Dire consequences of building more homes in CLitheroe

editorial image
2
Have your say

Ribble Valley Borough Council turned down an earlier application for homes at Waddow View due to it being unsuitable, yet this new proposal does not address many of the issues deemed to make the previous one unworkable.

I visited the new development in Low Moor a fortnight ago and, before even reaching it, I realised the error of permission having been granted, due to dreadful traffic problems, so didn’t bother to look inside any properties. The decision is not reversible.

The planned Waddow View development would cause similar dreadful problems for the proposed link road for buses and emergency vehicles between it and Kirkmoor Road, using the already dreadful junctions of Kirkmoor Road/Castle View/Edisford Road/Bawdlands Bridge. The very thought is ludicrous.

Not only that, but also the dreadful junction of Waddington Road/Railway View (under the railway bridge where it is known to flood) which already has appalling queues at busy times could not cope with the extra traffic generated by the likelihood of well over 550 extra vehicles in and out of Waddow View several times a day. These would be in addition to over 100 vehicles generated by the Milton Avenue development several times a day.

Ours is a market town (ie rural) not a city centre, yet driving would become as difficult as negotiating city streets, if not more so, without suitable alternative routes when there are floods, roadworks and/or accidents. Traffic could come to a standstill for long periods of time.

So many extra houses covering so much water absorbing soil would mean heavy rain having less water-penetrating soil, so would cause more flooding.

A pedestrian crossing near Waddington Bridge would not be safe. The pavements are too narrow and cannot be widened due to the fact the only way to do so would be to narrow the roadsand forbid parking.

Clitheroe town centre would become less desirable for shopping by local folk and outsiders due to parking being insufficient.

Where would the extra dogs living in these houses be allowed to exercise off their leads? Dog owners are now prevented from using open spaces, even when most of them ensure they pick up their dogs faeces?

What about schools for all the children of families moving into Clitheroe? Our schools are overcrowded as it is, without space to grow. Would parents be expected to pay for children to be shipped out to other areas by bus or, worse still and more likely, clog up our roads to drive them there?

The extra fumes from vehicles (and idling in traffic jams, too) would be very bad for the health of residents; especially the very young, the elderly and those with problems such as asthma.

New schools would need to be built, but where and who would pay for them? Us council tax payers? Schools would need to be built before any houses, not after, or is the plan to use prefabs in playgrounds? More children with smaller playgrounds would mean overcrowded playgrounds and more accidents, as children do not always look where they are going when playing.

I believe the above reasons to turn down this application are obvious and very valid. It is far better to be wise before the event, not after. All these proposed houses would cause so many permanent problems, changing our town for the worse; ie if they were built, the decision could not be reversed.

J.R. Ratcliffe (Mrs),

Clitheroe