Comments and Questions on:
General issues
| General issues | |||
| Comment no.: | Q235 | Date: | 14/09/2014 17:39 |
| Comment by: | Justin Beveridge | Post code: | NN9 6AR |
| Following last nights presentation, it got the old grey cells going. I am still in support of development along Caldecott road on the RHS as you approach the village from Church House up to the horse chestnut tree at the junction to Bidwell Lane for the reasons outlined in my email last week and in addition it would reinforce the one sided development that is seen as a key characteristic of our two settlements. I therefore challenge the LGS category applied to the affected area of the Church House field, however my key development is set out below: Bidwell Lane is seen as a rat run? Why not enlist the two land owners that boarder the road up to the thirty mile limit and ask them to install a footpath on the church side of the tree line and in so doing provide a safe footpath for walkers without enhancing the roadway which would inevitably increase and not decrease traffic volumes. In addition provide a dedicated seated viewing area to properly appreciate the views of the listed church and take a wide enough strip of land to allow planting of a tree lined walk up to the cottages at the corner. The provision of such path would be a condition of development of the Dutchy’s proposed new houses and the development along Caldecott road at some point beyond the 20 year term of the current NDP assuming there is a concencus at that time. I think that addressees a lot of issues! |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q234 | Date: | 14/09/2014 17:27 |
| Comment by: | Roger Hepher | Post code: | Savills |
| Below are the representations on the draft plan on behalf of Chelveston Renewable Energy. I shall be grateful if you will confirm receipt, and that the representations will be taken fully into account as the Neighbourhood Plan is progressed. As a major local land owner and employer, CRE is keen to have a co-operative relationship with the local community and its Parish Council. We will therefore be pleased to discuss these representations with you in due course. Regards. Para 2.1. An important part of sustainability is for there to be enough suitable local jobs to minimise the need for outward commuting (a feature of the Parish acknowledged in the draft plan). Throughout the plan, the emphasis is largely on housing development, and the need for a sufficient and appropriate employment is given little emphasis. Para 2.3, Fig 5.1. No justification has been given for seeking to restrict renewable energy activities to the northern end of the old Chelveston Airfield. Subject to appropriate screening and other measures, the whole of the former airfield is potentially suitable for such activities, and there is no justification for imposing an arbitrary limit. Renewable energy development is desirable in terms of the NPPF; para 97, for example, says that, \\"local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources\\". It is also supported by the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy; para 4.14, for example, says, \\"it is anticipated that new wind energy development proposals and decentralised biomass fuelled power plants will, in principle, be considered favourably in North Northamptonshire\\", and beneficial development should not be frustrated by an arbitrary measure. The draft Neighbourhood Plan acknowledges (section 1.1) that it must conform to the policies contained in both documents. Policy H1. Additional housing on the former barracks site to the east of Chelston Rise would make that settlement more sustainable, without developing on land that has not previously been developed. Policy H4i not only refers to the 400m sterilisation zone, which we address in our representations relating to Policy REN1, but goes on to say that \\"No developments will be permitted on undeveloped fields or naturalised green field sites outside the settlement boundary, and outside the EC1d and REN1 boundaries, other than for agricultural use\\". This policy is substantially more restrictive than Green Belt policy, and is neither supported by evidence as to why such a restrictive policy is justified, nor by policy in higher level documents. We acknowledge that the amenities of the Chelston Rise houses must be taken into proper account in any planning decisions, but that is a function for the development management process. Policy RoW (page 72). Chelveston Renewable Energy is keen to work with the Parish Council and the local planning authorities to make the central right of way across the former airfield safer and more attractive to users, particularly by separating vehicular traffic from the surface used by pedestrians and horses. This improvement should be referred to in the policy, and in Policy REN1. Policy EC makes no reference to the potential for additional employment to be created at the Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, with the supporting text saying this is \\"Because of the negative impact on its amenity value\\". Whilst the precise meaning of this phrase is unclear, if it is being claimed that any additional employment will necessarily have an unacceptable effect upon amenity, this is not supported by evidence, and is in any event a judgement that can only properly be made on a case-by-case basis. Policy REN. The second part of this policy is inconsistent with the NPPF and the NNCSS, as noted above. Furthermore, the proposed policy appears not based upon evidence. Why would it be objectionable to construct additional turbines if these are seen as part of the existing cluster? Why should further anaerobic digestion facilities or solar PV arrays be prevented if it can be shown that they would not be objectionable in planning terms? Why should activities increasing vehicular activity be prevented if it can be shown that there would be no sustainable safety or amenity objection? Imposing arbitrary restrictions is not consistent with the requirement of the NPPF that development plans should be evidence based, and that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy REN1. The former airfield should be regarded as Previously Developed Land, in that there remains clear evidence of the former use. The features listed at (B) are not the only surviving features; furthermore, they themselves can only be understood by the observer in the context of the former airfield use. Para D is misleading. The site is crossed by a number of footpaths and bridleways, which it is accepted have some amenity value. However, the majority of the site has no amenity function except insofar as grassland and energy structures may to some degree enhance the experience of pedestrians and riders. Re para E, as noted above, the draft Plan contains no evidence that existing traffic movements are objectionable according to any objective test, and any future proposals should be assessed on their merits. In any event, further development would not necessarily increase vehicular activity (for example, once installed, solar PV arrays generate less vehicular activity than many agricultural activities). Some of the stipulations in para G are arbitrary, and have no rational basis: in particular, i, ii and v. Others are simply a statement of matters that would in any event be taken into account in the determination of any planning application, and it is inappropriate for them to be included in a policy document. The sterilisation zone adjacent to Chelston Rise, referred to in para H, has no evidential basis, and should not be included in the plan. Any proposals for this previously developed land should be considered on their merits, and development should not be ruled out for arbitrary reasons. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q233 | Date: | 28/08/2014 17:20 |
| Comment by: | Justin Beveridge | Post code: | Meadowview |
| I am concerned about the inclusion of Local Green Spaces into the Chelveston and Caldecott NDP, in particular LGS8 and LGS9. It appears that the introduction of Green Space protection takes the NDP way beyond the working parties mandate, which clearly states that it = intends to define a plan for our community covering 2015-2035. It is my understanding that if Local Green Spaces are adopted they will remain in perpetuity, and will therefore never be developed. I personally, along with around a significant number of other residents, wanted to see development along Caldecott road from the entrance to Bidwell Lane and Church House as in my opinion it adds integrity to the community, bringing the currently isolated housing along Caldecott Road into the Village of Caldecott. Accepting that this would not take place within the scope of the NDP it seems that you are now introducing a restriction on development that = will never see any such development which is not what I, and many others understood to be your mandate. I very much support the need to protect existing views that defined Caldecott and so would welcome the protection of the beautiful existing views of the Church from Bidwell Lane and along the existing footpaths. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q230 | Date: | 07/08/2014 10:03 |
| Comment by: | Roger Norman | Post code: | NN14 4DH - Outside Parish |
| From: Roger Norman – land owner of Site 2 (page 12 – Our Plan) Since Site 2 is being transferred to Stanwick Parish, it is outside the Neighbourhood Plan Area. Therefore, the Chelveston-cum-Caldecott Neighbourhood Plan cannot set policy relating to this site. The statements on page 12 about presumptions on the future use of Site 2 should therefore be removed completely from the plan. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q200 | Date: | 10/02/2014 14:21 |
| Comment by: | Dave Pannell | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| I have been a resident of Chelveston for over 30 years, and like the majority of us who live in Chelveston at this moment of time, enjoy the luxury of the views the village has to offer, and we do not want these views to be interrupted. I must point out here, the majority of us live in areas that have been planned and voted on by those villagers before us. They have taken bold steps from their perspective to create what we have and enjoy today. From my perspective, those who planned forty years ago had the foresight to restrict Duchy Close in the village expansion. It is our turn to plan and vote for what developments happens in the next twenty years, it is our turn to be bold and to see a positive future for the village, so in twenty years time future residents will have their say whether they want to expand, and how much by. The problem is, there is pressure from outer forces for villages like ours to expand with more housing, and if the majority do not vote, it is quite possible these outer forces may well have their say, and that may well destroy what we have in our hands to do today. We must think of the future as a whole for the village, not individual problems that may be overcome when/should those plans be submitted at some future time. I therefore urge each and every resident to look at the plans, read what has been said at the meetings, and vote for the minimum we can accept. It is our time be bold, take the decision, and vote even if you are not sure, cannot be bothered or think it does not concern you, for it does, and very much so. Dave Pannell 20, Duchy Close |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q199 | Date: | 09/02/2014 15:53 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AH - Higham Road |
| Extracted from: NDP-0171 Having sat through the six meetings and listened to the proposals we would like to share with you some of our initial thoughts. The Neighbourhood Development Plan affords a unique opportunity to influence the future of our village community and the efforts of you and the NDP working group are to be applauded. However it is apparent from the village attendance at the meetings that outside the areas of immediate interest and impact there seems to be apathy about the future development of Chelveston/Caldecott/ Chelston Rise as a whole. At the time of the 2012 survey, we were of the opinion that if development is inevitable then it should be focussed on linking the three communities together with controlled development. Our views have, as a result of the six meetings on aspirational sites changed and we now feel that the three locations should retain their relative independent character and the links should be social with physical links via footpaths and cycle ways. Future housing plans should therefore be largely independent. Comments extracted here for NDP-S013, NDP-S021, NDP-S017, NDP-S005, NDP-S018, NDP-S006 and NDP-S009 In conclusion whatever the agreed upon plan, it should move us towards what the residents feel would contribute to the rural community that the majority sought when moving into the area. In this context when deciding upon the merits of the proposals residents should consider whether the impact of the proposals on the rural community either individually or collectively is positive, negative or neutral. We personally would prefer to see smaller 1-5 house developments (e.g. Britten Close) rather than large ones such as the 50 proposed for Duchy Field. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q190 | Date: | 09/02/2014 10:19 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AN - Kimbolton Road |
| Over the consultations there have been many people wishing to build extra properties on what they deem to be excess gardens or land - the main reason offered was that they are getting older and can no longer manage the upkeep of their gardens - this is one way of looking at it - however I do feel that in a lot of cases the real reason is financial gain and I would have more sympathy if people were more upfront about this - squeezing an extra 2 houses into your land is about money by maximising the return , if not, then build just 1 with a reasonable garden ( which new people to the village would be delighted to own) - or if it isn't about money where is the offer of a sizeable donation to the upkeep of the village etc? Honesty goes a long way in most peoples minds and they know when they are being fed a line.... See: Q190 for a response from the land owners at NDP-S017. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q188 | Date: | 07/02/2014 14:57 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C006 | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| General discussion on session: NDP-C006 Reviewing sites in Britten Close and Kimbolton Road: C. All of the proposals submitted across the Village are a concern - what's to stop the Village doubling in size now? A. Cllr Adrian Dale explained the process we are following, and the fact that residents need to vote on each proposal to decide whether they go forward to the preferred options stage. The purpose of these consultation events is for residents to ask the detailed questions and make comments to help people make up their minds. We have had nearly 120 different people attending the consultations, and over 75 households represented which is over 1/3 of the households in the Village. Some post codes have had a 100% attendance record - others less than 5%. We need to ensure a high turnout for the vote to ensure that peoples' views are heard. C. New roads are a dangerous way forward in my opinion. You can always add houses to both sides. We don't want a sprawling Village extending out beyond its existing boundaries. We should develop smaller parcels of land in the Village. A. Cllr Adrian Dale explained that this is exactly what has happened for the last 20 years of restricted in-fill. However, all the available in-fill space is now full. The question for residents is where next? There are 21 offers and it is up to residents to decide which ones they prefer. Discussion on NDP-S017 - Combined proposal Britten Close: C. I really don't like the idea of the accesses off Britten Close, especially the option with a doubled drive near number 1. It is hard enough already for me to reverse safely off my drive opposite. A. (response from land owners) No-one has to reverse off their larger than average driveways and this is true of the driveways opposite our properties in Britten Close. However, when they do reverse from their driveways, they do so reversing their vehicles away from the access to No1 Britten Close. Therefore, this claim is being made without foundation. Statement from land owners added as a response after the meeting: Regarding our propositions, you will recall that on Thursday evening during the set up of our 4 sites we explained that our presentation would cover all 4 submissions. During this stage we answered many residents questions concerning our 4 sites and our spoken presentation explained why we have 3 individual sites as well as a joint site to provide flexibility in the event of a life changing event affecting any one of us in the next 10 years. Our bullet point handout ( 25 issued) refers to our 4 submissions and none of us have asked to withdraw a submission from this process. At the request of residents, the Chair and Cllr Adrian Dale took an informal poll of the room to gauge opinions on each of the proposals. There were two votes of support for Keith Olivers's proposal NDP-S002. The rest of the room had no opinion but weren't against it. There were two votes of support (the same two) for the combined proposal in Britten Close NDP-S017 but the majority were actively against this proposal. When asked why they opposed it, there were two major themes to the discussion:
Discussion on NDP-S009 - Kimbolton Road: There were no votes of support for Keith Carr's proposal NDP-S009 and a large majority actively against the proposal, particularly if combined with a new road. The biggest fear here was opening up that part of the Village for more long term development in the next 20 year plan. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q113 | Date: | 24/01/2014 12:22 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C003 | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| General issues raised in meeting NDP-C003 (Reviewing proposals around Raunds Road, Sawyers Crescent and Water Lane.) Who exactly wants to buy houses in Chelveston anyway? We always have difficulty selling in this Village. We really need to get a grip of the speeding traffic on Raunds Road before we allow any more development. We need speed cameras like Milton Earnest and we need the police to enforce the existing speed limits and weight limits. At the moment they ignore the problems. Traffic calming is essential. Where is all this traffic going anyway? How have we become a through route? The Darsdale development will make it much worse. Development on the Raunds Road is a problem because people will stop on the side of the road to visit the houses, creating a hazard on that bend. None of these proposals are contributing anything to the Village at all. They are the ones to gain and we lose - why aren't they all offering a contribution to improving the Village? At least WPG were offering sweeteners the other day. We need to look at the parking problems along High Street - these are an accident waiting to happen especially with the increase in traffic proposed. We need bungalows for older people to move into - these sites would suit bungalows and would minimise the impact on views. We keep talking about houses for young people, why do we want to attract young people to the Village - there is nothing here for them? This comment provoked lots of debate about children who had left and wanted to come back. The question was raised on building materials and it was requested that we specify clearly the materials we want in the Village to ensure that the street scene was as we want it. We mustn't allow any of these proposals to become a housing estate. That wouldn't suit the Village at all. Consideration must be given to preventing on street parking along the Raunds Road if any of these proposals go ahead. It would be a real hazard. The question was raised about how many lorries are based at Pastures Lodge Farm as these have a right to use the Village in spite of the weight limit. The point was made that they would not be appropriate vehicles to go along a more built up road. These developments will spoil views of open countryside which is why we moved here. Why shouldn't we keep pockets of open land in the Village for people to enjoy the view across. How can we be sure that these plots are not sold to developers who will then come back and fill them with houses. This is a big worry - we absolutely don't need housing estates. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q086 | Date: | 23/01/2014 14:19 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| General discussion from session NDP-C002 reviewing Chelston Rise sites. C. People live in this Village and like it because it is in the countryside with no facilities. We don't want a larger community. C. The opening up of the airfield has had a huge impact on traffic in Caldecott both in terms of volume and speed. So many vehicles are now going to the airfield to work. We really don't need more. C. There are still refuse lorries using the Caldecott route on the wrong day. All our houses vibrate as the vehicles coming from the airfield and Chelston Rise pass now we are talking about huge expansion of vehicles on a country road. C. The benefits to the Parish suggested by the applicants are a myth. All residents will suffer if these proposals are accepted into the plan. We don't want WPG to sort out traffic calming measures, this should be something we handle as a Village through the Parish Council. C. The proposed entrance to the Allen site is still on a bend and will be dangerous. C. We need to stand back from this detail and decide on how many houses are needed at Chelston Rise, 0, 10, 20, 35, 70. Once we decide this, the rest will follow - sewers, roads, entrances etc. C. What about rented accommodation? It is vital that we keep this available, even the rental properties at Chelston Rise have recently received letters asking if they want to buy initially for £150,000 and then £190,000. People have moved to Chelston Rise as they wanted/needed to rent and wanted to live in a lovely Village location. C. WPG were disappointing, they couldn't answer the detail on how their traffic calming would work. C. WPG haven't followed through on their promises to the Village, they have done nothing to improve their site, not even trimming the hedges between the entrances. When the USAF owned the site, it was immaculate. Q. Are CRE prohibited from building houses on the site by the terms of the sale? A. No - as far as we understand there were no covenants on the sale to prevent house building. C. Surely the proposal for industrial units doesn't square with their aspirational site document which said they wanted to produce renewable energy. C. Surely CRE have missed the deadline - they were given every chance to propose a site, but didn't. If we allow them to add a site at this stage, we will open the flood gates to everyone else who wants to jump on board. C. William Pears Group are not following up on the values they espouse on their website. C. During the questioning WPG suggested that 40% of the houses they would be building would need to be social/affordable housing. This doesn't stack up with the proposal they made. C. What exactly is affordable housing anyway - surely social housing has to be run by a social landlord - who would this be? Do we need more social housing in the Village? (A. comment from Cllr Dale - Chelveston has 15 properties owned by Longhurst housing - 10% of the housing stock in Chelveston. These have been an integral part of the Village since the 1960s.) C. All of the applicants tried to push the sewer issues into the background - this is an important issue which must be addressed. C. Isn't half of the airfield in Bedfordshire - what is the implication of this? (A. comment from Cllr Dale and Mark Hunter, Clerk to the Council - Bedfordshire Borough currently has an adopted local plan which does not include the provision for any housing on the airfield. They are currently going out to consultation for preferred options for future development sites.) C. We must clarify the position on demolition of housing at Chelston Rise, this seems a waste, a disruption and unnecessary. Q. Who is responsible for roads exactly? (A. Point of clarification from Cllr Dale - the road on Chelston Rise is unadopted and all roads on that site are currently the responsibility of WPG.) Q. At the request of a resident a straw poll was taken of all residents present. The question was "how may people here would oppose all development on and around Chelston Rise as currently proposed? A. All but one resident opposed the developments as proposed. The resident opposing the proposition pointed out that it would be unrealistic to oppose development on previously developed land. Q. What is the timescale for development if we accept it? A. (Cllr Adrian Dale) If we choose to accept some development in various sites, then the NDP will specify when each site could come forward for development. Q. Liam mentioned that they may not demolish houses, can we get that in writing? A. (Cllr Dale)WPG can respond but it is worth noting that planning permission is needed to demolish buildings. Q. So what ever we say WPG could apply to build on the old school site and the field? A. On the school site, yes but not on the field as no previous buildings have been on that site. Q. How do roads come under planning? Would the access road across the field need planning? A. (Cllr Dale) The road layout is part of planning. Q. Has there been any changes to the WPG proposal after the Pub presentation last year? A. (Cllr Dale) I am not aware of any apart from dropping the 20 houses option and more traffic detail. Q. If they build 10 houses what will happen with the road? A. (Cllr Dale)The County Council is responsible for roads but realistically they are cash strapped. The Parish Council will continue to work for improvements. C. It is bad enough now and construction traffic will make it worst. I don’t want the mess and the noise. C. We want Village not town |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q085 | Date: | 23/01/2014 12:22 |
| Comment by: | Cllr Adrian Dale | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Cllr Adrian Dale made some general statements of clarification to the meeting discussing Chelston Rise sites NDP-C002. 1. Sewerage - there is a recognised problem with Chelston Rise and it is Anglian Water's responsibility to resolve this once the pipes leave Chelston Rise. They have a duty to provide adequate capacity for consented developments. 2. Several properties on the Caldecott Road (including the Village Hall) have a local sewage treatment plant and discharge clean water from them into the water course. 3. The Allen site NDP-S014 is approx 1 acre in size (0.4 hectares) according to the applicant. The normal density for affordable homes would be around 30 houses per hectare on average when part of a larger site. So technically the site could accommodate 10-12 houses if consented and included as part of Chelston Rise. To be considered sound, a plan proposing a lower density would need to be clearly evidenced. 4. The status of the land on the Allen site has been challenged in the recent planning application. The Parish Council believes that the land was never built on and that the consented sub-stations were never built. The Parish Council believes that the existing hard standing was installed without permission as a base for railway carriages which were used to farm pigs. It is therefore the view of the Parish Council (supported by ENC NDP-0164) that this land is green field. 5. The proposal tabled tonight by Savills on behalf of CRE was a surprise and was not included in any of the documentation so far submitted NDP-S020. The Call for Aspirational Sites formally closed on 30th November 2013. The working party and residents would need to consider carefully how this proposal, tabled after the closing date, should be handled. 5. When WPG first approached the Parish Council on purchasing the site, they asked about the possibility of development. At that time the Parish Council recognised that the site had previously contained a school, boiler room, car park and basket ball court. The remains of these are still clearly visible. The Parish Council indicated that redevelopment on this foot print would be considered sympathetically if it was done in keeping with the existing housing i.e. American suburban open plan. The Parish Council considered that the development of 10-12 houses on previously developed land,continuing the Crescent round would not be a problem. Opposing development on land which was so recently built on (1997) is rarely successful. However, the current proposals of 35-70 dwellings would be built on some land which has never been developed. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q061 | Date: | 17/01/2014 15:26 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C001 | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| General discussion from session NDP-C001 reviewing Caldecott Sites. 1. Going forward many of the people proposing will not be around long enough to have to live with the developments and so it will not affect them. 2. General point. I don’t believe these sites would have come forward if not for the NDP. There is a great danger we will end up with a lot more. None of these applications have told us what they are really doing. 3. We need to identify what we need as a community before we can decide on what we want to do. 4. I would like a discussion for Caldecott – vision meeting restricted to Caldecott residents. A. (Cllr Adrian Dale) We need to do this for every part of the Village dealing with the Parish as a whole and so the meeting would be for everyone in the Parish to attend if they wish - just like tonight. 5.What is the timeline? A. (Cllr Adrian Dale) a. Working back from a referendum in May 2015 b. Draft plan to inspector – 6 months needed so draft plan needs to be ready October 2014 c. April 22nd 2014 first draft ready for discussion at the Annual Parish Assembly 6. Is it not the point in the room whether to develop or not - it seems like many residents in the room are against large scale development in Caldecott. 7. Corner of Mommersteeg development will lose trees and hedgerow. 8. Keith will have grain lorries at the access point to the houses so concerns about practicalities. We will need details before decision. These proposals are very vague. 9. As we have no pressure to develop and we say no to development then there will be no questions in the future? 10. The planning permission could be very different from the sites put forward now. 11. Which of the sites submitted has previously been refused in the Village and why? Adrian listed these out. NDP-S002 Oliver (outside Village envelope), NDP-S004 Chapman (outside Village envelope), NDP-S021 Duchy Field (turned down by Village Appraisal process in 1994), NDP-S006 Knight - Raunds Road had planning permission for part of it previously (lapsed). 12. I want to preserve the rural nature. I don’t think any of them should go forward. 13. What would happen if Bidwell closed between B645 and the ford? This could take out rat run but could increase tipping. 14. Would anyone here in this room support all these aspirational sites? No one supported all the sites. 15. One person said he would support the Chapmans. One would support Keith’s dryer building as already built on. 16. Bidwell is a lane and putting in houses would change the character. 17. 22 houses have been built in 20 years so we have been able to absorb some development in the past. 18. We need to look at Village as a whole. 19. The points I am making now are they being noted or do I have to say them at every meeting? A. They are being noted but if you want all residents to hear these points you may need to say them again. It will have more impact. 20. Don’t want any more development. I moved here because I liked the Village. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q051 | Date: | 17/01/2014 12:47 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C001 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. How does the NDP fit in with East Northamptonshire Council and Northamptonshire Council plans. A. There is no existing East Northamptonshire plan - it has run out. This is why it is vital for us to do one. If we don't, then there is nothing to stop developers pushing forward any site they can purchase. There is a Core Spatial Strategy for Northamptonshire from 2008 that we must comply with. However, this strategy doesn't "require" us to accept any housing. Our Parish is not defined as a "growth" Village. Recent proposals being discussed at a County level NDP-0036 have suggested that Caldecott and Chelston Rise should be designated as "open countryside" with a presumption against development. Chelveston would be defined as a "smaller Village" where only "limited growth" would be allowed. We would need strong evidence and support to change these designations. There is currently no evidence to support the idea of the Parish as a whole growing by the 60-70% which would happen if all the aspirational sites were included in the Neighbourhood Plan - it is likely that such a proposal would be ruled as "unsound" by an inspector as local amenities and services could not support it. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q022 | Date: | 17/01/2014 12:47 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C001 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. This process seems bottom up - if we were a business we would set a vision and objectives and then would work out what we needed to do to achieve this. Shouldn't we be generating a vision for Caldecott? A. (from Cllr Adrian Dale) The process needs to be iterative. Building a vision without an understanding of what land might realistically be available could lead to a plan which couldn't be achieved. We had an exhibition event last December to look at this history of the Village and to formulate the beginnings of a vision. Only 10% of residents participated. When we held a survey in January 2013 we had 44% participation. Results of this survey suggested that only limited expansion of the Village would be supported by residents (20% expansion over 20 years - the same level of development as the last 20 years). In the survey, a small number of sites were nominated by residents in "free text" i.e. without prompting. Two of the sites being discussed at the Caldecott session (NDP-S001 and NDP-S018) were suggested in this survey. We cannot "offer" development to this limited number of land owners - we need to give everyone the same opportunity to propose their land. This has lead to the 21 sites being discussed, far more than realistically could be accommodated. In Caldecott, the level of expansion suggested by the survey has already been achieved without the sites suggested in the survey and those proposed tonight. We now have to decide whether the initial vision needs to be expanded. This will involve a detailed examination of each site before standing back and looking at the big picture. |
|||