Response from Miss Sharon Newey (Individual)
1. 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.