Response from Ms Rosie Harman (Individual)
1. 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.
