Chelveston-cum-Caldecott Parish Council
Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP)

Comments and questions on:
NDP-S005 - John & Brenda Elldred - St Georges Row

Select site and click view to see all questions:

Next page All comments

NDP-S005 - John & Brenda Elldred - St Georges Row
Comment no.:	Q224	Date:	22/02/2014 13:30
Comment by:	NDP Working Party	Post code:	NN9 6AP - Water Lane
Following public consultation, the land owners have now submitted a revised proposition for this site: NDP-S005. 3-4 properties are now proposed. More detail has been added on possible site layouts and the potential benefits for the Village have been suggested.
Comment no.:	Q196	Date:	09/02/2014 15:50
Comment by:	Anonymised	Post code:	NN9 6AH - Higham Road
Extracted from: NDP-0171 We also believe there is merit in the proposed development of St. George's Row (NDP-S005) and Sawyers Crescent (NDP-S006) but not the proposal for the development of Kimbolton Road (NDP-S009).
Comment no.:	Q161	Date:	06/02/2014 08:39
Comment by:	John Elldred	Post code:	NN9 6AE - St Georges Row
The direction of questioning after our presentation on 23rd January seems to have been more around the detailed planning position rather than looking at an overview of an option appraisal for potential land development in the next 20 years (after 2015). The presentation was just for visionary outlines. The discussion seems to have been quite detailed and subjective and, in parts, personal. It appeared not to take in to account the needs of future generations as much as perhaps it should have done. Our presentation was a higher level overview with the opportunity for the village to be able to shape the development of the village in the future. We stated on a number of occasions that we had no preconceived or fixed ideas but this seems to have been interpreted that we only intend knocking down Goldcrest and building a couple of small affordable houses in its place. Should the Goldcrest land option be refused it would seem that a potentially small in-fill development that would not change the character of the village would be lost against large scale /ribbon developments that will undoubtedly change the character of the village. The widening of Sawyers Crescent does need to happen and Goldcrest corner is dangerous (we have had walls knocked on various occasions as well a van run in to the garage door). The removal of the garage and perimeter walls would allow widening at this point and would enhance the widening of Sawyers Crescent further up towards the Raunds Road (see NDP-S006). We would like therefore like to respond the the points below as follows (in the same order as they appear in the General Discussion report). Planning permission for Goldcrest was granted in excess of 30 years ago and since then further infill – not along original building line (e.g. Disbrowe Court) - has taken place. No development would happen if if the village had to adhere to previous restrictions. It is acknowledged that at the time there was some bad feeling when planning consent was given for Goldcrest which was before our time in the area and we would be the first to admit that it does not marry up with the neighbouring cottages. Here is an opportunity to consider re-shaping St George's Row by developing the back garden with up to 4 properties to include the land on which Goldcrest currently sits. Access would be provided from the reformed road, possibly a Private Road, curving in along the east perimeter of the plot creating a continuation of St George's Row. Our presentation commented that, for example, the land behind Goldcrest could accommodate 2 or more properties of a low roof line but as mentioned earlier there are no preconceived ideas re size – purely that we would work with the Parish Council to determine the type of housing required. The mention of smaller properties for senior members was purely one example of what is currently lacking in Chelveston. We can add that it would be our intention to live in one of the properties, having no intention to leave Chelveston. There are precedents re "houses behind others" e. g. Disbrowe Court, Duchy Close – if this were never to happen we would end up with purely with ribbon housing. We would appreciate clarification on what is meant by "doesn't fit with Sawyers Crescent" unless it has been covered by the first bullet point above. Traffic on the corner of Goldcrest is bad due to the amount of vehicles parked on Sawyers Crescent and the rat-running to and from Raunds. The development would create a widening of the corner and off road parking facilities for all properties. The additional daily traffic on this road would be minimal. The removal of the garage would also open up the visibility on this road. The benefit for the village is in-fill rather than "estate" development and the financial gain is the same for all landowners proposing development. Also there was no suggestion that the owners would move away – as stated above it is our intention to live in one of the new properties. As a first choice, negotiation with neighbouring landowners to achieve access without having to demolish the current house might be preferable but we need to remind ourselves that the NDP is looking up to 20 years ahead. This proposal is seen as medium term (5 – 10 years) and, as we said in our presentation, it is an aspiration to support the development of the village within the existing boundary. In summary therefore this would be a small in-fill development on residential land to be in keeping with the character of existing properties and the character of Chelveston. Particular care would be given to position and roof lines so as to blend in with existing surrounding properties. John and Brenda Elldred
Comment no.:	Q114	Date:	24/01/2014 11:44
Comment by:	Session NDP-C003	Post code:	NN9 6AP - Water Lane
General discussion on site NDP-S005 The point was made that when Goldcrest was built on such a large plot, the planners didn't want the house set back on the plot as they felt it should be broadly on the existing building line of St Georges Row. Building behind this would go against this original decision. The presentation suggested that these would be smaller more affordable houses but what exactly do they mean by affordable? It doesn't stack up financially. Demolishing a large house and then only building 2-4 smaller ones doesn't make sense. This proposal doesn't work, it creates houses behind the others and doesn't fit with Sawyers Crescent. It would create additional traffic on that corner which is bad enough anyway. Although the presentation suggested that this would be a benefit for the Village, I don't see it like this. It is basically a proposal for financial gain by the owners, who wouldn't have to live with the consequences (they can't as their house would be gone). There is nothing in it for the Village. The meeting was asked for any positive comments on the proposal - none were offered and there was a general view that the proposal would not be supported by those present.