Comments and questions on:
NDP-S019 - WPG - Chelston Rise
| NDP-S019 - WPG - Chelston Rise | |||
| Comment no.: | Q210 | Date: | 22/02/2014 13:30 |
| Comment by: | NDP Working Party | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Following public consultation, the original proposal NDP-S019 has now been submitted as 2 separate propositions.Residents will be able to vote separately on each proposition. The propositions outline the potential benefits to the Village of the developments proposed. | |||
| Comment no.: | Q123 | Date: | 04/02/2014 17:37 |
| Comment by: | NDP Working Party | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Q1. For the avoidance of doubt what is the net increase in the number of dwellings at Chelston Rise given that your current schemes propose demolishing 3 properties? A1. The net increases for the schemes as proposed would actually be 32 and 67 dwellings. Q2. You hinted that the schemes could be redrawn to avoid the need for demolition. Has this been explored yet? A2. Not yet - the schemes put forward are not necessarily the final versions. We want to continue with consultations and see the outcome of the survey. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q117 | Date: | 25/01/2014 16:11 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. A point was made at the meeting NDP-C002 which hasn't yet been minuted. Roger Hepher from Savills (CRE application) expressed the point that he and Savills believe that the WPG development (increasing the site to 120 houses, plus those from Allen) is not viable without a local infrastructure of shops, schools, work places, etc. within the immediate vicinity. Obviously he said this in an attempt to support the need for the "tabled" CRE proposal to release additional airfield land for housing and industrial units. Clearly CRE have missed the deadline for submission but we do now have an 'expert' (Roger Hepher from Savills) in this field saying the WPG application is not sustainable as it stands. Surely this is strong evidence to reject the WPG proposals? A. In our view Mr. Hepher has been somewhat misinterpreted here. At no point do we recall him indicating that the WPG development is not viable without, inter alia, shops and a school or indeed any other type of development which could take place on his client’s land. Our recollection is that Mr. Hepher made an offer for additional land which could provide supporting infrastructure for the Parish as a whole, obviously this would include the WPG development should it go ahead. We do not believe he passed any judgement on the WPG site. We suggest that if there is any doubt in relation as to Mr. Hepher’s comments, he should be contacted and asked for clarification. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q076 | Date: | 23/01/2014 11:28 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AU - Chelston Rise |
| Q. The play area in the centre of the site is used by other residents in the Village and there are car parking spaces reserved for their use. If your proposals go ahead where will visitors park to use the play area? Surely there will be a shortage of parking spaces for visitors? A. They could always use the footpath from the Village (tongue in cheek!) but seriously a good point - we need to accommodate visitors' parking spaces. |
|||