Comment or question: Q086
| General comment or question | |||
| Comment no.: | Q086 | Date: | 23/01/2014 14:19 |
| Comment by: | Session NDP-C002 | Post code: | NN9 6AP - Water Lane |
| General discussion from session NDP-C002 reviewing Chelston Rise sites. C. People live in this Village and like it because it is in the countryside with no facilities. We don't want a larger community. C. The opening up of the airfield has had a huge impact on traffic in Caldecott both in terms of volume and speed. So many vehicles are now going to the airfield to work. We really don't need more. C. There are still refuse lorries using the Caldecott route on the wrong day. All our houses vibrate as the vehicles coming from the airfield and Chelston Rise pass now we are talking about huge expansion of vehicles on a country road. C. The benefits to the Parish suggested by the applicants are a myth. All residents will suffer if these proposals are accepted into the plan. We don't want WPG to sort out traffic calming measures, this should be something we handle as a Village through the Parish Council. C. The proposed entrance to the Allen site is still on a bend and will be dangerous. C. We need to stand back from this detail and decide on how many houses are needed at Chelston Rise, 0, 10, 20, 35, 70. Once we decide this, the rest will follow - sewers, roads, entrances etc. C. What about rented accommodation? It is vital that we keep this available, even the rental properties at Chelston Rise have recently received letters asking if they want to buy initially for £150,000 and then £190,000. People have moved to Chelston Rise as they wanted/needed to rent and wanted to live in a lovely Village location. C. WPG were disappointing, they couldn't answer the detail on how their traffic calming would work. C. WPG haven't followed through on their promises to the Village, they have done nothing to improve their site, not even trimming the hedges between the entrances. When the USAF owned the site, it was immaculate. Q. Are CRE prohibited from building houses on the site by the terms of the sale? A. No - as far as we understand there were no covenants on the sale to prevent house building. C. Surely the proposal for industrial units doesn't square with their aspirational site document which said they wanted to produce renewable energy. C. Surely CRE have missed the deadline - they were given every chance to propose a site, but didn't. If we allow them to add a site at this stage, we will open the flood gates to everyone else who wants to jump on board. C. William Pears Group are not following up on the values they espouse on their website. C. During the questioning WPG suggested that 40% of the houses they would be building would need to be social/affordable housing. This doesn't stack up with the proposal they made. C. What exactly is affordable housing anyway - surely social housing has to be run by a social landlord - who would this be? Do we need more social housing in the Village? (A. comment from Cllr Dale - Chelveston has 15 properties owned by Longhurst housing - 10% of the housing stock in Chelveston. These have been an integral part of the Village since the 1960s.) C. All of the applicants tried to push the sewer issues into the background - this is an important issue which must be addressed. C. Isn't half of the airfield in Bedfordshire - what is the implication of this? (A. comment from Cllr Dale and Mark Hunter, Clerk to the Council - Bedfordshire Borough currently has an adopted local plan which does not include the provision for any housing on the airfield. They are currently going out to consultation for preferred options for future development sites.) C. We must clarify the position on demolition of housing at Chelston Rise, this seems a waste, a disruption and unnecessary. Q. Who is responsible for roads exactly? (A. Point of clarification from Cllr Dale - the road on Chelston Rise is unadopted and all roads on that site are currently the responsibility of WPG.) Q. At the request of a resident a straw poll was taken of all residents present. The question was "how may people here would oppose all development on and around Chelston Rise as currently proposed? A. All but one resident opposed the developments as proposed. The resident opposing the proposition pointed out that it would be unrealistic to oppose development on previously developed land. Q. What is the timescale for development if we accept it? A. (Cllr Adrian Dale) If we choose to accept some development in various sites, then the NDP will specify when each site could come forward for development. Q. Liam mentioned that they may not demolish houses, can we get that in writing? A. (Cllr Dale)WPG can respond but it is worth noting that planning permission is needed to demolish buildings. Q. So what ever we say WPG could apply to build on the old school site and the field? A. On the school site, yes but not on the field as no previous buildings have been on that site. Q. How do roads come under planning? Would the access road across the field need planning? A. (Cllr Dale) The road layout is part of planning. Q. Has there been any changes to the WPG proposal after the Pub presentation last year? A. (Cllr Dale) I am not aware of any apart from dropping the 20 houses option and more traffic detail. Q. If they build 10 houses what will happen with the road? A. (Cllr Dale)The County Council is responsible for roads but realistically they are cash strapped. The Parish Council will continue to work for improvements. C. It is bad enough now and construction traffic will make it worst. I don’t want the mess and the noise. C. We want Village not town |
|||