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. |
|||