Northill

Showing comments and forms 1 to 10 of 10

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2287

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Sam Franklin

Agent: Mr Sam Franklin

Representation:

An ideal and sustainable location for a small scale frontage infill development that would minimise traffic generation in the centre of the village.

Full text:

NLP 207
The site is in an ideal location for sustainable development, with good access to the school and services locally. Whilst physically the site might support up to 18 dwellings a development of around 10 dwellings would be a better 'fit' for the street scene and the more typical linear nature of the village.

The site adjoins the village envelope but is not within the Conservation Area. The site offers a discreet development opportunity without significantly affecting views into the village and would have a very limited impact if any on the setting of heritage assets.

There has been full local consultation as part of the Neighbourhood Plan Process and the site scored well locally against sustainability criteria and has proved a popular site.

Preliminary desk based archaeological, ecological and landscape assessments demonstrate that there are no significant constraints to development on this site.

The scale of development proposed indicates that highway and services issues should not act as constraints to development.

The site has no known constraints and offers development with a good relationship to the existing linear development at this point in the village.

Support

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 2290

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Sam Franklin

Agent: Mr Sam Franklin

Representation:

The site could accommodate 10 dwellings and should be considered as a sustainable development site.

Full text:

NLP216
There seems to be a mismatch between the physical area of the site (0.74 hectares) and the potential density calculation. This site could accommodate up to 10 dwellings, comfortably, whether affordable or market housing, as such it should meet the criteria in Section 1 - Provisional Capacity and as there are no other constraints to development it should go forward for consideration for inclusion in the Plan.

There has been full local consultation as part of the Neighbourhood Plan Process and the site scored well locally against sustainability criteria and has proved a popular site.

Preliminary desk based archaeological, ecological and landscape assessments demonstrate that there are no significant constraints to development on this site.

The scale of development proposed indicates that highway and services issues should not act as constraints to development.

The site has no known constraints and offers development with a good relationship to the existing linear development at this point in the village.

The site offers good access to schools in Northill, Upper Caldecote and Moggerhanger, as well as Sandy, all within 1 mile of the proposal. There is a shop locally within 400 metres of the site and a bus service to Sandy and Biggleswade.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 3884

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mrs Helen Papworth

Representation:

Concern re lack of prior consultation/ sharing of data with Northill Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group on the proposed Site Allocations

Full text:

I write as an individual, but it may help you to know that I am a Co Chair of Northill Neighbourhood Plan Steering group ( and also Chair of Northill Parish Council)
My main concern is, although I agree with the outcome of most of the site assessments ( stages 1 and 2), that there could have been much more consultation/sharing of data with the Steering group. The Steering group carried an extensive face to face questionnaire with the landowners last summer (2016) followed by five Sites Exhibitions last Sept/Oct 2016. I assume that your assessments are a desk based exercise, so inevitably there is the odd error/inaccuracy that has crept in. Even though our Plan has not been submitted under Reg 14, the findings would have been useful to CBC. So the Community section 18, where it states that it is "unknown"on some sites, whether any community consultation has taken place, and "no" on others, is misleading.

Object

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 4777

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Sam Franklin

Agent: Mr Sam Franklin

Representation:

NLP216 - The site could accommodate 10 dwellings and should be considered as a sustainable development site.

Full text:

NLP216
There seems to be a mismatch between the physical area of the site (0.74 hectares) and the potential density calculation. This site could accommodate up to 10 dwellings, comfortably, whether affordable or market housing, as such it should meet the criteria in Section 1 - Provisional Capacity and as there are no other constraints to development it should go forward for consideration for inclusion in the Plan.

There has been full local consultation as part of the Neighbourhood Plan Process and the site scored well locally against sustainability criteria and has proved a popular site.

Preliminary desk based archaeological, ecological and landscape assessments demonstrate that there are no significant constraints to development on this site.

The scale of development proposed indicates that highway and services issues should not act as constraints to development.

The site has no known constraints and offers development with a good relationship to the existing linear development at this point in the village.

The site offers good access to schools in Northill, Upper Caldecote and Moggerhanger, as well as Sandy, all within 1 mile of the proposal. There is a shop locally within 400 metres of the site and a bus service to Sandy and Biggleswade.

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5439

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: M, D & D Bryant

Agent: Phillips Planning Services Ltd

Representation:

ALP035

Failed due to impact on Grade 1 agricultural land, concerns with access/landscape
Any Upper Caldecote development likely to be on Grade 1 land, thus loss of this is part of planning balance, not barrier to development
Site has suitable/available access
Landscape mitigation in form of enhancing screening, impact of built development can be overcome through appropriate scale/architectural approach, roadside trees can be retained, trees on site addressed through Tree Survey
Nature of village results in linear expansion, in order to retain spatial core of village, new development must be situated in/behind existing development to create depth to village form

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 5440

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: M, D & D Bryant

Agent: Phillips Planning Services Ltd

Representation:

ALP034

Failed due to Grade 1 agricultural land/access/ecology/backland development
Any Upper Caldecote development likely to be on Grade 1 land, thus loss of this is part of planning balance, not barrier to development
Site has suitable/available access
Not protected wildlife site, ecological impacts addressed through mitigation strategy, not development barrier
Wouldn't result in significant impact on agricultural setting of village due to topography
More rounded consideration of village development should be undertaken, site should be seen against backdrop of existing settlement
Village already quite linear, development adjacent village core wouldn't be as harmful as linear development resulting in settlement sprawl

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6713

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Orchestra Land

Representation:

Below for site reference number ALP218 is our further comments which provide site specific details which we believe demonstrate the site will be suitable or residential development.
* We have been undertaking extensive flooding due diligence and the 'recorded flood events' document attached illustrates this site has never flooded and is data from the Environment Agencies own data. Hence why we are now working with the Environment Agency to have this site removed from the flood zone so it will be in flood zone 1. see attachment

Full text:

Below for site reference number ALP218 is our further comments which provide site specific details which we believe demonstrate the site will be suitable or residential development.
* We have been undertaking extensive flooding due diligence and the 'recorded flood events' document attached illustrates this site has never flooded and is data from the Environment Agencies own data. Hence why we are now working with the Environment Agency to have this site removed from the flood zone so it will be in flood zone 1. For this reason we do not agree with current fail of this site for housing for stage 2. We believe this site can hold a 30 dwellings per hectare of suitable housing designed accordingly for the character. Furthermore providing much needed housing in a rural location is essential to keep this community relevant and buoyant. Furthermore, given the East West train line smaller settlements such as Hatch must take development to ease the housing pressure.
see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6864

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Southill Estates

Agent: Mr William Lusty

Representation:

Site Assessment - Land South of Broom (Site Reference NLP357)
8.4. The Council's assessment of this site says that it 'fails at Stage 1B', because it is poorly related and detached from Broom. In light of this assessment, we would like to confirm that we wish to withdraw this site from any further consideration as part of the Local Plan process.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6866

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Southill Estates

Agent: Mr William Lusty

Representation:

Site Assessment Land at Broom Farm (Site Reference NLP358)
8.5. The Council's assessment of this site says that it 'fails at Stage 1B', because it is poorly related and
detached from Broom. We disagree with this assessment. The southern extent of the site would extend
the edge of the village no further in a southerly direction than existing residential uses to the east. We
consider that a sensitive development of the site could be designed to relate well to the existing built-up
edge of the village and this could be limited to smaller part of the site, see attachment

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Site Assessment Forms (Housing)

Representation ID: 6867

Received: 29/08/2017

Respondent: Southill Estates

Agent: Mr William Lusty

Representation:

Site Assessment Land South of Southill Road (Site Reference NLP359)
8.6. The Council assesses that this site should be considered further as part of the Local Plan process and we
fully support this. We would like to remind the Council that this site remains available for housing
development.

Full text:

see attachment

Attachments: