Comments and questions on:
NDP-S006 - Raymond Knight - Raunds Road/Sawyers Crescent
|NDP-S006 - Raymond Knight - Raunds Road/Sawyers Crescent|
|Comment no.:||Q223||Date:||22/02/2014 13:30|
|Comment by:||NDP Working Party||Post code:||NN9 6AP - Water Lane|
|Following public consultation, the land owner has now submitted a revised proposition for this site: NDP-S006. 8-10 properties are now proposed. Concerns relating to possible backland development have been considered and restrictions on the building line have been proposed. The public footpath crossing the site would be moved and protected.|
|Comment no.:||Q197||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.:||Q112||Date:||24/01/2014 12:03|
|Comment by:||Session NDP-C003||Post code:||NN9 6AP - Water Lane|
|General discussion on NDP-S006
There were clearly mixed views in the room on this proposal. Those living close by were clearly most concerned as they would see the biggest impact. Others were more supportive provided that:
(a) It was only a ribbon development;
(b) The properties were kept to a low height (bungalows or dormer bungalows) to fit in with the other properties;
(c) The public footpath was retained but moved to run down by the ditch adjacent to Meadowcroft with a wide enough path to allow for tractor access to maintain the hedge and path;
(d) That the access issues were carefully considered and that the development made some contribution to improving parking in Sawyers Crescent;
(e) That Sawyers Crescent wasn't widened too much so that it became a worse rat run;
(f) That restrictions were imposed to absolutely prevent back building.
A point was made that there was no need for such large gardens in a modern property and it would be better to zone off a smaller part of the field to avoid the risk of later building.
Concerns were expressed about the loss of views over countryside from Sawyers Crescent and from other houses on Raunds Road. However, a counter point was put forward that no one is entitled to a view unless they buy the land concerned and don't build on it. Nevertheless, some in the meeting pointed out that we needed to consider the views so that the character of the Village as open and rural was maintained.
Concerns were raised about adding to traffic on Raunds Road and the difficulty of exiting Britten Close now. What would it be like if there was additional traffic emerging from Sawyers Crescen?
Concern was again expressed over the capacity of the brook/drain to the side of Meadowcroft with a question about who would maintain it when it was no long the responsibility of the farmer.
There was a split view about access - some preferring access directly from the Raunds Road, others rear vehicle access from Sawyers Crescent.
If rear access was agreed on, then the front hedge could be retained which would minimise the impact on the overall street view.
If Sawyers Crescent was widened, it should go all the way to Goldcrest corner but then may need to be one way to prevent rat running.
Even if the access is on Sawyers Crescent, cars still need to get onto the Raunds Road and this will create further problems.
One person supported the development of a block of housing rather than a ribbon on this site.
|Comment no.:||Q111||Date:||24/01/2014 11:34|
|Comment by:||Session NDP-C003||Post code:||NN9 6AB - Raunds Road|
|Q. What time scale are your proposing for your development?
A. We would envisage 5-10 years.