Comments and questions on:
NDP-S021 - Stuart Carr - Duchy Field
| NDP-S021 - Stuart Carr - Duchy Field | |||
| Comment no.: | Q208 | Date: | 22/02/2014 13:30 |
| Comment by: | NDP Working Party | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Following public consultation, the land owner has now submitted a revised proposition for this site: NDP-S021. The proposition has reduced the size of the proposed site and proposes up to 50 dwellings. A suggested site layout has been provided showing a new community centre, village green and shop. | |||
| Comment no.: | Q193 | Date: | 09/02/2014 15:46 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AH - Higham Road |
| Extracted from: NDP-0171 As far as the proposal for the development of Duchy field (NDP-S021) is concerned. We feel strongly that this should NOT go ahead. It removes a significant part of a field that contributes to the rural aspect of the approach to Chelveston and opens the door to future development of the remaining part of the field. Also while the access and egress from the proposed site via four access points with the B645 is a planning issue, it must be considered as a requirement for the site. In our view, inspite of the opinion of the highways inspector, we are very concerned about the increased risk of accidents on a road already noted for the volume of high speed traffic. There are also a number of other issues relating to duplication of facilities and the impact of increasing Chelveston by 30% with all its associated demands that argue against this site. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q160 | Date: | 05/02/2014 23:09 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| General discussion on site: NDP-S021 They said they would lease the Hall and the Green on a peppercorn rent, but they did not say who would be responsible for looking after the centre. (Comment from the Clerk of the Parish Council) He would run into problems with this. If they build 50 houses then they would legally have to provide open space and recreation facilities. Plus give money for the upkeep. Response from landowner: Any Planning permission granted on the site will be subject to a section 106 legal agreement that will endorse Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments , which will ensure compliance on all the points raised . They will need to make the junction safer. This is a huge development, effectively another village. This plan does not integrate with the existing Village. We have got to look at the bigger picture. There are 215 houses proposed on the aspirational sites and there are currently only 226 houses in the village. If we agreed to them all, we would be doubling the size of the Village. Is that what we want? Can we have 2 maps to study, one showing aspirational sites and one without them. Then we can see what makes sense for the Village. (Statement from Cllr Adrian Dale) We are not required to accept any more houses in the Parish as part of a District quota. However the plan would not be considered sound if we say no to all development. Our job is to decide what is sensible and acceptable. The 2012 survey showed broad support for 10% development in Chelveston. I am happy with the JST site, it makes sense. However, I am totally against this development - it extends the Village and changes its character. There is no need for this development to come off Duchy Close. If we are not obliged to have this many houses will this proposal get through? (Statement from Cllr Adrian Dale) Residents will be able to vote on every site proposed. If the majority say no to a site we will not be proposing that site for inclusion in the plan. If the JST planning application is approved will it be part of our 10%? (Answer from Cllr Adrian Dale) Yes, they will count along with the additional houses in Caldecott that have already been approved. Would the vacant houses on the High Street count towards this 10% when they are occupied? (Answer from Cllr Adrian Dale) No, those 4 houses have already been included in the housing count for the Village. Having 4 access points on that hill is crazy it will increase the traffic coming down the hill to the corner with the Raunds Road. That corner is the most dangerous place in Chelveston I think it is sensible to have a playground on Duchy Field. It will be more accessible for children in Chelveston. How many children are in the village? (Answer from Cllr Adrian Dale) We have no way of knowing for sure. We do know that there has been a 40% reduction since the 2001 census. (Question to the room from Cllr Adrian Dale) The important thing to decide is what sort of village do we want to live in in 20 years time? (Acclamation from the room) This one, how it is now! |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q159 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:54 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. All this additional housing will create more through traffic. What are you going to do about traffic calming? A. We can do something about this with the build/development. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q158 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:53 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. What about the rights of way that run across the field? A. These will be respected. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q157 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:52 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. What's the road access for at the Western end of the site? Is that for access to the rest of the field where you want to build in the future? A. This is for parking for the affordable houses, but if it is a problem, we can remove it. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q156 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:50 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. Are you aware that there is a large pylon and 11,000 volt cable across the field? A. Yes, we would have to redirect this. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q155 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:49 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. So how many parking places will there be on the development. There is not enough parking as it is in Duchy Close and you look as if you have less in this development. A. I don’t have the numbers to hand, but we have followed policy guidelines. C. The Duchy Close road width isn't big enough to allow parking each side and then allow large vehicles through. If you don't provide enough parking spaces, you'll need to double the road width. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q154 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:44 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. I think the current Duchy Close houses are a poor design, and I live there! Are you going to copy this? A. To some extent we will have to because of planning policy constraints. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q153 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:43 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. What's to stop you increasing the density of housing once you have the go ahead on the site? A. Planning policies will constrain us. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q152 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:41 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AX - Foot Lane |
| Q. What's this Community Centre for? We already have a Village Hall. Who would pay for it and run it? A. The Hall and the Green would be leased to the Village on a long lease at a peppercorn rent of £10-15/year. The Village would be responsible for the maintenance of it. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q151 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:38 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AQ - Hillside |
| Q. The access road can't be safe with all those cars coming out onto the hill. A. We have followed the design standards and believe it would be safe. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q150 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:36 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AQ - Hillside |
| Q. Where would this pond be? A pond on the green would be dangerous for children. A. We would envisage the pond being down at the bottom of the field near Water Lane. It could be a tank instead. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q149 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:34 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. You are proposing another 50 houses, that's a 1/3 increase in the size of Chelveston. We don't want to become a town. We moved to a Village. What timescale are you proposing for this? A. That depends on how the local plan pans out. We would anticipate around 5 years for work to start. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q148 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:30 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. Why don't you build the houses at the other end of the field, leaving the rest of Duchy Close in peace? A. This wouldn't be permitted as it would be an isolated settlement. New housing must be an extension of an existing development. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q147 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:28 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. What about the rest of the field? When you take the good part of the field for building what will happen to the poor part of the field? Will he (Stuart Carr) want to build on this too? A. The remainder of the field will continue in agricultural use, probably as pasture. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q146 | Date: | 05/02/2014 22:26 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. All of the water from this site will go to Water Lane which already floods. Won't this make it worse? A. This will not affect Water Lane. The Environment Agency will make us take into account a one in a hundred years flooding event and will ask us to take climate change into account. Q. But Water Lane floods already! This will make it worse. A. We don’t have to do anything about existing flooding, we mustn't make it worse. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q145 | Date: | 05/02/2014 17:52 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. Won't all this building seriously affect drainage? A. There are now regulations which mean that all building work mustn't impact on drainage - the Environment Agency has a say in this and must vet the scheme. All of the houses will be on soakaways and then there will be a balancing pond on the site into which the land can drain. This will have a pipe from it into the brook in Water Lane with a hydrobrake inside it to ensure slow run off. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q144 | Date: | 05/02/2014 17:48 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| C. And no one asked for Duchy Close to be spoiled like this! A. We have tried to ensure that the new and old developments are properly integrated. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q143 | Date: | 05/02/2014 17:46 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| C. Well we certainly don't want 50 more houses - we didn't ask for that. A. I having been coming to the meetings and have studied the survey you did. 18 people asked for affordable housing. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q142 | Date: | 05/02/2014 17:44 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| C. You are quoting rules and regulations at us, not trying to work with us. This design hasn't been thought through. Duchy Close is already a problem with people having to park in the hammerhead. If that goes, people will be parking on the pavement and the emergency vehicles would struggle to get through. A. We are here to work with you and hear what you want. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q141 | Date: | 05/02/2014 17:41 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. What sort of houses are they? A. A mixture of 2, 3, 4 bedroomed houses with some "affordable". Q. There doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough parking in this design. It is a major problem in Duchy Close already and elsewhere in the Village. Every adult needs a car. Every house needs a minimum of 2 off street spaces. A. We do understand, but we are constrained by rules and regulations which put limits on this. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q140 | Date: | 05/02/2014 17:33 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| I want to make some comments on the design: C. You shouldn't have put the green where it is - it should have been a buffer next to the public footpath to separate the old and new development. C. We don't need a shop - the last one closed because of lack of custom. C. We don't need a new Village Hall - we have one and have the money to upgrade it. A. We are here to listen to your views, we are trying to follow what people said they wanted in the last Village survey. Villages need facilities to become communities. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q133 | Date: | 05/02/2014 12:55 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. Why have you routed traffic to some houses through Duchy Close? The hammerhead turning point at the top of Duchy Close will then be lost. This is now used for parking as there is not enough parking already in Duchy Close. 8 new houses will be at least 16 cars plus visitors. There won't be enough space. A. Firstly, we have attempted to partly integrate the new development with Duchy Close to follow the "Manual for Streets" document NDP-0162. Of course this is only an indicative design and we could re-route the road to avoid Duchy Close if this is perceived to be a major problem. Secondly, we have added the number of parking spaces recommended by the design manuals and local councils. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q132 | Date: | 05/02/2014 12:46 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| C. Highways do get things badly wrong. This road and the junction with the Caldecott Road are inherently dangerous and there will be many accidents. A. There have been no recorded accidents in 10 years on this stretch of road and Highways don't consider it to be particularly dangerous. Q. Are you saying that you will build the estate and new access road and be happy to wait for someone to get hit? A. There is always a risk on roads, they are dangerous places. We don't think this design is any more dangerous than average. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q131 | Date: | 05/02/2014 12:42 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C004 | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. Why are you proposing 4 access points off Higham Road rather than a roundabout? This is too dangerous as this is a fast road. A. Our design is based on Highways guidance which doesn't allow roundabouts at the top of a hill. They have to be on the flat or in a dip. We believe that this stretch of road has good visibility and cars will not have a problem exiting from the road or properties. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q122 | Date: | 04/02/2014 08:50 |
| Comment by: | Parish Council | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| At the recent consultation meeting, the agent advised the proposed community assets of a village hall, village green and play area would be leased to the parish on a peppercorn rent. For the avoidance of doubt, would the applicant/agent explain how this complies with the adopted ENC Open Spaces Supplementary Planning Document, which would apply to a development of more then 15 dwellings, including the contribution the developer would have to provide for on-going maintenance? Note that at 50 dwellings, the play area will be a LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play) rather than a LAP (Local Area of Play). | |||
| Comment no.: | Q118 | Date: | 29/01/2014 12:37 |
| Comment by: | NDP Working Party | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Q. The site proposed for development is 16 acres and you have suggested 30-40 houses for the site and a Village Green/Village Hall. Assuming an acre each for the Green and Hall that you have proposed, that is still 13-14 acres for development. If the density of development was similar to Duchy Close (9 houses per acre) then that would suggest that the site could take 117 houses. Your indicative proposal of a maximum of 40 houses would be a density of only 3 houses per acre which is well below the level required in the Core Spatial Strategy NDP-0037. If the site was to be included in the NDP with the housing levels you have proposed, it is highly likely that the plan would be ruled "unsound" as it would be an unsustainable use of land. What would your response be? This issue was raised at the informal meeting on 20th December (Filenote: NDP-0156). A. The question was answered during the review meeting NDP-C003 by the tabling of a new proposal NDP-0170 for a site half the size with 50 houses at a density comparable with Duchy Close. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q087 | Date: | 23/01/2014 16:56 |
| Comment by: | Barry Davies for Stuart Carr | Post code: | NN9 6AR - Caldecott |
| Dear Adrian I am just writing further to your filenote NDP-0156 discussions dated 20th December 2013 that you sent through to me by email and with specific reference to your paragraph two of that email, first bullet point – ‘why the access was proposed halfway down a fast hill and why the ideas that had been suggested over the years of a mini roundabout by school house for access and traffic calming had been ignored’. Our professional Chartered Highways Engineer Peter Kelly of BCAL has generally always been of the view that a mini roundabout by school house would not be in line with highway practice. Northamptonshire County Council’s Highway Liaison Engineer has now fully endorsed our Highways Engineers opinion in this regard and we shall have a written affirmative response to be displayed on the evening of 3rd February 2014. We shall also be addressing the other two specific points raised in your email of 23rd December 2013 regarding the positioning of the houses on site vis-à-vis the village green, and the proposed development will show half the field being proposed as a development for residential and community benefit in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012. By all means do copy this email through to the NDP Working Party and incorporate on your website if that will assist in transparency and communication. |
|||
| Comment no.: | Q021 | Date: | 17/01/2014 13:28 |
| Comment by: | Anonymised | Post code: | NN9 6AW - Duchy Close |
| Q. The plans take away the views enjoyed by the current residents of Duchy Close and replaces it with new residents back gardens. The new residents will benefit from the beautiful views. The Village green to be placed in front of the new properties will disjoint the Village. The plans should be rotated. A. The layout that has been submitted is intended to give a general indication of the type of development proposed and how the various elements of the scheme could be laid out within the site. The layout does not show the only way in which the site could be laid out and the comment that has been received makes some useful points. If the Village was minded to move forward with some form of development on the site, the owner and his agent would be happy to engage with the community in the design of the development, with the aim of achieving a scheme that offered benefits for the community and had a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring properties. |
|||