Comments and questions on:
NDP-S017 - Woolhead/Bagley/Coote - Britten Close
| NDP-S017 - Woolhead/Bagley/Coote - Britten Close | |||
| Comment no.: | Q229 | Date: | 27/02/2014 14:22 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AB - Raunds Road |
| After all the comments I heard about the new proposed houses for the village being a variety of properties being of smaller nature suitable for Young families why are these three proposing to reduce their 'Family' sized house gardens into small boxes of land. It would be more beneficial to keep these as they are and move into one of the new build properties in the village assuming they do want to stay in the village. Why do people insist on back filling family sized plots? so for anyone wanting to buy in the get a family sized housed with a postage sized garden. Answer from land owners: We refer to the comments made by the anonymous resident from Raunds Road (Q207 and Q229). We would have thought the comments regarding the types of suggested dwellings and the size of gardens could apply equally to a significant number of the aspirational sites. We can only surmise that the very closeness of the resident's postcode to Britten Close has a bearing on this. We attended many of the meetings and would not agree that the provision of housing for young families was a 'major focus point'. It was raised. Our view was that although a worthy suggestion, we pointed out at our presentation that having all raised families, our children moved out of Chelveston into towns to be near work, friends and entertainment. Again, the comment about us moving in to any of the bungalows is inaccurate. One of us suggested that the idea appealed to them. We do not understand the remark about 'postage sized gardens'. The suggestion is for bungalows suitable for retirement and therefore without large gardens. The government has a target of building a minimum of 35 new dwellings per hectare and under these provisions it would have meant 9 dwellings as per our original proposal. Our proposal now is for 6 bungalows suitable for retirement. A small development offers many benefits to the village housing stock as set out in our proposition. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q212 | Date: | 22/02/2014 13:30 |
| Comment by: | NDP Working Party | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Following public consultation, the land owners have now submitted a revised proposition for this site: NDP-S017. The new proposition replaces the individual submissions NDP-S003, NDP-S012 and NDP-S016. The proposition is now for 6 bungalows and the land owners have outlined the potential benefits for the Village which would result. | |||
| Comment no.: | Q207 | Date: | 20/02/2014 23:28 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AB - Raunds Road |
| Having read the comments relating to the proposal to build six homes suitable for OAPs in the combined back gardens of the Applicants, I must question the logic and suitability of this proposal as at all the meetings I attended, the focus was on the need to have homes suitable for younger families. Much was made of the Applicants' intentions to move into the new homes themselves, leaving their existing properties in Britten Close to be occupied by new families, but with an estimate of c£400,000 for each of the existing houses, they are hardly likely to be occupied by young families. In addition, I recall each home was to have space for two cars, a total of 12 across the development, and am surprised this was seen as not being an issue to the traffic in the Close. Nothing has been mentioned relating to the instances when there is a need for more than two spaces at a particular property, and the assumption is that the overflow vehicles will be parked on the roadside of the Close itself - an unacceptable proposition, which I suspect the majority of the residents of the Close will agree. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q205 | Date: | 12/02/2014 11:09 |
| Comment by: | DAVID BAGLEY | Post code: | NN9 6AY - Britten Close |
| We read with interest the comments made by your focus group in their letter NDP-0171 to you dated 9 February 2014. We refer in particular to the paragraph concerning our submission NDP-S017 and I quote "On a positive note, the Britten Close proposals have some merit. We are supportive of the amendment proposed by you i.e. access to the proposed bungalows via Kimbolton Road rather than via Britten Close so as not to set a precident for building behind buildings" This observation seems to contradict its self as on the one hand the writer supports our submission if access were via Kimbolton Road but not if the bungalows are behind existing houses which of course they must be as they are all proposed dwellings on rear garden land. After all we can't change the shape of our very large gardens to overcome this situation. Building behind buildings is not unusual where there is sufficient land to do so and we would advocate our submission falls into this category. The concerns raised by your writer over the JST submission could have also referred to the very high density proposed for the site which includes 8 two tier dwellings and 1 dormer bungalow equivalent to 36 dwellings per hectare. We thought the village expectation was to ensure that any development was kept well below the Government top target not exceed it and wouldn't this development also involve building behind buildings albeit new builds? We understand the concern over building behind buildings and support those decisions where it is not practical to do so a recent example might be the proposed social housing off Hill Side where the previously rented garages are located. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q204 | Date: | 12/02/2014 10:17 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AD - Sawyers Crescent |
| Out of all the developments around this area Inwould prefer this option- it provides housing for the more elderly who want to stay in Chelveston and is not intrusive and has the least effect of traffic and the views around the village | |||
| Comment no.: | Q203 | Date: | 12/02/2014 07:21 |
| Comment by: | Marie Coote, David Bagley, Mike Woolhead | Post code: | NN9 6AY - Britten Close |
| Response to Q190 from Nos 1, 2, & 3 Britten Close (NDP-S017) We have lived in our homes for a long time, No 1 - 30 years, No 2 - 30 years and No 3 - 12 years. If we had wanted to make a financial gain on our land, we have had plenty of time to apply for planning permission over the years - but we have not. Why are we doing it now? The parish council is attempting to agree a housing plan to provide for the needs of the village for the next 20 years. We understand that if sites are not included now then it would be difficult to obtain permission to build until the expiry of that 20 years. At that point we will all be in our mid to late 80s. None of us wish to leave our homes or the village, where we have all been very happy. We generally have lived the majority of our adult lives in our houses and have raised our families in them. If our site is included in the final plan we do not anticipate undertaking any changes for 8-10 years when our gardens will probably be too much for us. At that time we would have no major financial outgoings and as we made clear in our presentation to the parish on 6th February, any future financial gains would be for the benefit of our children and grandchildren. In any event, we trust our proposal will have to stand on its own merit with the planners as it would have to have done at any time in the last 30 years, if we had applied for planning permission. The suggestion to build fewer bungalows with larger gardens does not make sense to us as the intention is to build bungalows for retirement resulting in smaller homes and gardens to maintain. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q202 | Date: | 11/02/2014 11:04 |
| Comment by: | Sharen Hegarty | Post code: | NN9 6AS - High Street |
| Discussions and meetings such as those which have taken place over the last week are bound to cause strong feelings from those on both sides of the fence (ie would- be land developers and villagers) and I have no wish to fall out with my neighbours with whom I have lived amicably for the last thirteen years. I feel however that I must take issue with the somewhat contradictory nature of the latest response from the landowners of the proposed development off Britten Close. They have stated that Britten Close is ‘the safest, least congested and quietest of all roads in the village’. Why then do they think it would be acceptable, by the introduction of possibly up to 18 more vehicles (I refer to their estimate of provision for ‘garage plus up to 2 additional car parking spaces’) to jeopardise this? I might also add I do have some empathy with the anonymised comment of 9/2/14 in response to Q190 which was posted the other day. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q201 | Date: | 10/02/2014 15:21 |
| Comment by: | Keith Oliver | Post code: | NN9 6AY - Britten Close |
| I would like to clarify the situation relating to the access to the land to the rear of numbers 1-3 Britten Close via my garden (4 Britten Close) from Kimbolton Road, which appears to have formed part of the discussion and comments around the suitability of the Britten Close aspirational sites. To date I have not had any discussion nor have I given any indication that access rights to the land to the rear of numbers 1-3 Britten Close could be obtained by providing access via my land. I would like to be clear that I have not been approached by the land owners regarding access and therefore the suitability of these sites (NDP-S003, NDP-S012, NDP-S016 and combined NDP-S017) should only be considered on the basis that they were submitted i.e. without access gained from crossing my land. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q195 | Date: | 09/02/2014 15:49 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AH - Higham Road |
| Extracted from: NDP-0171 On a positive note, the Britten Close proposals have some merit. We are supportive of the amendment proposed by you i.e. access to the proposed bungalows via the Kimbolton Road rather than via Britten Close so as not to set a precedent for building behind buildings. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q177 | Date: | 07/02/2014 14:05 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C006 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| C. Well I think this is a sensible proposal. It would free up some family homes. A. We agree, we don't think that youngsters could afford this Village anyway and so starter homes wouldn't be appropriate. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q176 | Date: | 07/02/2014 14:03 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C006 | Post code: | NN9 6AN - Kimbolton Road |
| Q. Surely with an ageing population we need to be attracting young blood into the Village for the future. Why build retirement homes? A. Actually we are thinking of moving into them, this will then free up our houses for families. We are rattling round in the big 4 bedroomed houses. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q175 | Date: | 07/02/2014 14:01 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C006 | Post code: | NN9 6AB - Raunds Road |
| Q. What would be the impact on traffic in Britten Close? A. As they are retirement homes, we think that there will only be 6 cars and they won't be using the roads during peak times. We think the impact will be minimal. C. I am not convinced. This is a small road and 6 extra cars will be a significant increase in traffic. A. I sit in my dining room most of the day and rarely see cars during the day. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q174 | Date: | 07/02/2014 13:58 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C006 | Post code: | NN9 6AS - High Street |
| Q. You keep calling them retirement homes. How would you stop some 30-40 year old with children buying them? A. You can't, but we don't think they would be attractive to younger people. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q173 | Date: | 07/02/2014 13:56 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C006 | Post code: | NN9 6AB - Raunds Road |
| C. I have issues with large gardens being built on like this, why would you do it? A. The gardens are getting increasingly difficult to manage as we get older. C. I still don't see the need to sell off the garden, you should get someone to do it, or move somewhere smaller and let someone who wants a big garden have it. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q172 | Date: | 07/02/2014 13:53 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C006 | Post code: | NN9 6AY - Britten Close |
| Q. What's your timescale on this development? A. Within the next 10 years. Q. Would they definitely be bungalows? A. Yes we have listened to the feedback from other meetings about the residents getting older and wanting to downsize and also about the problem of needing homes for younger people. We think this site would be unsuitable for starter homes and is ideally suited to bungalows for retired people. Q. Would the access be an adopted road? A. No a private drive. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q171 | Date: | 07/02/2014 13:48 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C006 | Post code: | NN9 6AS - High Street |
| Q. Where will the accesses be to these bungalows at the back of Britten Close? A. There are two options:
|
|||
| Comment no.: | Q170 | Date: | 07/02/2014 13:20 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C006 | Post code: | NN9 6AY - Britten Close |
| Q. Will there be adequate space for a garage and parking? A. Yes there will at least single garages on the plots. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q017 | Date: | 07/02/2014 12:57 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AY - Britten Close |
| Q. Won't the residents of these bungalows be excluded by being behind other houses? A. It is no different to Foot Lane which is only obvious if you know it is there. We think that this would be a perfect quiet spot for retirement bungalows with nice views across the fields. |
|||