Response from Mr Colin Pickthall, Ulverston Labour Party
1. Mr Colin Pickthall, Ulverston Labour Party : 8 Jul 2008 14:36:00
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.
i. We are deeply concerned at the very tight time-scale for responses following the public exhibition of the strategy in Ulverston on 15.5.2008, requiring responses within 15 days. This is unreasonable – particularly for organisations like ours who need to discuss the issues raised with their members.
ii. Despite the laudable policy mentioned in 2.29, there is no
specific comment in the sections relating to Ulverston about “affordable housing” for Ulverston, nor about housing for disabled people, housing designated for local people, nor for housing designated for key workers. The proposals which put forward the area to the south of Croftlands as the area which would have the bulk of the new housing, suggest that affordable housing is hardly on the agenda.
iii. There is no evidence in the document that any effort has been
made to assess the number of empty houses and flats in the
town at present, which our anecdotal knowledge suggests is
considerable; nor is there any argument to justify the total
housing need projected.
.II. Projected town extension proposals.
I We agree with the development of Ulverston Canal
Employment Area, as outlined but would wish to see
addressed the fact that it would be a mixed area with a
present and future housing admixture.
ii. We agree with the green gap between Croftlands and
iii. We disagree strongly with the proposed extension of housing
Development to the south of West Hills Drive and Birchwood Drive, chiefly on the same grounds that lead us to support the green gap between the existing estates and Swarthmoor. It seems to us of the utmost importance that the built-up area should encroach no further upon the open farmland, and, more importantly, upon the approaches to Birkrigg Moor, the vicinity’s outstanding landscape feature.
iv. If the level of need for new housing is as the plan guesses, why could it not be placed at least in part on the areas at 2 & 3 designated on the UFASD as “Employment” ?
v. The plan for the town centre itself is little short of pathetic. The addition of a small supermarket is irrelevant to the town’s commercial success. Improving the visitor footfall by developing an attractive walk between the centre and Ford Park/Hoad Hill would benefit the business centre as well as the Town’s major visitor attraction.