response Lancashire CC School Planning do not have great concerns and comments regarding the three specified sites. We monitor the overall needs of housing within the districts of Lancashire but also across neighbouring districts and counties to understand potential impact within LCC managed schools.
LCC continue to have regular dialogue with Lancaster planning officers and welcome the opportunity to further communicate with SLDC and their emerging local plan
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
213. Cllr Phillippa Williamson, Lancashire County Council - Lancaster Rural North : 20 Jul 2017 14:25:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
This note is to endorse the concerns raised by Silverdale Parish Council and residents regarding this site and their frustration at having to comment on proposals for this site again.
I would particularly highlight the drainage issues which have been well documented in the past, and are highlighted on the attached document.
In addition at a recent Parish Council meeting, residents also raised concerns regarding flooding to the cemetary.
Finally, I'd just like to bullet point some of the public points made at the last parish council which would be of concern with development in this area:
- Flooding at the Cemetery
- Environmental issue (noise, and waste water) from any small treatment plant
- Emergency vehicle access to both the potential properties and the existing ones
- Farm vehicle access
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
214. Cllr Nigel Goodrich, Lancaster City Council : 19 Jul 2017 16:42:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wanted to endorse and add to the concerns raised by the parish council.
There has been an understandably emotional response from residents every time this issue is raised, with a significant extra attendance at meetings.
Residents clearly don't want this.
I'd add to the points below:
8. I too am concerned that an inappropriate extra development sets a precedent for infill, and we lose that field through creep.
9. I'm sure (and we discussed this re Whinney Fold) that the new houses wouldn't flood, I'm also sure that more houses will create more and faster run-off and will exacerbate the clearly documented flooding issues already seen. These houses may not flood, but they could create flooding for unprotected current stock.
10. We seem to honour this only in the breach. We’ve conditional planning approval given, where it is not possible to meet the condition. Building regs seem to lack enforcement teeth with this issue.
The draining issues have been well documented in the past, as have the planning issues, and I recall a National Trust guidance leaflet that also highlighted many of the concerns raised here.
Finally, I'd just like to bullet point some of the public points made at the last parish council:
Flooding at the Cemetery will get worse.
Is there a proven need?
Drainage, many times.
Holiday let issue - an understandable concern after the golf club houses, that we might get housing based on an as yet unidentified need, that promptly becomes a holiday home!
Environmental issue (noise, and waste water) from any small treatment plant)
Emergency vehicle access, to both the potential properties and the existing ones.
Farm vehicle access.
I do not think this area is a suitable area for any further development, and would urge that it is removed.
Regards,
Nigel
Councillor Nigel Goodrich
Silverdale
Lancaster City Council
215. Mr. Richard Pearse, National Trust : 7 Jul 2017 09:09:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
The National Trust welcome the screening proposed to the eastern boundary of this site. The site is visible from Eaves Wood. We are therefore keen to ensure that the urban edge is softened by appropriate planting.
216. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 30 Jun 2017 15:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
217. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 30 Jun 2017 15:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
218. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 30 Jun 2017 15:37:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
219. Mr Carl Bunnage, North Yorkshire County Council : 6 Jul 2017 14:57:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Having reviewed the consultation documentation, as an officer response there would not appear to be any significant cross boundary issues that are likely to be of interest to the County Council and therefore at this stage have no comments to make.
220. Mr Carl Bunnage, North Yorkshire County Council : 6 Jul 2017 16:10:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Having reviewed the consultation documentation, as an officer response there would not appear to be any significant cross boundary issues that are likely to be of interest to the County Council and therefore at this stage have no comments to make.
221. Mr Carl Bunnage, North Yorkshire County Council : 6 Jul 2017 16:10:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
Having reviewed the consultation documentation, as an officer response there would not appear to be any significant cross boundary issues that are likely to be of interest to the County Council and therefore at this stage have no comments to make.
222. Miss Claire Norris, Persimmon Homes (Lancashire) : 18 Jul 2017 12:12:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
223. Mr Brian Jones, Ramblers Association (Lancaster) : 20 Jun 2017 18:08:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
The Ramblers' Association wishes to point out that Footpath Silverdale 60 is not shown on the accompanying map
224. Mrs Denise Challenor, Silverdale Parish Council : 18 Jul 2017 15:21:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
225. Miss Rachael A Bust, The Coal Authority : 14 Jul 2017 09:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
226. Miss Rachael A Bust, The Coal Authority : 14 Jul 2017 09:30:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
227. Miss Rachael A Bust, The Coal Authority : 14 Jul 2017 09:31:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
228. Mr Jason Kennedy, Townscape : 13 Jul 2017 12:59:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
I wish to object to the possible land allocation of site S50.
The current use of the land is good quality agricultural land as I see no evidence or report to suggest that the site is eligible for development through the loss of agricultural land. A thorough evidence base to the classification of agricultural land should be undertaken. The least favourable sites considered for development and in conjunction with the principles of sustainable development.
The possible design of the site is dictated to by the plot of land suggested. This site doesn't readily appear as an organic extension to the village settlement and its character and could result in a ingongorous and inappropriate small extension. Council officers should work in a proactive manner with local landowners to bring forward village central sites more suitable for development.
S50 is edge land and directly outside the developed settlement boundary of Silverdale. The character of Silverdale in the main is central nucleus and linear development radiating out. Large sites such as S50 will not reinforce the character of the settlement. The site allocation would therefore, not reinforce the character of the village or the wider AONB
. The many constraints on the site such as its location, amenity impact, loss of agricultral land and site topography will not result in good quality design that reinforces a sense of place.
The allocation of s50 will not result in sustainable development in the rural area as required by para 55 of the NPPF.
229. Ms Jenny Hope, United Utilities Limited : 6 Jul 2017 16:39:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Silverdale - part of S50
Please use the box below to make your comments.
United Utilities notes the consultation for changes to the three sites, Silverdale, Storth and Arnside. Whilst we have no detailed response to make to the suggested changes, we would like to re-iterate the following:
1. Silverdale – consideration must be given to the disposal of surface water;
2. Storth – as per our previous comments, there is a large trunk main within parts of this site that may constrain future layout schemes (discussions with United Utilities Developer Services are recommended at an early stage). Consideration must also be given to the disposal of surface water;
3. Arnside - consideration must be given to the disposal of surface water;
230. Ms Jenny Hope, United Utilities Limited : 6 Jul 2017 16:40:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Storth - Quarry Lane
Please use the box below to make your comments.
United Utilities notes the consultation for changes to the three sites, Silverdale, Storth and Arnside. Whilst we have no detailed response to make to the suggested changes, we would like to re-iterate the following:
1. Silverdale – consideration must be given to the disposal of surface water;
2. Storth – as per our previous comments, there is a large trunk main within parts of this site that may constrain future layout schemes (discussions with United Utilities Developer Services are recommended at an early stage). Consideration must also be given to the disposal of surface water;
3. Arnside - consideration must be given to the disposal of surface water;
231. Ms Jenny Hope, United Utilities Limited : 6 Jul 2017 16:42:00
Please use the drop down menu to indicate which of the following sites you are commenting on. Please use a separate form for each site.
Arnside - Hollins Lane A8/A9
Please use the box below to make your comments.
United Utilities notes the consultation for changes to the three sites, Silverdale, Storth and Arnside. Whilst we have no detailed response to make to the suggested changes, we would like to re-iterate the following:
1. Silverdale – consideration must be given to the disposal of surface water;
2. Storth – as per our previous comments, there is a large trunk main within parts of this site that may constrain future layout schemes (discussions with United Utilities Developer Services are recommended at an early stage). Consideration must also be given to the disposal of surface water;
3. Arnside - consideration must be given to the disposal of surface water;