Comment or question: Q061
| General comment or question | |||
| Comment no.: | Q061 | Date: | 17/01/2014 15:26 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C001 | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| General discussion from session NDP-C001 reviewing Caldecott Sites. 1. Going forward many of the people proposing will not be around long enough to have to live with the developments and so it will not affect them. 2. General point. I don’t believe these sites would have come forward if not for the NDP. There is a great danger we will end up with a lot more. None of these applications have told us what they are really doing. 3. We need to identify what we need as a community before we can decide on what we want to do. 4. I would like a discussion for Caldecott – vision meeting restricted to Caldecott residents. A. (Cllr Adrian Dale) We need to do this for every part of the Village dealing with the Parish as a whole and so the meeting would be for everyone in the Parish to attend if they wish - just like tonight. 5.What is the timeline? A. (Cllr Adrian Dale) a. Working back from a referendum in May 2015 b. Draft plan to inspector – 6 months needed so draft plan needs to be ready October 2014 c. April 22nd 2014 first draft ready for discussion at the Annual Parish Assembly 6. Is it not the point in the room whether to develop or not - it seems like many residents in the room are against large scale development in Caldecott. 7. Corner of Mommersteeg development will lose trees and hedgerow. 8. Keith will have grain lorries at the access point to the houses so concerns about practicalities. We will need details before decision. These proposals are very vague. 9. As we have no pressure to develop and we say no to development then there will be no questions in the future? 10. The planning permission could be very different from the sites put forward now. 11. Which of the sites submitted has previously been refused in the Village and why? Adrian listed these out. NDP-S002 Oliver (outside Village envelope), NDP-S004 Chapman (outside Village envelope), NDP-S021 Duchy Field (turned down by Village Appraisal process in 1994), NDP-S006 Knight - Raunds Road had planning permission for part of it previously (lapsed). 12. I want to preserve the rural nature. I don’t think any of them should go forward. 13. What would happen if Bidwell closed between B645 and the ford? This could take out rat run but could increase tipping. 14. Would anyone here in this room support all these aspirational sites? No one supported all the sites. 15. One person said he would support the Chapmans. One would support Keith’s dryer building as already built on. 16. Bidwell is a lane and putting in houses would change the character. 17. 22 houses have been built in 20 years so we have been able to absorb some development in the past. 18. We need to look at Village as a whole. 19. The points I am making now are they being noted or do I have to say them at every meeting? A. They are being noted but if you want all residents to hear these points you may need to say them again. It will have more impact. 20. Don’t want any more development. I moved here because I liked the Village. |
|||