Comments and questions on:
NDP-S015 - Steve Craythorn - Water Lane
Previous page Next page All comments
| NDP-S015 - Steve Craythorn - Water Lane | |||
| 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. |
|||