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. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q075 | Date: | 23/01/2014 11:26 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AU - Chelston Rise |
| Q. If your plans don't get included in the Neighbourhood Plan will you come back again with another proposal. A. Yes we always say to clients that time is on their side if they can wait. We are open about the fact that our clients are keen to see some development on their site. It is simply a case of how much and when. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q074 | Date: | 23/01/2014 11:24 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. How many properties are you proposing to demolish? A. Three for the schemes as proposed Q. This seems to be a waste and wrong for the residents whose home this currently is. Why is it necessary? A. It suited the schemes we were proposing but if this is a problem, we can avoid it. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q073 | Date: | 23/01/2014 11:21 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. Is it true that you have put clauses into the contracts of tenants and residents that would prevent them objecting to proposed developments? A. Yes this was done but in recent correspondence NDP-0154 we believe that we have answered this and would now wish to encourage all residents to engage with the process. Everyone should feel free to comment without restriction. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q072 | Date: | 23/01/2014 11:19 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. How is 150 additional cars using the Caldecott Road a benefit to the existing residents? A. Being completely honest, it isn't a benefit, we do understand that. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q071 | Date: | 23/01/2014 10:28 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. Improvements to the road are critical, traffic to the airbase has increased noticeably and is going past Chelston Rise at speed. What changes do you propose? A. We have costed traffic calming measures and a footpath to Caldecott at around £300,000, which is only affordable if we have at least 35 houses. Q. What traffic calming measures are you proposing? A. We have looked at rumble strips and visual changes to calm speed. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q070 | Date: | 23/01/2014 10:22 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AU - Chelston Rise |
| Q. How does your proposal to develop 35-70 houses fit with the Core Spatial Strategy? A. It doesn't. The Core Spatial Strategy and East Northamptonshire Council define Chelston Rise and Caldecott as "open countryside" with no obligation to accept new housing. We believe that the area will be enhanced by our proposals but we do recognise that we need to "sell" it to you with clear benefits. We believe that our proposal will achieve this by (a) improving the road between Chelston Rise and Caldecott (b) providing a number of affordable houses for local people (c) looking to provide a play area for Chelveston. Q. So there isn't actually a requirement for us to accept your proposals? A. No but we believe that our proposal provides clear benefits to the community. Q. So what exactly are the benefits for the existing residents? A. Improved connections to Caldecott and improved sewers are two clear benefits. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q062 | Date: | 20/01/2014 13:59 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Q. When the sewerage system from Chelston Rise was first installed in 1997 the pipe installed was only 6 inches in diameter. As a result the pipework easily blocks causing the system to backup, overflow onto the road and into the ditches. Increased housing at Chelston Rise will exacerbate the problem. This potential issue has not been mentioned anywhere in the documentation. A. (from William Pears Group)The District Council may require a drainage capacity study to be undertaken to support any future planning application and upgrade works could be provided in the event that a problem exists. We will of course investigate any situation thoroughly to ensure this is not a problem in the future. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q019 | Date: | 17/01/2014 10:05 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AU - Chelston Rise |
| Having read the email from Liam Russell in response to Cllr Dale’s email dated 16 Dec 2013, regarding the question of “non-objection clauses” in both the rental and sale agreements at Chelston Rise (CR), it would appear that WPG have deliberately inserted the clauses in order to suppress any objections by the residents (owners & tenant) to any future planning applications, otherwise the clause would not have been included, in view of this there can be no engagement, otherwise are all in breach of the agreements. In the circumstances I feel we are being silenced by the need to provide a roof over our heads, with the possible fear of eviction, if we object openly and in these circumstances there can be no true engagement. In view of the comments about this site providing all of the parishes solutions for new development in one fell swoop, it‘s obvious that WPG will go to pretty much any lengths to get the go ahead to build at CR. In my opinion this is supported in Liam’s own words as he states twice in his response that he believes they have sufficient support from the rest of community, as he refers twice to the “whole of the NDP”, showing that they actually don’t care about the views or thoughts of the CR residents, because at no point does he actually outline how they will engage with us, unless they wish to try to win our support with the “subsidised shop”. People are drawn to settle in this area, not for the amenities or services it provides to the residents, not only for the fact that it is open countryside, but for the peace and quiet of the country, low traffic volumes, unspoilt views of the countryside, low crime, a safe environment to raise a family, low population density, plenty of open space for their children to play, and enough space to walk the dog & explore the area. Ok so it doesn’t have a path/pavement from CR to the Church, Village Hall or Pub, but this is part and parcel of living in the countryside, you expect to drive everywhere. |
|||