Comments and questions on:
NDP-S014 - Michael Allen - Chelston Rise
| NDP-S014 - Michael Allen - Chelston Rise | |||
| Comment no.: | Q215 | 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-S014. The revised proposition envisages 6-8 smaller houses in a short cul-de-sac of mews housing, designed to resemble a traditional range of two-storey brick farm buildings, enclosing a cobbled courtyard. | |||
| Comment no.: | Q069 | Date: | 23/01/2014 09:57 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. Does the mains sewer actually have the capacity to handle the additional houses you propose, especially if WPG's proposals are accepted by the Village? A. Ultimately it is the responsibility of Anglian Water to provide adequate mains sewerage capacity for sites that are granted planning permission. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q068 | Date: | 23/01/2014 09:55 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AU - Chelston Rise |
| Q. What is your provision for sewerage? A. We are currently proposing a packaged sewage treatment plant for the site if we were going it alone. If we joined up with WPG then we would combine to use the mains sewer provision. A packaged sewage plant would clean the water and then discharge into the water course. Q. But isn't the area already flooded? A. No there is surface water as everywhere at the moment but this area is not considered by the Environment Agency as a flood risk. Q. What did the Environment Agency say about your proposal to discharge into the water course? A. The Environment Agency always prefer to use mains sewerage but a modern sewage treatment plant can be used where such mains provision isn't available. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q067 | Date: | 23/01/2014 09:50 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. Why have you changed your proposal from the one that was rejected? A. We saw the opportunity to promote this site for affordable housing as part of the call for aspirational sites. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q066 | Date: | 23/01/2014 09:49 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. Wasn't your previous application turned down by Highways? A. No it was refused by East Northamptonshire Council but there was a negative comment from Highways. We believe that the visibility is perfectly adequate and that Highways have applied the trunk road standard as opposed to the "Manual for Streets" standard which should be applied to a residential area. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q065 | Date: | 23/01/2014 09:46 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. Your proposal will clearly result in additional traffic especially if it is combined with that of WPG NDP-S019 - how will you improve the surrounding roads? They are clearly suffering from the increased traffic already. A. We can't improve the road system off-site but could work with WPG if successful to ensure that the road system on the site was improved |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q064 | Date: | 23/01/2014 09:39 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. You mentioned that bringing additional people to the area through your proposal would be a benefit? A. The proposal would provide affordable housing for people and possibly additional services e.g. a shop if there was sufficient housing. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q063 | Date: | 23/01/2014 09:37 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. What is the status of the land, is it greenfield or previously developed? A. There are foundations present of an electricity substation that was granted planning permission when the base was operational. There is nothing currently above ground but the base remains. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q014 | Date: | 20/01/2014 14:01 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. Could not the development in Mr Allen's plan be treated a one with Chelston Rise and the entrance to it be through existing roads? This would save an extra exit and possibly give a grater a area to the Allen site. A. (from the William Pears Group NDP-S019) Yes, the two sites could be developed with a cohesive plan covering both sites subject to the landowner Mr. Allen being willing to sell. A. (From Philip Brown Associates on behalf of Michael Allen) In response to the representation you have received, it is part of my client's case that his land should be developed as part of the larger Chelveston Base site, in order that a comprehensive development is achieved. |
|||