WE are writing to express our objection to the Clitheroe cemetery development planning application.
While we are sympathetic to the requirements of the council and need to provide more space for the burial of the borough’s loved ones, we are extremely concerned with the proposed development of an additional access point. Our objections to this application are on the following grounds:
1) The new access road will need construction of a fourth access point to a busy B road within 40m, on a tight bend just over the blind brow of a hill. We are aware additional access and egress points have previously been refused at this point, including a request for a change of access to our own property on the grounds of safety. We have lived in our property over 20 years and are acutely aware of the traffic hazards created by the existing access points and believe the allowance of an additional access point is foolhardy as it will only exasperate an already dangerous area.
2) The development will destroy mature deciduous trees in the construction of this access point and the road that will lead from this point.
3) The development will impact on the community’s enjoyment of this area of natural beauty.
4) The creation of the new access point is not required as an alternative solution could be implemented, such as the widening of the existing access point.
5) We believe the scheme and primarily the new access point will have a detrimental effect on road safety and the local and more widespread community.
6) The plans for the cemetery development do not appear to make any further allowance for vehicular parking other than those currently used by dog walkers in the new proposed vehicular access area. This will further compromise road safety in the area as vehicles will be, as currently happens during a funeral, parked on both sides of the B6478 adjacent to the cemetery. Thus, causing an already dangerous area, evidence provided by the existence of “SLOW” warnings and the provision of flashing 30 MPH signs on a random basis to be even more so.
MR AND MRS S. REECE,