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