Comments and questions on:
NDP-S015 - Steve Craythorn - Water Lane
| NDP-S015 - Steve Craythorn - Water Lane | |||
| Comment no.: | Q214 | 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-S015. The revised proposition is largely unchanged and is for a single bespoke-designed dwelling on the site. | |||
| Comment no.: | Q139 | Date: | 05/02/2014 17:12 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Residents' Discussion on Craythorn Site C. My concern is the first aspirational site NDP-S015. If Duchy Field goes ahead then there is a new access for Steve’s field and therefore there could be more houses developed on it whatever the current owner says. We need more assurances that this would only be one property. C. There are 3 or 4 of us who could lose our view if Steve develops his field, so clearly we are very concerned about the positioning of the property which is on much higher ground than ours. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q138 | Date: | 05/02/2014 16:23 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| C. I really don't understand why you don't just create an access from Duchy Field.
A. We want our proposal to be considered on its own merits. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q137 | Date: | 05/02/2014 16:22 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AF - Wateryard |
| Q. Doesn't this count as "backland" development, something that we don't normally see in this Village? A. It is backland development and we think a good use of land. There are other examples of such developments in the Village. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q136 | Date: | 05/02/2014 16:19 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AF - Wateryard |
| Q. I moved here in 1984 and I used to walk up to the field and it was just a footpath at that point, never intended for vehicles. It used to have a stone wall running along its length. But it has gradually been made wider and wider and now only just takes a vehicle at 9 feet wide. The land slopes down to the field, will it really be strong enough to take regular vehicle use and for delivery/service vehicles? A.There are plenty of sites that cannot take trucks and we have no intention of service vehicles using the access. The site will be looked at and any issues with neighbouring properties will be addressed. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q135 | Date: | 05/02/2014 16:15 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AF - Wateryard |
| Q. What happens during construction? There is no way that materials could be delivered by truck. A. During construction there will be disruption. However we will work to best practice and wouldn't attempt to get trucks up that access. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q134 | Date: | 05/02/2014 16:13 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AF - Wateryard |
| Q. Ownership of the access route is not owned by the landowner, is this a problem? A. The access route has right of way across it to the field Q. It is a narrow grass track at the moment, doesn't it need a proper access? A. In practice it would need resurfacing which would be agreed with Highways. Q. The path is a steep slope which falls away towards the barn. Can you force the gradient to be changed? A. Only in agreement with the person who owns the path. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q130 | Date: | 04/02/2014 20:35 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AF - Wateryard |
| C. I am concerned that this is a foot in the door and that there is nothing to stop you linking up with Duchy Field and putting more properties on the plot. A. That really isn't our intention. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q129 | Date: | 04/02/2014 20:34 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AG - Water Lane |
| Q. What is to stop you getting the principle of development accepted on this plot and then building something else? A. I can only reiterate that Mr Craythorn's intention is to build a single property on the plot. That is all the access will allow. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q128 | Date: | 04/02/2014 20:31 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AF - Wateryard |
| Q. Do we really need another large house on a large plot in Chelveston? What advantages are there for the Village if it accepts this proposal? A. The site is really only suited to one house which is relatively modest in size. An additional house would contribute to the economic well being by having an additional family in the Village. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q127 | Date: | 04/02/2014 20:29 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. Doesn't a footpath run through the plot into Duchy Field? A. Yes it is our intention to maintain the public right of way through the plot. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q126 | Date: | 04/02/2014 20:28 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AF - Wateryard |
| Q. I have no basic objection to a single property on the plot, but what is to stop someone trying to farmstead the plot or developing it for industrial use like the owner did in Addington? A. I can only reiterate that this is not the plan - the site couldn't be classified as a farmstead as it is too small. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q125 | Date: | 04/02/2014 19:35 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. You are proposing one property, but nothing could stop the owner selling the land and applying for more than one property later could it? A. We are here to present proposals for a single property only - the access would not be appropriate for any more. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q124 | Date: | 04/02/2014 19:23 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. You are only showing 1 house on a very large plot. Won't this get turned down as it is at too low a density? A. The minimum densities have been abolished under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) NDP-0141. This plot is really only suitable for a single property because of the access. A. (Cllr Adrian Dale - Research and clarification after the meeting). The NPPF requires local authorities to define policies relating to density. The North Northamptonshie Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) NDP-0037 does recommend an average density of 35 houses per hectare for "sustainable urban extensions". Chelveston is clearly not urban, but one of the tests for "soundness" of the Neighbourhood Plan is that land should be used "sustainably" i.e. not wasted. East Northamptonshire Council doesn't have standing policies for housing density. It is therefore likely that the Neighbourhood Plan will create policies which specify the density which is appropriate for each site included in the plan. These policies will themselves need to be checked for "soundness" with the NPPF and the CSS. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q121 | Date: | 29/01/2014 12:59 |
| Comment by: | NDP Working Party | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Q. You seem to be proposing that your site be developed completely separately to the site NDP-S021 - Duchy Field, with a separate access from Water Lane. Is this correct? A. Yes this is correct, we have not approached the owners of Duchy Field and believe that our proposal should be assessed on its own merit. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q120 | Date: | 29/01/2014 12:56 |
| Comment by: | NDP Working Party | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Q. One residential unit on a site of 0.35 acres is a relatively unusual request. A site of this size could take 8 properties at the density that is recommended in the Core Spatial Strategy NDP-0037. A strong justification is needed to allocate a site of this size for just 1 property, especially as the adjacent land is being proposed at a higher density. What justification could you offer? A. We don't think that the access is suitable for more than one property. The site lends itself best to a single well landscaped property. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q119 | Date: | 29/01/2014 12:53 |
| Comment by: | NDP Working Party | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Q. Your proposed development site is 0.35 hectares and yet you propose only one dwelling on it of floor area 200 sq metres. It isn't clear from your proposal whether this is the footprint of the proposed dwelling or whether it would be a 2 storey building with a footprint of 100 sq metres. The height and positioning of the proposed dwelling would probably be a factor in determining the acceptability of the development as it is on a raised site in comparison to neighbouring properties. A. We are proposing a low level 1 1/2 height property which will "hunker down" on the plot and be shielded by landscaping. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q015 | Date: | 13/01/2014 13:30 |
| Comment by: | Scott Lefley | Post code: | NN9 6AF - Wateryard |
| Q. I would like to know how the proposed dwelling would be accessed? The current access is restrictive in nature in that it is steep, muddy and narrow, with a large drop off to one side onto Ray Knights Barn. Also this access land is owned by another party. A. In response to Mr Lefley's query regarding the access I would like to say that although the access is not 100% as good as would be desirable it is hoped that with consultation and negotiation with the owners of the land adjacent to number 41 Water Lane an amicable and equitable agreement could be reached to improve the access. I have been using a large vehicle with trailer over the current access for many years now with no mishaps occurring. The land outlined in blue is as stated before in the ownership of 41 Water Lane but my rights over it are clearly stated in the title deeds. The first part of the access outlined in red is owned by me. |
|||