17 responses.
1. Mr Chris Carr (Individual) : 24 Jan 2018 09:21:00
Have you any other comments about the Draft Development Brief and the Draft Supporting Contextual Information Document?
Following my recent attendance of the drop in event at Holme Parish Hall I wanted to
record a few of my thoughts regarding the above proposed development.
My comments are based on my being a village resident for 27 years and a local estate
agent for 14 years.
1.It is suggested that there will be a mix of properties including bungalows, I don't consider there is a need for further stock of this type as the village already has considerable bungalow stock.
2. There is however a continued need for affordable properties for first time buyers and young families with limited income and lending power.In the past ,the affordable element have always included flats which in recent years have proved much less popular certainly on re sale. My feeling is that affordable stock in a village location would be better suited as 2 and 3 bed houses.
3. I am aware that there has been a change in most recent years whereby often part of the affordable element has been for rental linked to a housing association. Again my professional opinion is that this may not be most appropriate in this location where market purchase of affordable properties is likely to be a preferred choice. Should a rental element be deemed integral then I feel strongly that the tenancies should adhere to the same parish based local occupancy to assure that tenants are from local families that will 'fit in' to a village environment. I have been privy to a number of conversations in my office whereby recent developments locally are marred by a higher number of housing association tenants which buyers find off putting and ultimately will devalue open market properties. May sound a bit harsh but I would hate the same to happen in this village.
4. Regards parking, there is an increasing problem particularly on phase one of Pear Tree Park where unnecessary on road parking /part on pavements is beginning to create potential dangerous obstructions on junctions and in such locations that could cause access for emergency vehicles very difficult. I would like assurance that on this development there would be either more off road parking per house (unlikely except with the more expensive family homes) or some form of policing by the dreaded double yellow lines !!!
5. Access to/from the site, my initial thoughts had been that access should not be onto the existing Mayfield Ave which already is used as a bit of a rat run across the village however I can now see that to have access from both sides of the site should share the load however I feel strongly that speed calming measures should be an integral part of the street scene to protect particularly young family members.
6. The current excisting open space at the western end is currently sadly underused I feel because it is ill defined, ill maintained (the grass is so poorly cut that its generally too long to say play football on) As part of the new development it would be nice to see this existing area developed with interesting landscaping. seating etc and in the long term better maintained by the groundkeeping contractors. It could be a very pleasant, well used facility.
7. I had read that there had been suggestion that an allotment area should be incorporated into the site. Much as this facility is creditable and generally very popular I dont feel its something that would sit well on a modern development. By nature they are generally haphazard , sometimes untidy facilities which would be detrimental in such a residential development. As it stands we already have a successful allotment on Moss Lane in a much more suited environment on the edge of the village.
8. In recent years there has been increased flooding issues in parts of the village from undergound water courses and drainage. This scenario is likely to continue and may become worse in years to come. Its paramount that drainage facilities are more than adequate to service any new build and that no chances are taken with regard to building on the areas of the site that are already always wet and that the extra new builds do not in any way adversely affect the existing housing stock locally.
Kind regards
Chris Carr
2. Mr Mike Fell (Individual) : 24 Jan 2018 11:09:00
Having been invited attendees at the consultation on 27 April 2017, and having also attended the public display /consultation on 11 January 2018 we have the following comments to make regarding the Phase 3B Draft Development.
In April 2012 we wrote to the then planning officer Mr Jackson at South Lakeland District Council to highlight our concerns of the then proposed new development for Mayfield Avenue and Pear Tree Park, extracts from which I have referred to in this response. It is now apparent that the majority of issues that we identified regarding highways, foul drainage and surface water drainage were not addressed by SLDC planners or the developer and as a result the adverse impacts that we highlighted have occurred and are now having a significant impact on residents of the adjacent properties which existed prior to the development.
The most significant change since the completion of the development is the increase in surface and ground water flooding of gardens in the older part of Mayfield Avenue and The Crescent. We also understand from the January consultation that the newer properties in the extension of Mayfield Avenue also suffer from significant waterlogging of their gardens. In our letter of 09 April 2002 we stated:
The planning statement identifies that roof drainage will be to soakaways, however, due to the existing ground water problems this may not be possible and could in fact make the existing ground water problems worse.
The developer will need to give careful consideration to accommodating the discharge from the springs within the site to prevent associated problems either within the development site or to the adjacent properties in Mayfield Avenue and The Crescent.
These issues clearly have not been addressed and we are now living with the consequences.
In addition, the 2 detention ponds which were constructed to reduce the impact of road and surface water drainage do not function. At no time during the significant rainfall events that we have experience over the last few years has any water flowed into these ponds from the drainage system. We believe that this may be having an impact on surface water and ground water flooding. This has been highlighted to the CCC highways representatives who have attended both meetings, however to date we are told that no progress has been made in assessing why the drainage system is not functioning as designed.
In terms of highway issues our previous comments were:
The Mayfield Avenue cul-de-sac is only 5m wide, and has significant on street parking, particularly in the early evening, overnight, and at weekends. The proposed connection of this road to the site roads of the Pear Tree Park development would enable Mayfield Avenue to be used as a through road not only from the Pear Tree Park development but also from North Road and Trinity Drive. Opening up a relatively narrow road to through traffic would create a significant traffic, and road safety hazard, that currently does not exist.
Since the completion of the Mayfield Avenue and Pear Tree Park developments we have seen a significant increase in through traffic volumes on the western end of Mayfield Avenue, and in some cases excessive speeds for a relatively narrow residential street. In addition to the vehicles of the property owners there are a significant number of commercial vehicles making deliveries and using the road as a through road between North Road and Milnthorpe Road. At a public consultation in 2002 we were assured that traffic calming measures would be put in place to at least reduce the speed of vehicles, however again this has not been carried out. This proposed new development with an addition 70+ properties will only make this situation worse.
In conclusion we believe that all of the negative impacts that have been created by the last development need to be addressed before any further development is planned, and in addition that a full drainage and hydrology study of the proposed development site and adjacent land needs to be undertaken to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future.
Mr M and Mrs P Fell
16 Mayfield Avenue
Holme
3. Ms. June Howarth (Individual) : 1 Feb 2018 11:37:00
Have we drafted the right VISION for the site? Is it site-specific enough? How could it be improved? (see Section 2 of the Draft Brief)
The site is very prominent; it can be viewed in the approach to the village from Milnthorpe, from the top of Farleton Knott, Twinter Bank and Mayfield Avenue and needs to retain as much as possible of the hedging and tree cover to make it fit into the rural aspect of the village. Without detailed plans of the house style it would be difficult to say whether that is currently planned. There seems to be no detail of the type of features that will deliver energy efficiency-are solar panels to be incorporated when the houses are being built?
Housing needs in the village would be for low cost family homes to encourage young families rather than bungalows; of which there are many in Holme
The improvement of pedestrian links into the village from Milnthorpe Road would be welcomed, there is currently no pavement from the Crescent northwards making it dangerous to walk along . A separate pedestrian route across to Mayfield Avenue and a footpath from the development along Milnthorpe Road would be beneficial, as would improvement to the condition of the existing Limestone Link footpath.
There seems no details regarding the benefits for wildlife; what is to be included and who is to ensure that the features are included, for example swift bricks as the houses are being built, provision for movement of hedgehogs, bat boxes, nesting boxes. This site was the hunting ground for a barn owl in 2016 and hosts several farmland bird species which are in decline, exactly how is the biodiversity spoken of in the vision to be achieved?
I do not think that the current proposals are site specific enough. They do not take into account the major and increasing problems all the houses around this site have with waterlogged and drainage problems. This affects all the houses; the bungalows on Mayfield Avenue, the homes on Milnthorpe Road and the newer houses on Mayfield Avenue and this problem has become worse during the last three years resulting in standing water in some gardens for very long periods. Whether this is a direct consequence of previous developments or a result of the very wet weather we have been experiencing it should make everyone pause to consider the way this development is carried out and whether the houses in the eastern part of the site are at all viable.
The 'play area' would need to be greatly improved drainage and maintenance before it is usable and perhaps a community use for that are could be considered different community orchard or wildflower meadow.
Have we drafted the right DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK for the site? What are your views on the PROPOSALS AND REQUIREMENTS identified? How could they be improved? Are there any we have missed or others we should exclude? (see Section 4 of the Draft Brief)
The two main issues of the site are drainage and traffic.
The drainage must be dealt with without adding to the current problems of waterlogged ground.
The access from Milnthorpe Road is at the bottom of a small hill, the road is narrow and there are no footpaths, sightlines are limited and for this to be safe serious traffic calming measures need to be instigated from the beginning. A bus stop/bay at this entrance to the site could be put into the plans.
The through road will inevitably become busy as people from North Road would cut through to Milnthorpe Road and visa versa, this needs to incorporate traffic calming measures and a separate cycle and pedestrian way. The increase in traffic travelling trough Pear Tree Park will illustrate the difficulties there are with parking on pavements and the subsequent narrowing of the road. Extra visitors parking for the new houses needs to be included to prevent this problem being repeated there.
Overall I am against a through vehicle road from Mayfield Avenue to Milnthorpe Road , it should be a pedestrian/cycle way only.
Have you any other comments about the Draft Development Brief and the Draft Supporting Contextual Information Document?
I feel that many in Holme are concerned regarding the flooding and waterlogging and would like more detailed and comprehensive studies into how to prevent this development adding to the problems and measures to improve the situation being clearly included on the plans, perhaps even put into place before the houses are built. It should not be left to developers whose first concern is building and selling houses.
How are the open spaces going to be managed long term, are any other agencies being asked for advice or if they would like to be involved.
How are the effects of 140 + extra cars in the village going to be planned for and negative effects on road safety prevented.
June Howarth
4. Mr R B F Nicholson (Individual) : 9 Jan 2018 13:57:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Further to your email dated 14 December 2017, I have downloaded the latest version of your above Brief and, with particular respect to the Surface Water Drainage aspects therein, I would now additionally comment as follows:
1. In your eagerness to “push” this flawed scheme, I am concerned that in these latest proposals you have elected to effectively ignore the considered professional opinions expressed on the relevant technical aspects as set forth in my earlier “Comments” on the previous proposals which were forwarded to you under cover of my email dated 17 May 2017.
2. I do note, however, that in the introductory section (para. 3.1 refers) you state that in respect to “existing soakaways within site” the hard-surface water drainage for the earlier “Pear Tree Park - Phase 4” is to such features. Notwithstanding the extensive discussions with SLDC Planning, both after the publication of the related Planning Application for that development in 2006 and through to 2011, the impact of that Development on the local Surface Water Drainage has been disastrous and exacerbated by that decision. At the time I was led to understand that such run off was to be piped off site, however, your above advice further confirms the inadequate technical understanding of SLDC Planners at that time. The basis for that comment is that the local topography comprises the bottom of an ancient glacially eroded valley, such that in the relevant area the subsoil (located immediately below the overlying organic topsoil) comprises a light grey silty very fine glacial till which, even without the resources of a geotechnical laboratory, is clearly impermeable. A necessary corollary of this is that any run off directed to such soakaways merely fills them up and then they overflow into the surrounding area and onwards into the prevailing surface water system. The protracted ongoing problems and the existence of the extensive boggy/waterlogged area in the field comprising the Eastern part of the Site clearly confirms that this is and remains a significant problem.
3. Since that earlier set of Comments, and prior to the substantial flooding events experienced in Holme in late November 2017, excessive short term (2 to 7 days) run off flooding, both to my property and to the property immediately downstream (The Rookery) instigated, inter alia, a thorough jet cleaning of the piping system as far as where SLDC (as the Highway Authority) take over responsibility for what is the sole outfall for the proposed Development Site. (NB. United Utilities were approached, on the basis that this watercourse was a combined drain, but refused to act on he basis that as this water flow did not feed into the local sewerage plant it was outwith their responsibility). Since this area still has intermittent flooding due to this drain being blocked downstream, it is clearly incumbent upon SLDC to “put their house in order” and execute extensive maintenance works on that section of the watercourse.
4. Whilst your proposed Brief still averts to approximately 70+ dwellings on this Development you do not properly address sewerage aspects of proposed Development, whereby the removal of an additional circa 30,000 Litres of effluent (treated or raw) arising from those Dwellings has not been addressed in your draft. As highlighted in my earlier “Comments”, this aspect has to assume a primary importance, since the validity of the scheme has to be predicated by the number of dwellings to be constructed, and the constraints imposed by the already “marginal” capacity of the only outfall and the Site boundaries do not allow for any means of disposal via customary means.
I look forward to hearing from your representatives at the upcoming Holme Parish Hall meeting as to how you can overcome the technical problems and thereby justify proceeding with this Proposal.
For your ease of reference I attach a further copy of those earlier “Comments” which should be considered in conjunction with the above.
Regards,
R.B.F. Nicholson, C.Eng,, M.I.C.E.
(Stakeholder – as Owner of “Silvercroft”)
5. Mr Stephen Toon (Individual) : 5 Feb 2018 16:35:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
6. Mr Robert Wilde (Individual) : 31 Jan 2018 16:32:00
Have we drafted the right VISION for the site? Is it site-specific enough? How could it be improved? (see Section 2 of the Draft Brief)
No further comments on the Draft Brief Vision
Have we drafted the right DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK for the site? What are your views on the PROPOSALS AND REQUIREMENTS identified? How could they be improved? Are there any we have missed or others we should exclude? (see Section 4 of the Draft Brief)
Comment 1: When commenting on previous issues of Development briefs I have been happy with the proposal to have a pedestrian and cycle route from Mayfield Avenue but have made safety comments on the "rat run" between Mayfield Avenue and Pear Tree Park created after Russell Armers phase 4 was completed. There are many people concerned about speeding on this new through route and adding to this by planning for what is another vehicle through route to Milnthorpe road is not helping the situation. Claims can be made as to how the traffic can be slowed down by various methods but considering that the Pear Tree Park/ Mayfield Avenue route is already restricted with parked cars on bends etc.if people want to speed they will speed.From a personal point of view because my driveway exits onto Pear TreePark close to the bend where the new Mayfield Avenue access is proposed, I have been nearly hit by speeding vehicles a number of times as I cannot see around the bend. Also, children now use the SLDC open area across the road and cross the road from the footpath parallel to the stream to the open area on bikes/scooters etc. without stopping. This is a disaster waiting to happen please do not increase the chances of accidents by engineeing a new route that will increase the traffic flow.
Comment 2: In all the proposals I have seen over the 6 years or so that the Development Framework has been formulated I have never seen or heard mentioned that some houses will be built on the eastern field. Indeed all the representations made to me about the housing has indicated that the houses will be built west of the hedgerow shown on the latest proposals map. Also that all access for builders etc. will be from Milnthorpe road. Therefore it was a surprise to see housing being proposed on the Eastern field indicated as item 3 on the latest map. Having read the item pertaining to Character Area 3 on page 19 of the Development Brief, that states, "careful layout and orientation of the development within the eastern field to avoid any intrusive overlooking of the existing housing that bounds this area", I cannot perceive of any placement of houses within that eastern field that would be any more obtrusive to the surrounding houses than the indicated placement i.e.the placement of those houses in the center of the field will obscure anybody's view that lives in a house bounding that area.
Pertaining to the above comments, section 3 "constraints and Opportunities" on page 4 states that "a key opportunity is to position new open space immediately adjacent to the existing SLDC open space, to build a critical mass and focal point". It seems to me building houses in the eastern field does not facilitate this sentiment and in fact will be an oppotunity lost.
It was also intriguing to learn that the eastern field is owned by Russell Armer, the very company that told me when I bought my house from them, that once phase 4 was completed the view across the rest of the fields would be open aspect.
With the requirement that about 25% of the eastern end of the Development should be provided for INFORMAL OPEN SPACE is it really necessary for houses to be built on that eastern field? I am assuming that the indicated area F on the latest map i.e. the formal play area is NOT considered as part of the INFORMAL OPEN SPACE and is not part of the about 0.9 hectares. If that is the case there cannot be much of that eastern field left for building so why not leave it as open space. By the way the Cumbria Wildlife Trust idea for having a lake in the field is a great idea given that the field is so wet and the issues with flooding on Mayfield road properties that have gone on for many years.
Have you any other comments about the Draft Development Brief and the Draft Supporting Contextual Information Document?
Not at the moment.
7. Mrs Judith Wilde (Individual) : 9 Feb 2018 10:22:00
My comments pertain specifically to the area marked E on the map, described as 'Informal public open space'.
I understand that this area east of the hedge is owned by the builders Russell Armer. At the last public meeting which I attended, a portion of this field now has the potential for houses to be built on it (dependent on planning permission).
In this relatively small area, it is now proposed to build an access road to Mayfield Avenue ( in line with Cumbria County Councils emerging Cumbria Design Guide), and incorporate Area F to extend the play area. The later adjustment is because the Environmental Agency require an undeveloped buffer area adjacent to Holme Beck for maintenance; thus reducing the size of the current public open space. Neither of these fall into the remit of Informal Public Open Space under present government terminology. Pedestrian walkways and cycle ways are considered 'Active Travel Links', but not an access road for vehicles. I suggest this leaves little space for additional housing in this area (E).
[Active Travel Links are mentioned in the November Draft Development Brief Summary, under the heading of Informal Public Open Space - section E or 'What type of Open Space is proposed?'] I would not expect roads, childrens' play area or meeting halls to be considered as part of the 25% Informal Public Open Space allocated in the current plans.
Yours faithfully Judith Wilde
8. Mr Ian Wilkinson (Individual) : 7 Feb 2018 19:19:00
Have we drafted the right VISION for the site? Is it site-specific enough? How could it be improved? (see Section 2 of the Draft Brief)
The site occupies a prominent location and as such is particularly visible when entering the village from Milnthorpe. The site is overlooked by properties on Twinter Bank and Mayfield Avenue. The development must be designed such that because of its prominent location it does not impose on the existing properties in the village and that it integrates sympathetically both with the existing properties and the surrounding countryside. Construction of dwellings greater than 2 storeys would not be acceptable. The development should consist of a mix of energy efficient, affordable homes such that the needs of local requirements, particularly for first time buyers and young families.
The provision of a pavement along Milnthorpe Road to the village would be a necessity, there are safety concerns for anyone walking the current section without any pavement. A pedestrian link from the site through to Mayfield Avenue to link with existing footpaths would be beneficial.
The 'Vision' mentions provision of green spaces to benefit people and wildlife. The extended play area indicated for Area 3 is one such place, but there are drainage and waterlogging problems throughout Area 3. With respect to wildlife there is scant detail except for Cumbria Wildlife Trust's suggestion of a small pond. The site is supports much wildlife including a hunting Barn Owl, Heron and Little Egret feeding in the wet area near the hedge, many farmland bird species (most of which are in decline both nationally and locally), field voles and shrews (prey for the Barn Owl). Many birds use the hedges and trees as nesting and roosting sites - there is little detail of how much hedging and trees will be retained.
There are persistent and worsening problems regarding drainage and waterlogging affecting properties on Mayfield Avenue and Milnthorpe Road. The newer properties on Milnthorpe Road which back onto Area 3 all suffer with poor drainage and standing water in their gardens. Local drainage and potential flooding problems should be properly identified, addressed and necessary measures taken to alleviate the problem, and not let the new development make the issue worse. Is Area 3 really suitable for development?
In view of the drainage problems I would suggest Area 3 is a great 'opportunity to protect, enhance and create wildlife habitats' as mentioned in the Council's Building for Life principles.
Have we drafted the right DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK for the site? What are your views on the PROPOSALS AND REQUIREMENTS identified? How could they be improved? Are there any we have missed or others we should exclude? (see Section 4 of the Draft Brief)
The main areas of concern are:
1.Traffic
Implementation of a safe access junction from Milnthorpe Road into the site. The proposed location is at the bottom of a small incline where the road is narrow, sightlines are poor, and of course there is no footpath. Traffic calming measures and adequate signage would be a minimum requirement, but a roundabout would be a better solution if this could be installed.
A through road linking to Mayfield Avenue would create a rat-run from North Road through Pear Tree Park and through the development. The narrow roads of Pear Tree Park and Mayfield Avenue already suffer from parked cars, inappropriate driving speeds etc. so the potential increase in traffic through these roads and through the new development would only make the problem worse. The proposed junction with Mayfield Avenue is also on a bend, creating a further hazard. The link between the new development and Mayfield Avenue should be pedestrian/cycle only.
2. Drainage
The issues concerning drainage/flooding must be properly addressed and the proposed development must not be allowed to make the current problems worse.
9. Russell Armer , c/o Steven Abbott Associates LLP : 9 Feb 2018 10:14:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Have you any other comments about the Draft Development Brief and the Draft Supporting Contextual Information Document?
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
10. Mr Jeremy Pickup, Environment Agency : 9 Jan 2018 12:49:00
Draft Development Brief Consultation: East of Milnthorpe Road, Holme
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above draft development brief.
Overall we are supportive of the content of the draft document and welcome the provision of a buffer strip alongside Holme Beck and the incorporation of issues raised in our previous consultation responses.
Yours faithfully
Jeremy Pickup
Planning Advisor - Sustainable Places
11. Mrs Lindsay Alder, Highways England : 30 Jan 2018 16:28:00
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the consultation on the draft development brief for land East of Milnthorpe Road, Holme.
Having read through the document and looked at where this development lies, I can inform you that Highways England has no objection to the development brief.
I have no specific comments to make who regard this document at this time.
Please feel free to contact me if you require any further assistance.
Kind Regards, Lindsay
Lindsay Alder, Assistant Asset Manager
12. Ms Gillian Laybourn, Historic England (North West Region) : 5 Jan 2018 11:26:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
13. Mr Medwin John Sherriff, Holme Parish Council : 24 Jan 2018 09:28:00
Having read the documents, I feel that the Brief does not adequately take account of the wider community concerns. These have been clearly set out in the Holme Community Led Plan, which though not a statutory planning document, does contain ample reference to the aspirations of the community, developed from public consultation. In particular, we
recognise that there may not be an opportunity to substantially redraft the document to take account of our concerns.
That being so, we will prepare a more detailed reply which will be formulated as the public consultation proceeds.
Immediately, I forward comments regarding specific issues relating to a Community Hall, Open Space and Recreation Provision, Road Design and Footpaths.
Community Hall
In the detailed discussions which we had, one of the principal issues of concern to the Holme Parish community is the identification of possible land for a new community hall. While it was explained that this could not be a specific proposal within the Brief, it does not appear to have been mentioned. I would have expected it to appear under Other Guidance in Appendix 1, where I think we must insist on a specific mention of the Holme CLP and its proposals.
The issues which should be included are: -
- The need to make provision, given the planned development within Holme, of a suitable community building ( the details of 'how', need not be part of the brief)
- The fact that such a building would be considered appropriate within the area identified for 'Informal Open Space' - this would be in principal, and subject to specific negotiations with the developer, and the local planning authority, but must not be contrary to any approved planning policies for SLDC
- An indication of the manner in which any such building could be located with appropriate access and parking
Open Space and Recreation Provision
Again, this was part of a detailed discussion. In my view, it was quite clear that the 'kick about' area could not, without considerable investment, ever be a useable 'active recreation' space, as well as being too small for a full size football pitch. It is therefore part of the target '25%' open space, which makes the community hall proposal more feasible.
Specific mention should perhaps be made of the tenure for the whole of the space shown - would it be owned/managed by SLDC, or the Parish Council?
Road Design
There is, I believe, a specific term for a design which gives priority to pedestrians but I have not noticed any such suggestion that, at the point where the access road enters the development area, it is made clear that pedestrians take priority over motor vehicles. This to me is a must, if this road is not to become a dangerous rat run. Pear Tree Park now
suffers from inappropriate speeds which cause great concern.
Footpath and Cycle Links
These should be identified and specified as an important part of the brief to encourage easy access and healthy exercise to all parts of the village, especially the School, Post Office, Shop, Church and Smithy Inn.
We draw to your attention to the fact that there is no contiguous footpath along the length of Milnthorpe Road from the identified exit point along to "The Crescent". Though the brief indicates that pedestrian links exist to the village centre via Mayfield, it seems likely that residents of any new development would use Milnthorpe Road, particularly as this gives direct access to local buses ( 555 service)., and the community sports field. In view of the increased danger that would arise if this proves so, we consider it prudent to indicate an upgraded footpath within the brief along Milnthorpe Road to "The Crescent".
I trust these observations will be both useful and helpful in the coming consultation period.
14. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 29 Jan 2018 15:58:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
15. Mr Carl Bunnage, North Yorkshire County Council : 5 Jan 2018 11:20:00
Thank you for consulting North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) on the Draft Development Brief Consultation: East Milnthorpe Road, Holme.
It is noted that this consultation follows on from the Issues and Options Consultation carried out earlier this year, at which time NYCC officers reviewed the Consultation and concluded that the document did not give rise to any strategic cross boundary issues and had no comments to make.
The current consultation has been reviewed and once again officers have no further comments to make.
North Yorkshire County Council welcome the opportunity to engage with neighbouring authorities, and consider this part of ongoing dialogue under the Duty to Cooperate.
I trust you find this information helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Michelle Saunders
Senior Policy Officer
16. Ms Jenny Hope, United Utilities Limited : 9 Feb 2018 10:26:00
Please accept this email as confirmation that United Utilities has reviewed your document and at this stage has no detailed comments to make.
There are no existing water or wastewater infrastructure within the site boundaries that would have any material impact on future proposed layouts, however there is a gravity sewer (foul only) that runs behind the existing properties, we note this has been flagged as a constraint within the document.
Interested parties are recommended to discuss the implication of this sewer with Developer Services (WastewaterDeveloperServices@uuplc.co.uk) at the earliest possible opportunity.
Best regards
Jenny
Jenny Hope
Planning Manager
17. Ms Lucy Bartley, Wood Plc on behalf of National Grid : 5 Jan 2018 16:18:00
National Grid has appointed Amec Foster Wheeler to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf.
We have reviewed the above consultation document and can confirm that National Grid has no comments to make in response to this consultation.
Yours faithfully
Hannah Lorna Bevins
Consultant Town Planner