....with some suggestions of objection if anyone would like to consider and launch them.
4. Light pollution.
You can read more on the Planning Application HERE and lodge your own objection quoting application number 14/00618/CU to dcconsultation@lancashire.gov.
And here's another bad idea.
I'm currently digging into this one, meanwhile here's what I know about the story so far which I find both disturbing and unbelievable....
There are plans to redirect a sewage outfall into the mouth of the River Lune. Although treated, it will only be semi-treated and will affect the water quality in the mouth of the river, this will affect the eco-system and the bird life. The sewage is being redirected because the safer proposed route out into the bay has come across problems, so it is easier to dump the sewage in the River Lune.
Re application number: 14/00618/CU Proposed Caravan Site at Cockersands.
1. Road Infrastructure.
The only access to the proposed new caravan site is via Moss Lane. This is a single track road with only a few passing places. There are several 90 degree corners at which accidents have occurred the most recent resulting in a car ending up in one of the dykes. Already the traffic increase during the summer months causes blockades and detrimental wear to the road surface. To add vehicles for another 42 residencies and their families to this seems highly irresponsible to the existing road and its users.
2. Environmental Impact.
While I appreciate the application supplied an environmental impact report it seems to only concern itself with the actual grounds that will be built upon. My concern is with the increased unsuitable recreational uses on the sands themselves. As a birder I've noticed a decline in the diversity and number of wading birds on the sands between Crook Farm and Cockersands Holiday Park. Whilst much of this can be explained by wider environmental factors, some of this is due to the increased use of vehicles on the shore in this area which is especially evident on Plover Scar.
3.Contradiction in Application.
In the supporting notes to the application, it is claimed that past approval for the conversion of existing dwellings into three holiday cottages signifies 'the re-use of the existing buildings on site for holiday accommodation is acceptable in principle'. I would argue there is a significant difference between the impact of three holiday cottages and 42 chalets.
While the plans do not show lighting for the individual plots, 42 chalets would require at least one light each, plus driveway lighting. This will increase the light pollution.
And here's another bad idea.
I'm currently digging into this one, meanwhile here's what I know about the story so far which I find both disturbing and unbelievable....
There are plans to redirect a sewage outfall into the mouth of the River Lune. Although treated, it will only be semi-treated and will affect the water quality in the mouth of the river, this will affect the eco-system and the bird life. The sewage is being redirected because the safer proposed route out into the bay has come across problems, so it is easier to dump the sewage in the River Lune.
No comments:
Post a Comment