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