Comments and Questions on:
General issues
Previous page Next page All comments
| General issues | |||
| 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. |
|||