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. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q096 | Date: | 24/01/2014 10:55 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C003 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. How many houses are you proposing? A. We have measured it and believe that 10 would fit. Q. Are you sure? 10 doesn't look feasible unless you build behind as well. A. The detail needs to be worked out to ensure that the land is used properly but we definitely don't want to build behind - a ribbon development is what we are proposing. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q094 | Date: | 24/01/2014 10:52 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C003 | Post code: | NN9 6AB - Raunds Road |
| Q. What is your proposal for the hedge boundary with Meadowcroft? A. We would propose that this hedge be retained. Q. What about the hedge to the front on the pavement boundary? A. This would probably need to be removed to facilitate access. However, again we are open to suggestions as to what residents think would be best for the site. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q093 | Date: | 24/01/2014 10:57 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C003 | Post code: | NN9 6AB - Raunds Road |
| Q. What about sewerage? Can the system take the extra houses? A. We don't anticipate any problems but it is the responsibility of Anglian Water to ensure that there is capacity. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q092 | Date: | 24/01/2014 10:56 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C003 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. What sort of houses are you proposing? A. A mixture would be appropriate to fit in with both the existing bungalows along Raunds Road and the semi-detached houses in Sawyers Crescent. The detail needs to be worked out. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q091 | Date: | 24/01/2014 10:50 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C003 | Post code: | NN9 6AX - Foot Lane |
| Q. What garden depth are you proposing? Are you going right back to the ditch? What's then to stop you or others doing back land development on the gardens later? A. We are proposing that the gardens go down to the existing line but have no intention or wish for back land development. This wouldn't fit with the Village. We would be happy to look for ways of formalising this to avoid the possibility of backland development. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q090 | Date: | 24/01/2014 10:47 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C003 | Post code: | NN9 6AB - Raunds Road |
| Q. What about the building line - where would the proposed houses be? It isn't clear from your application. A. We are proposing a ribbon development along the Raunds Road and possible continuing round into Sawyers Crescent. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q089 | Date: | 24/01/2014 10:45 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C003 | Post code: | NN9 6AB - Raunds Road |
| Q. What would the proposed vehicle access be to this site? When Field View and 2-8 Raunds Road were approved, no new vehicular access was permitted from the Raunds Road because Highways considered it too dangerous near the bend. Your site is even closer to the bend. A. Highways will of course be consulted on this and advice will be taken. It may be that rear access from Sawyers Crescent is a better option. We are open to ideas. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q023 | Date: | 15/01/2014 07:52 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AB - Raunds Road |
| Q. What type of properties will be planned? Bungalows? A. The type of housing has not at this stage been considered. It is likely that a mixed development including bungalows, chalet bungalows and houses in keeping with the other properties on Raunds Road. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q006 | Date: | 12/01/2014 23:23 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AD - Sawyers Crescent |
| Q. Where would access be to the houses?Has the impact on increased traffic on the Raunds Road been considered? A. It may be feasible to access the site either from the Raunds road or Sawyers crescent. At this stage we would be open to comments as to where the Village feels is more appropriate. At this stage no traffic assessments have been carried out. It is thought likely that any extra housing will have very little effect on traffic on the Raunds Road due to the prevalence of through traffic. |
|||