Chelveston-cum-Caldecott Parish Council
Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP)

Comment or question: Q188

Select site and click view to see all questions:

General comment or question
Comment no.:	Q188	Date:	07/02/2014 14:57
Comment by:	Session NDP-C006	Post code:	NN9 6AP - Water Lane
General discussion on session: NDP-C006 Reviewing sites in Britten Close and Kimbolton Road: C. All of the proposals submitted across the Village are a concern - what's to stop the Village doubling in size now? A. Cllr Adrian Dale explained the process we are following, and the fact that residents need to vote on each proposal to decide whether they go forward to the preferred options stage. The purpose of these consultation events is for residents to ask the detailed questions and make comments to help people make up their minds. We have had nearly 120 different people attending the consultations, and over 75 households represented which is over 1/3 of the households in the Village. Some post codes have had a 100% attendance record - others less than 5%. We need to ensure a high turnout for the vote to ensure that peoples' views are heard. C. New roads are a dangerous way forward in my opinion. You can always add houses to both sides. We don't want a sprawling Village extending out beyond its existing boundaries. We should develop smaller parcels of land in the Village. A. Cllr Adrian Dale explained that this is exactly what has happened for the last 20 years of restricted in-fill. However, all the available in-fill space is now full. The question for residents is where next? There are 21 offers and it is up to residents to decide which ones they prefer. Discussion on NDP-S017 - Combined proposal Britten Close: C. I really don't like the idea of the accesses off Britten Close, especially the option with a doubled drive near number 1. It is hard enough already for me to reverse safely off my drive opposite. A. (response from land owners) No-one has to reverse off their larger than average driveways and this is true of the driveways opposite our properties in Britten Close. However, when they do reverse from their driveways, they do so reversing their vehicles away from the access to No1 Britten Close. Therefore, this claim is being made without foundation. Statement from land owners added as a response after the meeting: Regarding our propositions, you will recall that on Thursday evening during the set up of our 4 sites we explained that our presentation would cover all 4 submissions. During this stage we answered many residents questions concerning our 4 sites and our spoken presentation explained why we have 3 individual sites as well as a joint site to provide flexibility in the event of a life changing event affecting any one of us in the next 10 years. Our bullet point handout ( 25 issued) refers to our 4 submissions and none of us have asked to withdraw a submission from this process. At the request of residents, the Chair and Cllr Adrian Dale took an informal poll of the room to gauge opinions on each of the proposals. There were two votes of support for Keith Olivers's proposal NDP-S002. The rest of the room had no opinion but weren't against it. There were two votes of support (the same two) for the combined proposal in Britten Close NDP-S017 but the majority were actively against this proposal. When asked why they opposed it, there were two major themes to the discussion: From one resident. there was a dislike of houses in general being isolated behind others and another comment that there would be all sorts of problems with delivery vehicles finding them and accessing them. These views received support from the meeting. A. (response from land owners) They would be clearly signposted for deliveries of any kind. There was also a view that Britten Close is simply not wide enough to take the additional traffic and a doubt that there was sufficient parking space for visitors on the plots. This could lead to visitor vehicles spilling out into Britten Close which itself is not suitable for on-road parking. A. (response from land owners) Britten Close is perhaps the safest, least congested and quietest of all the roads in the village. It is wider than neighbouring Sawyers Crescent where there is constant through traffic. We expect that each plot size would have a garage plus up to 2 additional car parking spaces and all vehicles would have to leave the site in a forward direction making it a very safe manoeuvre. When asked how residents would feel about access to the proposed bungalows coming via a long drive through Keith Oliver's plot off the lay-by, three sets of views were expressed. For some this would remove their objection as it would remove the impact on Britten Close. For others it would still not be ideal to have an isolated long private drive at the edge of the Village, especially for elderly residents. Others weren't sure of the practicality of eight houses using a private drive from the lay-by. Post meeting response from Keith Oliver regarding access to land behind 1, 2, 3 Britten Close from Kimbolton Road: See Q201 Discussion on NDP-S009 - Kimbolton Road: There were no votes of support for Keith Carr's proposal NDP-S009 and a large majority actively against the proposal, particularly if combined with a new road. The biggest fear here was opening up that part of the Village for more long term development in the next 20 year plan.