Comments and questions on:
NDP-S017 - Woolhead/Bagley/Coote - Britten Close
Previous page Next page All comments
| NDP-S017 - Woolhead/Bagley/Coote - Britten Close | |||
| 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. |
|||