Response from Mr and Mrs John and Pauline Gibson (Individual)
1. Mr and Mrs John and Pauline Gibson (Individual) : 4 Jul 2008 15:14:00
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.
May we take this chance,before your deadline on 09/06/2008,to air our concerns for our village regarding plans up for consideration affecting Burton.
Your map on line certainly left a lot to be desired as far as clarity is concerned ,being out of focus.
Social infrastructure,including the network of roads in question,would certainly not cope.Indeed it is difficult now to get round the village due in part to the roads being narrow,as well as conjested with cars parked day and night,usually meaning two cars cannot pass without one giving way for the other.Also on health and safety grounds regarding fire,police and ambulance,further loading on the structure would be fool hardy,inparticular down Tanpits Lane,Neddy Hill and Station Lane.
Furthermore,the physical infrastructure cannot cope now.United Utilities are called out on a regular basis to the pumping station in St.James's Drive,evidence of which was documented in the Westmorland Gazette last year.Several houses flooded with sewage,and not always when it rains!Further overload would be catastrophic.
The environment would also be adversly affected,creating urban impression.No priorities appear to be noted about any local clauses for any more houses.Indeed,are more houses needed?
Why if any more"employment sites"are needed,are further considerations not being given to areas around Crooklands/Milness areas by Junction 36,indeed any development closer to the motorway area around Burton could indeed proove fatal in the long run as pressure on the m6 increases,and anything in closer proximity than currently exists could well be asking for trouble.