Local Development Framework Consultation

No further comments on the Draft Brief Vision

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.

Not at the moment.