Comment or question: Q085
| General comment or question | |||
| Comment no.: | Q085 | Date: | 23/01/2014 12:22 |
| Comment by: | Cllr Adrian Dale | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| Cllr Adrian Dale made some general statements of clarification to the meeting discussing Chelston Rise sites NDP-C002. 1. Sewerage - there is a recognised problem with Chelston Rise and it is Anglian Water's responsibility to resolve this once the pipes leave Chelston Rise. They have a duty to provide adequate capacity for consented developments. 2. Several properties on the Caldecott Road (including the Village Hall) have a local sewage treatment plant and discharge clean water from them into the water course. 3. The Allen site NDP-S014 is approx 1 acre in size (0.4 hectares) according to the applicant. The normal density for affordable homes would be around 30 houses per hectare on average when part of a larger site. So technically the site could accommodate 10-12 houses if consented and included as part of Chelston Rise. To be considered sound, a plan proposing a lower density would need to be clearly evidenced. 4. The status of the land on the Allen site has been challenged in the recent planning application. The Parish Council believes that the land was never built on and that the consented sub-stations were never built. The Parish Council believes that the existing hard standing was installed without permission as a base for railway carriages which were used to farm pigs. It is therefore the view of the Parish Council (supported by ENC NDP-0164) that this land is green field. 5. The proposal tabled tonight by Savills on behalf of CRE was a surprise and was not included in any of the documentation so far submitted NDP-S020. The Call for Aspirational Sites formally closed on 30th November 2013. The working party and residents would need to consider carefully how this proposal, tabled after the closing date, should be handled. 5. When WPG first approached the Parish Council on purchasing the site, they asked about the possibility of development. At that time the Parish Council recognised that the site had previously contained a school, boiler room, car park and basket ball court. The remains of these are still clearly visible. The Parish Council indicated that redevelopment on this foot print would be considered sympathetically if it was done in keeping with the existing housing i.e. American suburban open plan. The Parish Council considered that the development of 10-12 houses on previously developed land,continuing the Crescent round would not be a problem. Opposing development on land which was so recently built on (1997) is rarely successful. However, the current proposals of 35-70 dwellings would be built on some land which has never been developed. |
|||