2 responses from Mr Phil Doherty (Individual)
1. Mr Phil Doherty (Individual) : 26 May 2008 09:20:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
The Preferred Option - PO3 - Distribution of Development
Please state as clearly as you can the exact part of the Report you are commenting on by quoting the page number (if known), paragraph number, option name or number, or the number of the map, figure or table.
Page 50. The proposed % of development for Ulverston at 20% of the Total resulting in 1804 extra dwellings over the period
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Oppose
Please write your comment or explain your reasons for supporting or opposing this part of the Report. You may also wish to refer to the tests of soundess in the glossary of the Preferred Options document before making your comments.
1. The amount of extra housing proposed in Ulverston is too large. With about 5500 dwellings at the moment the 1804 extra dwellings proposed is an increase of about 33%. This is too large an increase for a small market town and will impact the character of the town. The proposed increase for Kendal is only around 27%.
2. Ulverstons dominant employer has always been Glaxo with 1900 employed there in the early 1990s. With the 400 job losses in 2002 and the 330 job losses announced in February 2008 there will soon only be 210 left employed there. It is likely that these remaining jobs will go within the period covered by the report. These job losses will cause significant reduction in demand for housing in Ulverston as Senior staff are moved to other locations by Glaxo and others have to move away to find new jobs.This means that most of the extra housing proposed will not be required.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
The percentage of the additional development to be applied to Ulverston should be reduced to 5-10%.
2. Mr Phil Doherty (Individual) : 26 May 2008 09:42:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
The Preferred Option - PO12 - Ulverston Functional Area 2025
Please state as clearly as you can the exact part of the Report you are commenting on by quoting the page number (if known), paragraph number, option name or number, or the number of the map, figure or table.
Page 137 Point 1 and Point 2 Development to the South of Croftlands Ulverston
Figure 24 Ulverston Functional Area Strategy Diagram
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Oppose
Please write your comment or explain your reasons for supporting or opposing this part of the Report. You may also wish to refer to the tests of soundess in the glossary of the Preferred Options document before making your comments.
I oppose the Development to the South of the Croftlands Estate in Ulverston.
1. The existing Croftlands Estate already extends the boundary of Ulverston a long way from the town centre towards Birkrigg Common. Further developement in this direction will spoil the views from Birkrigg Common and will push the town much further out into the countryside. Options exist to infill open areas closer to the town centre.
2.This area has a public footpath through it from the rear of the Lancastrian Pub which is the only footpath into the countryside for the people living on the Croftlands Estate. The path is extensively used by local people for walks, exercise,taking dogs for walks etc. Loss of this footpath in the countryside would be a significant loss to the community.
3. Due to the recent announcement of 330 job losses at Glaxo and the likely eventual closure of the plant demand for housing in the area is likely to be reduced for many years as people move away to find alternative jobs. The extra housing is not required on this scale.
4. The fields to the South of West Hills Drive and behind the Lancastrian Pub are prone to flooding and have standing water for weeks at a time.
5. This area will be too far from Ulverston Town Centre to walk so everyone will drive causing additional congestion in the town centre.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
That the area to the South of West Hills Drive and Birchwood drive be removed as the preferred direction of growth.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
I suggest that the amount of new housing be substandially reduced and that this is done in the following areas.
1.Urswick Road see p135 option 1-Development can occur here while still maintaining a green gap between Ulverston and Swartmoor.
2.Dragely Beck see p135 option 3
3.North West Swarthmoor see p135 option
Development in these areas will be of a more infill nature preventing the sprawl of Ulverston out into the countryside.
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination
Adopted by the District Council